Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Nathan on December 24, 2012, 04:07:53 PM
-
I am sure many of you have probably seen Fr. Laisney's rebuttal of Bishop Williamson's (BW) EC 281 of Dec. 1, 2012, Various Churches. It is very disappointing to see words being put into BW's mouth, silently condemning him for "false ideas" about the Church. BW has always desired to be absolutely faithful to the teaching and leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre (ABL), that is clear by everything he says and writes, and his words should be interpreted as such. For example, Fr. L. accuses BW of saying that the Catholic Church exists only in a part of the Church (the "Traditionalists"), and not in the Official Church, thereby depriving it of its divine constitution, i.e. the hierarchy. This is absurd, not only because of what BW affirms in the end of his letter (about the wheat and chaff), but also because if this were true, the "Traditionalist" part would lose one of its marks: APOSTOLICITY! BW states that the Conciliar Church (which is most of the Official Church) is rot on the apple, not a separate apple. There have been many times in Church history when the hierarchy has been in error, immorality, and sometimes downright chaos (the Great Schism). It is up to God to bring it back around, as He has always done. Ironically, its seems that EC 281 in fact paraphrases the quotes from ABL given at the end of Fr. L's refutation!
Sadly, this is just another example of the Society's change in orientation.
P.S. BW's lions example was probably not the most logical in the book, but it is easy to see what he means!
-
Straw-man fallacies are common amongst people with liberal minsets, and anyone who could possibly support a deal with modernist Rome has to have a liberal mindset to at least some degree.
-
I am sure many of you have probably seen Fr. Laisney's rebuttal of Bishop Williamson's (BW) EC 281 of Dec. 1, 2012, Various Churches.
Where is it? Post it here.
-
Here you go:
Various Churches? Fr. Francois Laisney (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/various_churches_fr_laisney_12-21-2012.htm)
If you have not read BW's EC 281, you can find it here:
EC 281: Various "Churches" (http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/eleison-comments-8)
-
What does Fr. Laisney hope to prove by attacking a strawman, when +Williamson is saying the same thing is he is? False characterization of +Williamson's opposition to the current SSPX leadership?
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?
Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
-
Great quote, Telesphorus! If only Fr. L. had taken it into account, or been aware of it (assuming the best), he could have saved his time and trouble. Could you give me the source? When you can include the source text it gives the quote more weight for those on the offensive.
-
Great quote, Telesphorus! If only Fr. L. had taken it into account, or been aware of it (assuming the best), he could have saved his time and trouble. Could you give me the source? When you can include the source text it gives the quote more weight for those on the offensive.
It's from "One Year After the Consecrations" - I'm sure Father Laisney knows the source.
-
Great quote, Telesphorus! If only Fr. L. had taken it into account, or been aware of it (assuming the best), he could have saved his time and trouble. Could you give me the source? When you can include the source text it gives the quote more weight for those on the offensive.
It's from "One Year After the Consecrations" - I'm sure Father Laisney knows the source.
One year after the Consecrations - An Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre (http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm)
3: "Lefebvre should have stayed in the Church".
Question: Some people say, "Yes, but Archbishop Lefebvre should have accepted an agreement with Rome because once the Society of St. Pius X had been recognized and the suspensions lifted, he would have been able to act in a more effective manner inside the Church, whereas now he has put himself outside."
Archbishop Lefebvre: Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.
Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing, I could have protected neither the faithful nor the seminarians. Rome would have said to me, "Alright, we'll give you such and such a bishop to carry out the ordinations, and your seminarians will have to accept the professors coming from such and such a diocese." That's impossible. In the Fraternity of St. Peter, they have professors coming from the diocese of Augsburg. Who are these professors? What do they teach?
4: Danger of schism?
Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?
Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
Mr. Madiran objects: "But the official Church also has Infallibility." However, on the subject of infallibility, we must say, as Fr. Dulac said in a suggestive phrase concerning Pope Paul VI: "When years ago the Church had several popes, one could choose from amongst them. But now we have two popes in one." We have no choice. Each of these recent popes is truly two popes in one. Insofar as they represent Tradition - the Tradition of the popes, the Tradition of infallibility - we are in agreement with the pope. We are attached to him insofar as he continues the succession of Peter, and because of the promises of infallibility which have been made to him. It is we who are attached to his infallibility. But he, even if in certain respects he carries the infallibility within his being pope, nevertheless by his intentions and ideas he is opposed to it because he wants nothing more to do with infallibility. He does not believe in it and he makes no acts stamped with the stamp of infallibility.
That is why they wanted Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive Truth. The Truth must live and must evolve. It may eventually change with time, with history, with knowledge, etc., ...whereas infallibility fixes a formula once and for all, it makes - stamps - a Truth as unchangeable. That is something they can't believe in, and that is why we are the supporters of infallibility and the Conciliar Church is not. The Conciliar Church is against infallibility - that's for sure and certain.
Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly! - We are not against the pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging, of the See of Peter, but we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist who does not believe in his own infallibility, who practices ecuмenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. We are the ones that are excommunicated while and because we wish to remain Catholic, we wish to stay with the Catholic Pope and with the Catholic Church - that is the difference.
For Mr. Madiran, who otherwise has a good grasp of the situation, to say that we are not the "visible Church" - that we are quitting the "visible Church", which is infallible - all that is just words which do not correspond to reality.
-
No surprise about Fr Laisney. At an Indult Mass in Mumbai about a year ago he was part of the three person choir. The woman who types the Society news sheet in that city was also in this choir which was completed by a N.O. priest
-
There has been some good analysis of the Fr. Laisney vs. Bp. Williamson ecclesiology debate on the Bellarmine Forums.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1371
-
It is interesting that folks will give a thumbs down to this post, but fail to show why Mr. Lane's analysis is wrong. It is easy to hide in the shadows.
For those who disagree with John Lane, he accepts new members to the Bellarmine Forums, put forth your objections in the public forum and and allow your ideas to be tested.
-
Here you go:
Various Churches? Fr. Francois Laisney (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/various_churches_fr_laisney_12-21-2012.htm)
If you have not read BW's EC 281, you can find it here:
EC 281: Various "Churches" (http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/eleison-comments-8)
Thanks for the links. Fr. Laisney is not a clear communicator, I find him excruciating to read.
Is there any person in the Neo-SSPX that can communicate clearly and succinctly in English? I think it is just may be because their positions are indefensible, nevertheless, you would think there would be one good communicator to elucidate the defense of their positions clearly and succinctly in English.
-
Here you go:
Various Churches? Fr. Francois Laisney (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/various_churches_fr_laisney_12-21-2012.htm)
If you have not read BW's EC 281, you can find it here:
EC 281: Various "Churches" (http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/eleison-comments-8)
Thanks for the links. Fr. Laisney is not a clear communicator, I find him excruciating to read.
Is there any person in the Neo-SSPX that can communicate clearly and succinctly in English? I think it is just may be because their positions are indefensible, nevertheless, you would think there would be one good communicator to elucidate the defense of their positions clearly and succinctly in English.
This lack of clear communication in a written essay where he had plenty of time to proofread and check for erros means that he's trying to use tactics of deception. Why is Fr. Laisney trying to make a case that ABL did not try to make?
If the conciliar mass and the Catholic Mass are one and the same are part and parcel of the same Holy Catholic Church yet, for reasons unstated, the conciliarists are all hanging on the apostate ideas, what are we to make of this? Is it all a matter of personal preference - hence, a matter of private judgement?
Doesn't apostasy render one no longer Catholic?
-
Ambrose,
I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church. I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.
A blessed Christmas to you!
-
Ambrose,
I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church. I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.
A blessed Christmas to you!
I believe his defense of Bishop Fellay is the reason why he isn't well-liked here.
-
Capt. McQuiqq,
Lack of clarity does not always mean the writer has a deceptive agenda. I have read perfectly orthodox books and articles that read as if you were wading through a bog. It just means the authors are not the most effective communicators.
Fr. L., BW, and ABL are virtually saying the same thing. The problems with the article are twofold:
1. Fr. L. attributes to BW beliefs about the Church which simply do not belong to him;
2. Fr. L. then insinuates, using ABL, that because the pope is not requesting anything intrinsically "wrong", we should therefore yield to his desire for "reconciliation".
In a nutshell, the errors of Fr. L's rebuttal are false attribution and insinuation (of an agenda).
-
Caveat:
Let all who read my posts beware. I am obviously not infallible; I have made certain observations and conclusions on this forum which I unconditionally subject to future declarations of the Magisterium. This applies, for example, to my second point made above to Capt McQuiqq, which I fully accept could be wrong. Therefore let all readers take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
-
Ambrose,
I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church. I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.
A blessed Christmas to you!
I believe his defense of Bishop Fellay is the reason why he isn't well-liked here.
I understand. I think though that readers on here should know that John Lane is a deeply sincere man who forms his judgment based on the evidence available to him.
Some may strongly disagree with him on this, but ultimately, this disagreement is one of judgment of facts, not about the Faith. Catholics on either side, those that remain with the SSPX under Bp. Fellay or those laity who are supporting the clergy who have left can surely be of good faith, and are doing what they can to keep their Faith during this crisis.
For myself, I have not attended SSPX in some years, but I still do care what happens to them. They are the largest and best organized group of Catholics in the world, and I hope that in the end the large body of the SSPX, those still under Bp. Fellay will recognize the true state of affairs in the Church, recognize that the men they have been negotiating with cannot be popes, and the path out of this crisis in the Church will be through the mechanism that the Church has given us for a lawful election of a Pope.
As for the smaller group that has broken from the Society, I greatly admire them in that they have put the Faith first above all. I can only imagine the stress they have been under, wanting to remain in the Society and loyal to the Society, but seeing the grave danger of these negotiations with heretics, they in my view had no choice but to act.
-
When John Lane sticks to theology in the abstract he's helpful.
Unfortunately he has, out of grievances, praised an associate of Bishop Fellay, someone who openly mocks the Catholic Faith - on such issues as Catholic teaching on modesty. (the pro-Zionist)
-
Ambrose,
I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church. I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.
A blessed Christmas to you!
A blessed Christmas to you as well.
I think the stronger reaction to John Lane on here may be due to his defense of Bishop Fellay rather than his defense of the Church's teaching that the hierarchy must be present and visible until the end of the world.
The only challenge to John Lane on this point has been Fr. Cekada. They had a vigorous public debate on Ignis Ardens found here: http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=ee961f76ef92d5f8b4d9b880f76dfa3b&showtopic=10336&st=0
Since you asked, my thoughts on the matter are this:
1. The hierarchy is essential to the Church.
2. The hierarchy can never disappear from the earth, although they can be greatly reduced in number.
3. The Church has never taught that there is any definite number of bishops required, so it is possible that the Church could exist with any number of bishops even just one.
4. The traditional bishops are not members of the hierarchy. They have not been sent by a Pope. They all know this, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, etc. None of them make the claim that they have habitual jurisdiction. All of them know they have not been sent by a Pope.
5. So, then, one may ask, who are the members of the hierarchy? They are those bishops lawfully appointed by a Pope who have kept the Faith. This fact is certain as bishops cannot lose their jurisdiction except for very specific reasons.
6. They can certainly be the remaining bishops appointed by Pius XII, and in my view this number may include the bishops appointed by John XXIII.
7. A strong argument can be made, and this has been put forth by John Lane, which states that due to common error, the act of appointment by an anti-pope to a see may be supplied by the Church if it were for the good of souls. This may be especially true of certain Eastern Catholic bishops who may still have the Faith, are validly consecrated and hold jurisdiction over Catholics in their respective Eastern Rite churches.
8. The hierarchy may be more obscure in our times, but they are visible. It is possible to identify them. They are less visible than in 1950, but they remain visible. They can be found with some effort. There was a time in the world when the Pope and all of the bishops of the world were in hiding from the public view, but the Church still remained visible.
-
When John Lane sticks to theology in the abstract he's helpful.
