Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Miseremini on July 18, 2014, 09:59:41 PM

Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Miseremini on July 18, 2014, 09:59:41 PM
Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 22, 2014, 02:19:43 AM
.

Quote

If the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth.



Quid est veritas?  

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 22, 2014, 02:34:40 AM
.

Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.



And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?  

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom?  Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak?  Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it?  If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JMacQ on July 22, 2014, 10:27:41 AM
It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.

Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Charlotte NC Bill on July 22, 2014, 09:45:56 PM
His Excellency is obviously appealing to common sense ( which isn't so common these days ) and the Sensus Catholicas ( sic? if so help ) that we're supposed to have...This kind of essay is very helpful at times...getting into specifics won't help people with hardened hearts..
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 23, 2014, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: JMacQ
It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.



It seems you do not comprehend my two posts, JMacQ.  

Can you answer the questions or are you embarrassed of your inability to answer them?

I'm sure that +W can answer them, but did not do so in this EC.  Maybe you didn't know that.  

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 23, 2014, 01:43:58 AM
Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill
His Excellency is obviously appealing to common sense ( which isn't so common these days ) and the Sensus Catholicas ( sic? if so help ) that we're supposed to have...This kind of essay is very helpful at times...getting into specifics won't help people with hardened hearts..


That would be sensus catholicus. (In Latin the capitals are unnecessary.)

Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for.  Maybe I'm expecting too much.  

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JMacQ on July 23, 2014, 02:13:42 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: JMacQ
It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.



It seems you do not comprehend my two posts, JMacQ.  

Can you answer the questions or are you embarrassed of your inability to answer them?

I'm sure that +W can answer them, but did not do so in this EC.  Maybe you didn't know that.  

.


It would appear that you are patronising me. I am in good company.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 23, 2014, 07:28:06 AM
Neil Obstat,
Quote
Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for.  Maybe I'm expecting too much.  


For those who are warmed by any utterance of the good Bishop, generalizations suffice, but for those who look for strategic direction, they sometimes disappoint.

You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.

Specifics lead to conclusions, and many times conclusions demand actions. H.E. has made clear that he has no desire to assume any role of command. And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 23, 2014, 10:47:40 AM
.

I read this interesting one-page letter from Bishop Williamson, and I saw a list of topics here that I'd like to discuss with someone, and I thought,


"Gosh, I wonder if anyone on CathInfo would like to talk about these things?"



Maybe I was overly optimistic.

But you would never suspect I had any "optimism" by the replies alone...




Incidentally, this EC was posted in the wee hours of Saturday morning (American time) and then lay in the tomb of NO COMMENT for THREE DAYS.  Then I made two posts to discuss it and whammy -- several replies, but to what effect?

Quote from: Miseremini
Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay [they] have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.


..Therefore I made a couple of posts regarding one paragraph among these six paragraphs, and what are the replies?

(I'm glad there were some replies, don't get me wrong.  Replies are better than no replies, I suppose.)

Quote

It would appear that you are patronising His Excellency. I rather read his always solid and simple writings than your alarmingly frequent ramblings. You seem to be everywhere in this forum, all the time. It's not normal.


To me, this says, "Hey buddy, don't disturb my Nirvana.  I like to read +W's ECs like I read the funny page, and then fuggedaboudit! Know-what-I'm-sayin'?  Gimme my quiet (quite misspelled) corner of subjective reality and gitoutahmahface."  

Well, okay, go on back to your cave and pretend this is not real.  (Cf. "... if the people have the truth on their side,... what tells if they are right or not? ...reality, even if ... [other] people... conspire to smother it..")

Translation:   When you have the truth on your side, you have the right to ask questions and to hope for a substantive discussion, and even intelligent answers, according to truth properly defined [which it is not, in this EC, but it could easily have been, in exactly 8 (eight) words -- do you know what those 8 words are?].  Nor should you be afraid of the impropriety of malicious hecklers who would attempt to shout you down, or even less noisily, by conspiracy, attempt to ignore your reasonable comments and/or questions by smothering them with group nattering or even avoidance (cf. Pascendi domenici gregis).

Quote

His Excellency is obviously appealing to common sense... getting into specifics won't help people with hardened hearts..


But, "getting into specifics" is what these threads are supposed to be for.  

Am I expecting too much, or what?

Quote

...you are patronising His Excellency... your... you... [i.e., ad hominems]


Correction:  If you don't mind, I was hoping for a substantive discussion regarding the objective material in the EC.  Is that a foreign concept?

Quote

It would appear that you are patronising me. I am in good company.


Why, did you write an EC somewhere of which I would somehow be a patron?  Do you have something to discuss here?  Or do you use the ECs as a bird cage liner and FUGGEDABOUIT?

"Can you answer the questions, or, are you embarrassed of your inability to answer them?"  It would appear "the truth" would be in the latter.  Speaking of "the truth," which see.
(For new readers, I didn't want to repeat the questions here, but you can read them here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32836&min=0#p1) and here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32836&min=0#p2).)

It seems to me that the Bishop would be flattered to know that readers are using his ECs to have productive and fruitful discussions, even if it is only on the Internet.  Is that possible here?  Did you ever think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, H.E. omitted any definition of "the truth" to see JUST SEE, whether there is one soul, JUST ONE SOUL on planet Earth who dares to sit up straight and take notice of the conspicuous omission of same, and raise the question, and, after having so raised it, whether there's perhaps one other soul -JUST ONE- on planet Earth who might rise to the occasion of answering the question?  

Dya think?

Why does it so often happen that any question regarding the content of any EC is met by either a chorus of whimpers or else utter silence on this forum?

Is there no one out there who would like to actually talk about these topics? ~ (There is more than one topic in this EC)


P.S. In America we say, "patronizing," while in Britain you say, "patronising."  You must be British.  Consequently, perhaps you're ignorant of the American way.  In America, we have a thing called "freedom of speech," whereby you can actually speak your mind in public and not be hauled off to jail for having done so.  Maybe that's a foreign concept to you.  This Internet forum (CathInfo) is owned by a fine American who allows open discussion on these Eleison Comments every week for those who would like to discuss their objective content.  Thank you, Matthew.  


Muito obrigado.
:cowboy:


.
.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 23, 2014, 11:03:55 AM
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32836&min=5#p4)
Quote from: I



Did you ever think

that maybe, JUST MAYBE, H.E. omitted any definition of the "truth"
to see --JUST TO SEE-- whether there is
one soul --JUST ONE SOUL-- on planet Earth
who dares to sit up straight and take notice of the conspicuous omission of same,
and raise the question, and, after having so raised it, whether there's perhaps
one other soul --JUST ONE-- on planet Earth
who might rise to the occasion of answering the question?



Dya think?



Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 24, 2014, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?  

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom?  Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak?  Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it?  If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.

The worldly man compiles his belief system by subconsciously absorbing subjective opinions on reality from his milieu. He usually forgets the origin these opinions to pridefully imagine they came from within himself. In reality, he acquires the default worldview of his surrounding community. A few individuals may think for themselves, but even these are highly influenced by their surroundings. The only sure means of consciously choosing a belief is to choose membership in a community where that belief prevails.

Those who imagine they independently develop opinions are thereby blinded to the real origins of their own thinking. Modern propaganda takes advantage this blindness by sending subtle signals expertly designed to trigger what the targeted subject falsely imagines to be spontaneous ideas originating from within himself.

Modern Catholics accept false teaching in the form of subjective opinion from apparent authority because they have lost connection with the principle of objective reality.

I am sure that your questions were provocatively written only to start conversation, but they could be taken as petulant whining in another context. "How can you expect me to believe in reality if you don't tell me how it communicates?" might be one interpretation of those questions.

Reality simply is. It speaks through vectors like mother's intuition, empirical observation, Revelation, long-established folkways, and the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Any subjective opinion in conflict with such things is most likely divergent from reality. Man can only perceive reality through the filter of subjectivity, but avoiding delusion requires persistent pruning one's opinion by drawing clear-eyed conclusions upon ongoing circumstance.

It was once understood by everybody that all opinions of any source differing from observable fact or infallible truth were certainly wrong and that, as a corollary, opinions ambiguous enough to be possibly interpreted as differing from reality were suspect. Modern rejection of this principle betrays disbelief in the existence of reality.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 24, 2014, 12:02:52 PM
.

Thank you for a substantive response, Columba.

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?  

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom?  Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak?  Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it?  If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.
 [Very good! -- and there is more!]

The worldly man compiles his belief system by subconsciously absorbing subjective opinions on reality from his milieu. He usually forgets the origin these opinions to pridefully imagine they came from within himself. In reality, he acquires the default worldview of his surrounding community. A few individuals may think for themselves, but even these are highly influenced by their surroundings. The only sure means of consciously choosing a belief is to choose membership in a community where that belief prevails.
 [Very good, again!]

Those who imagine they independently develop opinions are thereby blinded to the real origins of their own thinking.  [The effect of pride.] Modern propaganda takes advantage this blindness by sending subtle signals expertly designed to trigger what the targeted subject falsely imagines to be spontaneous ideas originating from within himself.  
[Astute and perceptive!  Excellent!]

Modern Catholics accept false teaching in the form of subjective opinion from apparent authority because they have lost connection with the principle of objective reality.  
[Yes!]

I am sure that your questions were provocatively written only to start conversation, but they could be taken as petulant whining in another context. "How can you expect me to believe in reality if you don't tell me how it communicates?" might be one interpretation of those questions.
 [Interesting:  I have to admit, I didn't think of that!]

Reality simply is. It speaks through vectors like mother's intuition, empirical observation, Revelation, long-established folkways, and the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Any subjective opinion in conflict with such things is most likely divergent from reality. Man can only perceive reality through the filter of subjectivity, but avoiding delusion requires persistent pruning one's opinion by drawing clear-eyed conclusions upon ongoing circumstance.
 [This one paragraph could be another thread!]

