Author Topic: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans (Read 2374 times)

Plenus Venter · « **on:** January 04, 2024, 06:12:36 AM »

DECLARATION OF MONS. THOMAS AQUINAS OSB ON "FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS"__________________________

On the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, by Dom Tomás de Aquinas

+

PAX

About the declaration of Fiducia Supplicans

In union with Archbishop Lefebvre and his declaration of November 21, 1974, we too adhere with all our hearts and with all our souls to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of this faith. , that is, to eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth.

On the contrary, Mgr Lefebvre stated, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies that manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms that emerged from it.

This already indicates our position regarding one more fruit of this Rome with a neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency. What blessing is this? How can we lead those who are in sin to think that God can bless their abominable sin? A penance, an absolution followed by a true conversion; Everything that can lead to this is healthy, but is this what is confirmed in this ambiguous and hypocritical blessing? No. What is confirmed is the constant worsening of evil and the loss of souls.

Until a Pope entirely faithful to Tradition returns to the chair of Peter, we will not be able to receive what comes from present-day Rome as if it came from eternal Rome. We must listen to and put into practice the advice left by Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is a strict duty, for every priest who wants to remain Catholic, to separate from this Conciliar Church as long as it does not rediscover the path of the Tradition of the Magisterium and the Catholic faith.” . Yes, we must spiritually separate ourselves from Pope Francis, even if we recognize him as Pope, a Pope who does not act like the Good Shepherd.

Everything that the Conciliar Church does is tainted by the false principles of the New Theology condemned by Pius XII but adopted by Vatican II. This can be seen in all the conciliar Popes, from John XXIII to Francis.

We refuse to drink from this poisoned fountain offered to us by the Conciliar Church, which has caused and will certainly cause so much damage to the Church until the arrival of a truly Catholic Pope. May Our Lady, the one who defeated all heresies, ensure that the Church soon sees this Pope.

+ Thomas Aquinas, OSB

https://nonpossumus--vcr-blogspot-com.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2024, 06:20:03 AM »

Thanks for this, and well said Dom Tomás de Aquinas!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2024, 06:56:17 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 04, 2024, 06:12:36 AM

Yes, we must spiritually separate ourselves from Pope Francis, even if we recognize him as Pope ...

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam:

Quote

It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Simeon · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2024, 09:41:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 04, 2024, 06:56:17 AM

Dom Tomas: Yes, we must spiritually separate ourselves from Pope Francis, even if we recognize him as Pope ...

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam: It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Thank you.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #4 on:** January 04, 2024, 06:51:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 04, 2024, 06:56:17 AM

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam:

Which is why I posted this reply on the other post about these very words. You want to apply words as they relate to a normal situation in the Church, whereas we are in a very abnormal situation, so we must understand their true meaning and not have such a concrete mentality, lacking all distinctions. These words do not preclude the possibility of the situation we are living through, and they are certainly not meant to be used to judge whether or not the one on the Seat of Peter is Pope. Otherwise, why would Bishop Thomas Aquinas hold him to be Pope? Here you go:

You would evidently have us believe that these words require a Catholic always to blindly do the personal will of the reigning Pope and slavishly obey him in all things regardless of what he commands, being secure in the knowledge that he can thereby be certain of doing the Will of God. You extrapolate from this to deduce that the Pope could therefore never command anything sinful, let alone against the Faith. Your logic continues, that if he does command something sinful he cannot be Pope, or ceases to be Pope. Is this Catholic doctrine?

What does it mean, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

"If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's (the Pope's!) subject, rebuked him in public on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith" - St Thomas Aquinas, S Th IIa IIae Q33 A4 ad2
Is St Thomas in error?

Children are commanded by God and the law of nature to be subject to their parents: "Children", says St Paul, "obey your parents in all things, for that is pleasing to the Lord" - Col 3:20

The Holy Ghost bids servants be subject to their masters: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" - I Peter 2:18.