Unfortunately he has, out of grievances, praised an associate of Bishop Fellay, someone who openly mocks the Catholic Faith - on such issues as Catholic teaching on modesty. (the pro-Zionist)
Well, as I was saying previously, if John Lane has defended someone or "praised" someone, then he would only do this based on the evidence available to him about that person's character.
John Lane is a man of principle, not guided by emotions. I do know him, respect him, and would know that if he praised someone it was due to him being convinced that he was deserving of praise.
Mr. Lane, however is not infallible in his judgments, so if you believe he is wrong, you have the right to form your own judgment based on the evidence available.
We are not talking here about matters of Faith, just about the assessment of certain individuals. There can be reasonable disagreements on these types of matters.
-
Thanks for the IA link.
Fr. C and Mr. Lane do a great job of pointing out how each other's theories are unworkable.
One is therefore left with two alternatives.
1.) The Church has failed
2.) BXVI is the Pope and current bishops are valid with jurisdiction.
-
Thanks for the IA link.
Fr. C and Mr. Lane do a great job of pointing out how each other's theories are unworkable.
One is therefore left with two alternatives.
1.) The Church has failed
2.) BXVI is the Pope and current bishops are valid with jurisdiction.
Fr. Cekada has done no such thing. He badgered Mr. Lane into showing him a bishop who has jurisdiction, but that is not necessary to prove the principle.
The principle is clear. It is taught by all of the theologians, and by the Vatican Council. It is beyond dispute. The hierarchy is essential to the Church and must continue until the end of the world.
It is possible to find the hierarchy, but it may take some time, the matter is obscured at present. But, because something is obscured it does not mean it does not exist.
The hierarchy is visible, it is just less visible. It is not shining brightly as it did in the days of Pope Pius XII. Their number is greatly diminished. It will take work to identify and find them, but it remains possible for those seeking to do so.
If someone states that the entire hierarchy can cease to exist even for a period of time, they have made a heretical statement.
To answer your alternatives:
1. The Church has not failed. The hierarchy is still present in the world along with clergy an laity. It is greatly reduced in number, but it is still identical with the Church of all ages in its essential Divine Constitution.
2. Benedict XVI and his predecessors have proven themselves to be heretics and enemies of the Church, they have falsely tried to bind Catholics to evil laws, teachings and sacraments. They cannot be Popes for two reasons, if they were popes, that would mean the Church has failed as there is a direct violation of Her indefectibility and Her holiness, and secondly they are public heretics who have defected from the Faith, which is provable by their words, writings and actions.
-
The sedevacantist thesis is indeed obscured at present.
Very obscured.
Fr. C and Mr. Lane's exchange shows the depths to which this thesis leads Catholics: debating whose private interpretation is correct on an Internet message board proof texting each other with quotes from theologians to do so. It was like watching two Prots go at it. Complete and utter confusion. Is this the fruit of the Church The Lord left us to lead us into all Truth? Lane and Fr. C arguing on IA.
I must say one thing re: Fr. C. It sure takes some brass to call out the other guy's theory for lacking a visible Church when your own theory is worse in that regard. I'm surprised nobody called him on it.
This is what happens when we jump to false conclusions. BW at least has one thing right. BXVI is the pope. The alternative is the ridiculous notion that the universal Church has given consent to 5 men being pope for over 50+ years in complete error. Even this statement is an impossibility as a pope is valid even after an irregular election with the consent of the rest of the Church. ABL even recognized this. If we at least start from the obvious - we have a visible Church - we won't go down such fruitless and absurd blind alleys.
-
There's no point having a visible Church if it is no longer Catholic.
In case of necessity, jurisdiction will be supplied as it is needed.
-
There's no point having a visible Church if it is no longer Catholic.
In case of necessity, jurisdiction will be supplied as it is needed.
It seems to me that jurisdiction is a much more difficult concept to grasp
than the visibility of the Church is.
I know several trads who have no problem with the visibility issue, and
they go around proclaiming that the Church must be visible because
so-and-so said so. But when you try to talk to them about jurisdiction,
they go mute and usually try to change the topic.
And then all you have to say is the phrase, "supplied jurisdiction," and
the whole room shuts up. It's like a skunk at a lawn party.
Speaking of which, how does this pertain to what Fr. Laisney said about
+W's ecclesiology?
And FWIW, now that +W is on the receiving end of Fr. Laisney's poisoned
pen, maybe he can appreciate now what it was like for Fr. Leonard
Feeney who received similar badmouthing from Fr. L. in the past. Of
course, Fr. L. is not above actively participating with Novus Ordo
liturgies, is he? Let's all agree that "we're near a light bulb," that is,
unless you're Fr. Hector Bolduc, Fr. Leonard Feeney or Bishop Richard
Williamson!
One fine day, their names will be cleared, but in the meantime, John XXIII
and JPII are called "Blessed," and Paul VI is somehow well on his way.
Wonders never cease!
-
The sedevacantist thesis is indeed obscured at present.
Very obscured.
Fr. C and Mr. Lane's exchange shows the depths to which this thesis leads Catholics: debating whose private interpretation is correct on an Internet message board proof texting each other with quotes from theologians to do so. It was like watching two Prots go at it. Complete and utter confusion. Is this the fruit of the Church The Lord left us to lead us into all Truth? Lane and Fr. C arguing on IA.
I must say one thing re: Fr. C. It sure takes some brass to call out the other guy's theory for lacking a visible Church when your own theory is worse in that regard. I'm surprised nobody called him on it.
This is what happens when we jump to false conclusions. BW at least has one thing right. BXVI is the pope. The alternative is the ridiculous notion that the universal Church has given consent to 5 men being pope for over 50+ years in complete error. Even this statement is an impossibility as a pope is valid even after an irregular election with the consent of the rest of the Church. ABL even recognized this. If we at least start from the obvious - we have a visible Church - we won't go down such fruitless and absurd blind alleys.
I really do not think you read the thread carefully. Mr. Lane did demonstrate the Church's teaching that the hierarchy must continue uninterrupted until the end of time. This is the doctrine as taught by Vatican Council and the consensus of the theologians. (and I may add all theologians, there is no minority view against this.)
Fr. Cekada on his side only attacks Mr. Lane's defense of Catholic dogma by contesting that the apparent facts of the crisis appear to not support this dogma.
Is it really Mr. Lane or anyone's duty to show Fr. Cekada a member of the hierarchy? If you think so, then you are arguing an absurdity. Our duty as Catholics is to profess our Faith, we are under no obligation to present facts to prove our Faith.
If a Protestant says to you: prove that Our Lord is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. Are you bound to present proofs of this, or merely to defend the truth that Our Lord is truly present? It is a matter of Faith that the hierarchy must continue to the end of the world. John Lane witnessed to that truth. He is not bound to demonstrate a fact to prove the dogma, only to witness to the truth. It is for Fr. Cekada to give his complete interior assent to this dogma, and he owes Mr. Lane a debt of gratitude for witnessing this truth to him.
To your other point, the universal Church has not agreed with the heresies of the false "popes." Their heresies have been rejected from the start by a significant amount of Catholics, even by many who considered them to be pope. There has been no universal acceptance of false doctrine.
This can be shown even by the SSPX, they call these men popes, but in reality they have consistently rejected their teachings on every heretical proposition.
Lastly, we have a visible Church, and its visibility is retained by the hierarchy and the laity. These numbers are greatly reduced, but the essential elements are here, and that is all that matters.
-
Jurisdiction is ordinary when it is attached to an episcopal office, a diocesan see. Only a Pope can install a Bishop into a diocese. This is his prerogative alone by divine right as well as his power alone as Vicar of Christ who possesses universal jurisdiction. A Bishop so installed possesses jurisdiction as a habitual state.
On the contrary, for Bishops who do not possess such jurisdiction, and priests subordinate to them, jurisdiction is supplied by the Church for and only for those sacramental acts which are of such a nature that jurisdiction is required for their valid completion, in particular, penance and holy matrimony.
Jurisdiction is supplied individually for each instance, as and when it is needed, no matter how many times it is needed, but even a 1000 instances where jurisdiction is supplied for sacramental acts do not constitute habitual or ordinary jurisdiction.
Pope Pius XII said, "Ordinary power of jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Roman Pontiff". Cardinal Franzelin says
"The highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belongs to no one while the See is vacant"
The practical conclusion is that Bishops consecrated during the interregnum period - the sede vacante - would not possess ordinary jurisdiction.
And this is the fundamental problem the sedevacantists have, and the reason they need to construct interesting theories to avoid the logical and inevitable conclusion - the Church cannot carry on indefinitely without the person of the Supreme Pontiff, for her hierarchical structure would be irremediably altered, as even John Lane concedes.
Some sedevacantists saw this problem and turned to electing Popes, they had pretty good reasons to do so. Unfortunately for them, that was pretty bad overall for other obvious reasons.
Whereas the SSPX position is at a disctinct advantage since they can indeed carry on indefinitely for however long they need to operating under supplied jurisdiction and providing the sacraments for the salvation of souls.
-
I'm not taking Fr. C's side by any means. I think his argument was more absurd.
"Hey we have a potential Church! Good enough!"
Lane had his own problems. The hidden Trad bishop with jurisdiction lurking somewhere is the "visible" Church?
I think Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is true.
I think that's where sedes should look. BXVI is pope. It's the only route that makes sense and is left after eliminating all sede theses due to impossibility.
-
Did Fr Laisney ever answer the questions put to him by 'Veritas 1961'? This attack on Bishop Williamson is to be expected.
-
Nishant,
I think you misunderstand what John Lane has said on this point. He is not saying that the jurisdiction is supplied to the bishop giving him jurisdiciton, he is saying the act of appointment of a bishop by the anti-pope is supplied by the Church due to common error.
The argument goes thus: The jurisdiction for the anti-pope's appointment of bishops would be supplied on a case by case basis for the common good of the faithful and due to the common error about the status of the anti-pope.
-
Thanks, Ambrose--I think you helped me to understand a topic I have a hard time grasping. I am not sure I understood John Lane on this subject myself until just now.
-
I'm not taking Fr. C's side by any means. I think his argument was more absurd.
"Hey we have a potential Church! Good enough!"
Lane had his own problems. The hidden Trad bishop with jurisdiction lurking somewhere is the "visible" Church?
I think Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is true.
I think that's where sedes should look. BXVI is pope. It's the only route that makes sense and is left after eliminating all sede theses due to impossibility.
I am happy that you see the absurdity of Father Cekada's arguments, but you seem to act as though your position is safe and sound.
If the Vatican II popes are really popes, then by that logic, the Novus Ordo is a good and holy rite of the Church. The Code of Canon law is also good as no evil can be given by the Church. The teachings of Vatican II would contain no heresy. The encyclicals would all be safe as well.
The sedevacante position is not one of impossibility. You seem to be saying that because there are difficulties in fact, that the theology is unsound.
Have you ever thought of this: If you believe that the Conciliar bishops are the visible hierarchy, then Catholics would be bound to believe them on matters of Faith, as they would be authorized witnesses of the Faith, the successors of the Apostles.
The modern ideas on resistance to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are novelties developed in the 1970's to justify a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.
-
Just to be clear, Elizabeth, the principle of supplied jurisdiction is not at issue, just the extent of its application. Everyone agrees jurisdiction is supplied for sacramental acts when this is required, but John Lane goes slightly beyond that.
Ambrose, right. I understand John Lane's view. I think there are at least three principal problems with his theory - I mentioned one above.
1. Ordinary jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope. This is a Papal power alone, a consequence of his universal jurisdiction.
2. The Papal power does not exist at all in the Church during an interregnum. Consequently, prerogatives of the Papacy cannot be supplied at all by the Church during the sede vacante period.
The first is from Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Cajetan and numerous others. The second likewise from Cardinal Franzelin and several others.
The conclusion follows that ordinary jurisdiction cannot continue to be transmitted at all in the absence of the living person of the Pope - not just the empty seat. Cardinal Cajetan says Christ always sends His power first on the Head and only then to the rest of the body, so her Bishops cannot receive ordinary jurisdiction at all without a Pope.