It was once understood by everybody that all opinions of any source differing from observable fact or infallible truth were certainly wrong and that, as a corollary, opinions ambiguous enough to be possibly interpreted as differing from reality were suspect. Modern rejection of this principle betrays disbelief in the existence of reality.

You have touched on the fundamental platform upon which the whole of the Conciliar revolution is built.  The unclean spirit of Vatican II entirely relies on this false principle you have described in this last paragraph.  Thank you!  

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Frances on July 24, 2014, 02:13:00 PM
Quote from: J.Paul


You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.
And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.


 :dancing-banana: :incense:
So what?  The bishop can make his blogs say anything he wants.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 24, 2014, 05:58:11 PM
.

You're reliably a cut above, J.Paul.

Quote from: J.Paul
Neil Obstat,
Quote

Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for.  Maybe I'm expecting too much.  


For those who are warmed by any utterance of the good Bishop, generalizations suffice, but for those who look for strategic direction, they sometimes disappoint.

You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.

Specifics lead to conclusions, and many times conclusions demand actions. H.E. has made clear that he has no desire to assume any role of command. And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.


It could be thought of as sweet and sonorous to hear the soothing tones of such utterances that nibble at the edges, as it may have been to hear the wafting, distant tones of his violin as Rome burned and Nero played it.

But just as that's not what emperors are for...

It's up to us then, to put in a word where there is one missing, or eight, that is.  

I asked a question, and no one yet has the answer.  Columba made a reasonable jab at it, and that was nice to see.  What was the question, you might ask?


It is found here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32836&min=0#p1).

.
.
.
.



Quote from: I
Thank you for a substantive response, Columba.

Quote from: Columba

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.
 [Very good! -- and there's more!*]


You have touched on the fundamental platform upon which the whole of the Conciliar revolution is built.  The unclean spirit of Vatican II entirely relies on this false principle you have described in this last paragraph.  Thank you!  

.


*When I said, "there's more," it wasn't hot air.  The raw fact is, my questions "boil down" to something more distilled, something more POTENT than "asking what reality is."



.


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 24, 2014, 06:20:47 PM
.

Not to discount the importance of being able to say what reality is -- for there can be no doubt that recognizing the difference, the distinction,* between imaginary fantasies and that which ought to be unquestionable, what should be universally recognized, is very important.


*The word "separation" is absolutely inappropriate in place of "distinction" here.
.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 24, 2014, 06:25:56 PM
.

These are TIMELESS principles, for they span the whole of creation and the history of the world.  You can't say that about most things, you know.

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 24, 2014, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: Frances
Quote from: J.Paul


You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.
And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.


 :dancing-banana: :incense:
So what?  The bishop can make his blogs say anything he wants.


That was my point. He is not giving doctrinal conferences, just giving us his thoughts without asking for the penny.   :scratchchin:  
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on July 24, 2014, 09:06:15 PM
Quote from: Miseremini
Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.




Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
If the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth.


Quid est veritas?


Just a few observations on H. E. Bishop Williamson's EC.  He begins by pointing out that the word "magisterium" is equivocal which is good.  But, then the he continues using the word indiscriminately which is not good.  For clarity I think the word should be written with a capital "M," Magisterium, when it refers to the teaching office of the Church grounded in the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church.  The word should be written with a very small "m," magisterium, when referring to the teaching of churchmen by virtue of their grace of state.  The distinction is one of kind and not of degree.  The former, either in its ordinary and universal or its extra-ordinary mode of operation, is always infallible.  The fruit of this teaching is known as dogma.  The revealed truth of God proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma is not the only "reality" that can be known but it is the most certain.  

The claim by +Williamson that the "teacher is superior to (what is) taught, so the Magisterum's teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught," depends upon what is meant by "magisterium."  It is true only if the teacher is God and the subject being taught is dogma.  But if the "magisterium" is only a churchman regardless of his grace of state, the truth taught is always superior to the teacher.  In this sense, the teacher and those taught are both subject to the truth.  The only weapon of defense a subject has in opposition to the Master is the truth as +Williamson affirms in his last paragraph.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide has a good and timely commentary on Luke 22:32.  He says that Jesus Christ conferred two graces.  One was a personal grace gifted to St. Peter in that his faith would not fail.  This personal grace to St. Peter was not conferred upon his successors.  The second grace was to His Church that it would never engage the Magisterium to teach error.  The Pope can err in his personal magisterium and fall away from the faith but he will not be able to engage the attribute of infallibility to Magisterially teach error.  His "function," as +Williamson says, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith."  

Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world.  This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.  That is, the truths of faith are one thing and their dogmatic formulations are another.  That we can keep the truths of faith while adopting new formulations that are more receptive to the modern world.  

This is wrong.  The "living magisterium" may dogmatically define a doctrine but that definition is the work of God for the truths of our faith are revealed by God and not by the Magisterium.  This is why it is absurd to consider changing any dogmatic formulations even for what may be considered greater clarity.  Dogma is a universal truth and this does not change.  The only things regarding its relationship with the changing world is that error is manifold and can corrupt and reject truth by any number of ways therefore the truth must be defended from varied assaults.  But the formulation of truth does not change and does not require any reformulation any more than the universal "chair" as understood by Aristotle or St. Thomas has to be reformulated for each successive age.  It is nothing but the error of Modernism to say, that the "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."  This is in fact the cause of the current crisis.  

It is insupportable to argue that a "living magisterium" is necessary to reinterpret dogma for the benefit of a changing world and then appeal to "reality" as the criteria to judge whether or not the "magisterium" is or is not sufficiently faithful to the perennial truths.  Our understanding of "reality" is a human approximation of truth at best and subject to error.  We are far better off than the faithful who rose against Nestorius and stand on firmer ground.  Their opposition was based upon the received Tradition of faith.  Their defense of Catholic doctrine led to the formulation of dogma which has enriched the Church for all time.  The criteria to judge is revealed truth of dogma.  

It is important to pray and offer penitential sacrifices for +Williamson that he may have clarity of thought and decisiveness in action.

Drew

Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Charlotte NC Bill on July 24, 2014, 09:32:30 PM
The average tradcat won't appreciate "decisiveness in action"...For them "Tradition" is a nice chapel with a more "conservative atmosphere " than their local NO church....they're superficial..To them the ArchBp  really was a comfort merchant who could take them back to the 1950's...These people tend to think that EVERYTHING about the official Bp. fellay/Max Krah run SSPX is providential and not to be questioned incl. the inevitable sell-out... :geezer:
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 25, 2014, 08:10:07 AM
The truths of the Faith once received are to be transmitted intact and unaltered. Which is to say, as it was declared or given by Christ through His Church.
There can be no need to ever reformulate what is true by the Divine Will.

All men who are of good will and seek such Truth will be granted understanding.

Quote

reformulate
  Use Reformulate in a sentence
re·for·mu·late
[ree-fawr-myuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), re·for·mu·lat·ed, re·for·mu·lat·ing.
1.
to formulate again.
2.
to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans.


The very concept of such expedient reformulation invites corruption and alteration of the truth. It should not be mentioned.

Quote

the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths.


I would take exception to this contradictory idea. Such living masters are to transmit and teach. Of course you need someone who is alive to tell you the truth, but catering to this or that sensibility, in this or that particular time is not required to hand on what one has received. The same explanation which was given to my ancestors is quite adequate to teach me today. In fact, is that not what Tradition is?
  The presentation and more importantly the explanation should never be tampered with, as, at times, even a small deviation in either can change the meaning or sense of a truth to the hearer. One treads upon unsound ground, when one ventures to do so.






Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 25, 2014, 08:46:32 AM
Quote from: drew
Quote from: Miseremini
Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

Tradition’s Priority

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.




Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
If the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth.


Quid est veritas?



Just a few observations on H. E. Bishop Williamson's EC.  He begins by pointing out that the word "magisterium" is equivocal which is good.  But, then the he continues using the word indiscriminately which is not good.  For clarity I think the word should be written with a capital "M," Magisterium, when it refers to the teaching office of the Church grounded in the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church.  The word should be written with a very small "m," magisterium, when referring to the teaching of churchmen by virtue of their grace of state.  The distinction is one of kind and not of degree.  The former, either in its ordinary and universal or its extra-ordinary mode of operation, is always infallible.  The fruit of this teaching is known as dogma.  The revealed truth of God proposed by the Church as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma is not the only "reality" that can be known but it is the most certain.  

The claim by +Williamson that the "teacher is superior to (what is) taught, so the Magisterum's teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught," depends upon what is meant by "magisterium."  It is true only if the teacher is God and the subject being taught is dogma.  But if the "magisterium" is only a churchman regardless of his grace of state, the truth taught is always superior to the teacher.  In this sense, the teacher and those taught are both subject to the truth.  The only weapon of defense a subject has in opposition to the Master is the truth as +Williamson affirms in his last paragraph.

Rev. Cornelius a Lapide has a good and timely commentary on Luke 22:32.  He says that Jesus Christ conferred two graces.  One was a personal grace gifted to St. Peter in that his faith would not fail.  This personal grace to St. Peter was not conferred upon his successors.  The second grace was to His Church that it would never engage the Magisterium to teach error.  The Pope can err in his personal magisterium and fall away from the faith but he will not be able to engage the attribute of infallibility to Magisterially teach error.  His "function," as +Williamson says, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith."  

Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world.  This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.  That is, the truths of faith are one thing and their dogmatic formulations are another.  That we can keep the truths of faith while adopting new formulations that are more receptive to the modern world.  

