Author Topic: The 1968 Rite os Episcopal COnsecration is Valid. (Read 13139 times)

Sigismund · « **Reply #75 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:35:47 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

"From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

"Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned." Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura.

This infallibly condemned error(s), and consequently the opposite truth(s) equally infallibly declared, does not amount to heresy, which is a direct denial of a divinely revealed truth as proposed by the Church for belief by Catholics.

Okay. Thanks.

SJB · « **Reply #76 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:47:15 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

This infallibly condemned error(s), and consequently the opposite truth(s) equally infallibly declared, does not amount to heresy, which is a direct denial of a divinely revealed truth as proposed by the Church for belief by Catholics.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Cartechini
b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith

Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita

Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.

Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.

Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.

SJB · « **Reply #77 on:** February 23, 2012, 10:28:12 AM »

Quote from: AER article, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith

Bishop Garcia Martinez counters this argument with a development of a demonstration which had been elaborated previously by Fr. Beraza. In his Tractatus de virtutibus infusis, Fr. Beraza had reasoned, in what is by far the most effective of the four arguments he offers in favor of his conclusion, that

Whatever is revealed by God can be believed by divine faith. But it is revealed by God that the judgment of the Church, defining anything by its supreme doctrinal authority, is infallibly true. Therefore the judgment of the Church, thus defining something to be infallibly true, can be believed with divine faith.5

Fr. Beraza gave an exceptionally clear explanation of this process of reasoning. He taught that

The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.

Thus if you should believe by divine faith that the judgment of the Church defining the fact that the famous five propositions of Jansenius are really contained in Jansenius' book is infallibly true; you could not fail to believe in the same act of faith that those five propositions of Jansenius are contained in Jansenius' book. For a true judgment, as true essentially includes the object and its conformity with the judgment.6

Caminus · « **Reply #78 on:** February 23, 2012, 01:28:38 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
This infallibly condemned error(s), and consequently the opposite truth(s) equally infallibly declared, does not amount to heresy, which is a direct denial of a divinely revealed truth as proposed by the Church for belief by Catholics.

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Cartechini
b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith

Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita

Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.

Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.

Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.

But it's not heretical. I have long recognized the fact that a man can sin against the virtue of faith without being an heretic. In fact, I have attempted to remind sedevacantists of this for some time now.

Caminus · « **Reply #79 on:** February 23, 2012, 01:31:32 PM »

Quote

The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.

In this I believe he is departing from St. Thomas and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange. It is impossible to believe something and see it at the same time. They are fusing the rule of faith with the object of faith itself. The rule of faith preserves the act of faith from resting upon human opinion, but it is not identical with the object of faith itself.

Caminus · « **Reply #80 on:** February 23, 2012, 01:37:24 PM »

Quote

Molina had contended (as the first to propose this teaching, according to Fr. Marin-Sola), that a truth which is properly a theological conclusion can never be proposed or defined by the Church as a dogma of the Catholic faith. He was convinced that a truth which was properly a conclusion deduced from revealed datum retained that status even after the infallible pronouncement of the Church itself. Once the Church had spoken, there were two ways in which the individual Catholic could accept this teaching: first by the use of the deductive process which the Church itself had employed in arriving at this conclusion

SJB · « **Reply #81 on:** February 23, 2012, 01:49:38 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
This infallibly condemned error(s), and consequently the opposite truth(s) equally infallibly declared, does not amount to heresy, which is a direct denial of a divinely revealed truth as proposed by the Church for belief by Catholics.

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Cartechini
b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith

Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita

Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.

Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.

Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.

But it's not heretical. I have long recognized the fact that a man can sin against the virtue of faith without being an heretic. In fact, I have attempted to remind sedevacantists of this for some time now.

Loss of membership in the Church is what "deposes" the heretical pope.