For reasons John Lane himself most eloquently mentions contra Fr.Cekada, this leads to the conclusion that a sede vacante comprising the last 50 years or more does not seem possible. Fr.Cekada in turn pointed this out to him.
This is a primary reason the SSPX does not embrace sedevacantism - it leads to the precise conclusion John Lane himself deplores and tries unsuccessfully to evade.
-
If the Vatican II popes are really popes, then by that logic, the Novus Ordo is a good and holy rite of the Church. The Code of Canon law is also good as no evil can be given by the Church. The teachings of Vatican II would contain no heresy. The encyclicals would all be safe as well.
I understood that all popes were pope until declared otherwise by an Ecuмenical Council...usually posthumously?
The Church only teaches infallibly when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, so it is possible for a legitimate pope to promulgate error. That could include the NO Mass, Codes of Canon Law and the docuмents of Vatican II.
It's worth mentioning that Vatican II taught nothing. Both John XIII and Paul VI declared it a pastoral council and that any teachings would be explicitly declared as such. No declarations were made, so Vatican II taught nothing and declared no new doctrine.
-
There was a very good article published a few years back which answered the question about the teaching of Vatican II by John Daly. I present it below:
Did Vatican II Teach Infallibly?
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267#p8267
-
Deceivers always say "I just want to look at your book collection" then later that night after they have left you noticed that your prized tomes are all gone.
In short, Vatican II was the pastoral council that became a Superdogma and, in actual practice, it is as if the clock for the church was reset to zero Vatican II onward.
If it was just pastoral, why were the changes to the mass, the sacraments and even the ordinations issued and implemented everywhere? I mean everywhere!
Is it true that John XXIII publicly stated that the Church has no enemies?
-
To readers of this post,
I am sorry for the change of topic (BW's ecclesiology to sedevacantism). I should have asked Ambrose to state his positions on a new thread in the Church Crisis section; but what is done is done.
Ambrose,
From your statements I see you are of a very similar position as that held by Gerry Matatics, the well known Catholic apologist. He convinced me also of those views for a short time, until I realized they are not truly Catholic, or universal. What I mean is, the sedevacantist theories can only appeal to people or countries that are generally literate (able to read all the different papal bulls, theological treatises, Denzinger, etc.). Christ founded His religion to be fully understood and lived by the educated and illiterate alike. This, among other reasons, is why I cannot adhere to the sedevacantist position. But let each of us work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and, as my mother once humorously put it, "with fear and suffering"; for the road to truth is indeed painful and laborious.
Please pray for me, as I will do also for you.
-
Just to be clear, Elizabeth, the principle of supplied jurisdiction is not at issue, just the extent of its application. Everyone agrees jurisdiction is supplied for sacramental acts when this is required, but John Lane goes slightly beyond that.
Ambrose, right. I understand John Lane's view. I think there are at least three principal problems with his theory - I mentioned one above.
1. Ordinary jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope. This is a Papal power alone, a consequence of his universal jurisdiction.
2. The Papal power does not exist at all in the Church during an interregnum. Consequently, prerogatives of the Papacy cannot be supplied at all by the Church during the sede vacante period.
The first is from Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Cajetan and numerous others. The second likewise from Cardinal Franzelin and several others.
The conclusion follows that ordinary jurisdiction cannot continue to be transmitted at all in the absence of the living person of the Pope - not just the empty seat. Cardinal Cajetan says Christ always sends His power first on the Head and only then to the rest of the body, so her Bishops cannot receive ordinary jurisdiction at all without a Pope.
For reasons John Lane himself most eloquently mentions contra Fr.Cekada, this leads to the conclusion that a sede vacante comprising the last 50 years or more does not seem possible. Fr.Cekada in turn pointed this out to him.
This is a primary reason the SSPX does not embrace sedevacantism - it leads to the precise conclusion John Lane himself deplores and tries unsuccessfully to evade.
It seems to me that you are arguing that there is a limit to the supplied jurisdiction of the Church, even when all of the conditions are met given by the theologians. Does this summarize your position?
-
To readers of this post,
I am sorry for the change of topic (BW's ecclesiology to sedevacantism). I should have asked Ambrose to state his positions on a new thread in the Church Crisis section; but what is done is done.
Ambrose,
From your statements I see you are of a very similar position as that held by Gerry Matatics, the well known Catholic apologist. He convinced me also of those views for a short time, until I realized they are not truly Catholic, or universal. What I mean is, the sedevacantist theories can only appeal to people or countries that are generally literate (able to read all the different papal bulls, theological treatises, Denzinger, etc.). Christ founded His religion to be fully understood and lived by the educated and illiterate alike. This, among other reasons, is why I cannot adhere to the sedevacantist position. But let each of us work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and, as my mother once humorously put it, "with fear and suffering"; for the road to truth is indeed painful and laborious.
Please pray for me, as I will do also for you.
Nathan,
Ecclesiology and the current state of the Papacy are strongly related. I have met Gerry Matatics and have attended numerous lectures by him in past years.
Sedevacantism is not only for educated people. Catholics are being confronted with the greatest crisis of the Church. In the Western Schism, there were educated Catholics who tried to work out the problems and there were simple laypeople. The same is for today. There are those who have access to Church docuмents and the theologians and the time to study them and there are other Catholics who either lack the resources or the time.
You are acting as though adherence to sedevacantism is essential to the Faith or is necessary for salvation. Neither are true. Sedevacantism is a response to the crisis which systematically answers how this could have happened and how it can be end. There are errors even among some sedevacantists, so this makes this all the more complicated.
There are no easy answers in the crisis. Confusion is the order of the day. Until a Pope once again reigns, this will only get worse. Catholics will keep dividing over one issue or another. Faith and charity unite Catholics, but without a government to maintain that unity, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, Catholic unity will keep breaking down.
If a Catholic does not accept sedevacantism, then he is gravely disadvantaged in understanding a Catholic response to the crisis. He will be torn constantly between principles that pull him one way or the other. For example, the Church teaches that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation, but, to submit oneself to these anti-popes in the way Catholics are required to submit to the Pope, will lead to a loss o Faith.
-
If the Vatican II popes are really popes, then by that logic, the Novus Ordo is a good and holy rite of the Church. The Code of Canon law is also good as no evil can be given by the Church. The teachings of Vatican II would contain no heresy. The encyclicals would all be safe as well.
I believe all this to be true.
I should qualify that as to the Mass, I mean the official Latin text of the NO w/ the Roman Canon. I'm not referring to optional concessions by the legislating "church" such as altar girls, etc. I believe that this, at minimum, is not a sinful rite and conveys grace. Nothing in the official text of the NO is heretical.
What is evil in the new Code?
The teachings of VCII do not contain heresy. Parts are ambiguous, but can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
The sedevacante position is not one of impossibility. You seem to be saying that because there are difficulties in fact, that the theology is unsound.
I think sedevacantism doesn't see the forest for the trees. Sedevacantists are so busy discussing whether aliens come from Mars or Venus that none of them stop to think that aliens may not exist.
Have you ever thought of this: If you believe that the Conciliar bishops are the visible hierarchy, then Catholics would be bound to believe them on matters of Faith, as they would be authorized witnesses of the Faith, the successors of the Apostles.
Catholics are bound to believe the Pope when he speaks infallibly. When he is merely teaching on the ordinary level, we are simply required to give a certain form of assent, but not 100% adherence of faith.
The modern ideas on resistance to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are novelties developed in the 1970's to justify a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.
It has always been Catholic teaching from the beginning to resist legitimate authority in matters of sin and error and lack of prudence. St. Paul resisted Peter, the Pope in the NT.
-
Sedevacantists are so busy discussing whether aliens come from Mars or Venus that none of them stop to think that aliens may not exist.
This is a pretty senseless statement.
Sedevacantists understand that the leaders of Catholic actually have to manifest the Catholic Faith. That they can't set up organized apostasy inside the Church.
-
Sedevacantists understand that the leaders of Catholic actually have to manifest the Catholic Faith. That they can't set up organized apostasy inside the Church.
A lot of sedevacantists thinks that the leaders of the Catholic Church must manifest those sedevacantists' own particular vision of the Catholic Faith.
-
Here, for instance, is Fr.Ramon Angles of the SSPX establishing some principles I think we all accept.
When we speak about "jurisdiction" we are actually referring to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction or government ...
This suppliance is to be conceived as a delegation by the law, delegatio a iure. The active subject of this extraordinary delegation is the common law, in the sense that is disposed in the legislation. The power is given not habitually but in actu: the agent does not possess the power before he uses it, nor does he retain it afterwards: he possesses it by delegation of the law only as long as it is necessary for the valid exercise of the act.
The Church supplies only those things which pertain to the state and condition of persons, but not the formalities required by the law for the validity of acts. Also, the Church can supply only the power which is entrusted to her, not what is required by divine or natural law (example: a layman cannot receive supplied jurisdiction to hear confessions; he is not a priest).
Note well. The Church supplies the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Bishops and priests who are deprived of ordinary jurisdiction and perform sacramental acts that require jurisdiction. But she does not possess the power of Papal jurisdiction to supply this to non-sacramental acts of appointment of Bishops to dioceses in a sede vacante. If she did, the statement of Pope Pius XII and the theologians would not be true, that the living head is a necessary channel for a new member of the episcopal body to receive ordinary jurisdiction.
The Church cannot supply prerogatives of the Papal power during a sede vacante. The Church does not have that power at all during this time, as Cardinal Franzelin said. Only when there is a living Pope can a Bishop receive the episcopal office and the ordinary jurisdiction attached to it.
John Lane is essentially claiming that the office itself is supplied! But by the very nature of supplied jurisdiction, the agent does not possess habitual jurisdiction before or after the act for which jurisdiction was supplied. This we read in all the canonists.
So if an interregnum is indefinitely extended, we will eventually be left with the "potential Church" of Fr.Cekada, an idea John Lane rightly rejects, though his own position ultimately leads to it.
-
A lot of sedevacantists thinks that the leaders of the Catholic Church must manifest those sedevacantists' own particular vision of the Catholic Faith.
Neo-modernism is not the Catholic Faith.
-
Ambrose,
I am afraid you've confused me. First you stated that:
Sedevacantism is not only for educated people.
then you repeat my distinction:
In the Western Schism, there were educated Catholics who tried to work out the problems and there were simple laypeople. The same is for today. There are those who have access to Church docuмents and the theologians and the time to study them and there are other Catholics who either lack the resources or the time.
Then you conclude that those of us, believing ourselves to be unqualified to actually find the right explanation to current Church crisis, are disadvantaged Catholics:
If a Catholic does not accept sedevacantism, then he is gravely disadvantaged in understanding a Catholic response to the crisis.
(All emphases mine)
God has always raised up men (usually bishops) to resist erring or weak popes, and to "pass on what they had received". The two most significant instances are Paul vs. Peter, and Anthanasius vs. Liberius, although there have been others that were less important. This proves the Church is not a dictatorship.
I am not a theologian, but I have another way of knowing how to judge; a method we were given by Our Lord Jesus Christ: the Tree's Fruit Test.
Challenge: who can show me a movement that has produced more fruit in the last fifty years than that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
Just as Christ did not give us a Bible to figure out Catholicism by ourselves, so He will not simply abandon us during this Crisis with just theological treatises.
-
A lot of sedevacantists thinks that the leaders of the Catholic Church must manifest those sedevacantists' own particular vision of the Catholic Faith.
Neo-modernism is not the Catholic Faith.
Nobody said it was.
-
Nobody said it was.
Father Ratzinger has and does.
-
Father Ratzinger has and does.
Telesphorus,
You will be accountable on judgment day for delegating to yourself the authority and competence to demote the status of our Holy Father to a priest.
-
You will be accountable on judgment day for delegating to yourself the authority and competence to demote the status of our Holy Father to a priest.
Does my statement say he's not Pope?
At any rate, I will stand by the statement that he is a neo-modernist who has denied the core of the Catholic Faith in his writing and who has promoted the teachings of Teilhard in a sermon in Rome.