This is wrong.  The "living magisterium" may dogmatically define a doctrine but that definition is the work of God for the truths of our faith are revealed by God and not by the Magisterium.  This is why it is absurd to consider changing any dogmatic formulations even for what may be considered greater clarity.  Dogma is a universal truth and this does not change.  The only things regarding its relationship with the changing world is that error is manifold and can corrupt and reject truth by any number of ways therefore the truth must be defended from varied assaults.  But the formulation of truth does not change and does not require any reformulation any more than the universal "chair" as understood by Aristotle or St. Thomas has to be reformulated for each successive age.  It is nothing but the error of Modernism to say, that the "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."  This is in fact the cause of the current crisis.  

It is insupportable to argue that a "living magisterium" is necessary to reinterpret dogma for the benefit of a changing world and then appeal to "reality" as the criteria to judge whether or not the "magisterium" is or is not sufficiently faithful to the perennial truths.  Our understanding of "reality" is a human approximation of truth at best and subject to error.  We are far better off than the faithful who rose against Nestorius and stand on firmer ground.  Their opposition was based upon the received Tradition of faith.  Their defense of Catholic doctrine led to the formulation of dogma which has enriched the Church for all time.  The criteria to judge is revealed truth of dogma.  

It is important to pray and offer penitential sacrifices for +Williamson that he may have clarity of thought and decisiveness in action.

Drew


I really appreciate your insightful comments, Drew.  It's nice to actually have a conversation.  

The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive.  My Latin dictionary has the following:

magis-ter  -tri m  chief, master, director;  teacher;  advisor, guardian;  ringleader, author;  (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert: (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsnman; magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Calvary,  magister morum censor; magister sacrorum chief priest;  magister vici ward boss;  navis magister ship's captain

magister-ium -(i)i n dictatorship, presidency, superintendence;  control, governance;  instruction; magisterium morum censorship

*************
It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master:  against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship;  and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.

Therein lies the rub.


Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri  is a male gender noun (indicated by m), however, when you look at magisterium / magisterii  it's not male but rather neuter (indicated by n).  Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing, if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language.  If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural and male gender), but only to the teaching OFFICE (singular, neuter) that the men occupy.  You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?

It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity to presume that there are men (plural number, male gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium (singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter).  


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 25, 2014, 10:41:39 AM
Neil Obstat,
Quote
I really appreciate your insightful comments, Drew.  It's nice to actually have a conversation.  


I will second that sentiment. Insights and principles which can lead to logical conclusions. Always good.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Cantarella on July 25, 2014, 10:52:01 AM
Quote from: J.Paul
The truths of the Faith once received are to be transmitted intact and unaltered. Which is to say, as it was declared or given by Christ through His Church.
There can be no need to ever reformulate what is true by the Divine Will.

All men who are of good will and seek such Truth will be granted understanding.

Quote

reformulate
  Use Reformulate in a sentence
re·for·mu·late
[ree-fawr-myuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), re·for·mu·lat·ed, re·for·mu·lat·ing.
1.
to formulate again.
2.
to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans.


The very concept of such expedient reformulation invites corruption and alteration of the truth. It should not be mentioned.


Dogmas are really truths fallen from Heaven above and must be preserved at all costs as the divine treasures they are. Catholics should not fall into the modernist error of "reformulating" dogma. Dogmatic statements say what they mean and mean what they say. There is a permanent meaning in a dogma that does not ever change. It remains unaltered for all eternity.

Pope St. Pius X explicitly condemned the proposition that dogmas are to be understood as figurative symbols. The Church understands her dogmas precisely by the very words she has once declared.  Loyal Catholics must know that Catholic dogmatic statements are immutable truths of Heaven not subject for accommodation to suit the current world needs. Pope Pius X solemnly condemned this method of interpretation or re-formulation employed by the progressive Modernists, in which dogmas have a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 25, 2014, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: drew
Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC. Doesn't the "living magisterium" simply apply unvarying truths to contemporary situations? Vatican II fathers abused this principle to introduce ambiguity. This then served as a shield of plausible deniability for heresy.

The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Frances on July 25, 2014, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: drew
Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC.

The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?


 :dancing-banana:Fr. Chazal has invented a new app for this.  It's called the Theanalogizer! :wink:
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 25, 2014, 01:46:53 PM
???
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Frances on July 25, 2014, 08:12:34 PM
Quote from: Columba
???

 :dancing-banana:
Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant.  He explains it in detail.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 26, 2014, 12:43:40 AM
Quote from: I made several typos when I

The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive.  My Latin dictionary has the following:

magis-ter  -tri  m  chief, master, director;  teacher;  adviser, guardian;  ringleader, author;  (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert:  (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsman;  magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Cavalry;  magister morum censor;  magister sacrorum chief priest;  magister vici ward boss;  navis magister ship's captain

magister-ium -(i)i  n  directorship, presidency, superintendence;  control, governance;  instruction; magisterium morum censorship



****************************************              

It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master:  against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship;  and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.

Therein lies the rub.

Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri  is a masculine gender noun (indicated by m = masculine noun), however, when you look at magisterium / magisteri / magisterii  it's not masculine but rather neuter (indicated by n = neuter gender noun).  Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing (neuter gender), if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language.  If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural, with masculine gender) or man (as in mankind, which includes women and children), but can only refer to the teaching OFFICE (singular number, neuter gender) that the men occupy.  You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?  

Nor do we say the directorship is a man;  nor do we say that the superintendence is a man;  nor do we say that control is a man;  nor do we say that governance or instruction or censorship is a human person (a man). [/font][/size]

.

Notice that it is unnecessary to say "a woman" or "a man or a woman," because the term "man" in such situations INCLUDES the feminine gender such that the office of directorship or superintendence or control, etc. may equally be occupied by a man or by a woman;  nonetheless, superintendence never refers to the person of the superintendent, but rather to his office.

(Again, it's unnecessary to say, "his or her office," or "his/her office," or "hiser office," or "h/is/er office" or whatever, because "his office" INCLUDES the instance of it being "her office."  This is where the error of feminism comes in and gender neutral language, such that feminists get all flustered and bent out of shape when a rule book for instance, refers to the principal's office as "his office" when the principal is a woman.  But in proper Latin tradition AND THEREFORE likewise in proper English tradition, there is no distinction in sex when the masculine gender is used, for "his office" merely means a human being's office, instead of like a ROBOT's office, which would be NEUTER gender, and therefore "its office," but that would imply by gender neutral non-discrimination 'standards' to DEMEAN homosexuals by calling them "it" -- and we just can't abide by THAT, can we??)

It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity to presume that there are men (plural number, masculine gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium (singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter), or the doctrine (neuter) being taught by that office.  

That is to say, that the penchant to impart a human being's identity or personhood or humanity into a neuter noun like magisterium does NOT belong to the Roman Catholic Latin Sacred Tradition AT ALL.  It has ONLY arisen as a consequence of the unclean spirit of Vatican II and the abomination of removing the Church from her firm foundations in the sacred language of LATIN!

Magisteri and magisterii means the same thing, the second i being apparently a convention that is used occasionally for whatever reason (perhaps more or less commonly in ecclesiastical Latin as opposed to classical Latin), but in both cases the word is second declension Genitive singular.  When such words are used in English, the declensions are ignored and the Nominative form is the basis for our words.  I'm telling you this so you can see why we always say "Magisterium" in English and we never say "Magisterio" or "Magisterii" or "Magisteria," etc.

If you were using Latin, however, there are the following declensions, and therefore in Latin documents that would have words based on the Latin "magisterium" (a NEUTER noun, not a masculine noun!!) they would be declined in the documents such that you might see "magisteri" or "magisterii" or "magisterio" or "magisteria" or "magisteriis" as follows:

SECOND DECLENSION SINGULAR
Nominative  . . . . . magisterium
Genetive . . . . . . .  magisteri or magisterii
Dative . . . . . . . . .  magisterio
Accusative . . . . . .  magisterium
Ablative . . . . . . . .  magisterio

SECOND DECLENSION PLURAL
Nominative . . . . .  magisteria
Genetive . . . . . . .  magisterium
Dative . . . . . . . . .  magisteriis
Accusative . . . . . .  magisteria
Ablative . . . . . . . .  magisteriis


It's a bit hard to imagine that "magisteriums" (in English) would be discussed in the Church, except perhaps hypothetically, for the Church is one, and therefore has one teaching office in the unity of the faith.  

Consequently, it would make logical sense that in English, if the plural form for magisterium were to be used, it would be "magisteria," and the proof of this lies in many similar Englishized Latin words, such that the proper English plural form is the Latin plural, Nominative declension.  (E.g., radius, radii;  appendix, appendices;  basis, bases;  species, species;  amphora, amphorae;  opus, opera)

(If it were to be so hypothetically discussed in Latin, you would then see the words in the second group, "Plural" being used, "magisteria" and "magisteriis," whenever the Nominative, Dative, Accusative or Ablative declensions are appropriate, and in the plural number, "magisterium" would be for the Genetive declension, not the Nominative declension, and therefore, English words, which are derived from the Nominative declension, plural number would logically be "magisteria" instead of "magisterium."  But again, the words English borrows from Latin ignores declensions, and when we talk about more than one magisterium we simply put an "s" on the end for the plural number:  "magisteriums."  That is not how Latin EVER indicates plural.  In English translations and in proper English original writing, it is ONLY found in Englishized Latin words.  I don't know about other non-Latin languages, especially Romance languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and Italian.  If any reader here knows, please chime in and pronounce the relevant convention(s).)

Therefore, when you see messages or writings of pundits or bigots or know-it-alls mentioning "magisteriums" you should immediately recognize it as a RED FLAG that something might be haywire.  The Church does not have one magisterium before Vat.II and another one after Vat.II, for example.  There is no "traditional magisterium and modern magisterium."  

