Author Topic: SISCOES FOLLY?  (Read 4460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mithrandylan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3560
  • Reputation: +4170/-322
  • Gender: Male
    • The Trad Forum
SISCOES FOLLY?
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2014, 11:52:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Also of note, and not of little importance:

    Siscoe treats the idea of a "heretic pope" (I.e. A pope who loses his office due to heresy) but this really isn't the route he should be taking, since with Ratzinger and Bergoglio ( and probably JPII as well) the argument isn't really that they lost the office but that they were never even validly elected to begin with. Understanding this undermines his entire argument, which is steeped in misconstrued legalisms surrounding the removal of such a man who was pope but is no longer. If the man was never pope to begin with, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, as they say.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #31 on: June 05, 2014, 11:09:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Hermenegild
    Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Also of note, and not of little importance:

    Siscoe treats the idea of a "heretic pope" (I.e. A pope who loses his office due to heresy) but this really isn't the route he should be taking, since with Ratzinger and Bergoglio ( and probably JPII as well) the argument isn't really that they lost the office but that they were never even validly elected to begin with. Understanding this undermines his entire argument, which is steeped in misconstrued legalisms surrounding the removal of such a man who was pope but is no longer. If the man was never pope to begin with, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, as they say.


    Listening to Jim Condit Jr's interview we would have to include Roncalli and Montini as well.


    That may be the case, but I tend to be excessively lenient in this regard.  Maybe after I look more into the Siri thesis that will change, but for the time being I don't think that viewing John XXIII as a legitimate pope poses any serious difficulties, unlike (e.g.) viewing Paul VI as legitimate at least by December 1965 (possibly sooner).  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline The Penny Catechism

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 181
    • Reputation: +79/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #32 on: June 05, 2014, 05:32:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: cantatedomino
    I've been thinking a lot about whether there is a position or program of Catholic counter-revolution that avoids the pitfalls of both SV and R&R: Those pitfalls being division; internecine warfare; cafeteria defense of pet errors; failure to recognize, comprehend, defend, and teach the entire Deposit of Faith; growing ignorance among clergy and layfolk; stagnation of Catholic action; contraction - both numerical and doctrinal.


    CD

    For the supernatural love of yourself; realize that if the 'Trad Movement' is dead, that you are really 'required' to follow the obligations to save your soul. If anything, it will be more meritorious to fight for the glory of God during these times. Add too a merciful consideration at your personal judgment during your life's review before God -- that is, if you persevere till the end.

    Yes, the 'Trad Movement' practically is dead. It is our own fault. It lacks sufficient love. We've ignored the principle of God "Who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."  Tim 2:4.  -- This passage as explained by St. Thomas (Commentary on I Timothy): "The answer is that willing refers sometimes to the will of His good pleasure and sometimes to the signified will. By His signified will He wills to save all, because He offers to all the precepts, counsels, and remedies required for salvation." pg. 264

    We (Catholics) no longer put into practice being conduits of God's grace to the unbeliever. We are too insular, to judgmental of different people without a framework of supernatural loving to try to be force to stop them from going to hell forever. The Trad movement, to an unfortunate degree is  fruitless, sterile, and is more about 'religiosity' than learning how to get over our insecurities, introversion to at least improve (even if it's a little bit) in how we can be the salt of the earth by our actions to those who don't believe.

    You can know all the Theology in the world, be right on all of the positions, yet go straight to Hell, because you lacked charity -- ie "He who has My commandments, and keeps them; he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me, will be loved by my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him." John 14:21. This passage as explained by St. Thomas (Commentary on the Gospel of John): "Note that true love is love which appears and proves itself by actions: for love is revealed by actions. Since to love someone is to will that person something good and to desire what this person wants, one does not seem to truly love a person if he does not accomplish the will of the beloved or do what he knows this person wants. And so one who does not do the Will of God does not seem to truly love Him. Thus He says, he who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me, that is, with a true love for Me." Which ties in to...