-
You will be accountable on judgment day for delegating to yourself the authority and competence to demote the status of our Holy Father to a priest.
Does my statement say he's not Pope?
At any rate, I will stand by the statement that he is a neo-modernist who has denied the core of the Catholic Faith in his writing and who has promoted the teachings of Teilhard in a sermon in Rome.
Yes, it did:
Father Ratzinger has and does.
Yes, the pope has taught error as a private theologian, as have several of his predecessors. But we must still respect him as the Successor of Peter. One should at least try to give him the benefit of the doubt when possible that he could be unintentionally mistaken.
-
He's no longer the same person?
Sermons praising the theology of Teilhard are not the acts of a private theologian.
-
Ambrose,
I am afraid you've confused me. First you stated that:
Sedevacantism is not only for educated people.
then you repeat my distinction:
In the Western Schism, there were educated Catholics who tried to work out the problems and there were simple laypeople. The same is for today. There are those who have access to Church docuмents and the theologians and the time to study them and there are other Catholics who either lack the resources or the time.
Then you conclude that those of us, believing ourselves to be unqualified to actually find the right explanation to current Church crisis, are disadvantaged Catholics:
If a Catholic does not accept sedevacantism, then he is gravely disadvantaged in understanding a Catholic response to the crisis.
(All emphases mine)
God has always raised up men (usually bishops) to resist erring or weak popes, and to "pass on what they had received". The two most significant instances are Paul vs. Peter, and Anthanasius vs. Liberius, although there have been others that were less important. This proves the Church is not a dictatorship.
I am not a theologian, but I have another way of knowing how to judge; a method we were given by Our Lord Jesus Christ: the Tree's Fruit Test.
Challenge: who can show me a movement that has produced more fruit in the last fifty years than that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
Just as Christ did not give us a Bible to figure out Catholicism by ourselves, so He will not simply abandon us during this Crisis with just theological treatises.
Nathan,
I am sorry if what I wrote confused you, that was not my intention. My point is that the Church will always be made up the educated and the simple. Our salvation does not depend on our education. A Catholic can save his soul by keeping the Faith and dying in the state of grace regardless of whether or not he is a sedevacantist.
If one holds anything erroneous, then yes, he is disadvantaged. The truth will set us free! I never said you are unqualified. All Catholics can educate themselves by reading approved texts. Those who seek the truth shall find it.
St. Paul corrected St. Peter about actions on his part that, innocent in and of themselves, caused scandal. St. Paul taught us that we can admonish the Pope on his actions. He did not teach Catholics that they could resist the Pope in his official teaching to the Church or refuse to adhere to the laws given by the Pope for the Church.
To the second point, St. Athanasius never resisted Pope Liberius. Can you show what you mean by this?
Like yourself, I admire the good fruit of the SSPX, but it is a stretch to assume that God has blessed them because they have formed the position that one can ignore the man they call Pope in his teaching and law.
The SSPX have kept the Faith, and they were organized under Archbishop Lefebvre who had already headed a religious order. He was a leader, and he did well in organizing and building up the Society throughout the world.
One part of your equation that you are leaving out was that the Archbishop was very open to sedevacantism and was very seriously weighing the matter. He held this view and he was blessed while holding this position.
I think a better explanation of the the Society's growth and good acts within the Church would better be attributed to their faithfulness to Catholic teaching. They have kept the Faith, and God has blessed them.
-
He's no longer the same person?
Sermons praising the theology of Teilhard are not the acts of a private theologian.
Yes, he is still Joseph Ratzinger. No, because he is now the Rock of Peter.
When the Holy Father gives a sermon to his diocese as the Bishop of Rome, he is acting as a private theologian and not as the Teacher of the Universal Church.
-
When the Holy Father gives a sermon to his diocese as the Bishop of Rome, he is acting as a private theologian and not as the Teacher of the Universal Church.
I don't think such a distinction is valid.
-
Here is the sermon at issue:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090724_vespri-aosta_en.html
What in this is heretical?
-
Here is the sermon at issue:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090724_vespri-aosta_en.html
What in this is heretical?
Teilhard's teachings are, and he is endorsing them.
-
Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?
If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?
-
From Sheen's "Footprints in a Darkened Forest"...
Fulton Sheen: “It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard's ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.”
-
Fr. Chardin's writings were explicitly declared heretical, and under a monitum of the Holy Office in the 1960s! Why must everything Fr. Chardin said be heretical? Even heretics like Luther said correct things.
-
Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?
If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?
What if a Pope gave a sermon quoting all the great heretics in glowing terms, from Arius to Luther to Tolstoy? (about their religious opinions) And he did it in an obscure manner. What should be made of his position?
It isn't valid when they try to evade scrutiny in obscurity and ambiguity.
What is absolutely certain, is that the "cosmic liturgy" Teilhard speaks of is not a Catholic concept.
-
When the Holy Father gives a sermon to his diocese as the Bishop of Rome, he is acting as a private theologian and not as the Teacher of the Universal Church.
I don't think such a distinction is valid.
Then please give me substantial evidence for its invalidity.
-
Then please give me substantial evidence for its invalidity.
You can't claim that the public teachings of the Pope are only authoritative when he uncrosses his finger and says "here, now I'm speaking as Pope"
If a Pope were to deny the articles of the Faith in a sermon (for example, deny that Christ rose from the dead), he is an apostate.
He can't be considered an apostate as a "private theologian."
These aren't just "errors" either. These ideas that are being promoted are fundamentally in opposition to the religion.
-
Then please give me substantial evidence for its invalidity.
You can't claim that the public teachings of the Pope are only authoritative when he uncrosses his finger and says "here, now I'm speaking as Pope"
If a Pope were to deny the articles of the Faith in a sermon (for example, deny that Christ rose from the dead), he is an apostate.
He can't be considered an apostate as a "private theologian."
These aren't just "errors" either. These ideas that are being promoted are fundamentally in opposition to the religion.
These are your opinions. I asked for evidence (historical, theological, etc.). However, since you have failed to provide me any, here is something for you:
Can a Pope Err in Doctrinal, Liturgical & Canonical Matters? (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/i009-PopeErrors-1.htm)
-
From Sheen's "Footprints in a Darkened Forest"...
Fulton Sheen: “It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard's ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.”
If it's true that Fulton Sheen (why the lack of the title in Santo Subito's post?) is true, then he was probably being bombastic or speaking "off the cuff" and winging it.
This quote really puts Bishop Sheen, who toward the end of his life felt bitterly used by the new church, in a bad light.
I guess Teilhard is an intellectual tower when compared with Yves Congar.
What did Bishop Sheen mean by "unfortunate" vocabulary? Was Bishop Sheen troubled by the fact that Teilhard spoke the same words and same phrases as atheists and destroyers?
Santo, what is your favorite Tielhard book?
-
Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?
If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?
Santo, read the following part of the sermon:
The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.
Don't you sense the problem? "Cosmos" and "cosmic" are New Age terms, and de Chardin was a New Ager. The New Age Movement is condemned by the Catholic Church, yet Benedict is approving it in his sermon.
-
Santo Subito wrote:
I should qualify that as to the Mass, I mean the official Latin text of the NO w/ the Roman Canon. I'm not referring to optional concessions by the legislating "church" such as altar girls, etc. I believe that this, at minimum, is not a sinful rite and conveys grace. Nothing in the official text of the NO is heretical.
Have you ever read what is commonly called the Ottaviani intervention:
http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/brief_critical_study_of_the_new_order_of_mass-ottaviani-intervention.pdf
Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci along with the theologians who studied the Novus Ordo Missae stated: "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."
Read the entire critique, it is excellent. The SSPX recently put out a very good critique of the Novus Ordo as well. It is not a Catholic rite.
Santo Subito wrote:
What is evil in the new Code?
Canon 844:
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
taken from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
Santo Subito wrote:
The teachings of VCII do not contain heresy. Parts are ambiguous, but can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
The Principle Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresies.html
-
Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?
If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?
Santo, read the following part of the sermon:
The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.
Don't you sense the problem? "Cosmos" and "cosmic" are New Age terms, and de Chardin was a New Ager. The New Age Movement is condemned by the Catholic Church, yet Benedict is approving it in his sermon.
Thank you for posting the quote from Benedict XVI. It really sums it all up very well.
Benedict XVI thinks the world shall become a living host, a liturgy?
The world is already a liturgy. It's the liturgy of the spiritually dead. The liturgy of the condemned.
-
The Ottaviani intervention was the opinion of two Cardinals
regarding a version of the NO before it was promulgated. I've heard some changes were made since they wrote it and before it was promulgated.
In any case Cardinal Ottaviani later supported the NO in a letter. In any case this was the opinion of two Cardinals (at most). All the rest supported the NO. Am I bound to agree with the opinion of these Cardinals anymore than you are bound to agree with Cardiñal Mahoney?
-
From Sheen's "Footprints in a Darkened Forest"...
Fulton Sheen: “It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard's ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.”
If it's true that Fulton Sheen (why the lack of the title in Santo Subito's post?) is true, then he was probably being bombastic or speaking "off the cuff" and winging it.
This quote really puts Bishop Sheen, who toward the end of his life felt bitterly used by the new church, in a bad light.
I guess Teilhard is an intellectual tower when compared with Yves Congar.
What did Bishop Sheen mean by "unfortunate" vocabulary? Was Bishop Sheen troubled by the fact that Teilhard spoke the same words and same phrases as atheists and destroyers?
Santo, what is your favorite Tielhard book?
Read "Archbishop Fulton Sheen: A Tale of Before and After" at http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_june_2011.htm (http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_june_2011.htm)
-
What is evil or heretical about Canon 844? The key phrase is "provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided." In other words, the Catholic is in no danger of adopting schismatic errors. We are talking about a situation where the option is to receive a valid sacrament from an Orthodox priest or receive none at all. It also says "whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it." What about in the danger of death? You are quickly dying by the side of the road after an auto accident and an Orthodox priest is there and offers to hear your confession. Would it be evil to allow him to?
-
Regarding the "Ottaviani Intervention," a few points:
1.) The "Intervention" was sent to Paul VI in Sept of '69. In Nov of '69 Paul VI addressed some concerns in his General Audience:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM
9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?
10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.
2.) Also, the "Intervention" was written BEFORE the first Latin edition of the Roman Missal appeared in March of 1970. That edition included a doctrinal exposition of the Mass meant to address certain concerns in the "Intervention."
3.) Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the docuмent contained many affirmations that were "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false".[http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf p.21]
4.) A letter of 17 February 1970 signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and addressed to Gerard Lafond, was published in La Docuмentation catholique 67 (1970), pp. 215–216 and 343. It stated:
"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26,[5] after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success."
The letter also expressed regret on the part of the cardinal that his letter of 25 September 1969, which he did not disown, had been published:
"I regret only that my name has been misused in a way I did not wish, by publishing a letter that I wrote to the Holy Father without authorizing anyone to publish it."
I've started a new thread on this topic here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22201
-
Michael Davies, Jean Madiran, and Fr. Cekada both say if that letter of Cardinal Ottaviani's was genuine, it was obtained by deception, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at that time, and his secretary was the one giving him all the letters to be signed.
Also, it doesn't matter what the Pope says concerning the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo. What about the content? Fr. Cekada in his work Work of Human Hands and Michael Davies in his book Pope Paul's New Mass both blast it as liturgical innovation; Fr. Cekada covers more thoroughly the change in the lex orandi which influences lex credendi. Among other things, no more mention of hell (or optional mentions), no mention of soul in the Masses for the Dead, no more mention of the Devil, miracles, etc., and changing the Words of Consecration (what Pope before Paul VI ever dared changing the Words of Consecration?!). The traditional-sounding Instruction was only there to appease conservatives; nothing else changed.
-
What is evil or heretical about Canon 844? The key phrase is "provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided." In other words, the Catholic is in no danger of adopting schismatic errors. We are talking about a situation where the option is to receive a valid sacrament from an Orthodox priest or receive none at all. It also says "whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it." What about in the danger of death? You are quickly dying by the side of the road after an auto accident and an Orthodox priest is there and offers to hear your confession. Would it be evil to allow him to?