Perhaps one might say "Modernist magisterium," but that would seem to be dangerous, because to begin with, all too many Catholics have no idea what "Modernist" means in the first place, and so they might likely think that your 'modernist magisterium' is some kind of compliment when in fact you were trying to criticize Modernist leanings in what SHOULD be the Magisterium, but might not be in fact, or whatever.  

If you've made it this far and you still think you know what I'm talking about, perhaps you may have thought of asking another question very pertinent to this thread which I have not mentioned.......


..............Yet..............



.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 26, 2014, 02:59:19 PM
Quote from: Frances
Quote from: Columba
???

 :dancing-banana:
Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant.  He explains it in detail.

I am familiar with the newly-coined term Theanalogizer, but am still unsatisfied with your response. Fr. Chazal uses Theanalogizer to negatively categorize Menzingen errors that he or somebody else has already refuted. You employed Theanalogizer against my post defending +Williamson without attempting any argument against it, or rather, in lieu of an argument.

Drew misleadingly used variations on the term "reformulate" three times to criticize +Williamson. J.Paul responded to Drew as if he believed +Williamson was really advocating the reformulation of doctrine. It appears that Drew's use of "reformulate" had the effect of a successful straw-man gambit upon J.Paul. This may have been unintentional by Drew, but I saw a need to correct the error.

Your response further confuse the issue instead of helping to clear it up.

EC's should not be held above criticism but neither should they be subjected to logical fallacy (even if unintentional).
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 26, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Frances
Quote from: Columba
???

 :dancing-banana:
Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant.  He explains it in detail.

I am familiar with the newly-coined term Theanalogizer, but am still unsatisfied with your response. Fr. Chazal uses Theanalogizer to negatively categorize Menzingen errors that he or somebody else has already refuted. You employed Theanalogizer against my post defending +Williamson without attempting any argument against it, or rather, in lieu of an argument.

Drew misleadingly used variations on the term "reformulate" three times to criticize +Williamson. J.Paul responded to Drew as if he believed +Williamson was really advocating the reformulation of doctrine. It appears that Drew's use of "reformulate" had the effect of a successful straw-man gambit upon J.Paul. This may have been unintentional by Drew, but I saw a need to correct the error.

Your response further confuse the issue instead of helping to clear it up.

EC's should not be held above criticism but neither should they be subjected to logical fallacy (even if unintentional).


That is a mistaken impression. I formulated my comment upon the words of the Bishop,
Quote
the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths.


I commented that the explanation and presentation of the perennial Faith needs no varying, "all the time".  The truth is attractive to the men of good will because it is the truth, and the explanations of old are perfectly sufficient today.

Drew had nothing to do with my conclusion.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 26, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Frances
Quote from: Columba
???

 :dancing-banana:
Check Fr. Chazal's letter in the July 2014 Recusant.  He explains it in detail.

I am familiar with the newly-coined term Theanalogizer, but am still unsatisfied with your response. Fr. Chazal uses Theanalogizer to negatively categorize Menzingen errors that he or somebody else has already refuted. You employed Theanalogizer against my post defending +Williamson without attempting any argument against it, or rather, in lieu of an argument.

Drew misleadingly used variations on the term "reformulate" three times to criticize +Williamson. J.Paul responded to Drew as if he believed +Williamson was really advocating the reformulation of doctrine. It appears that Drew's use of "reformulate" had the effect of a successful straw-man gambit upon J.Paul. This may have been unintentional by Drew, but I saw a need to correct the error.

Your response further confuse the issue instead of helping to clear it up.

EC's should not be held above criticism but neither should they be subjected to logical fallacy (even if unintentional).


That is a mistaken impression. I formulated my comment upon the words of the Bishop,
Quote
the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths.


I commented that the explanation and presentation of the perennial Faith needs no varying, "all the time".  The truth is attractive to the men of good will because it is the truth, and the explanations of old are perfectly sufficient today.

Drew had nothing to do with my conclusion.

Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

A better criticism might be made without introducing a loaded term that appears nowhere within the EC.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on July 26, 2014, 07:22:44 PM
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: drew
Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC. Doesn't the "living magisterium" simply apply unvarying truths to contemporary situations? Vatican II fathers abused this principle to introduce ambiguity. This then served as a shield of plausible deniability for heresy.

The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?



Columba:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
"Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."
 

Well, if the "Masters" must "vary all the time" the "unvarying truths" there is a problem.  It ultimately means that we follow the "Masters" and not the "truths."  I have called this change in "presentation" a "reformulation" of those truths.  I do not think that this is an unfair characterization of what is being said.  

EC is not intended as a theological treatise and I am not a theologian anyway, so I am not trying to make any accusation against +Williamson, whom I personally like and respect very much, based upon an informal communication such as EC.  However, I have exchanged communications with Bishop Williamson in the past regarding my concerns about two points that I know to be absolutely essential to the defense of the Catholic faith.  The first is the primacy and immutability of dogma, and the second is the fact that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not, and cannot be, matters of mere discipline.  

The "unvarying truths" are just that.  They are the dogmatic formulations that constitute the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  They are expressed in the form of universal categorical propositions that can only be always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. They are revealed truths from God Himself and it is because He reveals them that we believe them.  No human authority whatsoever has the right to "vary all the time" these "unvarying truths."  The function of the Church authority, as Bishop Williamson said, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith" and the faithful "exposition" of doctrine is what dogma is.  And this faithful exposition is infallibly true because it is the work of the Holy Ghost which Jesus Christ promised to His Church, "the Spirit of truth... (that) will teach you all truth..... he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you." (John 16:13-15) Dogma is the Holy Ghost "shewing" the "truth." To claim that the infallible "exposition" requires further non-infallible "exposition" by a "living magisterium" is to destroy the very idea of infallibility.  This is why the Church has taught that dogma is suitable for all the faithful.  Its tools for understanding are correct grammar and proper definition of terms, not a necessary theological competency.

The term "living magisterium" is not a legitimate theological term but rather a neologism employed to further an ideology.  I am not aware of it having any historical usage before 1900.  Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, S.J. may have actually coined the term.  He was the theological expert who wrote "Tradition and the Living Magisterium" for the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.  He is also the author of the book, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?, in which he distinguishes between the soul of the Church and the Body of the Church and places schismatics, heretics, infidels, pagans, etc., on the road of salvation because they are members of the soul of the Church.  This theology was officially articulated in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the dogma EENS.  

Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.
We see that a soul may belong to the Church in desire, without suspecting at all that there is such a thing as a Church… Is it not this desire that we spontaneously recognise in the case of our separated brethren, for example, in the case of Anglicans and the orthodox Russians, when we see them adhering to Christ by faith and by works of faith, yet all the while in invincible ignorance of the exclusive rights of the Roman Church? They are faithful sheep, yet they wander, unconsciously it is true, in the midst of a strange flock; but we regard them as members of the true flock of Christ because at heart, despite their errors, they are in the sheepfold of Christ. The same is the case, other things being equal, with those who live outside all visible relation with Christ of any of the Christian sects.” Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?(Chap. 6, pp. 57-58)


 
Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.
Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. [.....] There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Tradition and the Living Magisterium," entry written by Fr. Jean Bainvel


Fr. Bainvel employs the "living magisterium" in the "progress of dogma" so that the "immutable truths" that the Church has once dogmatically defined as necessary for salvation including Church membership, explicit faith, reception of the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, are now understood with"a new expression which is in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within the reach of contemporary minds."  If the term, "living magisterium" actually conveyed a legitimate concept rather than just a propaganda tool in the service of an ideology there would be common theological terms that formulate contrary concepts, like "dead magisterium" and "sick magisterium" etc.  The term has come into common usage as a tool to justify 'varying all the time the unvarying truths' and deserves to be discarded.  

The modernists theologically now argue that dogma is analogous to a living plant, like an oak tree, which changes over time yet remains the same tree.  They say that the form of dogma is the perennial doctrinal truth and the matter is the historical language.  The language is regarded as accidental to the dogma and thus any change of formulation is only an accidental change.  This is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening of Vatican II which was approvingly referenced by Benedict XVI in his "hermeneutic of continuity" theology.  If this characterization is accepted, it is the end of faith.  As St. Pius X said, "they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas." (Lamentabili). For example:

Quote from: Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P.
Citing Newman to support the fact that Catholic doctrine is developed according to the principle of analogy, I made the comparison with the way in which a plant or any living being grows: we have here that continuity in progress of which the Pope speaks. But this conjunction of continuity (permanence) and progress (change) is understood only if we consider the fact that a living being develops and evolves according to the principle of analogy; indeed, the merit of thinking by analogy is that it unites the identical (one) and the different (many).
    If, instead, we stop at only a univocal type of thought, that conjunction
seems to us absurd and contradictory.
In fact, for univocity development does not make the new rise from the old, but adds the new to the old without it becoming new. The growth of a living being—and thought is a vital phenonemon—is not like the construction of a building with some bricks, by which one floor is added to another, but is as if a building, already complete in itself from the beginning, were augmented in volume with the passage of time.
Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P., The Infallibility of Vatican II


The deposit of faith is no longer a deposit to be faithfully guarded and handed on but is now a "living being" that "evolves according to the principle of analogy."  "To be” is replaced with “becoming;” the objective truth with changing subjective perceptions of that truth. The faith, according to these lights, will be better known by our children just as we know it better than our parents. This is nothing but a formula to destroy the faith.  

Quote from: St. Pius X, [i
Lamentabili[/i]]22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. CONDEMNED


The Magisterium is the office of the Church that corresponds to the attribute of infallibility.  Living men occupy this office and can engage this power to teach infallibly.  The living men change but the office and the power remains.  When the truth is revealed is has a universal character.  The understanding of that truth may be enriched but ultimately the objects of faith are not self-evident to the intellect.  They are truths that the will by supernatural faith submits to.  Our faith is incarnational and the formal objects of our faith are "truths fallen from heaven."  It is God Himself who has formulated these truths.  