Immediately before this, St Peter admonishes us all: "Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of the good. For so is the will of God... as free and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God" - I Peter 2:13-16

And again, St Paul addressing us all: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities: for there exists no authority but from God... therefore he that resisteth the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation" - Rom 13:1-2

Now how could the Lord God command us to obey all authorities in all things and not to resist them, since to do so would be to resist God himself, under threat of eternal damnation?

Obviously, that is not the meaning of the Word of God. We must understand words in the sense they are meant, according to our Catholic Faith, and according to true obedience. The Holy Ghost doesn't specify the exceptions: "unless the authority commands you to do something contrary to the law of God, in which case you are duty-bound to resist". Nor does the Holy Ghost, nor our Holy Catholic Faith, nor our common sense, tell us that by so commanding the authority ceases to exist. Our parents are still our parents, worthy of our honour and respect; the king is still the king, worthy of our honour and respect; the priest is still a man of God, worth of our honour and respect; the Pope is still the Pope, worthy of our honour and respect. Not on account of their unworthy words or deeds are they worthy of our honour, but because of Whom they represent in the office they hold. We remain their subjects, but we must "resist them to their face" if need be, respectfully and humbly, in order not to make "liberty a cloak for malice" and to "obey God rather than men".

To take the words of Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam to mean that a Catholic must obey a Pope in all things, or that a Pope can never command something sinful that ought to be resisted, or that he can never teach heresy outside the confines of his Infallibility is a monstrous error. It is not what the words say, it is not what the words mean, and it is not what the Church teaches.

We are subjects of our civil rulers. They have authority from God, and on that account we show them respect and follow their directives when they do not conflict with the law of God. If they pass a wicked law, we resist them, but they nonetheless retain their authority and we remain their subjects. So it is with the Pope.

A true subject is not one who practices a servile obedience towards his superior, but one who uses his God-given intellect and will to practice the virtue of true obedience. Any understanding of these magisterial teachings contrary to that is simply not Catholic.

Seraphina · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2024, 08:12:58 PM »

I’m glad to hear a traditional bishop roundly condemn this latest assault on the Church by Francis, whether he is or is not pope.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #6 on:** January 04, 2024, 08:23:28 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 04, 2024, 06:51:40 PM

Which is why I posted this reply on the other post about these very words. You want to apply words as they relate to a normal situation in the Church, whereas we are in a very abnormal situation, so we must understand their true meaning and not have such a concrete mentality, lacking all distinctions. These words do not preclude the possibility of the situation we are living through, and they are certainly not meant to be used to judge whether or not the one on the Seat of Peter is Pope. Otherwise, why would Bishop Thomas Aquinas hold him to be Pope? Here you go:

You would evidently have us believe that these words require a Catholic always to blindly do the personal will of the reigning Pope and slavishly obey him in all things regardless of what he commands, being secure in the knowledge that he can thereby be certain of doing the Will of God. You extrapolate from this to deduce that the Pope could therefore never command anything sinful, let alone against the Faith. Your logic continues, that if he does command something sinful he cannot be Pope, or ceases to be Pope. Is this Catholic doctrine?

What does it mean, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

"If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's (the Pope's!) subject, rebuked him in public on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith" - St Thomas Aquinas, S Th IIa IIae Q33 A4 ad2
Is St Thomas in error?

Children are commanded by God and the law of nature to be subject to their parents: "Children", says St Paul, "obey your parents in all things, for that is pleasing to the Lord" - Col 3:20

The Holy Ghost bids servants be subject to their masters: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" - I Peter 2:18.

Immediately before this, St Peter admonishes us all: "Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of the good. For so is the will of God... as free and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God" - I Peter 2:13-16

And again, St Paul addressing us all: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities: for there exists no authority but from God... therefore he that resisteth the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation" - Rom 13:1-2

Now how could the Lord God command us to obey all authorities in all things and not to resist them, since to do so would be to resist God himself, under threat of eternal damnation?