The problem is here, Santo:
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Not even a hint of any abjuration of error required. Here is the 1917 Code:
574. As all the Sacraments instituted by our Lord are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, they should be administered and received with great care and reverence.
It is forbidden to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they are in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled to the Church. (Canon 731.)
-
Another thing: the Note Doctrinale Cardinal Ottaviani was alleged to have approved contained calumnies against him. No one in his right mind would approve of such things.
Also, Cardinal Bacci didn't retract his signature, even if Cardinal Ottaviani did (which he didn't; he expressly gave his authorization, which he told 2 individuals on separate occasions).
-
Quo Vadis,
Two things lead me to believe the letter was genuine and not obtained by deception.
1.) Cardinal Ottaviani was also blind in September of 1969 when he signed the intervention, a mere 5 months before the letter to Gerard Lafond. Does this mean the Intervention is of dubious authenticity? In fact he had been blind since VCII. Are any of his other letters suspect due to his blindness?
2.) If Cardinal Ottaviani lent his signature to the Lafond letter mistakenly and through deception, why did he not disavow it at any time from February 1970 until his death in August of 1979?
As for the Mass of Paul VI being liturgical "innovation", Paul VI himself admits it twice in the address I cited! But he sees it as a good innovation. He also assumes, as do most Catholics, that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Mass a disciplinary matter and may make such innovations.
Fr. Cekada is entitled to his opinion, though being a sedevacantist, one naturally takes this into consideration when evaluating his opinion. Fr. Cekada seems to assume the See is vacant and then makes his deductions from this premise. Nevertheless, the words of Paul VI, as pope, in interpreting his own Mass, is a little bit more weighty than the opinion of Fr. Cekada or anyone else regarding said Mass.
You are correct that Michael Davies is highly critical of the Mass of Paul VI. However, in his book "The Church that Cannot Fail" he clarifies that despite his criticisms of that Mass, it cannot possibly be evil in and of itself as the Church could never feed itself poison. Here he is talking of the original Mass of Paul VI in Latin said by the book. He is not talking about the optional novelies that came later (CITH, female altar servers, lay EM's, guitars, etc.)
-
Quo Vadis,
I agree Cardinal Bacci never retracted his signature. However, do we know if he later said the Mass of Paul VI? Interesting question. He may have received a celebret to say the old Mass. He died in Feb 1971 so only a year and a half would be in question.
Still, this would simply mean that Cardinal Bacci had reservations about the New Mass before it was promulgated. After the Mass of Paul VI was instituted, I'm not aware of any writing whereby Cardinal Bacci continued to publicly criticize the Mass. In addition my comment still stands that only two Cardinals expressed reservations before the NO was instituted. Paul VI responded to those in two audiences in Nov of 1969 and the definition of the Mass in the GIRM was changed to alleiviate such concerns in 1970 when the official Latin Text was published. After Nov 1969 public criticism of the NO seems to have ceased from both Cardinals.
What Note Doctrinale are you speaking of that was alleged to have contained calumnies against Cardinal Ottaviani that he approved of? Can you provide a citation?
-
What is evil or heretical about Canon 844? The key phrase is "provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided." In other words, the Catholic is in no danger of adopting schismatic errors. We are talking about a situation where the option is to receive a valid sacrament from an Orthodox priest or receive none at all. It also says "whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it." What about in the danger of death? You are quickly dying by the side of the road after an auto accident and an Orthodox priest is there and offers to hear your confession. Would it be evil to allow him to?
The fact that you have to ask this question tells me that you need to study your faith more.
Do you understand that any receiving of Holy Communion by non-Catholics under any circuмstances is a sacrilege? Do you also understand that any receiving of Holy Communion by Catholics from non-Catholic is a mortal sin?
-
Do you understand that any receiving of Holy Communion by non-Catholics under any circuмstances is a sacrilege? Do you also understand that any receiving of Holy Communion by Catholics from non-Catholic is a mortal sin?
Please cite your authority.
-
All my answers are in the other thread you posted, so any comers here wanting to see them, go to the Ottaviani thread the defender of the post-conciliar Popes started in Crisis in the Church.
-
Do you understand that any receiving of Holy Communion by non-Catholics under any circuмstances is a sacrilege? Do you also understand that any receiving of Holy Communion by Catholics from non-Catholic is a mortal sin?
Please cite your authority.
I'm not speaking for Ambrose but here's one:
GENERAL LAWS OF GOD, FORBIDDING ALL COMMUNICATION
IN RELIGION WITH THOSE OF A FALSE RELIGION
By Bishop George Hay (1729-1811)
Q. What are those laws which prohibit this in general?
A. They are principally these following:
(1) The first is grounded upon the light in which all false religions are considered in the Holy Scripture; for there we are assured that they arise from false teachers, who are called seducers of the people, ravenous wolves, false prophets, who speak perverse things: that they are anti-Christs, and enemies of the cross of Christ; that, departing from the true faith of Christ, they give heed to the spirits of error; that their doctrines are the doctrines of devils, speaking lies; that their ways are pernicious, their heresies damnable, and the like. In consequence of which, this general command of avoiding all communication with them in religion is given by the apostle: "Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers; for what participation hath justice with injustice? or what fellowship hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbelievers? or what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God." (2 Cor. 6:14)
Now it is the true religion of Jesus Christ, the true doctrine of His gospel, which is justice and light; all false doctrines are injustice and darkness; it is by our holy faith that we belong to Christ, and are temples of the living God; all false religions flow from the father of lies, and make those who embrace them unbelievers; therefore all participation, all fellowship, all communication with false religions, is here expressly forbidden by the Word of God. We have seen above 2 that we are obliged to love the persons of those who are engaged in false religions, to wish them well, and to do them good; but here we are expressly forbidden all communication in their religion — that is, in their false tenets, and worship. Hence the learned and pious English divines who published at Rheims their translation of the New Testament, in their note upon this passage, say: "Generally, here is forbidden conversation and dealing with unbelievers in prayers, or meetings at their schismatical service, or other divine office whatsoever; which the apostle here uttereth in more particular terms, that Christian people may take the better heed of it."
(2) The next general command to avoid all religious communication with those who are heretics, or have a false religion, is this, — "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, AVOID; knowing that he that is such a one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." (Tit. 3:10)
Here we see another general command to avoid all such — that is, to flee from them, to have no communication with them. But in what are we commanded to flee from them? Not as to their persons, or the necessary communications of society; for then, as the same holy apostle says upon a similar occasion, "You must needs go out of the world." [1] Cor. 5:10) Not as to the offices of Christian charity; for these we are commanded by Christ himself, in the person of the good Samaritan, to give to all mankind, whatever their religion be: therefore, in the most restricted and limited sense which the words can bear, the thing in which we are commanded to avoid them is in all matters of religion; in that in which they themselves are subverted and sin; in things relating to God and His service. In these they err, in these they are subverted, in these they are condemned; therefore in these we must avoid them.
Hence the pious translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note on this text, say, "Heretics, therefore, must not wonder if we warn all Catholics, by the words of the apostle in this place, to take heed of them, and to shun their preachings, books, and conventicles."
(3) A third general command on this subject is manifestly included in this zealous injunction of the apostle: "We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us." (2 Thes. 3:6)
In this passage, all the different sects of false religions are particularly pointed out; for, however they may differ in other respects they generally agree in this, of rejecting apostolical traditions handed down to us by the Church of Christ; all such the apostle here charges us, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid — to withdraw ourselves from them. Now it is evident that the most limited sense in which this command, so warmly laid on us by the apostle, can be taken, is to withdraw ourselves from them in everything relating to religion, — from their sacraments, prayers, preachings, religious meetings, and the like. It is in these things that they "do not walk according to the tradition received from the apostles". In these things, then, we are here commanded, in the name of Christ Himself, "to withdraw ourselves from them".
Seeing, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of this holy apostle, has so often, and in such strong terms, forbidden all manner of fellowship in religion with those who are out of His holy Church, let us not be deceived by the specious but vain sophistry of cunning men, who lie in wait to deceive; let us not offend our God, by transgressing these His express commands, by joining in the prayers or going to the meetings of such as are separated from His holy Church, lest He should withdraw His holy grace from US, and as we expose ourselves to the danger, leave us to perish in it.
Let us hear and follow the advice and command of the same holy apostle: "As therefore ye have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in Him; rooted and built up in Him, and confirmed in the faith; as also ye have learned, abounding in Him in thanksgiving. Beware lest any man impose upon you by philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:6) Wherefore, to all those arguments which may be brought from human, worldly, or interested motives, to induce us to join in or to partake of any religious duty with those of a false religion, though in appearance only, we ought to oppose this one, — "God has expressly forbidden it, therefore no human power can make it lawful."
PARTICULAR LAWS OF GOD FORBIDDING ALL COMMUNICATION
WITH FALSE RELIGIONS, AND ASSIGNING REASONS FOR IT
Q. What are the particular laws on this subject?
A. In the three general commands above mentioned, God Almighty speaks, by the mouth of His holy apostle, as Lord and Master, and lays His orders upon us absolutely. In what follows, He unites the merciful Savior to the Sovereign; and whilst He no less strictly commands us to avoid all religious communication with those who are separated from His holy Faith and Church, He at the same time condescends to engage our obedience, by showing us the strongest reasons for it.
(1) "Beware of false prophets", says our blessed Master, "who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". (Mat. 7:5) Here Jesus Christ commands His followers to "beware of false prophets" — that is, to flee from them, to be on their guard against them; and He adds this powerful motive, "Lest ye be seduced and ruined by them"; for, whatever appearance of godliness they may put on, though they come to you in the clothing of sheep, yet within they are ravenous wolves, and seek only to slay and to destroy.
To the same purpose He says in another place, "Take heed that no man seduce you; for many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and they will seduce many." (Mat. 24:4) "And many false prophets shall arise and seduce many." (ver. 2) Here He foretells the cunning of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them, and commands us to take care of ourselves, that such be not our fate.
But how shall we escape from them? He afterwards tells us how: do not believe them, have nothing to do with them, have no communication, with them. "Then", He says, "if any man shall say, to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Behold. I have told it you beforehand. If therefore, they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out; behold he is in the closet, believe it not." (Mat. 24:23)
Can there be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of His command, or a stronger motive to induce His followers to have no religious communication with such false teachers? Many will be certainly seduced by them; and so will you, if you expose yourself to the danger.
(2) St. Peter, considering the great mercy bestowed upon us by the grace of our vocation to the true faith of Christ, says, that it is our duty to "declare the praises and virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His admirable light". (1 Pet. 2:9) St. Paul also exhorts us to "give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and "departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils". (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they "have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts". (Eph. 4:18)
On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. "Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,
. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness". (Eph. 5:6)
Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.
(3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent". (Rom. 16:17)
See here whom we are to avoid — "those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine"; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by "pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.
(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, "having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" then he immediately gives this command: "Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires"; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth"; because, as he adds, "they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith". (2 Tim. 3:5)
Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, "Now these avoid", though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others.
(5) Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)
Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better.
Q. These laws are very clear and strong; but has the Christian church always observed and enforced the observance of them?
A. The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jєωs, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63)
So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated". (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73)
The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that "no man can serve two masters; we cannot serve God and Mammon;" and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy apostle has protested that there can be no "participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever;" and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith.
Footnotes:
1. The Sincere Christian pp. 474 -533, James Duffey and Son, Dublin
2. Ibid.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info
-
SJB,
The non-Catholic in both 844 3 & 4 must be "properly disposed." What does this mean?
Also the 1917 Code provision is still the general rule in the 1983 Code. Canon 844 simply carves out very precise circuмstances whereby the Orthodox can receive and even more precise circuмstances of danger of death or grave necessity whereby non-Catholic Christians can.
