Source


                               Declaration Concerning the Synod on the Family



The Final Report of the second session of the Synod on the Family, published on October 24, 2015, far from showing a consensus of the Synod Fathers, is the expression of a compromise between profoundly divergent positions. Of course we can read in it some doctrinal reminders about marriage and the Catholic family, but we note also some regrettable ambiguities and omissions, and most importantly several breaches opened up in discipline in the name of a relativistic pastoral “mercy”.  The general impression that this docuмent gives is of confusion, which will not fail to be exploited in a sense contrary to the constant teaching of the Church.

This is why it seems to us necessary to reaffirm the truth received from Christ (1) about the role of the pope and the bishops and (2) about marriage and the family. We are doing this in the same spirit that prompted us to send to Pope Francis a petition before the second session of this Synod.
1. The Role of the Pope and the Bishops[1]

As sons of the Catholic Church, we believe that the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ, and at the same time that he is the head of the whole Church. His power is a jurisdiction in the proper sense. With regard to this power, the pastors, as well as the faithful of the particular Churches, separately or all together, even in a Council, in a Synod, or in episcopal conferences, are obliged by a duty of hierarchical subordination and genuine obedience.

God has arranged things in such a way that, by maintaining unity of communion with the Bishop of Rome and by professing the same faith, the Church of Christ might be one flock under one Shepherd. God’s Holy Church is divinely constituted as a hierarchical society, in which the authority that governs the faithful comes from God, through the pope and the bishops who are subject to him.[2]

When the supreme papal Magisterium has issued the authentic expression of revealed truth, in dogmatic matters as well as in disciplinary matters, it is not within the province of ecclesiastical organs vested with a lesser degree of authority—such as bishops’ conferences—to introduce modifications to it.

The meaning of the sacred dogmas that must be preserved perpetually is the one that the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops has taught once and for all, and it is never lawful to deviate from it. Hence the Church’s pastoral ministry, when it practices mercy, must begin by remedying the poverty of ignorance, by giving souls the expression of the truth that will save them.

In the hierarchy thus instituted by God, in matters of faith and magisterial teaching, revealed truths were entrusted as a Sacred Deposit to the apostles and to their successors, the pope and the bishops, so that they might guard it faithfully and teach it authoritatively. The sources that contain this Deposit are the books of Sacred Scripture and the non-written traditions which, after being received by the apostles from Christ Himself or handed on by the apostles under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, have come down to us.

When the teaching Church declares the meaning of these truths contained in Scripture and Tradition, she imposes it with authority on the faithful, so that they might believe it as being revealed by God. It is false to say that the job of the pope and the bishops is to ratify what the sensus fidei or the common experience of the ‘People of God’ suggests to them.

As we already wrote in our Petition to the Holy Father: “Our uneasiness is caused by something that Saint Pius X condemned in his Encyclical Pascendi:  an alignment of dogma with supposed contemporary demands. Pius X and you, Holy Father, received the fullness of the authority to teach, sanctify and govern in obedience to Christ, who is the Head and the Shepherd of the flock in every age and in every place, whose faithful vicar the pope should be on this earth. The object of a dogmatic condemnation could not possibly become, with the passage of time, an authorized pastoral practice.”

This is what prompted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to write in his Declaration dated November 21, 1974: “No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries. ‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.’”[3]

2. Marriage and the Catholic Family

As for marriage, God provided for the increase of the human race by instituting marriage, which is the stable and perpetual union of a man and a woman.[4] The marriage of baptized persons is a sacrament, since Christ elevated it to that dignity; marriage and the family are therefore institutions that are both divine and natural.

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, which no human intention should prevent by performing acts contrary to it. The secondary end of marriage is the mutual assistance that the spouses offer to each other as well as the remedy to concupiscence.

Christ established that the unity of marriage would be definitive, both for Christians and for all mankind. This unity possesses an indissoluble character, such that the conjugal bond can never be broken, neither by the will of the two parties nor by any human authority: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”[5] In the case of the sacramental marriage of baptized persons, this unity and indissolubility are further explained by the fact that it is the sign of Christ’s union with His Bride.

Anything that human beings may decree or do against the unity or indissolubility of marriage is not in keeping with the requirements of nature or with the good of human society. Moreover, faithful Catholics have the serious duty not to join together solely by the bond of a civil marriage, without taking into account the religious marriage prescribed by the Church.

