Nishant wrote:
Ambrose, thank you for your admirable summary of the current situation in the Church today, which situation is in many respects deplorable, some aspects of which you mention. But while I do not deny the truth of much of what you relate, I deny that it applies directly to this question.
Do you understand and accept the traditional distinction between the Ecclesia docens and Ecclesia discens and see the bearing it has on this matter? Because the manner in which indefectibility and the visible rule of Faith applies, which is what the theologians allude to in arguing the case for universal acceptance being a guarantor of validity, is based on the same. It is impossible for the whole teaching Church to collectively adhere to and identify a false claimant as Pope, that is why Msgr.Noort speaks of the "ordinary and universal Magisterium", which is the only authority that can make an infallibly true judgment, and this suffices to establish the point.
Now, I agree the acceptance of the Ecclesia discens is not unimportant, but this is only on a secondary level, because, as all concede the Ecclesia discens is bound to accept the judgments of the Ecclesia docens. You yourself say this when you say the one is the rule of Faith for the other.
In summary, then, it suffices to point this out - the Ecclesia discens by its nature is bound to adhere to those judgments of the Ecclesia docens which are infallibly true, and a morally unanimous judgment of the Ecclesia docens that a certain man is Pope is infallibly true, and so the conclusion follows, that the unanimous acceptance of the Ecclesia discens is sufficient to establish that the essential acceptance of the whole Church exists.
Let's take Pope Benedict XVI's election in 2005 or the current status today in 2012. In both cases, it appears to me there is a moral unanimity even under your theory and it alone of who belongs to the teaching Church today, namely a very few Bishops to whom this has passed because of common error or because they were consecrated long ago. Therefore, the notion that we are in an interregnum refutes itself.
Let me know where you disagree. God bless.
Nishant,
Thank your for your response and thoughts. To your points:
1. I agree with the distinction of the theologians, but in this case, the hierarchy is not teaching, it is simply universally recognizing one to be pope. I am not aware of Van Noort stating that it is only the
ecclesia docens which recognizes a certain pope.
2. Even if hypothetically your argument is true, I still believe that the remaining bishops of the hierarchy, i.e. those who
kept the faith have not peacefully accepted John Paul II and Benedict XVI. By this, I mean that they have not accepted their teaching authority in promulgating new doctrine. It would be impossible for a Catholic to do so.
3. It is very difficult to determine who the bishops were anyway at the time of the elections. We could certainly identify some of them, but not all of them. Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of hundreds of bishops who were quietly on his side (the Catholic side) at the Council, but to this day we do not know who they are.
4. In regards to your statement:
In summary, then, it suffices to point this out - the Ecclesia discens by its nature is bound to adhere to those judgments of the Ecclesia docens which are infallibly true, and a morally unanimous judgment of the Ecclesia docens that a certain man is Pope is infallibly true, and so the conclusion follows, that the unanimous acceptance of the Ecclesia discens is sufficient to establish that the essential acceptance of the whole Church exists.
I would like to see what you can produce from the theologians on this. You are correct that when the
ecclesia docens teaches, the
ecclesia dicens must adhere to this teaching, as it is infallible, but I believe you are extending this to the matter of the recognition of the Pope. This is not a matter of the teaching Church. I believe that is the reason the sources you quoted before all spoke of universal acceptance of the Church, not the bishops only.
5. In regards to Benedict's election or today in 2012, you are presuming there is a peaceful acceptance, but I disagree on that point. When Catholics peacefully accept the Pope, they peacefully accept his teaching, his laws, and conversely, they do not refuse to believe him, and reject his laws.
It appears to me that there is a tremendous lack of peaceful acceptance of Benedict among
faithful Catholics. Regarding the bishops, those who have kept their faith, have not learned from Benedict, so I would argue that they have not peacefully accepted him, because if they did accept him as their Supreme Teacher, they would have lost the Faith.
Some last points:
1. I believe the Church has not peacefully accepted John Paul II and Benedict.
2. I believe a significant number of Catholics have either rejected their claims or lacked peace about their claim to be pope.
3. I have never spoken to a bishop with jurisdiction, so I cannot be certain of whether or not they have truly accepted the claims of these men peacefully. It is my belief that the remaining bishops have not peacefully accepted his claims.
4. To understand what I mean by the term "peaceful acceptance" I would say look to how the Church accepted Pius XII. They peacefully accepted him as teacher and lawgiver.
5. The lack of peace of acceptance of these men has not been due to any rebellion by certain parts of the Church, it is due to the heresy of the claimants. Catholics have identified the danger of these men, even if they call them Pope, and due to this they reject them in practice even if not in name.