Quote from: Columba
If we judge this term (living magisterium) as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?


The application of "unvarying truths to contemporary situations" is the field of moral theology and the Church has always done this from the beginning without employing the term "living magisterium."  It is what every Catholic does to insure that he acts with conscience that is both true and certain.  The correct application of unvarying principles to changing "situations" is what we are "to do" to save our souls.  But, the universal truths of faith are not contextualized by any historical "situation."  They are objective truths revealed by God that are the formal objects of supernatural faith.  They are what we are "to know" and must know to save our souls.

Quote from: Pope St. Pius X
We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine.[......] It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. [.....] Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." [......] We pray and entreat you to reflect on the great loss of souls due solely to ignorance of divine things.  St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis


The only thing still needed for salvation after faith and keeping the commandments is "to be" a child of God and that grace is given to us in the sacrament of Baptism.

Drew  
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 26, 2014, 09:41:30 PM
Columba,
Quote
Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

A better criticism might be made without introducing a loaded term that appears nowhere within the EC.


I made my point about this in a post which preceded Drew's observation. My comment to Drew was simply agreeing with his analysis.

As an aside, what was in a sense "loaded", was the introduction of the concept of " to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. "

This skirts much too close to the pregnant verbiage of the Council, which would have taken these sentences and applied them in and entirely different manner than the Bishop obviously intended.

This is an area where one cannot be careless with terms and language. Vatican II has a definition of Living Tradition which is heretical, confusing, and subversive, and this has made it imperative that one make clear distinctions when discussing or speaking of this idea and using these words.

I do not believe that the implication which Drew observed is unfounded or incorrect.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 27, 2014, 06:29:59 AM
.

BRAVO, Drew!  . . . . . . . .  :applause:

Quote from: drew
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: drew

Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world. This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

Your term "reformulate" does not appear in the EC. Doesn't the "living magisterium" simply apply unvarying truths to contemporary situations? Vatican II fathers abused this principle to introduce ambiguity. This then served as a shield of plausible deniability for heresy.

The "living magisterium" can be defended from such abuse without it being discarded. Or if we judge this term as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?



Columba:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

"Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."

 
Well, if the "Masters" must "vary all the time" the "unvarying truths" there is a problem.  It ultimately means that we follow the "Masters" and not the "truths."  I have called this change in "presentation" a "reformulation" of those truths.  I do not think that this is an unfair characterization of what is being said.  

EC is not intended as a theological treatise and I am not a theologian anyway, so I am not trying to make any accusation against +Williamson, whom I personally like and respect very much, based upon an informal communication such as EC.  However, I have exchanged communications with Bishop Williamson in the past regarding my concerns about two points that I know to be absolutely essential to the defense of the Catholic faith.  The first is the primacy and immutability of dogma, and the second is the fact that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not, and cannot be, matters of mere discipline.  

The "unvarying truths" are just that.  They are the dogmatic formulations that constitute the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  They are expressed in the form of universal categorical propositions that can only be always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. They are revealed truths from God Himself and it is because He reveals them that we believe them.  No human authority whatsoever has the right to "vary all the time" these "unvarying truths."  The function of the Church authority, as Bishop Williamson said, is "to guard and expound faithfully.... the Deposit of Faith" and the faithful "exposition" of doctrine is what dogma is.  And this faithful exposition is infallibly true because it is the work of the Holy Ghost which Jesus Christ promised to His Church, "the Spirit of truth... (that) will teach you all truth..... he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you." (John 16:13-15) Dogma is the Holy Ghost "shewing" the "truth." To claim that the infallible "exposition" requires further non-infallible "exposition" by a "living magisterium" is to destroy the very idea of infallibility.  This is why the Church has taught that dogma is suitable for all the faithful.  Its tools for understanding are correct grammar and proper definition of terms, not a necessary theological competency.

The term "living magisterium" is not a legitimate theological term but rather a neologism employed to further an ideology.  I am not aware of it having any historical usage before 1900.  Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, S.J. may have actually coined the term.  He was the theological expert who wrote "Tradition and the Living Magisterium" for the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.  He is also the author of the book, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?, in which he distinguishes between the soul of the Church and the Body of the Church and places schismatics, heretics, infidels, pagans, etc., on the road of salvation because they are members of the soul of the Church.  This theology was officially articulated in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney's defense of the dogma EENS.  

Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.
We see that a soul may belong to the Church in desire, without suspecting at all that there is such a thing as a Church… Is it not this desire that we spontaneously recognise in the case of our separated brethren, for example, in the case of Anglicans and the orthodox Russians, when we see them adhering to Christ by faith and by works of faith, yet all the while in invincible ignorance of the exclusive rights of the Roman Church? They are faithful sheep, yet they wander, unconsciously it is true, in the midst of a strange flock; but we regard them as members of the true flock of Christ because at heart, despite their errors, they are in the sheepfold of Christ. The same is the case, other things being equal, with those who live outside all visible relation with Christ of any of the Christian sects.” Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?(Chap. 6, pp. 57-58)


 
Quote from: Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J.
Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. [.....] There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Tradition and the Living Magisterium," entry written by Fr. Jean Bainvel

Fr. Bainvel employs the "living magisterium" in the "progress of dogma" so that the "immutable truths" that the Church has once dogmatically defined as necessary for salvation including Church membership, explicit faith, reception of the sacraments, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, are now understood with"a new expression which is in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within the reach of contemporary minds."  If the term, "living magisterium" actually conveyed a legitimate concept rather than just a propaganda tool in the service of an ideology there would be common theological terms that formulate contrary concepts, like "dead magisterium" and "sick magisterium" etc.  The term has come into common usage as a tool to justify 'varying all the time the unvarying truths' and deserves to be discarded.  

The modernists theologically now argue that dogma is analogous to a living plant, like an oak tree, which changes over time yet remains the same tree.  They say that the form of dogma is the perennial doctrinal truth and the matter is the historical language.  The language is regarded as accidental to the dogma and thus any change of formulation is only an accidental change.  This is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening of Vatican II which was approvingly referenced by Benedict XVI in his "hermeneutic of continuity" theology.  If this characterization is accepted, it is the end of faith.  As St. Pius X said, "they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas." (Lamentabili). For example:

Quote from: Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P.
Citing Newman to support the fact that Catholic doctrine is developed according to the principle of analogy, I made the comparison with the way in which a plant or any living being grows: we have here that continuity in progress of which the Pope speaks. But this conjunction of continuity (permanence) and progress (change) is understood only if we consider the fact that a living being develops and evolves according to the principle of analogy; indeed, the merit of thinking by analogy is that it unites the identical (one) and the different (many).
    If, instead, we stop at only a univocal type of thought, that conjunction seems to us absurd and contradictory. In fact, for univocity development does not make the new rise from the old, but adds the new to the old without it becoming new. The growth of a living being—and thought is a vital phenonemon—is not like the construction of a building with some bricks, by which one floor is added to another, but is as if a building, already complete in itself from the beginning, were augmented in volume with the passage of time.
Fr. Giovanni Cavolcol, O.P., The Infallibility of Vatican II

The deposit of faith 'is no longer' a deposit to be faithfully guarded and handed on, but 'is now' a "living being" that "evolves according to the principle of analogy."  


“To be” [would then be] replaced with “becoming;”  
the objective truth [would then be replaced] with changing subjective perceptions of that truth.
The faith, according to these lights, will be better known by our children
just as we know it better than our parents.

This is nothing but a formula to destroy the faith.  







........... Alleluia! ....... Praise God and Pass the Ammunition ............


[/center]
Quote
Quote from: St. Pius X, [i
Lamentabili[/i]]22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. CONDEMNED

The Magisterium is the office of the Church that corresponds to the attribute of infallibility.  Living men occupy this office and can engage this power to teach infallibly.  The living men change but the office and the power remains.  When the truth is revealed is has a universal character.  The understanding of that truth may be enriched but ultimately the objects of faith are not self-evident to the intellect.  They are truths that the will by supernatural faith submits to.  Our faith is incarnational and the formal objects of our faith are "truths fallen from heaven."  It is God Himself who has formulated these truths.  

Quote from: Columba
If we judge this term (living magisterium) as having been ruined, how should we now refer to the principle of applying the unvarying truths to contemporary situations?

The application of "unvarying truths to contemporary situations" is the field of moral theology and the Church has always done this from the beginning without employing the term "living magisterium."  It is what every Catholic does to insure that he acts with conscience that is both true and certain.  The correct application of unvarying principles to changing "situations" is what we are "to do" to save our souls.  But, the universal truths of faith are not contextualized by any historical "situation."  They are objective truths revealed by God that are the formal objects of supernatural faith.  They are what we are "to know" and must know to save our souls.

Quote from: Pope St. Pius X
We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine.[......] It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. [.....] Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." [......] We pray and entreat you to reflect on the great loss of souls due solely to ignorance of divine things.  St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis

The only thing still needed for salvation after faith and keeping the commandments is "to be" a child of God and that grace is given to us in the sacrament of Baptism.

Drew  


Your familiarity with the less-frequently cited documents of Pope St. Pius X is impressive, and I really appreciate their reference in this appropriate context.  

Acerbo Nimis and Lamentabili sane are both appropriate and well worth reviewing so as to bolster our understanding of Church doctrine in regards to Church doctrine.  


Muito obrigado!       :cowboy:



.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 27, 2014, 06:41:39 AM
.

Sacrorum Antistitum should not be overlooked in this context, as well.

Its contents includes The Oath Against Modernism, which was the manifestation of enforcement of Pope St. Pius X's lifetime of study and courageous defense of the Catholic Faith, after the preceding 7 years of his pontificate.  