Obviously, that is not the meaning of the Word of God. We must understand words in the sense they are meant, according to our Catholic Faith, and according to true obedience. The Holy Ghost doesn't specify the exceptions: "unless the authority commands you to do something contrary to the law of God, in which case you are duty-bound to resist". Nor does the Holy Ghost, nor our Holy Catholic Faith, nor our common sense, tell us that by so commanding the authority ceases to exist. Our parents are still our parents, worthy of our honour and respect; the king is still the king, worthy of our honour and respect; the priest is still a man of God, worth of our honour and respect; the Pope is still the Pope, worthy of our honour and respect. Not on account of their unworthy words or deeds are they worthy of our honour, but because of Whom they represent in the office they hold. We remain their subjects, but we must "resist them to their face" if need be, respectfully and humbly, in order not to make "liberty a cloak for malice" and to "obey God rather than men".

To take the words of Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam to mean that a Catholic must obey a Pope in all things, or that a Pope can never command something sinful that ought to be resisted, or that he can never teach heresy outside the confines of his Infallibility is a monstrous error. It is not what the words say, it is not what the words mean, and it is not what the Church teaches.

We are subjects of our civil rulers. They have authority from God, and on that account we show them respect and follow their directives when they do not conflict with the law of God. If they pass a wicked law, we resist them, but they nonetheless retain their authority and we remain their subjects. So it is with the Pope.

A true subject is not one who practices a servile obedience towards his superior, but one who uses his God-given intellect and will to practice the virtue of true obedience. Any understanding of these magisterial teachings contrary to that is simply not Catholic.

Lad, you have my permission to use a different scatological term. Use “cow chips” this time. 😂

Angelus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 04, 2024, 09:17:31 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 04, 2024, 06:12:36 AM

DECLARATION OF MONS. THOMAS AQUINAS OSB ON "FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS"__________________________

...
We must listen to and put into practice the advice left by Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is a strict duty, for every priest who wants to remain Catholic, to separate from this Conciliar Church as long as it does not rediscover the path of the Tradition of the Magisterium and the Catholic faith.” . Yes, we must spiritually separate ourselves from Pope Francis, even if we recognize him as Pope, a Pope who does not act like the Good Shepherd.
...
+ Thomas Aquinas, OSB

https://nonpossumus--vcr-blogspot-com.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

Is this not the sede-impoundist position? Is this not Fr. Chazal's position?

If one believes, as the Resistance does, that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected, then this position of rejecting EVERYTHING that he promulgates (because he's a heretic) while still recognizing him as the materially-elected Pope, is in line with 1917 Canon Law, as I read it. In their eyes, the Pope is excommunicated ipso facto and has no binding authority until he repents of his heresy. That Pope is in a state of suspension. In other words, NONE of his acts are legitimate, and his teaching and dictates must be completely rejected while he remains in that state of heresy.

This is different from the Neo-SSPX position, which defaults to accepting EVERYTHING Bergoglio promulgates UNLESS the SSPX decides it is "dangerous to the faith" (or against to the business plan of the SSPX). This is seen when the SSPX cheers when Bergoglio throws them a worthless bone (like jurisdiction to hear confessions and marriage recognition) but refuses to accept other Bergoglian laws. This strategy is non-Catholic because it makes the SSPX into a cult, since the faithful have to look to the SSPX for the proper interpretation every time Bergoglio says something new, as if the Catholic Church didn't already have 2000 years worth of doctrine and law to guide it.

The SSPX tries to act as arbiters of each and every papal act, instead of rejecting EVERYTHING that the Pope does until the Pope returns to the True Faith. By rejecting EVERYTHING, however, the Resistance are practically sedevacantists.

But sede-impoundism is different from totalist sedevacantism. This is because the starting point is different for each. Sede-impoundists accept the papal election as valid. Sedevacantists do not accept the papal election as valid. But practically both sede-impoundists and sedevacantists treat ALL acts of the papal claimant as illegitimate and ignore them.

Please tell me where I am wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 04, 2024, 09:43:53 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 04, 2024, 08:23:28 PM

Lad, you have my permission to use a different scatological term. Use “cow chips” this time. 😂

I probably should have used my go-to, "bovine excrement".