The reception of the Eucharist (or sacramental Communion) requires the state of sanctifying grace and union with Christ through charity; it increases this charity and at the same time signifies Christ’s love for the Church, which is united with Him as His only Spouse. Consequently, those who deliberately cohabit or even live together in an adulterous union, contrary to the laws God and of the Church, cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion because they are giving the bad example of a serious lack of justice and charity, and they are considered public sinners: “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.”[6]

In order to receive absolution for one’s sins within the framework of the Sacrament of Penance, it is necessary to have the firm resolution to sin no more, and consequently those who refuse to put an end to their irregular situation cannot receive valid absolution.[7]

In keeping with the natural law, man has a right to exercise his sɛҳuąƖity only within lawful marriage, while respecting the limits set by morality. This is why ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity contradicts natural and divine law. Unions entered into apart from marriage (cohabitation, adulterous, or even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions) are a disorder contrary to the requirements of the natural divine law and are therefore a sin; it is impossible to acknowledge therein any moral good whatsoever, even diminished.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circuмstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circuмstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.

The Good Samaritan’s care for the sinner is manifested by a kind of mercy that does not compromise with his sin, just as the physician who wants to help a sick person recover his health effectively does not compromise with his sickness but helps him to get rid of it. One cannot emancipate oneself from Gospel teaching in the name of a subjectivist pastoral approach which, while recalling it in general, would abolish in on a case-by-case basis. One cannot grant to the bishops the faculty of suspending the law of the indissolubility of marriage ad casum, without running the risk of weakening the teaching of the Gospel and of fragmenting the authority of the Church. For, in this erroneous view, what is affirmed doctrinally could be denied pastorally, and what is forbidden de jure could be authorized de facto.

In this utter confusion it is now up to the pope—in keeping with his responsibility, and within the limits set on him by Christ—to restate clearly and firmly the Catholic truth quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,[8] and to keep this universal truth from being contradicted in practice locally.

Following Christ’s counsel: vigilate et orate, we pray for the pope: oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco, and we remain vigilant: non tradat eum in manus inimicorum ejus, so that God may not deliver him over to the power of his enemies. We implore Mary, Mother of the Church, to obtain for him the graces that will enable him to be the faithful steward of the treasures of her Divine Son.

Menzingen, October 27, 2015
+ Bernard FELLAY
Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X

 
Better yet, +Fellay's beloved Benedict agrees with Kasper. Cardinal Marx said 2-3 days before the conclusion of the "Synod" that Cardinal Pell's statement to Figaro, that "This is the last battle between this groups (Ratzingerians & Kasperians)"  was "not acceptable". He said: "At the synod we are not in a battle...and it is not Ratzinger against Kasper". The truth at last.

Sorry, Excellency, but you'll get fleas when you lie with dogs.

Honestly, I have no idea what +Fellay is trying to say with this.  I just seems like so much beating around the bush (for political reasons) that it has no punch and doesn't say much of anything.  It's a very rambling and incoherent message.

Honestly, I have no idea what +Fellay is trying to say with this.  I just seems like so much beating around the bush (for political reasons) that it has no punch and doesn't say much of anything.  It's a very rambling and incoherent message.

This ilk is becoming his trademark:  rambling, incoherent, no punch, ambiguous, lukewarm, neither here nor there.  

Definitely not the style of ABL, for one.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention:  anyone who notices gets accused of being "anti-Fellay."

.

The "letter",

Quote

"As sons of the Catholic Church, we believe that the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ, and at the same time that he is the head of the whole Church. His power is a jurisdiction in the proper sense. With regard to this power, the pastors, as well as the faithful of the particular Churches, separately or all together, even in a Council, in a Synod, or in episcopal conferences, are obliged by a duty of hierarchical subordination and genuine obedience.

God has arranged things in such a way that, by maintaining unity of communion with the Bishop of Rome and by professing the same faith, the Church of Christ might be one flock under one Shepherd."

What is wrong with this picture?