    "By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another." John 13:35. Again, using St. Thomas' explanation: "Then when He says, by this will all men know that you are My disciples, He gives the reason for following this command: Here we should note that one who is in the army of a King should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what He is saying here: by this will all men know that you are my disciples..." pg. 220. which goes into

    To be ready to explain to anyone who asks, that Christ founded a Church to continue His saving mission. In this respect, supernatural love of neighbor, is going to will what is best for their eternal destiny. In this, we are all called to contribute in this saving mission of Christ. To each person, their calling is different. For some it might be at home or Church praying for the conversion of sinners and offering your Crosses, ...for another, it might be planting a seed to a pagan and by your actions, showing them the reason for our hope in Christ and then being ready for discourse. At some level, familarity with Bible passages since that is the common ground between us an Protestants. Here, I will say that the Dimond's "The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church" is extremely useful (don't worry, doesn't go into the Sede issues/ or BOD stuff; it's purely the biblical basis for the Catholic teachings on like the Papacy, Confession, Purgatory; etc.).

    On the SV issue and the BOD issue; both take precious time away from each individual in the Trad movement into taking their practice of the Faith to the next level... or into never stop making improvements in how they love God and proving it by their actions (by not sinning and by keeping the Commandments and the great precepts to love God and our Neighbor as our self).


    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #33 on: June 05, 2014, 08:46:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church


    Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this.  Can you give the title of the work?  Is is purchasable today or out of print?

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #34 on: June 05, 2014, 09:00:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote
    Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church


    Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this.  Can you give the title of the work?  Is is purchasable today or out of print?


    Magna,

    Pleased that you found it helpful!  I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across.  The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort.  It is the second in a three volume series.  The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay.  Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD.  However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay.  Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.

    Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans.  If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM").  Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format.  Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).

    ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM.  It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecumenical councils."
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #35 on: June 05, 2014, 09:25:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote
    Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church


    Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this.  Can you give the title of the work?  Is is purchasable today or out of print?


    Magna,

    Pleased that you found it helpful!  I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across.  The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort.  It is the second in a three volume series.  The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay.  Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD.  However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay.  Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.

    Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans.  If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM").  Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format.  Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).

    ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM.  It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecumenical councils."


    Very helpful, again - thank you!

    I've been following your arguments on two forums and appreciate the simplicity and understandability with which you present them.  If you don't mind, I would present two points that seem to militate against the sedevacantist position, in case you can give a similarly simple (and thus easy for you) answer.  

    1. Our Lady says there will be a pope who will do the consecration of Russia. Is the apparition of Fatima to be dismissed, or do we assume a divine intervention which results in the appointment of a true pope who then does the consecration?
    2. Wouldn't it be fair to expect more obvious fruits in the sedevacantist camp, at least relative to the SSPX, if they hold the true position?  Sedevacantists are often represented (by their opponents) as infighters casting anathemas against each other.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #36 on: June 05, 2014, 11:28:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote
    Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church


    Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this.  Can you give the title of the work?  Is is purchasable today or out of print?


    Magna,

    Pleased that you found it helpful!  I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across.  The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort.  It is the second in a three volume series.  The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay.  Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD.  However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay.  Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.

    Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans.  If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM").  Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format.  Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).

    ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM.  It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecumenical councils."


    Very helpful, again - thank you!

    I've been following your arguments on two forums and appreciate the simplicity and understandability with which you present them.  If you don't mind, I would present two points that seem to militate against the sedevacantist position, in case you can give a similarly simple (and thus easy for you) answer.  

    1. Our Lady says there will be a pope who will do the consecration of Russia. Is the apparition of Fatima to be dismissed, or do we assume a divine intervention which results in the appointment of a true pope who then does the consecration?
    2. Wouldn't it be fair to expect more obvious fruits in the sedevacantist camp, at least relative to the SSPX, if they hold the true position?  Sedevacantists are often represented (by their opponents) as infighters casting anathemas against each other.


    1) I see no reason to dismiss Fatima.  Are you aware that what is probably the largest sedevacantist priestly group is actually more or less "based" on Our Lady of Fatima and holds "Fatima Conferences?"  That would be the CMRI.  That there is not a pope now does not mean there will not be one in the future.  Sedevacantism simply understood (that there has not been a pope for about fifty years, or if you prefer, that the conciliar claimants aren't popes without making a claim to whether or not there is a pope somewhere else) does not pose a difficulty to Our Lady of Fatima.