Regardless, I fail to see how these provisions of the '83 Code are per se heretical, thus proving that the See is vacant or that the Church could not have promulgated them.
-
Please keep out the sede stuff here. This forum is for discussing the SSPX-Rome agreement!
-
There were general laws against participating in non-Catholic sacraments and Rites, which makes sense. However, the '83 Code seems to be carving out very careful exceptions to this general rule that only apply to rare circuмstances and it stipulates that the danger of indifferentism must be avoided in doing so.
In other words, if there are circuмstances of necessity the faithful may avail themselves of VALID sacraments from non-Catholic priests for the benefit of the faithful as long as the faithful realizes he/she is still Catholic and this isn't going to put them in danger of apostasy, etc.
This is simply extending the precept that one may receive sacraments from an excommunicated priest in cases of necessity. The '83 Code extends this to valid priests of the Orthodox. The benefit is that the faithful receive a valid sacrament when they otherwise couldn't. The purpose is not to participate in Eastern Orthodoxy, but to receive a valid sacrament.
-
Please keep out the sede stuff here. This forum is for discussing the SSPX-Rome agreement!
Sorry. This line of discussion emanated from the IA discussion between Lane and Cekada re: sedevacantism. I was just explaining my original point in posing these questions. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the Crisis section.
-
Just to be clear, Elizabeth, the principle of supplied jurisdiction is not at issue, just the extent of its application.
Thanks Nishant; I'm a slow learner.
-
Nathan,
I am sorry if what I wrote confused you, that was not my intention. My point is that the Church will always be made up the educated and the simple. Our salvation does not depend on our education. A Catholic can save his soul by keeping the Faith and dying in the state of grace regardless of whether or not he is a sedevacantist.
If one holds anything erroneous, then yes, he is disadvantaged. The truth will set us free! I never said you are unqualified. All Catholics can educate themselves by reading approved texts. Those who seek the truth shall find it.
St. Paul corrected St. Peter about actions on his part that, innocent in and of themselves, caused scandal. St. Paul taught us that we can admonish the Pope on his actions. He did not teach Catholics that they could resist the Pope in his official teaching to the Church or refuse to adhere to the laws given by the Pope for the Church.
To the second point, St. Athanasius never resisted Pope Liberius. Can you show what you mean by this?
Like yourself, I admire the good fruit of the SSPX, but it is a stretch to assume that God has blessed them because they have formed the position that one can ignore the man they call Pope in his teaching and law.
The SSPX have kept the Faith, and they were organized under Archbishop Lefebvre who had already headed a religious order. He was a leader, and he did well in organizing and building up the Society throughout the world.
One part of your equation that you are leaving out was that the Archbishop was very open to sedevacantism and was very seriously weighing the matter. He held this view and he was blessed while holding this position.
I think a better explanation of the the Society's growth and good acts within the Church would better be attributed to their faithfulness to Catholic teaching. They have kept the Faith, and God has blessed them.
"But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11). This vocabulary indicates a little more than just correction or admonishment. It is firm disapproval and opposition to Peter's attempt to please the Jєωs. But you are right, St. Paul resisted St. Peter's scandalous actions, not his official function as pope.
St. Anthanasius firmly opposed Pope Liberius, who signed an official docuмent in 357 professing a semi-Arian faith. He did this practically alone. John Henry Cardinal Newman praises him as a "principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world." Here again, St. Anthanasius did not resist the pope, but rather the pope's errors.
Likewise, never did Archbishop Lefebvre resist the pope's person, but rather the errors of these popes. To resist the pope himself would be schismatic; to resist him inasmuch as he is erring, is a Christian duty.
We do not ignore the pope. We pray for him and his conversion, we applaud him when he is orthodox, and shake our heads when he is not. We only apparently ignore him because he is generally not behaving like a Catholic. Meanwhile, we confidently hold to Christ's promise that He will never abandon His Church, founded on Peter in Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre is never known to have held the sedevacantist position, which John Daly admits in Part I of Sedevacantism: Not Required for Salvation: "[If] we divide the ecclesiastical spectrum into two categories, those for whom the see is legally vacant and those for whom the see is legally occupied, Archbishop Lefebvre will be in the non-sedevacantist camp." Athough Archbishop Lefebvre speculated that the Church could declare these men were not popes in the future, he believed it was far from certain, and not a prudent nor practical solution for the here and now. Rather, he saw the safest route lay in prudent indecision. And while the fruit of the SSPX comes primarily from its having preserved the Faith, I believe it is also due to its faith that Christ will bring His Church out of this crisis, and finally everything will be brought to light.
I want to thank you for having kept a spirit of charity and civility through our interesting conversation. It seems that many people forget that they are actually talking to people on these internet forums.
Here are a few articles, if you are interested. I do not agree with everything the authors say, but they are generally sound:
Mission Infallible: When Is He? When Is He Not? (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst003tuttle.htm)
How a Catholic Should Act in the Face of Bad Popes (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f002ht_BadPopesPCO.htm)
Resisting the Novelties of the Conciliar Church (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst008Somerville.htm)
-
SJB,
The non-Catholic in both 844 3 & 4 must be "properly disposed." What does this mean?
Also the 1917 Code provision is still the general rule in the 1983 Code. Canon 844 simply carves out very precise circuмstances whereby the Orthodox can receive and even more precise circuмstances of danger of death or grave necessity whereby non-Catholic Christians can.
Regardless, I fail to see how these provisions of the '83 Code are per se heretical, thus proving that the See is vacant or that the Church could not have promulgated them.
Yes, what does it mean? According to the 1917 CIC, the non-Catholic must be reconciled to the Church before receiving the Sacraments of the Church. This is consistent with all other Catholic teaching on the subject of communion and the Sacraments.
-
According to the 1917 CIC, the non-Catholic must be reconciled to the Church before receiving the Sacraments of the Church. This is consistent with all other Catholic teaching on the subject of communion and the Sacraments.
...And this can be accomplished, when a person is dying (and thus the
state of emergency obviously exists without question), by a priest, even
a priest without ordinary jurisdiction (because due to the emergency
jurisdiction is supplied to the priest by God directly without any need of
papal decree or official CIC approval - nor could any legitimate and valid
law of the Church ever interfere with such supplied jurisdiction). And all
the priest has to do is ask the dying person: Would you like to become
Catholic, so you can enjoy eternal beatitude in heaven forever with God
and all the saints?
Or some such words - the point is, he evokes the desire of the dying
person to be reconciled to the Church. An affirmative answer is sufficient
for the priest to proceed. At that point, all he needs to do is ask if the
dying person has been baptized. If the answer is no, or maybe so, or "I
don't know," then the priest will ask the person if he would like to be
baptized and then be able to go to heaven. If the answer is yes, then
the priest can give conditional baptism, and, if there is still time, can hear
his confession, if it is possible that he had been baptized validly in the
past, for then his sins would not have been forgiven with the conditional
baptism, as it would have been nil.
There have been numerous such deathbed conversions.
But no one should wait for their last moments before being baptized, just
to be a recipient of this great grace, for that itself is a sin of presumption.
And it should come as no surprise that one may find his presumption to
result in his not receiving holy Baptism at his last moments as he had
planned for so many years.
-
According to the 1917 CIC, the non-Catholic must be reconciled to the Church before receiving the Sacraments of the Church. This is consistent with all other Catholic teaching on the subject of communion and the Sacraments.
...And this can be accomplished, when a person is dying (and thus the
state of emergency obviously exists without question), by a priest, even
a priest without ordinary jurisdiction (because due to the emergency
jurisdiction is supplied to the priest by God directly without any need of
papal decree or official CIC approval - nor could any legitimate and valid
law of the Church ever interfere with such supplied jurisdiction). And all
the priest has to do is ask the dying person: Would you like to become
Catholic, so you can enjoy eternal beatitude in heaven forever with God
and all the saints?
Or some such words - the point is, he evokes the desire of the dying
person to be reconciled to the Church. An affirmative answer is sufficient
for the priest to proceed. At that point, all he needs to do is ask if the
dying person has been baptized. If the answer is no, or maybe so, or "I
don't know," then the priest will ask the person if he would like to be
baptized and then be able to go to heaven. If the answer is yes, then
the priest can give conditional baptism, and, if there is still time, can hear
his confession, if it is possible that he had been baptized validly in the
past, for then his sins would not have been forgiven with the conditional
baptism, as it would have been nil.
There have been numerous such deathbed conversions.
But no one should wait for their last moments before being baptized, just
to be a recipient of this great grace, for that itself is a sin of presumption.
And it should come as no surprise that one may find his presumption to
result in his not receiving holy Baptism at his last moments as he had
planned for so many years.
This isn't a question of jurisdiction of the priest, it's whether some form of abjuration is required before a baptized heretic or schismatic can receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Only Catholics can receive this Sacrament. The idea that a non-Catholic, as a non-Catholic , can receive Holy Communion is alien to the teaching of the Church and the very definition of communion.
-
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
The idea of some kind of "partial communion" is also alien to Catholic teaching and the definition of membership given in Mystici Corporis.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?
Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
-
What does Fr. Laisney hope to prove by attacking a strawman, when +Williamson is saying the same thing is he is? False characterization of +Williamson's opposition to the current SSPX leadership?
Fr. Laisney is saying the exact opposite of what +Williamson is saying.
Furthermore, there is no straw man in Fr. Laisney's rebuttal. He may be giving a more coherent account of +W's position that HE himself does (the latter is no theologian), but he does not misrepresent +W's position.
+Williamson is saying that the true Catholic Church (that which possesses the four marks or notes) is a part of the visible Church. Fr. L is saying what the Church has always taught: that the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church and the visible Church are one and the same thing, containing both wheat and cockle; and it is that Church as a whole, and not some "pure" part of it that possesses the four marks. He sets that all out quite clearly in his rebuttal of +W.
As for Telephorus's alleged killer quote about the visible Church, what Abp. Lefebvre was opposing there was the argument that Rome must be obeyed even when what it required was at odds with the good of the Church, because it was the visible Church. Saying that the SSPX had the four marks was rhetoric of the moment, not theology. The Abp. was not saying that the SSPX and its faithful and allies were the real Church (+W's sound part of the apple) and modernist-tainted Rome something else (the rotten part of the apple). If that were true, it would make no sense for ABL to seek regularization with Rome, as he did for years, and was prepared to do after 1988 if and when Rome was willing to do so.
It is interesting that as noted further down this string, the SVist Bellarmine Forum seems to be defending +W. They must recognize the same thing that Fr. Laisney and +W's other non-SVist critics see: that the implication of Bishop Williamson's position is SVism. It is also interesting that Fr. Cekada, another and more learned SVist who has been posted on IA lately, pays +W no attention at all. My guess is that Fr. C has concluded that there is nothing of interest in +W's ecclesiology. Furthermore, if that's what Fr. C thinks, he's right. It is just a not very carefully worked-out rationalization of +W's rejection of dealings with Rome -- and with Bishop Fellay.
-
As for Telephorus's alleged killer quote about the visible Church, what Abp. Lefebvre was opposing there was the argument that Rome must be obeyed even when what it required was at odds with the good of the Church, because it was the visible Church. Saying that the SSPX had the four marks was rhetoric of the moment, not theology.
It's a real quote, and it is a killer. We see the proof that those who support +Fellay simply reject the position of the Archbishop, dismiss it and claim it's not theology.
Then you turn around and say Bishop Williamson is actually a sedevacantist - for holding of course to what the Archbishop believed. What it comes back to, again and again, is the betrayal of the Archbishop by the liberals.
Archbishop Lefebvre said the Conciliar Church is not Catholic. That is the same was what Bishop Williamson is saying. Are the New Rites of the Sacraments Catholic? Is modernism Catholic? Are those who knowingly adhere to the rejection of the true rites and the true theology Catholics?
No they are not. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, it is "childish" for these liberalizers, compromisers, to speak as pharisees of the "visible Church" to condemn those who adhere to Catholicism.
And that is what the neo-SSPX does.