Good question! I am so tired of reading anything from +Fellay. It is so hypocritical of him to appeal to the immutability dogma while he does not believe in the literal meaning of any dogmatic declaration. He believes that salvation is possible for any Hindu as a Hindu, Moslem as a Moslem, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., without believing any article of revealed faith, without receiving any of the sacraments, without being a member of the Church, and without submission to the Holy Father all of which are dogmas of our faith. He believes that the only thing necessary for salvation is their 'good will' which God sees and makes them secret members of the Church. This is only possible if he believes in the non-literal theological sifting of dogma in the bright light of popular modern insights. That is, the same sifting of dogma of Benedict's  "hermeneutic of continuity" which Benedict traces back to John XXIII.  It is the same theology that pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Msgr. Thomas Rosica says lies at the heart of Pope Francis' continuity with his conciliarist predecessors.  It is being paraded about again with the new understanding of "mercy" on the questions of marriage and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

The point you have brought up in +Fellay's open declaration is another part of the same problem. +Fellay is professing the belief that Luke 22:32: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren," teaches that no pope can ever become a formal heretic and that his personal faith is the "rule of faith" that all Catholics can reliably depend.

My husband admires the writings of Mr. James Larson, and strongly recommends his writings to others, but, he disagrees with Mr. Larson on this essential point and wrote him a letter on this question which I am posting below.

Mr. Larson,

I disagree with something you said in The War Against the Papacy but before making any critical comment I want to say firstly how important your articles are in the defense of the faith.  There are only a handful of books and articles written over the last forty years that define the essential problems with as much clarity and accuracy as what you have done in your articles.  I recommend them to everyone and expect that they will be important contribution to the defense of the faith for many years to come.

The disagreement concerns the understanding of Luke 22:32: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren," and the teaching of Vatican I which specifically references this scripture passage in the definition of papal infallibility.

Quote from: Mr. Larson, [i]The War Against the Papacy[/i]]"Vatican I also teaches that there is a third prerogative bestowed by Christ upon Peter and his successors. It consists in Christ’s promise to Peter that he would never personally lose the faith. This prerogative is not to be considered as part of the twofold Primacy, but rather as the foundation upon which the integrity of the Papacy itself is built. If the Pope were to lose the faith and become a heretic, then he would necessarily cease to be Catholic. The notion that a heretic, non-Catholic Pope would be entrusted by Christ with the divinely constituted Primacy of teaching and governing all the faithful, would certainly belie Christ’s promises to build His Church upon the Rock of the Papacy."
James Larson, [i]War Against the Papacy[/i][/quote]

Vatican I does not [b]"teach"[/b] that[b] "there is a third prerogative bestowed by Christ upon Peter and his successors"[/b] that they would [b]"never personally lose the faith."[/b]  The paragraphs that directly precede the dogmatic declaration of papal infallibility state that the purpose of [b]"gift of truth and never-failing faith"[/b] is so that the popes [b]"might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine."[/b]  For this [b]"apostolic teaching"[/b] was [b]"embraced by all the holy father and doctors... (who) knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.'" [/b] Nothing in this necessitates that the pope cannot personally lose the faith.  It only means that the pope cannot engage the infallible Magisterium of the Church to teach error and corrupt the faithful from the Holy See.  

To interpret this to mean that the pope can only be guilty of material heresy and not formal heresy is meaningless because formal heresy can only be known with certainty by God since it is in the internal forum and no one may judge the pope.  Since as Vatican I says, [b]"The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith,"[/b] what good would preserving the pope from formal heresy matter if he were permitted to personally fall into, and lead others into, material heresy and thus no longer be of aid for the [b]"salvation of all"[/b] by his example and teaching?  If the [b]"whole flock of Christ"[/b] follows the pope in material heresy and becomes infected with[b] "the poisonous food of error,"[/b] it would make no essential difference whatsoever in protecting the integrity of the faith if the heresy is formal or only material.  The [b]"rule of faith"[/b] is not the personal faith of the pope.  If it were then it would necessarily mean that the pope could never commit material heresy and that is historically unsupportable.

The Vatican I decree says directly before the infallible pronouncement that[b] "we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was [u]pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office[/u]." [/b]This [b]"prerogative"[/b] formally defined as dogma only refers to the criteria that must be meet for any papal teaching on faith and morals to be infallible and not to the personal faith of the Roman pontiff  and it does this while directly citing Luke 22:32.