SJB · « **Reply #82 on:** February 23, 2012, 02:40:24 PM »

Quote from: AER article, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith

The validity of the third of the reasons I have just mentioned has been brought out with special clarity in a recent and very valuable book which, incidentally, defends the concept of a merely ecclesiastical faith. Fr. Sisto Cartechini, in his brilliant work, De valore notarum theologicarum, lists, as the censures applicable to a contradiction of a teaching de fide ecciesiastica definita, the qualifications of anathematization and of haeresis circa fidem ecclesiasticam. The same distinguished author holds that the censures applicable to a teaching that contradicts a dogma of the faith are the qualifications of anathematization and haeresis circa fidem divinam.17

I do not believe that there can be any serious quarrel with Fr. Cartechini on this matter. It would seem that the basic reason that constituted the Jansenists as heretics was their refusal to accept the authoritative and infallible decision of a Sovereign pontiff about a dogmatic fact. The men of Port Royal claimed that they rejected with the Church the five propositions condemned by Pope Innocent X in the Constitution cuм occasione. What they would not admit, however, was the fact, likewise taught authoritatively and infallibly by the Sovereign Pontiff, that these propositions expressed teaching actually contained in the book, Augustinus. That refusal gained them the designation of heretics.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #83 on:** February 23, 2012, 03:20:22 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

But it's not heretical. I have long recognized the fact that a man can sin against the virtue of faith without being an heretic. In fact, I have attempted to remind sedevacantists of this for some time now.

There is a difference between sinning against the Faith and being a manifest heretic. The SSPX, although they are not sedevacantists, admit that Benedict is a (material) heretic.

SJB · « **Reply #84 on:** February 23, 2012, 04:57:40 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Caminus
But it's not heretical. I have long recognized the fact that a man can sin against the virtue of faith without being an heretic. In fact, I have attempted to remind sedevacantists of this for some time now.

There is a difference between sinning against the Faith and being a manifest heretic. The SSPX, although they are not sedevacantists, admit that Benedict is a (material) heretic.

A Catholic cannot be a "material heretic." He may hold a material heresy without pertinacity, but in that case he's not a heretic at all. He's in error but in good faith. If he is pertinatious, then he's a heretic.

The point is that knowingly rejecting an infallible judgment of the Church is a mortal sin against the Faith. In the case of the Jansenists, the rejection of a dogmatic fact is what gained them the designation of heretics.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #85 on:** February 23, 2012, 10:41:12 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: Caminus
But it's not heretical. I have long recognized the fact that a man can sin against the virtue of faith without being an heretic. In fact, I have attempted to remind sedevacantists of this for some time now.

There is a difference between sinning against the Faith and being a manifest heretic. The SSPX, although they are not sedevacantists, admit that Benedict is a (material) heretic.

A Catholic cannot be a "material heretic." He may hold a material heresy without pertinacity, but in that case he's not a heretic at all. He's in error but in good faith. If he is pertinatious, then he's a heretic.

The point is that knowingly rejecting an infallible judgment of the Church is a mortal sin against the Faith. In the case of the Jansenists, the rejection of a dogmatic fact is what gained them the designation of heretics.

I agree, I was simply noting the Society's position.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #86 on:** April 18, 2012, 11:41:16 PM »

I'm not sure what CI's policy is on old threads or if this thread is too old to post in, but I just wanted to say a few things.

I'm not sede, although I've dabbled in it a few times (I'm kind of a binge sede, I suppose, I'll be convinced of it for 2 days or so and then go back). I'm familiar with Fr. C's Null and Void article, and with the SSPX's reply. Fr then wrote an article disputing that reply, which I didn't find particularly helpful.

Anyone with the inclination to can find the article on traditionalmass.org (or is it com?)

Anyways, I was very surprised to see Gregory post what he did (being familiar with his postings from both here and FE). I just wanted to ask, Gregory (if you're still around) have you read Fr C's "rebuttal" to the sspx piece?

At this point in the game, comparing the full texts of the respective rites side by side, it's a crapshoot. I think you've really got to twist and turn and have to WANT it to be invalid to reach that conclusion. I think the 1968 rite (and I agree, shouldn't have been changed and could be better) is pretty obvious in what it intends to do. I don't see a reason to doubt it (at the moment anyways). It seems to be self evident.

For me, doubting it is like doubting any other self evident thing. Someone could tell you that your grey car is black enough where it starts to look black. I think sometimes we have to just step back a little and get away from all the back and forth to clear our heads.

Anyways.

songbird · « **Reply #87 on:** April 22, 2012, 03:56:33 PM »

Manifest! You will know them by their fruits, said Our Lord. And a manifest heretic is not Catholic. Canon Laws make it very clear.