-
John Anthony, I think it's worth pointint out, once again, this quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” -Abp. Lefebvre
Bishop Williamson is right, Fr. Laisney is wrong. Very simple.
-
If Bishop Fellay no longer holds to the position of the Archbishop then he needs to say so and stop pretending to be an heir to Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” -Abp. Lefebvre
yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
-
To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality, it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Today’s Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.
If Father Laisney doesn't like the apple analogy, I don't blame him, I don't like it either, however, the Archbishop clearly said the conciliar Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.
It's clear that Bishop Williamson's analogy is closer to the Archbishop's description than Father Laisney's
-
At the root of this doctrinal error, there is the ignorance of the great principle of St. Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the wicked does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with their wickedness. Such an error leads to a “Catharist” notion of the Church, a Church of the pure, not infected by the Conciliar rot: such notion is simply not Catholic.
Here we see proof that Father Laisney is peddling trash, and he knows it's trash.
This is not a matter of Communion with those who are merely wicked, but rather with those who profess errors, errors that are in fundamental opposition to the Catholic Faith. To do so is to practice religious indifferentism. Father Laisney knows very well his comparisons are strained and invalid. They don't at all apply to the question of doctrinal errors.
No surprise about Fr Laisney. At an Indult Mass in Mumbai about a year ago he was part of the three person choir. The woman who types the Society news sheet in that city was also in this choir which was completed by a N.O. priest
So we see that Father Laisney really DOES NOT hold to the position of the Archbishop, in words or deeds, but he knows how to spin fallacies and deceit for his master, the master deceiver +Fellay.
let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.
-
It would definitely help if you actually knew what Archbishop Lefebvre meant by those words.
-
It would definitely help if you actually knew what Archbishop Lefebvre meant by those words.
Those who follow Bishop Fellay's "hermeneutics" make them mean whatever they want, and their followers pat themselves on the back when they disregard and distort the Archbishop's words.
-
Parsing Archbishop Lefebvre - the extent to which "today's Church" is the true Church depends on it being in continuation with - holding the same teachings as the true Church has always held - and of one body with - in Communion with those holding the same teachings.
So to say the Conciliar Church is not Catholic is to say its leaders do not teach the Catholic Faith, and are not truly joined to the Catholic Church. (except perhaps in some formal or "supplied" way)
Certain neotrads on Ignis Ardens, have been saying that the "conciliar Church" is a small group (!) a small set of infiltrators. They're saying the FSSP is preserving the Faith inside the Church - as though the SSPX is outside of it.
The neo-SSPX liberals are saying, when Archbishop Lefebvre speaks of "apostasy" and "leaving the Church" and a "schismatic council" - he doesn't really mean it except in some vague, indeterminate way. That is simply incredible. They dismiss his remark about the SSPX having the four marks as "the rhetoric of the moment."
They really are accepting the objections against the Archbishop about "the visible Church" - (that he called childish) and are rejecting his explanation, dismissing it . They are speaking of the old position of the society as being "practical sedevacantism" - because they call those who hold to the principle of doctrinal agreement being essential to practical agreement "practical sedevacantists."
Of course, the Archbishop also allowed sedevacantism as a possibility - while neotrads have tried to turn the word into some sort of curse. What is the truth?
That the neotrads fundamantally reject the Archbishop's outlook. They represent the neo-modernist "official Church" as truly being moving towards Tradition. They are hiding the truth - which is that they are rejecting the Archbishop's views and believe they must enter the "conciliar Church" in order to be fully Catholic.
What is the reality? The reality is that they are now making false ecuмenist statements in favor or Judaism. That is why we hear of "elder brothers" - that is why Hillel is placed between Isaiah and John the Baptist, that is why Catholics are told to take encouragement from the Jєωιѕн feast of Hanukkah and shown a little Jєωιѕн boy lighting a menorah - advertising Judaism as though it were a legitimate religion! This is why we hear overt rejection of Catholic doctrine from the pro-Fellay neotrads on Ignis Ardens forum. That is why someone there had the gall to claim that the SSPX never said Nostra Aetate was against Catholic Tradition!
The SSPX leadership of Father Pflueger and the "unimpeachable Catholic" really bears no true relation anymore to that of Archbishop Lefebvre. The SSPX is led by a "master deceiver" - and they are trying to deceive Catholics as to what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. The reality is they never speak as he did anymore, and they silence and insult and expel those who do.
And the cultists heap praise on them, stupidly talking about how the SSPX hacks "crushed" their opposition (while at the same time using all manner of threats against owners and moderators of forums, threatening to disclose names, etc)
The essential aspect of the +Fellay cult is the deceitfulness of its members. It is their way of life.
-
It would definitely help if you actually knew what Archbishop Lefebvre meant by those words.
Here we have an example of how accordistas always claim that Archbishop Lefebvre is being "quoted out of context" by those who support the resistance.
There is no other way to interpret these very clear and specific quotes from the Archbishop.
-
The ecclesiology of the crisis is a difficult subject.
Father Laisney's "critique" depends on trying to create the impression that what Bishop Williamon has stated is not substantially the same as what the Archbishop stated.
Does anyone here really believe that the man the Archbishop chose to consecrate doesn't know what the Archbishop said about ecclesiology?
The reality is that Father Laisney is trying to deceive people about what the Archbishop taught. It is the same sort of deception that calls those who hold to the old SSPX position "practical sedevacantists."
One could predict ahead of time, that eventually the liberals in the SSPX would call those who held to the Archbishop's position "sedevacantists" - it's how they operate - as deceivers. To pretend the Vatican II Church - people who have been destroying the Church, are turning to Tradition to save it? This is deception.
We know these people have liberal tendencies. We know they promote liberalism in the social life of the chapel. We know which way they are going.
And so they try to deceive people, misrepresent the truth about the Archbishop, and the people who have absorbed the cult mentality follow them, even as they betray the very reason for existence of the SSPX.
-
Of course, it could be objected: "Is it necessarily necessary, to be out of the visible Church to keep the soul, leaving the society of the faithful united with the Pope"?
We are not, but the modernists who leave the Church.
As to say "leave the Church Visible" is to be wrong, assimilating official Church to the visible Church.
We belong to the visible Church, the society of the faithful under the authority of the Pope, because we do not reject the authority of the Pope, but what he does. We recognize the authority of the Pope, but when he uses his authority to do the opposite of that for which it has been given, it is clear that we cannot follow him.
Therefore, is it necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, obviously.
The whole book of Mr. Madiran "The Heresy of the Twentieth Century" is the story of the heresy of the bishops.
It is therefore necessary to leave the bishops’ environment, if you do not want to lose the soul.
But that's not enough, as it is in Rome where the heresy is settled. If the bishops are heretics (even without taking this term in his canonical sense and consequences) is not without the influence of Rome.
If we move away from these people, is quite the same way as people with AIDS. There is no desire to catch it. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, infectious diseases. If you want to save your health, you need not to go with them.
. . . .
This one is the reason for which we cannot link with Rome.
Whatever happens, we must continue as we have done, and the Good Lord shows us that following this route, we fulfill our duty.
We do not deny the Roman Church. We do not deny their existence, but we cannot follow their directives. We cannot follow the principles of the Council. We cannot relate.
I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of see. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."
Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear.
When he explicitly said to us: "Obviously, if this protocol [of 1988] is granted to you, you must also accept what we do, therefore, in the church Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet it will be necessary also to say a new mass every Sunday " …
You see he wanted to lead us to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible since it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to end the Tradition.
They do not grant anything for appreciation of the traditional liturgy, but simply to cheat those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the traditional block to destroy it.
This is their policy, their conscious tactics. They do not make a mistake, and you know the pressures that they exert...
http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/the-visibility-of-the-church-archbishop-lefebvre-s-conference-to-?page=1&commentId=5691517%3AComment%3A96266&x=1#5691517Comment96266
-
Bishop Williamson might have deviated from the usage of the Archbishop in clearly distinguishing between the "visible Church" and the "official Church," however, it's apparent Bishop Williamson is in substantial agreement with the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and that those defending Father Laisney's so-called "critique" simply don't accept the position of the Archbishop. (as demonstrated by the poster who said the Archbishop's talk of the "four marks" was just the "rhetoric of the moment")
Now Father Laisney says:
To separate within the visible Church, a Conciliar part, rotten, which “is not the Catholic Church”, and a Catholic part which would only comprise that “which is one, holy, universal and apostolic”, that takes away from the Catholic Church her structure (indeed the author does not hesitate to write: “the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”), the part that would remain Catholic would then be deprived of the structure which Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church! It would no longer be recognizable as the Church of Christ. Such affirmations are therefore very dangerous to the Faith.
Yet what does the Archbishop say?
I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible Church, but the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are?
Clearly we are who preserve the Unity of the faith, which disappeared from the official Church.
One bishop believes in this, the other not, faith is different, their catechisms contain abominable heresies. Where is the unity of the faith in Rome?
Where is the unity of faith in the world? It is in us, we who preserve it.
The unity of the faith held in the whole world is the Catholicity. Now this unity of faith around the world no longer exists, practically, there is no more Catholicity.
There will soon be as many Catholic churches as bishops and dioceses. Everyone has their way of seeing, thinking, preaching, making his catechism. There is no catholicity anymore.
Where is the Apostolicity? They broke with the past. They do not want to know any more of the past before Vatican II.
See the Pope's Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei adflicta of 1988] that condemns us: "the living Tradition, it is Vatican II". It is not necessary to refer to before Vatican II which means nothing. The Church carries the Tradition with her from century to century. What happened, happened, it disappeared. The whole Tradition is in the Church of today. Which is this tradition? What it is linked to? How is it linked with the past?
It is what allows them to say the opposite of what was said before, intending, at the same time, to keep Tradition by themselves.
This is what the Pope [John Paul II] asks us: “to submit to the living tradition.” We would have a “wrong” concept of tradition, because for them, Tradition is living and therefore evolutionary.
But this is a modernist error: the holy Pope Pius X in his encyclical "Pascendi" condemns these terms of "living tradition”, “living Church", "living faith", etc.., In the sense that the modernists understand it, that is, of the evolution that depends on historical circuмstances. The truth of Revelation, the explanation of revelation, depends on historical circuмstances.
Apostolicity: we are united to the Apostles by the authority. My priesthood comes from the Apostles; your priesthood will come from the Apostles. We are the children of those who gave us the Episcopate. My episcopate descends from the saint Pope Pius V and for him; we go back to the Apostles. As for the apostolic faith, we believe the same faith as the Apostles. We do not change anything and we do not want to change anything.
Then the Holiness. We are not going to do compliments or praises to us. If we don’t want to consider ourselves, let’s consider the others and let’s consider the fruits of our apostolate, the fruits of the vocations, of our religious and the fruits of Catholic families. The good and holy Catholic families germinate thanks to your apostolate. It is a fact, nobody denies it. Even progressive visitors of Rome stated the good quality of our work. When Mgr Perl said the sisters of Saint Pré and Fanjeaux that in bases like this it will be necessary to reconstruct the Church, it is not, regardless, a small compliment.
All this shows that we are the one who have the features of the Church visible.
If there is still a visibility of the Church today is thanks to you. These signs are not already in the other.
There is no longer in them the unity of the faith, now it is the faith which is the basis of all visibility of the Church.
Catholicity is the [mark of the] faith the one in space.
Apostolicity is the [mark of the] faith the one in time.
Holiness is the fruit of faith, as embodied in the soul by the grace of God, by the grace of the Sacraments.
It is completely false to consider us as if we were not part of the visible Church. That's incredible!
This is dismissed by the +Fellay supporter as the Archbishop's "rhetoric of the moment" - that is to say - these people reject the Archbishop's position.
There is a visible separation between the corrupt parts of the "official Church" and the Catholic Church. There is no doubt about that. For Father Laisney to say that it is Donatism or Catharism to separate from those who clearly deny the Catholic Faith (as the modernist hierarchy does) is patent nonsense - it is certainly contrary to the position of the Archbishop. To say the "official Church" largely does not have the marks of the Catholic Church - that for the most part it is not Catholic - THAT IS PRACTICALLY WHAT THE ARCHBISHOP SAID - IT IS DECEIT TO THEN CLAIM THAT BISHOP WILLIAMSON'S ECCLESIOLOGY IS CONTRARY TO IT - TYPICAL DECEIT OF THOSE WHO SEEK UNION WITH MODERNIST ROME.