In retrospect, it is astounding how much he achieved in a mere 11 years, when you compare that to the 14 years of Paul VI, the 8 years of Benedict XVI, and 26 years of JPII.  

Pope St. Pius X rose up, laid down the law, defended the Faith, and left a legacy that has endured for a century, all in 11 years.  Meanwhile, the Modernists whom he battled have been hard at work to destroy his work ever since he laid it down.  

It's our duty to make sure it's not left unappreciated.  


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 27, 2014, 07:30:13 AM
Quote from: J.Paul
Columba,
Quote
Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

Correction:  It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

This is an example of when clarity offends, maybe the reason for having taken any offense ought to be examined a little more honestly.

Quote
Quote
A better criticism might be made without introducing a loaded term that appears nowhere within the EC.

The term "reformulate" does not HAVE to be in the EC in order for it to be appropriate, my friend.  This is why our ability to  T-H-I-N-K  is so important.  If you put your thinking cap on a shelf every time you read certain things, you won't be able to know what it is you're reading.  

Fellayites do this when they blindly read DICI and sspx.org, and they refuse to discuss the content thereof.  Are we going to follow suit and hold every EC to be somehow above reproach?  It seems to me that +W would be likely to appreciate our concern rather than to 'feel offended' by our studied application of Catholic principles using our sensus catholicus. Maybe you've forgotten that +Williamson himself warned us to be careful, and to WATCH, and to not hold everything he says up as some kind of irreproachable icon of purity.


IOW, it's time to grow up now.


Quote
I made my point about this in a post which preceded Drew's observation. My comment to Drew was simply agreeing with his analysis.

As an aside, what was in a sense "loaded", was the introduction of the concept of "to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."

This skirts much too closely to the pregnant verbiage of the Council, which would have taken these sentences and applied them, in an entirely different manner than the Bishop obviously intended.

This is an area where one cannot be careless with terms and language. Vatican II [implies] a definition of Living Tradition which is heretical, confusing, and subversive, ..

I added the word [implies] in brackets, replacing your "has" because Vat.II didn't have any definitions of anything, let alone "Living Tradition."  Vat.II was NON-DEFINITIVE, and deliberately so.  Its proponents even announced this repeatedly.  There is nothing definitive in Vat.II, they said.  Nor did Vat.II contain any condemnation of error.  And it was clear from DAY ONE that there was no intention of the Pope to hold a Council that would so much as TOUCH on the condemnation of error, per se.  They were all about applying the "medicine of mercy" in LIEU of condemning error, all the while forgetting an important fact:  mercy is not medicine.  

But, I digress...........

Quote
..and this has made it imperative that one make clear distinctions when discussing or speaking of this idea and using these words.

I do not believe that the implication which Drew observed is unfounded or incorrect.



When it comes to matters of doctrine, playing fast and loose with language is a HUGE problem.  

The ECs are not authoritative Church documents nor are they theological treatises.  However, they are newsletters from a bishop to his flock in the Faith, and therefore, when the topic is Church doctrine, every word is important.  It would be better for H.E. to SHELVE the thing and wait a week, and for him to write something else for now, and think it over for a few days, rather than disseminate a tract peppered with "loaded" terminology like this one is, which see.  

And it is not inappropriate for us to take meet notice of such an instance, with due respect.  We're in the thick of an ideological war with the Menzingen Modernists et. al., and we cannot afford to let our guard down one iota when it comes to doctrine.

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on July 27, 2014, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
... from a bishop to his flock ...


If this is truly what you and others think then you are Schismatic.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 28, 2014, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

Sacrorum Antistitum should not be overlooked in this context, as well.

Its contents includes The Oath Against Modernism, which was the manifestation of enforcement of Pope St. Pius X's lifetime of study and courageous defense of the Catholic Faith, after the preceding 7 years of his pontificate.  

In retrospect, it is astounding how much he achieved in a mere 11 years, when you compare that to the 14 years of Paul VI, the 8 years of Benedict XVI, and 26 years of JPII.  

Pope St. Pius X rose up, laid down the law, defended the Faith, and left a legacy that has endured for a century, all in 11 years.  Meanwhile, the Modernists whom he battled have been hard at work to destroy his work ever since he laid it down.  

It's our duty to make sure it's not left unappreciated.  


.


Speaking of which, maybe it's time for a refresher:


Pope St. Pius X. Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum (http://www.militiamariae.net/Protimodernistick%E1%20p%F8%EDsaha.pdf), 1 September 1910, AAS 2 (1910), 655ff


PIUS PP. X

MOTU PROPRIO

SACRORUM ANTISTITUM*

QUO QUAEDAM STATUUNTUR LEGES
AD MODERNISMI PERICULUM PROPULSANDUM.


Sacrorum antistitum neminem latere arbitramur, vaferrimum hominum genus, modernistas, persona quam induerant illis detracta per encyclicas Litteras Pascendi dominici gregis [1], consilia pacis in Ecclesia turbandae non abiecisse. Haud enim intermiserunt novos aucupari et in clandestinum foedus ascire socios, cum iisque in christianae reipublicae venas opinionum suarum virus inserere, editis libris commentariisque suppresso aut mentito scriptorum nomine. Haec audaciae maturitas, per quam tantus Nobis inustus est dolor, si perfectis iterum memoratis Litteris Nostris, consideretur attentius, facile apparebit, eius moris homines haud alios esse quam quos ibi descripsimus, adversarios eo magis timendos, quo propiores; ministerio suo abutentes ut venenatam hamis escam imponant ad intercipiendos incautos, doctrinae speciem circumferentes, in qua errorum omnium summa continetur.

Hac lue diffluente per agri Domini partem, unde laetiores essent exspectandi fructus, quum omnium Antistitum est in catholicae fidei defensione laborare, summâque diligentia cavere, ne integritas divini depositi quidquam detrimenti capiat, tum ad Nos maxime pertinet Christi Servatoris imperata facere, qui Petro, cuius principatum, licet indigni, obtinemus, dixit: Confirma fratres tuos. Hac nempe de causa, hoc est, ut in praesenti dimicatione subeunda confirmentur bonorum animi, opportunum duximus memorati Nostri documenti sententias et praescripta referre hisce verbis expressa:

« Vos oramus et obsecramus, ne in re tam gravi vigilantiam, diligentiam, fortitudinem vestram desiderari vel minimum patiamini. Quod vero a vobis petimus et expectamus, idipsum et petimus aeque et expectamus a ceteris animarum pastoribus, ab educatoribus et magistris sacrae iuventutis, imprimis autem a summis religiosarum familiarum magistris.

I. Ad studia quod attinet, volumus probeque mandamus ut philosophia scholastica studiorum sacrorum fundamentum ponatur. — Utique, si quid a doctoribus scholasticis vel nimia subtilitate quaesitum, vel parum considerate traditum; si quid cum exploratis posterioris aevi doctrinis minus cohaerens, vel denique quoquo modo non probabile; id nullo pacto in animo est aetati nostrae ad imitandum proponi [2]- Quod rei caput est, philosophiam scholasticam quum sequendam praescribimus, eam praecipue intelligimus quae a sancto Thoma Aquinate est tradita: de qua quidquid a Decessore Nostro sancitum est, id omne vigere volumus, et qua sit opus instauramus et confirmamus, stricteque ab universis servari iubemus. Episcoporum erit, sicubi in Seminariis neglecta haec fuerint, ea ut in posterum custodiantur urgere atque exigere. Eadem religiosorum Ordinum moderatoribus praecipimus. Magistros autem monemus ut rite hoc teneant, Aquinatem vel parum deserere, praesertim in re metaphysica, non sine magno detrimento esse. Parvus error in principio, sic verbis ipsius Aquinatis licet uti, est magnus in fine [3].

Hoc ita posito philosophiae fundamento, theologicum aedificium extruatur diligentissime. — Theologiae studium, Venerabiles Fratres, quanta potestis ope provehite, ut clerici e seminariis egredientes praeclara illius existimatione magnoque amore imbuantur, illudque semper pro deliciis habeant. Nam in magna et multiplici disciplinarum copia quae menti veritatis cupidae obiicitur, neminem latet sacram Theologiam ita principem sibi locum vindicare, ut vetus sapientum effatum sit, ceteris scientiis et artibus officium incumbere, ut ei inserviant ac velut ancillarum more famulentur [4]. — Addimus heic, eos etiam Nobis laude dignos videri, qui, incolumi reverentia erga Traditionem et Patres et ecclesiasticum magisterium, sapienti iudicio catholicisque usi normis (quod non aeque omnibus accidit) theologiam positivam, mutuato ab historia lumine, collustrare studeant. Maior profecto quam antehac positivae theologiae ratio est habenda: id tamen sic fiat, ut nihil scholastica detrimenti capiat, iique reprehendantur ut pote qui modernistarum rem gerunt, quicumque positivam sic extollunt ut scholasticam theologiam despicere videantur.

De profanis vero disciplinis satis sit revocare quae Decessor Noster sapientissime dixit: In rerum etiam naturalium consideratione strenue adlaboretis: quo in genere nostrorum temporum ingeniose inventa et utiliter ausa, sicut iure admirantur aequales, sic posteri perpetua commendatione et laude celebrabunt [5]. Id tamen nullo sacrorum studiorum damno; quod idem Decessor Noster gravissimis hisce verbis monuit: Quorum causam errorum, si quis diligentius investigaverit, in eo potissimum sitam esse intelliget, quod nostris hisce temporibus, quanto rerum naturalium studia vehementius fervent, tanto magis severiores altioresque disciplinae defloruerint: quaedam enim fere in oblivione hominum conticescunt; quaedam remisse leviterque tradantur, et quod indignius est, splendore pristinae dignitatis deleto, pravitate sententiarum et immanibus opinionum portentis inficiuntur [6]. Ad hanc igitur legem naturalium disciplinarum studia in sacris seminariis temperari volumus.