    I would add, though, that if a given Catholic wants to delve into the intricacies of the crisis and try to "figure out" what happened by applying Catholic principles to the series of events over the last century (esp. the last fifty years) that the last thing that should come into consideration is private revelation.  And by last I don't mean that it doesn't factor in, I literally mean that chronologically we should not factor them in until we've already factored in the deposit of faith, right reason and the method(s) of the theologians in arriving at conclusions and then, having come to (or close to) a conclusion by understanding these events with a mind of the Church as handed down by her reliable teaching authority (and authorities) see how the events relate to private revelation.  This is of course my opinion, and I really do mean this only as concerns an order of operations; I certainly don't mean to imply in any way at all that private revelation (esp. Fatima and La Salette) don't have a "part to play" in these events, as it were.

    2) No, I don't think so because when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter.  What we are enduring as traditional Catholics (forget sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists for a moment) is all symptomatic of the Church without a proper visible head.  The pope is the principle of unity for the Church, and the members of the Church are "wounded" in a sense without him.  Divisions are to be expected, though I would object to saying these are unique to sedevacantists.  I'd first point out that even with ALL the divisions throughout Tradition, these divisions pale in comparison to the divisions within the Novus Ordo, which is not unified except in how it rejects the Catholic faith, which is to say that it isn't unified at all.  What is it, some seventy percent deny the real presence?  Some twenty percent actually go to "mass?"  Vast majorities approve of birth control, homosexuality and co-habitation.  At least traditionalists are all Catholic.  Controversy is nothing new, the difference is that in times past there was always an authority to appeal to and the authority would settle the conflict; we are without that authority so it is only "natural" that the state of affairs is as it is.  

    I would also point out that so far as I understand it, "fruits" are not "results" but doctrine.  When Our Lord says that you will know them by their fruits, He doesn't mean that you will know them by the amount of people who follow them or the amount of Churches they set up (though this can be an indication, no doubt) but by what they express, i.e. the faith they profess.  To help better understand this, you can consider any time in Christendom where a given diocese fell on hard times and lost property or faithful.  The proper action for a Catholic in that diocese is not to avoid the local bishop and boycott the local parishes, quite the opposite.  On the other hand, if the local bishop teaches a gospel other than has been handed down, as St. Paul says, "let him be anathema."  The fruits are doctrines, not the temporal "success" or lackthereof.  If one teaches a false gospel, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and it is that fruit (the false gospel) which we know him by.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #37 on: June 06, 2014, 06:28:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks Mith, again, for your efforts to answer the questions of a newly-confused Catholic.  Newly confused because prior to the obvious disintegration of the SSPX, this supporter did not spend much time considering the arguments of the sedevacantists.

    I’m still thinking over your answer, and am not sure if it’s correct to categorize fruits as doctrine.  I would have defined doctrine as the necessary qualification to be Catholic, and the question of whether the man holding the office of pope is really pope as an arguable point subject to reason and Catholic principles.   The more I look at the arguments of and supporting material for the sedevacantist positon, the stronger its case looks.

    At the same time, the fruits of the SSPX and its R&R position are not looking so good with the passage of time….

    Can I run one more question by you?  Isn’t it true that the three high priests during the time of the Macchabees were all essentially apostates, and yet they were never considered as other than valid high priests?  Is there a perfect identity between the office of high priest and pope?


    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #38 on: June 06, 2014, 06:33:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I forgot to mention that your point, taken from church history, that good works on the part of saints and ordinary Catholics were often-times brought to collapse or destruction, with no reflection on the movement or the person(s), is well taken.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #39 on: June 06, 2014, 07:33:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Thanks Mith, again, for your efforts to answer the questions of a newly-confused Catholic.  Newly confused because prior to the obvious disintegration of the SSPX, this supporter did not spend much time considering the arguments of the sedevacantists.

    I’m still thinking over your answer, and am not sure if it’s correct to categorize fruits as doctrine.  I would have defined doctrine as the necessary qualification to be Catholic, and the question of whether the man holding the office of pope is really pope as an arguable point subject to reason and Catholic principles.   The more I look at the arguments of and supporting material for the sedevacantist positon, the stronger its case looks.