The Archbishop clearly states that the SSPX has no need to be in communion with the "official Church" to belong fully to the visible Church - indeed, to be fully in Communion whereas the "official Church" is largely out of Communion. That is what the Archbishop said.
The Church is not a horribly disfigured, infected individual. That is not of the nature of the Church. Such cannot be the True Church. The True Church must give sound doctrine. So it is a completely invalid analogy to speak of the "wheat and the tares" when one is discussing the widespread heresy of the "official Church" - and yes - the Archbishop does call it heresy. For that reason he says the "offical Church" is for the most part lacking the four marks.
It is very evident that Bishop Williamson's position is practically the same as the Archbishop, except for some variations in terminology. It stands to reason it would be the same, as the Archbishop chose Bishop Williamson to consecrate.
It is very telling that those saying that Bishop Williamson is really a sedevacantist and those who jeer Father Laisney "crushed" his EC comments- hooting like a crowd of Rostandian devotees in Post Falls or St. Mary's - are the same people who are 1) brushing aside what the Archbishop said about the Four Marks - essentially criticizing Bishop Williamson for saying things very similar to the Archbishop 2) flagrantly MISREPRESENTING THE POSITION OF THE ARCHBISHOP to be in sharp contradiction to that of Bishop Williamson.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/st-pius-x-fathers-pfeiffer-and-chazal-apostles-of-jesus-and-mary/father-juan-carlos-ortiz-the-new-hermeneutics-of-bishop-fellay-has-the-society-c/318457548258204
-
Look out. Tele's on overdrive...
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?
Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
What does Fr. Laisney hope to prove by attacking a strawman, when +Williamson is saying the same thing is he is? False characterization of +Williamson's opposition to the current SSPX leadership?
Fr. Laisney is saying the exact opposite of what +Williamson is saying.
Furthermore, there is no straw man in Fr. Laisney's rebuttal. He may be giving a more coherent account of +W's position that HE himself does (the latter is no theologian), but he does not misrepresent +W's position.
+Williamson is saying that the true Catholic Church (that which possesses the four marks or notes) is a part of the visible Church. Fr. L is saying what the Church has always taught: that the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church and the visible Church are one and the same thing, containing both wheat and cockle; and it is that Church as a whole, and not some "pure" part of it that possesses the four marks. He sets that all out quite clearly in his rebuttal of +W.
As for Telephorus's alleged killer quote about the visible Church, what Abp. Lefebvre was opposing there was the argument that Rome must be obeyed even when what it required was at odds with the good of the Church, because it was the visible Church. Saying that the SSPX had the four marks was rhetoric of the moment, not theology. The Abp. was not saying that the SSPX and its faithful and allies were the real Church (+W's sound part of the apple) and modernist-tainted Rome something else (the rotten part of the apple). If that were true, it would make no sense for ABL to seek regularization with Rome, as he did for years, and was prepared to do after 1988 if and when Rome was willing to do so.
It is interesting that as noted further down this string, the SVist Bellarmine Forum seems to be defending +W. They must recognize the same thing that Fr. Laisney and +W's other non-SVist critics see: that the implication of Bishop Williamson's position is SVism. It is also interesting that Fr. Cekada, another and more learned SVist who has been posted on IA lately, pays +W no attention at all. My guess is that Fr. C has concluded that there is nothing of interest in +W's ecclesiology. Furthermore, if that's what Fr. C thinks, he's right. It is just a not very carefully worked-out rationalization of +W's rejection of dealings with Rome -- and with Bishop Fellay.
A common feature of heretics is that they don't have to do much to effect
great damage, and their little efforts can leave the defenders of the Faith
with a lot of work to do to repair the damage.
As for Telephorus's alleged killer quote about the visible Church, what Abp. Lefebvre was opposing there was the argument that Rome must be obeyed even when what it required was at odds with the good of the Church, because it was the visible Church. Saying that the SSPX had the four marks was rhetoric of the moment, not theology.
It's a real quote, and it is a killer. We see the proof that those who support +Fellay simply reject the position of the Archbishop, dismiss it and claim it's not theology.
Then you turn around and say Bishop Williamson is actually a sedevacantist - for holding of course to what the Archbishop believed. What it comes back to, again and again, is the betrayal of the Archbishop by the liberals.
Archbishop Lefebvre said the Conciliar Church is not Catholic. That is the same was what Bishop Williamson is saying. Are the New Rites of the Sacraments Catholic? Is modernism Catholic? Are those who knowingly adhere to the rejection of the true rites and the true theology Catholics?
No they are not. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, it is "childish" for these liberalizers, compromisers, to speak as pharisees of the "visible Church" to condemn those who adhere to Catholicism.
And that is what the neo-SSPX does.
If Bishop Fellay no longer holds to the position of the Archbishop then he needs to say so and stop pretending to be an heir to Archbishop Lefebvre.
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” -Abp. Lefebvre
yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality, it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Today’s Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.
If Father Laisney doesn't like the apple analogy, I don't blame him, I don't like it either, however, the Archbishop clearly said the conciliar Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.
It's clear that Bishop Williamson's analogy is closer to the Archbishop's description than Father Laisney's
At the root of this doctrinal error, there is the ignorance of the great principle of St. Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the wicked does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with their wickedness. Such an error leads to a “Catharist” notion of the Church, a Church of the pure, not infected by the Conciliar rot: such notion is simply not Catholic.
Here we see proof that Father Laisney is peddling trash, and he knows it's trash.
This is not a matter of Communion with those who are merely wicked, but rather with those who profess errors, errors that are in fundamental opposition to the Catholic Faith. To do so is to practice religious indifferentism. Father Laisney knows very well his comparisons are strained and invalid. They don't at all apply to the question of doctrinal errors.
No surprise about Fr Laisney. At an Indult Mass in Mumbai about a year ago he was part of the three person choir. The woman who types the Society news sheet in that city was also in this choir which was completed by a N.O. priest
So we see that Father Laisney really DOES NOT hold to the position of the Archbishop, in words or deeds, but he knows how to spin fallacies and deceit for his master, the master deceiver +Fellay.
let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.
When I saw this one I thought, wait, what part is he copying here?
Then when I realized it was all his, I had to take notice.
Parsing Archbishop Lefebvre - the extent to which "today's Church" is the true Church depends on it being in continuation with - holding the same teachings as the true Church has always held - and of one body with - in Communion with those holding the same teachings.
So to say the Conciliar Church is not Catholic is to say its leaders do not teach the Catholic Faith, and are not truly joined to the Catholic Church. (except perhaps in some formal or "supplied" way)
Certain neotrads on Ignis Ardens, have been saying that the "conciliar Church" is a small group (!) a small set of infiltrators. They're saying the FSSP is preserving the Faith inside the Church - as though the SSPX is outside of it.
The neo-SSPX liberals are saying, when Archbishop Lefebvre speaks of "apostasy" and "leaving the Church" and a "schismatic council" - he doesn't really mean it except in some vague, indeterminate way. That is simply incredible. They dismiss his remark about the SSPX having the four marks as "the rhetoric of the moment."
They really are accepting the objections against the Archbishop about "the visible Church" - (that he called childish) and are rejecting his explanation, dismissing it . They are speaking of the old position of the society as being "practical sedevacantism" - because they call those who hold to the principle of doctrinal agreement being essential to practical agreement "practical sedevacantists."
Of course, the Archbishop also allowed sedevacantism as a possibility - while neotrads have tried to turn the word into some sort of curse. What is the truth?
That the neotrads fundamantally reject the Archbishop's outlook. They represent the neo-modernist "official Church" as truly being moving towards Tradition. They are hiding the truth - which is that they are rejecting the Archbishop's views and believe they must enter the "conciliar Church" in order to be fully Catholic.
What is the reality? The reality is that they are now making false ecuмenist statements in favor [of] Judaism. That is why we hear of "elder brothers" - that is why Hillel is placed between Isaiah and John the Baptist, that is why Catholics are told to take encouragement from the Jєωιѕн feast of Hanukkah and shown a little Jєωιѕн boy lighting a menorah - advertising Judaism as though it were a legitimate religion! This is why we hear overt rejection of Catholic doctrine from the pro-Fellay neotrads on Ignis Ardens forum. That is why someone there had the gall to claim that the SSPX never said Nostra Aetate was against Catholic Tradition!
The SSPX leadership of Father Pflueger and the "unimpeachable Catholic" really bears no true relation anymore to that of Archbishop Lefebvre. The SSPX is led by a "master deceiver" - and they are trying to deceive Catholics as to what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. The reality is they never speak as he did anymore, and they silence and insult and expel those who do.
And the cultists heap praise on them, stupidly talking about how the SSPX hacks "crushed" their opposition (while at the same time using all manner of threats against owners and moderators of forums, threatening to disclose names, etc)
The essential aspect of the +Fellay cult is the deceitfulness of its members. It is their way of life.
It would definitely help if you actually knew what Archbishop Lefebvre meant by those words.
Here we have an example of how accordistas always claim that Archbishop Lefebvre is being "quoted out of context" by those who support the resistance.
There is no other way to interpret these very clear and specific quotes from the Archbishop.
Well, they put ABL in good company, don't they? They claim +Fellay was
quoted out of context in his CNS interview, too.
Maybe that's just their prepackaged knee-jerk reaction they use whenever
they don't like something, kind of like the Jєωs yelling "anti-Semitism!"
when all that means is, it's something the Jєωs don't like.
The ecclesiology of the crisis is a difficult subject.
Father Laisney's "critique" depends on trying to create
the impression that what Bishop Williamson has stated
is not substantially the same as what the Archbishop stated.
Does anyone here really believe that the man the Archbishop chose to consecrate doesn't know what the Archbishop said about ecclesiology?
The reality is that Father Laisney is trying to deceive people about what the Archbishop taught. It is the same sort of deception that calls those who hold to the old SSPX position "practical sedevacantists."
One could predict ahead of time, that eventually the liberals in the SSPX would call those who held to the Archbishop's position "sedevacantists" - it's how they operate - as deceivers. To pretend the Vatican II Church - people who have been destroying the Church, are turning to Tradition to save it? This is deception.
We know these people have liberal tendencies. We know they promote liberalism in the social life of the chapel. We know which way they are going.
And so they try to deceive people, misrepresent the truth about the Archbishop, and the people who have absorbed the cult mentality follow them, even as they betray the very reason for existence of the SSPX.
-
It is interesting that as noted further down this string, the SVist Bellarmine Forum seems to be defending +W. They must recognize the same thing that Fr. Laisney and +W's other non-SVist critics see: that the implication of Bishop Williamson's position is SVism. It is also interesting that Fr. Cekada, another and more learned SVist who has been posted on IA lately, pays +W no attention at all. My guess is that Fr. C has concluded that there is nothing of interest in +W's ecclesiology. Furthermore, if that's what Fr. C thinks, he's right. It is just a not very carefully worked-out rationalization of +W's rejection of dealings with Rome -- and with Bishop Fellay.
The implication of the SSPX position is SVism. That has been admitted even by Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn in their better days. Also, if you think Fr. Cekada is a "learned" SVist, he has certainly fallen short when it comes to explaining the crisis. He exclusively dismisses all serious questions that might expose him to admitting he doesn't know all the answers. That's why he called Mr. Lane a "neutralizer" when he admits to difficulties in the SV position (or the fact that others might legitimately see things differently). Fr. C is a good politician in that he knows when to dismiss the questions that will expose him as less knowledgeable than he wants to appear. He runs from serious questions and from what I know (and I do know him), he's really not a serious person when it comes to serious issues. That's the best face I can put on it too.
-
I have written a response to Fr. Laisney's absurd rebuttal:
http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/the-visible-church/