II. His omnibus praeceptionibus tum Nostris tum Decessoris Nostri oculos adiici oportet, quum de Seminariorum vel Universitatum catholicarum moderatoribus et magistris eligendis agendum erit. Quicumque modo quopiam modernismo imbuti fuerint, ii, nullo habito rei cuiusvis respectu, tum a regundi tum a docendi munere arceantur; eo si iam funguntur, removeantur: item qui modernismo clam aperteve favent, aut modernistas laudando eorumque culpam excusando, aut Scholasticam et Patres et Magisterium ecclesiasticum carpendo, aut ecclesiasticae potestati, in quocumque ea demum sit, obedientiam detrectando: item qui in historica re, vel archeologica, vel biblica nova student: item qui sacras negligunt disciplinas, aut profanas anteponere videntur- — Hoc in negotio, Venerabiles Fratres, praesertim in magistrorum delectu, nimia nunquam erit animadversio et constantia; ad doctorum enim exemplum plerumque componuntur discipuli. Quare, officii conscientia freti, prudenter hac in re et fortiter agitote.

Pari vigilantia et severitate ii sunt cognoscendi ac deligendi, qui sacris initiari postulent. Procul, procul esto a sacro ordine novitatum amor: superbos et contumaces animos odit Deus ! — Theologiae laurea nullus in posterum donetur, qui statum curriculum in scholastica philosophia antea non elaboraverit. Quod si donetur, inaniter donatus esto. — Quae de celebrandis Universitatibus Sacrum Consilium Episcoporum et Religiosorum negotiis praepositum clericis Italiae tum saecularibus tum regularibus praecepit anno MDCCCXCVI; ea ad nationes omnes posthac pertinere decernimus. — Clerici et Sacerdotes qui catholicae cuipiam Universitati vel Instituto item catholico nomen dederint, disciplinas, de quibus magisteria in his fuerint, in civili Universitate ne ediscant. Sicubi id permissum, in posterum ut ne fiat edicimus. — Episcopi, qui huiusmodi Universitatibus vel Institutis moderandis praesunt, curent diligentissime ut quae hactenus imperavimus, ea constanter serventur.

III . Episcoporum pariter officium est modernistarum scripta quaeve modernismum olent provehuntque, si in lucem edita, ne legantur cavere; si nondum edita, ne edantur prohibere. — Item libri omnes, ephemerides, commentaria quaevis huius generis neve adolescentibus in seminariis neve auditoribus in Universitatibus permittantur: non enim minus haec nocitura, quam quae contra mores conscripta; immo etiam magis, quod christianae vitae initia vitiant. — Nec secus iudicandum est de quorumdam catholicorum scriptionibus, hominum ceteroqui non malae mentis, sed qui theologicae disciplinae expertes ac recentiori philosophia imbuti, hanc cum fide componere nituntur et ad fidei, ut inquiunt, utilitates transferre. Hae, quia nullo metu versantur ob auctorum nomen bonamque existimationem, pius periculi afferunt ut sensim ad modernismum quis vergat.

Generatim vero, Venerabiles Fratres, ut in re tam gravi praecipiamus, quicumque in vestra uniuscuiusque dioecesi prostant libri ad legendum perniciosi, ii ut exulent fortiter contendite, solemni etiam interdictione usi. Etsi enim Apostolica Sedes ad huiusmodi scripta e medio tollenda omnem operam impendat; adeo tamen iam numero crevere, ut vix notandis omnibus pares sint vires. Ex quo fit, ut serior quandoque paretur medicina, quum per longiores moras malum invaluit. Volumus igitur ut sacrorum Antistites, omni metu abiecto, prudentia carnis deposita, maiorum clamoribus post habitis, suaviter quidem sed constanter suas quisque partes suscipiant; memores quae Leo XIII in Constitutione apostolica Officiorum ac munerum 1 praescribebat: Ordinarii, etiam tamquam Delegati Sedis Apostolicae, libros aliaque scripta noxia in sua dioecesi edita vel diffusa proscribere et e manibus fidelium auferre studeant. Ius quidem his verbis tribuitur sed etiam officium mandatur. Nec quispiam hoc munus officii implevisse autumet, si unum alterumve librum ad Nos detulerit, dum alii bene multi dividi passim ac pervulgari sinuntur. — Nihil autem vos teneat, Venerabiles Fratres, quod forte libri alicuius auctor ea sit alibi facultate donatus, quam vulgo Imprimatur appellant: tum quia simulata esse possit, tum quia vel negligentius data vel benignitate nimia nimiave fiducia de auctore concepta, quod forte postremum in Religiosorum ordinibus aliquando idem omnibus convenit cibus, ita libri qui altero in loco sint innocentes, nocentes in altero ob rerum complexus esse queunt. Si igitur Episcopus, audita prudentum sententia, horum etiam librorum aliquem in sua dioecesi notandum censuerit, potestatem ultro facimus immo et officium mandamus. Res utique decenter fiat, prohibitionem, si sufficiat, ad clerum unum coercendo; integro tamen bibliopolarum catholicorum officio libros ab Episcopo notatos minime venales habendi. —

Et quoniam de his sermo incidit, vigilent Episcopi ne, lucri cupiditate, malam librarii mercentur mercem: certe in aliquorum indicibus modernistarum libri abunde nec parva cum laude proponuntur. Hos, si obedientiam detrectent, Episcopi, monitione praemissa, bibliopolarum catholicorum titulo privare ne dubitent; item potioreque iure si episcopales audiant: qui vero pontificio titulo ornantur, eos ad Sedem Apostolicam deferant. — Universis demum in memoriam revocamus, quae memorata apostolica Constitutio Officiorum habet, articulo XXVI: Omnes, qui facultatem apostolicam consecuti sunt legendi et retinendi libros prohibitos, nequeunt ideo legere et retinere libros quoslibet aut ephemerides ab Ordinariis locorum proscriptas, nisi eis in apostolico indulto expressa facta fuerit potestas legendi ac retinendi libros a quibuscumque damnatos.

IV . Nec tamen pravorum librorum satis est lectionem impedire ac venditionem; editionem etiam prohiberi oportet. Ideo edendi facultatem Episcopi severitate summa impertiant. — Quoniam vero magno numero ea sunt ex Constitutione Officiorum, quae Ordinarii permissionem ut edantur postulent, nec ipse per se Episcopus praecognoscere universa potest; in quibusdam dioecesibus ad cognitionem faciendam censores ex officio sufficienti numero destinantur. Huiusmodi censorum institutum laudamus quam maxime: illudque ut ad omnes dioeceses propagetur non hortamur modo sed omnino praescribimus. In universis igitur curiis episcopalibus censores ex officio adsint, qui edenda cognoscant: hi autem e gemino clero eligantur, aetate, eruditione, prudentia commendati, quique in doctrinis probandis improbandisque medio tutoque itinere eant. Ad illos scriptorum cognitio deferatur, quae ex articulis XLI et XLII memoratae Constitutionis praevio subsunt examini. Censor sententiam scripto dabit. Ea si faverit, Episcopus potestatem edendi faciet per verbum Imprimatur, cui tamen proponetur formula Nihil obstat, adscripto censoris nomine. — In Curia romana, non secus ac in ceteris omnibus, censores ex officio instituantur. Eos, audito prius Cardinali in Urbe Pontificis Vicario, tum vero annuente ac probante ipso Pontifice Maximo, Magister sacri Palatii apostolici designabit. Huius erit ad scripta singula cognoscenda censorem destinare. Editionis facultas ab eodem Magistro dabitur necnon a Cardinali Vicario Pontificis vel Antistite eius vices gerente, praemissa, prout supra diximus, approbationis formula adiectoque nomine censoria. — Extraordinariis tantum in adiunctis ac per quam raro, prudenti Episcopi arbitrio, censoris mentio intermitti poterit. — Auctoribus censoris nomen patebit nunquam, antequam hic faventem sententiam ediderit; ne quid molestiae censori exhibeatur vel dum scripta cognoscit, vel si editionem non probant. — Censores e religiosorum familiis nunquam eligantur, nisi prius moderatoris provinciae secreto sententia audiatur: is autem de eligendi moribus, scientia et doctrinae integritate pro officii conscientia testabitur. — Religiosorum moderatores de gravissimo officio monemus numquam sinendi aliquid a suis subditis typis edi, nisi prius ipsorum et Ordinarii facultas intercesserit. — Postremum edicimus et declaramus, censoris titulum, quo quis ornatur, nihil valere prorsus nec unquam posse afferri ad privatas eiusdem opinines firmandas.

His universe dictis, nominatim servari diligentius praecipimus, quae articulo XLII Constitutionis Officiorum in haec verba edicuntur: Viri e clero saeculari prohibentur quominus, absque praevia Ordinariorum venia, diaria vel folia periodica moderanda suscipiant. Qua si qui venia perniciose utantur, eâ, moniti primum, priventur. — Ad sacerdotes quod attinet, qui correspondentium vel collaboratorum nomine vulgo veniunt, quoniam frequentius evenit eos in ephemeridibus vel commentariis scripta edere modernismi labe infecta; videant Episcopi ne quid hi, contra quam siverint, moliantur, datamque potestatem, si oportet retractent. Idipsum ut religiosorum moderatores praestent gravissime admonemus: qui si negligentius agant, Ordinarii auctoritate Pontificis Maximi provideant. — Ephemerides et commentaria, quae a catholicis scribuntur, quoad fieri possit, censorem designatum habeant. Huius officium erit folia singula vel libellos, postquam sint edita, integre attenteque perlegere: si quid dictum periculose fuerit, id in sequenti folio vel libello corrigendum iniungat. Eadem porro Episcopis facultas esto, etsi censor forte faverit.