Cornelius a Lapide comments on the passage from Luke 22:32 on the prerogatives of given to St. Peter and his successors in the Petrine office says the same thing:

[quote="Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. For thee, because I destine thee to be the head and chief of the Apostles and of My Church, that thy faith fail not in believing Me to be the Christ and the Saviour of the world. Observe that Christ in this prayer asked and obtained for Peter two especial privileges before the other Apostles: the first was personal, that he should never fall from faith in Christ; for Christ looked back to the sifting in the former verse, that is the temptation of His own apprehension when the other Apostles flew off from Him like chaff and lost their faith, and were dispersed, and fled into all parts. But Peter, although he denied Christ with his lips, at the hour foretold, and lost his love for Him, yet retained his faith. So S. Chrysostom (Hom. xxxviii.) on S. Matthew; S. Augustine (de corrept. et Grat. chap. viii.); Theophylact and others. This is possible but not certain, for F. Lucas and others think that Peter then lost both his faith and his love, from excessive perturbation and fear; but only for a short time, and so that his faith afterwards sprang up anew, and was restored with fresh vitality. Hence it is thought not to have wholly failed, or to have been torn up by the roots, but rather to have been shaken and dead for a time.
Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. ep 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).
For it was necessary that Christ, by His most wise providence, should provide for His Church, which is ever being sifted and tempted by the devil, and that not only in the time of Peter, but at all times henceforth, even to the end of the world, an oracle of the true faith which she might consult in every doubt and by which she might be taught and confirmed in the faith, otherwise the Church might err in faith, quod absit! For she is as S. Paul said to Timothy, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii 15). This oracle of the Church then is Peter, and all successive bishops of Rome. This promise made to Peter, and his successors, most especially applies to the time when Peter, as the successor of Christ, began to be the head of the Church, that is, after the death of Christ.

The gift of a 'never-failing faith' as a personal gift is conferred by Jesus Christ to St. Peter alone and not a personal prerogative of future popes.  What was promised to future popes was that they would never engage the infallible Magisterial authority of the Church to teach error in morals  or doctrine.  This makes sense for a least two good reasons: Because many theologians and doctors of the Church have entertained the possibility of an heretical pope.  IF the possibility contradicted the "apostolic" teaching that was followed by all the "venerable fathers ... and orthodox doctors" of the Catholic Church it would not even be considered as a subject for theological speculation.  The second reason is that popes have historically have been guilty of at least material heresy.  Since the internal forum is known only to God, it makes no sense to preserve a pope only from formal heresy while freely disseminating material heresy by word and deed to all the faithful because the practical outcome is the same.  The personal faith of the pope is not, and cannot be, the rule of faith.  If it were, we would all be kissing the Koran.

I think one of the strongest arguments against sedevacantism is that the popes during and since Vatican II, despite having all the power to do so, have never engaged the Magisterial authority of the Church to teach an error in faith or morals.  The next strongest argument against them is the fact that sedevacatists admit to the Petrine office as established by Jesus Christ as a necessary attribute of the Church but they cannot fill it and they have no plans to ever try to fill it.  

Although I am not a sedevacantist, I do not pretend that the post Vatican II popes have not been heretics.  St. Thomas says that the faith can be denied not only by words but by actions and, besides the heretical opinions expressed in their private words and writings and non-magisterial teachings, they have done repeated acts that are incompatible with the Catholic faith.  

You have done an excellent job in identifying and delineating the current philosophical errors of the post Vatican II popes.  It is impossible to believe in the doctrine of Trinity or True Presence in the Holy Eucharist while rejecting the concept of "substance."  The problem is that dogma is the Church defining once and for all time Catholic doctrine.  Its proper tools for understanding are proper definition and correct grammar.  It requires no special theological or philosophical competence.  But definition and grammar are also the tools to destroy dogma and the destruction of dogma is the ultimate end of all Modernism.  The Catholic understanding of "substance" is integral to the understanding of formal objects of divine and Catholic faith and therefore, the traditional theological definition is infallible itself.  Ultimately, it is the very idea of what a dogma is that the modern popes have overturned.

Drew

NO:

This ilk is becoming his (Bp. Fellay's) trademark:  rambling, incoherent, no punch, ambiguous, lukewarm, neither here nor there.

To which 2Vt replies with a throw-away remark:

This also describes many of Bishop Williamson's EC's. Not to mention his recent wishy washy stance on the NO mass.

You infer that Bp. W is "wishy-washy" in "many" of his ECs.

1) Could you cite at least one EC among the "many" in which you feel that the bishop was being "wishy-washy?"

2) If you refer to famous remarks about the New Mass made by H.E. during the Q & A in Ct. in June (and I think you are), let us just quote him briefly:

Bp.W

"in principle the NO Mass is a key part of the New Religion which is a major part of the worldwide apostasy today..."

H.E. goes on to say that ABL warned people to stay away from the NM.

I would not describe that as wishy-washy.  I can not remember Bp. Fellay saying anything similar in recent years.