    At the same time, the fruits of the SSPX and its R&R position are not looking so good with the passage of time….

    Can I run one more question by you?  Isn’t it true that the three high priests during the time of the Macchabees were all essentially apostates, and yet they were never considered as other than valid high priests?  Is there a perfect identity between the office of high priest and pope?


    As far as fruits, maybe you'd like to refer to Fr. Haydock's commentary on the passage in question:

    Quote from: Fr. Leo Haydock Commentary on Mat. 7: 16
    Ver. 16. As the true Church is known by the four marks of its being one, holy, catholic, and apostolical, so heretics and false teachers are known by certain vices, and the pernicious effects of their novelties in religion. As the true Church is one, by its members submitting with humility to the authority established by Christ, (he that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as the heathen and the publican. Matthew xviii. 17.) so are false teachers known by their separation from the ancient Church, and their divisions among themselves, the necessary consequences of rebelling against the authority established by Christ, and alone capable of determining controversies. The same pride and other secret vices which make them despise government, (2 Peter ii. 10.) make them also not afraid to bring in sects of perdition, blaspheming, and this in civil government as well as ecclesiastical. Those that call themselves Reformers, in the beginning of the 16th century, of all others were remarkable in this. What bloody tumults and wars were there not produced in Germany, by the first Reformers in that country! Calvin overturned the government of Geneva; and his followers, under the name Hugonots, filled France for a great length of time with slaughter and civil wars, frequently shaking the throne itself. In this country, the first cause of its separation from the universal Church, was the unbridled passion of a tyrant: the effects were adultery, and the murder of the successive queens that he had taken to his adulterous bed. In the reign of his successor, the insatiate avarice of a corrupt nobility, gratified with the sacrilegious plunder of the Church, established what is called the Reformation. The fear of being compelled to disgorge the fruits of their rapine, contributed much to the confirmation of that order of things in the reign of Elizabeth. She was inclined to it by the circumstances of her birth, which could not be legitimate, if her father's marriage with Catharine of Arragon was valid, as the first authority in the Catholic Church had declared. The natural spirit of this heresy, though checked a while and kept under by the despotical government of this queen, appeared in its own colours soon after, and produced its natural fruits in the turbulence of the times that succeeded, and the multiplicity of sects that are continually springing up to this very day. --- As the true Church is holy, recommending various exercises of religion tending to purify human nature, and render men holy, as fasting, confession of sins, evangelical counsels, &c. so false teachers cast off all these, promising liberty, (2 Peter ii. 16.[19.?]) and giving full rein to the lustful passions, thus giving a liberty of living, as well as a liberty of believing. --- Another fruit of false teachers is, separation from what was the Universal Church before their time, and which continues to be still the far greater part, not being confined to one state or country. If some modern principles, of not allowing any communion of religion out of each state, were admitted, as many religions should have been established by heaven as men think proper to establish different states; nor could Christ have given one for all mankind, under whatever state or form of government they might live. --- Finally, false teachers are to known by their not being able to shew, that they have received their doctrine and mission from the apostles, in a regular succession from them. Some of our modern divines would spurn at the idea of holding their doctrine and orders from the Catholic Church, such as it existed at the time of the Reformation, which is precisely such as it exists at the present moment. --- In answer to this it has been retorted, that the fruits of the Catholic religion have been as bad, or worse; and the horrors of the French revolution are particularly mentioned, as a proof. ... That great crimes have been committed by those who professed themselves Catholics, is not denied; but that they were prompted to them by the nature of their religion, is certainly not admitted. The revolution of France in particular, was the effect of the people falling off from their religion. As well may the Puritans, that brought Charles to the block, be said to be Catholics, because they or their parents once had been such: as well may the present bench of Protestant bishops be said to be Catholics, because the bishops of their sees once were so; or that Robespierre, Marat, and the Jacobins that persecuted catholicity in France, and brought its too indulgent sovereigns to the guillotine, were Catholics, or directed in the least by Catholic principles. (Haydock)


    Source: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id21.html

    And likewise, the commentary of the erudite Cornelius Lapide:

    Quote from: Lapide Commentary on Mat. 7: 16
    By their fruits, &c. Do men gather? As grapes are not wont to be produced by or gathered off thorns, nor figs off thistles, so in like manner, no good or sweet fruit can be collected from heresy,or heretics, but only harsh and thorny fruit. This fruit is of two kinds—1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age. For Luther teaches that vows are not binding upon the religious: that man does not possess free will, that he is the slave of necessity, that he must sin: that faith alone justifies: that good works have no merit before God. Calvin teaches that God is the author of evils: that Christ despaired on the Cross, that He felt the pains of hell, &c.; which things are downright blasphemy, and contrary to the natural law and to reason. Calvin also maintained that the Faith, by which he meant his own perversion of it, should be defended and propagated by force of arms, even by the slaughter of lawful princes and kings, of bishops, priests, and Catholics who opposed it. Whence we have heard of, and almost seen with our eyes in England, France, and Germany, so many murders, robberies, banishments of priests and Catholics, and a vast deluge of iniquity, and as it were a universal conflagration of goodness. We have seen the Blessed Sacraments profaned, the Holy Sacrifice abolished, vows broken, the saints contemned, churches burnt, the sacred canons set at nought, virgins violated, and all such like. For, as John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who, with Thomas More, was a glorious martyr in England under Henry VIII., truly says, “Lust is at once the mother and the child of heresy.”

    So every good tree, &c. “For a good tree is not distinguished from an evil one by its leaves or flowers,” says S. Bernard (Epist. 107), but by its fruit.

    Observe, 1. By good tree in this place, we are not to understand a good will, or charity, and by a corrupt tree an evil will, as S. Augustine, Chrysostom, and others think, but a good or bad teacher, for about these the words immediately preceding are spoken.

    Note, 2. By the fruit of the tree, i.e., of a doctor, must be understood his doctrine, which comes forth true from a true teacher, false from a false one.

    A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, &c. “A thorn tree cannot produce grapes, nor thistles figs, but a thorn must produce thorns, and a thistle thistles, as I have said; and vice versa, a vine cannot produce thorns, but grapes; and although the grapes and the figs should not ripen, but remain sour, that does not arise from the fault of the vine, or the fig-tree, but from unseasonable weather, and deficiency of the sun’s heat. In like manner a prophet, that is, a true teacher, cannot teach false doctrine, nor can a false teacher teach the truth, or act altogether rightly and holily. You must take this in a composite and formal sense, so far, that is, as the teacher is good or bad; because in a concrete and material sense, the good doctor may fall away from his goodness, and teach or do wicked things. The Scribes taught right, but their deeds were evil. The converse also of this is sometimes true.

    Many heretics have wrested this sentence of Christ, applying it falsely for establishing their own heresies. For first, the Manichæans endeavoured to prove from it that some men are by nature good and others evil; or that there are two natural Principles, one good, which makes some men good; the other evil, which makes some men bad. 2. Jovinian maintained from these words that a man who is born of God is not able to commit sin. (See S. Jerome, contra Jovinian.) 3. The Pelagians inferred from it that there is no original sin, because from a good marriage as from a good tree, such an evil fruit as sin cannot be produced. Teste S. Augustine (lib. de Nupt. et Concup. c. 26). 4. The Donatists gathered from it that wicked priests, as bad trees, cannot properly baptize. 5. The Calvinists argue from it that there is no free will in man to bring forth good works, or bad. The same infer from it that we are not justified by good works, but only declared righteous, since a tree is not made good by its good fruits, but is manifested by them to be good. But all these things are falsely inferred. They have none of them anything to do with the passage. For Christ properly applies this maxim only to prophets, that is to true or false teachers, as I have said.


    Source: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/7matth.htm

    Point made short: Indeed, "fruits" refers to doctrine more than anything else.  :)

    As far as your question re: Machabees, the office of the High Priesthood is not analogous with the papacy.  They are extraordinarily different.  But, if you think better by analogies, could a woman Zoroastrian be the High Priest?  Why not?
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #40 on: June 07, 2014, 01:07:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote
    Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church


    Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this.  Can you give the title of the work?  Is is purchasable today or out of print?