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2024, 04:49:52 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 04, 2024, 06:51:40 PM

You would evidently have us believe that these words require a Catholic always to blindly do the personal will of the reigning Pope and slavishly obey him in all things regardless of what he commands, being secure in the knowledge that he can thereby be certain of doing the Will of God. You extrapolate from this to deduce that the Pope could therefore never command anything sinful, let alone against the Faith. Your logic continues, that if he does command something sinful he cannot be Pope, or ceases to be Pope. Is this Catholic doctrine?

What the bishop is describing here is this false teaching below, so clearly explained by Fr. Fenton and believed to be a de fide doctrine of the Church by sedes:

Quote

"In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth".

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2024, 07:07:14 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on January 04, 2024, 09:17:31 PM

Is this not the sede-impoundist position? Is this not Fr. Chazal's position?

If one believes, as the Resistance does, that Bergoglio was lawfully-elected, then this position of rejecting EVERYTHING that he promulgates (because he's a heretic)

This is different from the Neo-SSPX position, which defaults to accepting EVERYTHING
Please tell me where I am wrong.

I would say that for the Resistance, as for Archbishop Lefebvre after the consecrations, the reason for separating from the Conciliar hierarchy is because of the danger to Faith and morals, rather than 'because he is a heretic'. It is a prudential decision (which doesn't mean it is optional!).
That is how I see it.

So the Resistance tends towards that view, and the neo-SSPX tends towards the attitude of considering everything on a case by case basis, and accepting every 'gift' from the wily modernists with extreme gratitude, and towards desiring a cage in the zoo... maybe not as openly now as under Bishop Fellay, but I don't believe the direction has changed, just the tactics. They are surely infiltrated.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2024, 07:12:23 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 05, 2024, 07:07:14 AM

So the Resistance tends towards that view, and the neo-SSPX tends towards the attitude of considering everything on a case by case basis, and accepting every 'gift' from the wily modernists with extreme gratitude, and towards desiring a cage in the zoo... maybe not as openly now as under Bishop Fellay, but I don't believe the direction has changed, just the tactics. They are surely infiltrated.

Again, you keep giving the impression that you're speaking for the Resistance. From what is publicly known, Father Chazal holds the view that everything from Bergoglio is invalid (or, rather, he would say illicit ... though I don't quite buy that distinction outside the Sacraments), whereas classic R&R tended to hold that the teaching and commands of the Conciliar popes were legitimate UNLESS they contradicted Tradition. Other than Father Chazal, I've not see anything from the others weighing in on this issue. Also, as I've pointed out, both +Williamson and Avrille have stated that sedevacantism is understandable, and Bishop Williamson that it's possible Jorge isn't the pope ... so your assertion that the Resistance view sedevacantism as a "danger to souls" doesn't appear to hold any water.

As I said, I have no problem whatsoever, and no problem is posed for the indefectibility of the Church, from the sedeimpoundist position. Nor is there any problem for the indefectibility of the Church in how Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his position. What I have a problem with is some Modern R&R that have no issues with imputing corruption to the Magisterium and to the Universal Discipline of the Church and sliding into an Old Catholic mentality of sifting (what they hold to be) Magisterium against Tradition, which is precisely the role of said living Magisterium to determine compatibility (or lack thereof) of current ideas with Tradition and prior Magisterium.

Angelus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 05, 2024, 09:18:52 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 05, 2024, 07:07:14 AM

I would say that for the Resistance, as for Archbishop Lefebvre after the consecrations, the reason for separating from the Conciliar hierarchy is because of the danger to Faith and morals, rather than 'because he is a heretic'. It is a prudential decision (which doesn't mean it is optional!).
That is how I see it.

So the Resistance tends towards that view, and the neo-SSPX tends towards the attitude of considering everything on a case by case basis, and accepting every 'gift' from the wily modernists with extreme gratitude, and towards desiring a cage in the zoo... maybe not as openly now as under Bishop Fellay, but I don't believe the direction has changed, just the tactics. They are surely infiltrated.