    Magna,

    Pleased that you found it helpful!  I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across.  The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort.  It is the second in a three volume series.  The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay.  Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD.  However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay.  Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.

    Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans.  If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM").  Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format.  Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).

    ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM.  It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecumenical councils."



    Prices have gone up!  Is the 1961 edition as good as earlier editions?


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #41 on: June 07, 2014, 07:51:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote
    Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church


    Mith, I really appreciate the opportunity to read this.  Can you give the title of the work?  Is is purchasable today or out of print?


    Magna,

    Pleased that you found it helpful!  I scanned it because I think it is the best summary of the doctrine I've come across.  The book is "Dogmatic Theology Volume 2: Christ's Church" by Mgr. G. Van Noort.  It is the second in a three volume series.  The book is out of print, though second-hand copies can be found easily enough on Amazon, Abe Books or Ebay.  Typically they seem to go for around twenty USD per volume, and the third volume is often closer to forty USD.  However, I found some book sellers on Amazon who apparently didn't know what they had and was able to get each copy for around 10 USD (shipping included) so I ended up with a set for at least half of what one would normally pay.  Point being, if you can afford it at the steeper prices go for it; if you can't, patience will reward you and you might find someone selling them pretty cheap.

    Some other sections of the book are online, though not as scans.  If you go back to the scribd link, I've also scanned a few pages from the same author on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that you can find by clicking on my screen name on the scribd site (I believe I titled it "Van Noort on the OUM").  Otherwise, strobertbellarmine.net has uploaded the chapters on infallibility and a few marks of the Church in text format.  Here is a link: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/doctrine.html (in this link there is also the entire of Wilhelm and Scannel's two volume work, transcribed in full, and other useful resources).

    ETA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM <-- Link to the aforementioned section on the OUM.  It's only three pages, since when I scanned it the point of contention was the nature of the teaching authority of the bishops together with the pope-- hence why I stopped scanning at "ecumenical councils."



    Prices have gone up!  Is the 1961 edition as good as earlier editions?


    Each of my volumes appears to have a different publication date-- vol. III being published in 1961.  I don't see it as an issue.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #42 on: June 08, 2014, 12:06:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan



    Point made short: Indeed, "fruits" refers to doctrine more than anything else.  :)

    As far as your question re: Machabees, the office of the High Priesthood is not analogous with the papacy.  They are extraordinarily different.  But, if you think better by analogies, could a woman Zoroastrian be the High Priest?  Why not?



    Hello Mith.  Finally I've been able to read carefully the source material you provided.  Obviously you are correct.  Of course it's also rather deflating to see how far afield an ordinary Catholic can go in understanding simple scriptural passages without a solid Catholic guide.  

    To further humble myself, I have to confess that your analogy re the relationship of high priest to pope (or rather the lack of thereof) is not enlightening me.

    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #43 on: June 08, 2014, 12:08:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan


    Each of my volumes appears to have a different publication date-- vol. III being published in 1961.  I don't see it as an issue.


    Thank you!  

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #44 on: June 08, 2014, 08:22:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Magna opera Domini
    Quote from: Mithrandylan



    Point made short: Indeed, "fruits" refers to doctrine more than anything else.  :)

    As far as your question re: Machabees, the office of the High Priesthood is not analogous with the papacy.  They are extraordinarily different.  But, if you think better by analogies, could a woman Zoroastrian be the High Priest?  Why not?



    Hello Mith.  Finally I've been able to read carefully the source material you provided.  Obviously you are correct.  Of course it's also rather deflating to see how far afield an ordinary Catholic can go in understanding simple scriptural passages without a solid Catholic guide.  

    To further humble myself, I have to confess that your analogy re the relationship of high priest to pope (or rather the lack of thereof) is not enlightening me.


    The analogy between the papacy and the High-priesthood isn't really a good analogy because there are some pretty significant differences between the Old and New testament.  But the question I asked you was meant to drive to the heart of the matter, which is that even under the Old Covenant there were pre-requisites to being part of the Covenant, and to belonging to the High Priesthood.  A Pagan could not be the High Priest; a non-member of the Catholic Church can't be pope.  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16