Bishop Thomas Aquinas quotes Lefebvre:

"...the advice left by Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is a strict duty, for every priest who wants to remain Catholic, to separate from this Conciliar Church as long as it does not rediscover the path of the Tradition of the Magisterium and the Catholic faith.”

He is saying that his assessment of Bergoglio is that he does not hold "the Catholic Faith." If one was previously baptized and does not hold "the Catholic faith," that person is defined as either a "heretic" or and "apostate." So, although Bishop Aquinas does not use the term "heretic" in his statement, that seems to be his assessment of Bergoglio by using this quote from Lefebvre. Do you still disagree?

Stating that a person is outside of "the Catholic faith" is not a prudential decision. It must be based on the belief that the accused "heretic" has publicly professed something contrary to a de fide dogma. This is a binary position based on the logical analysis of a proposition. That is not "prudence."

I agree with everything you said about the Neo-SSPX.

Angelus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2024, 09:31:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 05, 2024, 07:12:23 AM

Again, you keep giving the impression that you're speaking for the Resistance. From what is publicly known, Father Chazal holds the view that everything from Bergoglio is invalid (or, rather, he would say illicit ... though I don't quite buy that distinction outside the Sacraments), whereas classic R&R tended to hold that the teaching and commands of the Conciliar popes were legitimate UNLESS they contradicted Tradition. Other than Father Chazal, I've not see anything from the others weighing in on this issue. Also, as I've pointed out, both +Williamson and Avrille have stated that sedevacantism is understandable, and Bishop Williamson that it's possible Jorge isn't the pope ... so your assertion that the Resistance view sedevacantism as a "danger to souls" doesn't appear to hold any water.

As I said, I have no problem whatsoever, and no problem is posed for the indefectibility of the Church, from the sedeimpoundist position. Nor is there any problem for the indefectibility of the Church in how Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his position. What I have a problem with is some Modern R&R that have no issues with imputing corruption to the Magisterium and to the Universal Discipline of the Church and sliding into an Old Catholic mentality of sifting (what they hold to be) Magisterium against Tradition, which is precisely the role of said living Magisterium to determine compatibility (or lack thereof) of current ideas with Tradition and prior Magisterium.

Lad, the bolded section above is the key point that I was making in another thread. Look at 1917 Canon 2266:

Quote

Canon 2266
§1. Anyone excommunicated:
1. Is prohibited from the right of electing, presenting, or appointing;
2. Cannot obtain dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or other duties in the Church;
3. Cannot be promoted to orders.

§ 2. An act posited contrary to the prescription of § 1, nn. 1 and 2, however, is not null, unless it was posited by a banned excommunicate or by another excommunicate after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence; but if this sentence has been given, the one excommunicated cannot validly pursue any pontifical favor, unless in the pontifical rescript mention is made of the excommunication

The Canon is making the distinction between "acts" of an excommunicate. For a merely ipso facto excommunicate, his acts are illicit/illegitimate, as discussed in Canon 2264 here:

Quote

Canon 2264
One excommunicated is removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts within his limits and in the places defined by law; nor can he act in ecclesiastical cases, except according to the norm of Canon 1654; he is prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices or responsibilities, and from enjoying earlier concessions and privileges from the Church.

But a "banned excommunicate" as mentioned in Canon 2266.2 is different. His are "null," meaning invalid. This is because an excommunicate who has refused to repent after two warnings cannot revive to the previous office that he held. But an ipso facto excommunicate can revive to being a legitimate office holder if he repents. If he does repent, then his illegitimate acts made during the period of suspension, would at that point become valid.

So I believe that Fr. Chazal's sede-impoundist position precisely reflects what is required in those Canons.

Author Topic: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans (Read 2374 times)

Plenus Venter

Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Stubborn

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Simeon

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Plenus Venter

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Seraphina

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Angelus

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Stubborn

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Plenus Venter

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Ladislaus

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Angelus

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans

Angelus

Re: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Condemns Fiducia Supplicans