V. Congressus publicosque coetus iam supra memoravimus, utpote in quibus suas modernistae opiniones tueri palam ac propagare student. — Sacerdotum conventus Episcopi in posterum haberi ne siverint, nisi rarissime. Quod si siverint, ea tantum lege sinent, ut nulla fiat rerum tractatio quae ad Episcopos Sedemve Apostolicam pertinent; ut nihil proponatur vel postuletur, quod sacrae potestatis occupationem inferat; ut quidquid modernismum sapit quidquid presbyterianismum vel laicismum, de eo penitus sermo conticescat. — Coetibus eiusmodi, quos singulatim, scripto, aptaque tempestate permitti oportet, nullus ex alia dioecesi sacerdos intersit, nisi litteris sui Episcopi commendamus. — Omnibus autem sacerdotibus animo ne excidant, quae Leo XIII gravissime commendavit: Sancta sit apud sacerdotes Antistitum suorum auctoritas: pro certo habeant sacerdotale munus nisi sub magisterio Episcoporum exerceatur, neque sanctum, nec satis utile, neque honestum futurum [8].

VI. Sed enim, Venerabiles Fratres, quid iuverit iussa a Nobis praeceptionesque dari, si non haec rite constanterque serventur? Id ut feliciter pro votis cedat, visum est ad universas dioeceses proferre, quod Umbrorum Episcopi [9], ante annos plures, pro suis prudentissime decreverunt. Ad errores, sic illi, iam diffusos expellendos atque ad impediendum quominus ulterius divulgentur, aut adhuc extent impietatis magistri per quos perniciosi perpetuentur effectus, qui ex illa divulgatione manarunt; sacer Conventus, sancti Caroli Borromaei vestigiis inhaerens, institui in unaquaque dioecesi decernit probatorum utriusque cleri consilium, cuius sit pervigilare an et quibus artibus novi errores serpant aut disseminentur atque Episcopum de hisce docere, ut collatis consiliis remedia capiat, quibus id mali ipso suo initio extingui possit, ne ad animarum perniciem magis magisque diffundatur, vel quod peius est in dies confirmetur et crescat. — Tale igitur consilium, quod a vigilantia dici placet, in singulis dioecesibus institui quamprimum decernimus. Viri, qui in illud adsciscantur, eo fere modo cooptabuntur, quo supra de censoribus statuimus. Altero quoque mense statoque die cum Episcopo convenient: quae tractarint decreverint, ea arcani lege custodiunto. Officii munere haec sibi demandata habeant. Modernismi indicia ac vestigia tam in libris quam in magisteriis pervestigent vigilanter; pro cleri iuventaeque incolumitate, prudenter sed prompte et efficaciter praescribant. — Vocum novitatem caveant, meminerintque Leonis XIII monita: Probari non posse in catholicorum scriptis eam dicendi rationem quae, pravae novitati studens, pietatem fidelium ridere videatur, loquaturque novum christianae vitae ordinem, novas Ecclesiae praeceptiones, nova moderni animi desideria, novam socialem cleri vocationem, novam christianam humanitatem, aliaque id genus multa [10]. Haec in libris praelectionibusque ne patiantur. — Libros ne negligant, in quibus piae cuiusque loci traditiones aut sacrae Reliquiae tractantur. Neu sinant eiusmodi quaestiones agitari in ephemeridibus vel in commentariis fovendae pietati destinatis, nec verbis ludibrium aut despectum sapientibus, nec stabili ¬bus sententiis, praesertim, probabilitatis fines non excedunt vel praeiudicatis nituntur opinionibus. — De sacris Reliquiis haec teneantur. Si Episcopi, qui uni in hac re possunt, certo norint Reliquiam esse subditiciam, fidelium cultu removeant. Si Reliquiae cuiuspiam auctoritates, ob civiles forte perturbationes vel alio quovis casu, interierint; ne publice ea proponatur nisi rite ab Episcopo recognita. Praescriptionis argumentum vel fundatae praesumptionis tunc tantum valebit, si cultus antiquitate commendetur; nimirum pro decreto, anno MDCCCXCVI a sacro Consilio indulgentiis sacrisque Reliquiis cognoscendis edito, quo edicitur: Reliquias antiquos conservandas esse in ea veneratione in qua hactenus fuerunt, nisi in casu particulari certa adsint argumenta eas falsas vel supposititias esse. — Quum autem de piis traditionibus iudicium fuerit, illud meminisse oportet: Ecclesiam tanta in hac re uti prudentia, ut traditiones eiusmodi ne scripto narrari permittat nisi cautione multa adhibita praemissaque declaratione ab Urbano VIII sancita; quod etsi rite fiat, non tamen facti veritatem adserit, sed, nisi humana ad credendum argumenta desint, credi modo non prohibet. Sic plane sacrum Consilium legitimis ritibus tuendis, abhinc annis triginta, edicebat: Eiusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes neque approbatas neque damnatas ab Apostolica Sede fuisse, sed tantum permissas tamquam pie credendas fide solum humana, iuxta traditionem quam ferunt, idoneis etiam testimoniis ac monumentis confirmatam [11]. Hoc qui teneat, metu omni vacabit. Nam Apparitionis cuiusvis religio, prout factum ipsum spectat et relativa dicitur, conditionem semper habet implicitam de veritate facti: prout vero absoluta est, semper in veritate nititur, fertur enim in personas ipsas Sanctorum qui honorantur. Similiter de Reliquiis affirmandum. — Illud demum Consilio vigilantiae demandamus, ut ad socialia instituta itemque ad scripta quaevis de re sociali assidue ac diligenter adiiciant oculos, ne quid in illis modernismi lateat, sed Romanorum Pontificum praeceptionibus respondeant.

VII. Haec quae praecepimus ne forte oblivioni dentur, volumus et mandamus ut singularum dioecesum Episcopi, anno exacto ab editione praesentium litterarum, postea vero tertio quoque anno, diligenti ac iurata enarratione referant ad Sedem Apostolicam de his quae hac Nostra Epistola decernuntur, itemque de doctrinis quae in clero vigent, praesertim autem in Seminariis ceterisque catholicis Institutis, iis non exceptis quae Ordinarii auctoritati non subsunt. Idipsum Moderatoribus generalibus ordinum religiosorum pro suis alumnis iniungimus»

His, quae plane confirmamus omnia sub poena temeratae conscientiae adversus eos, qui dicto audientes esse renuerint, peculiaria quaedam adiicimus, quae ad sacrorum alumnos in Seminariis degentes et ad instituti religiosi tirones referuntur. — In Seminariis quidem oportet partes omnes institutionis eo tandem aliquando conspirent ut dignus tali nomine formetur sacerdos. Nec enim existimare licet, eiusmodi contubernia studiis dumtaxat aut pietati patere. Utraque re institutio tota coalescit, suntque ipsa tamquam palaestrae ad sacram Christi militiam diuturna praeparatione fingendam. Ex iis igitur ut acies optime instructa prodeat, omnino sunt duae res necessariae, doctrina ad cultum mentis, virtus ad perfectionem animi. Altera postulat ut alumna sacrorum iuventus iis artibus apprime erudiatur quae cum studiis rerum divinarum arctiorem habent cognationem; altera singularem exigit virtutis constantiaeque praestantiam. Videant ergo moderatores disciplinae ac pietatis, quam de se quisque spem iniiciant alumni, introspiciantque singulorum quae sit indoles; utrum suo ingenio plus aequo indulgeant, aut spiritus profanos videantur sumere; sintne ad parendum dociles, in pietatem proni, de se non alte sentientes, disciplinae retinentes; rectone sibi fine proposito, an humanis ducti rationibus ad sacerdotii dignitatem contendant; utrum denique convenienti vitae sanctimonia doctrinaque polleant; aut certe, si quid horum desit, sincero promptoque animo conentur acquirere. Nec nimium difficultatis habet investigatio; siquidem virtutum, quas diximus, defectum cito produnt et religionis officia fleto animo persoluta, et servata metus causa, non conscientiae voce, disciplina. Quam qui servili timore retineat, aut animi levitate contemptuve frangat, is a spe sacerdotii sancte fungendi abest quam longissime. Haud enim facile creditur, domesticae disciplinae contemptorem a publicis Ecclesiae legibus minime discessurum. Hoc animo comparatum si quem deprehenderit sacri ephebei moderator, et si semel iterumque praemonitum, experimento facto per annum, intellexerit a consuetudine sua non recedere, eum sic expellat, ut neque a se neque ab ullo episcopo sit in posterum recipiendus.

Duo igitur haec ad promovendos clericos omnino requirantur; innocentia vitae cum doctrinae sanitate coniuncta: Neve illud praetereat, praecepta ac monita, quibus episcopi sacris ordinibus initiandos compellant, non minus ad hos quam ad candidatos esse conversa, prout ubi dicitur: «Providendum, ut caelestis sapientia, probi mores et diuturna iustitiae observatio ad id electos commendet.... Sint probi et maturi in scientia simul et opere... eluceat in eis totius forma iustitiae».

Ac de vitae quidem probitate satis dictum esset, si haec a doctrina et opinionibus, quas quisque sibi tuendas assumpserit, posset facili negotio seiungi. Sed, ut est in proverbiorum libro: Doctrina sua noscetur vir [12] utque docet Apostolus: Qui... non permanet in doctrina Christi, Deum non habet [13]. Quantum operae vero dandum sit addiscendis rebus multis equidem et variis,vel ipsa huius aetatis conditio docet, nihil gloriosius efferentis quam lucem progredientis humanitatis. Quotquot igitur sunt ex ordine cleri si convenienter temporibus velint in suis versari muneribus; si cum fructu exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos, qui contradicunt, arguere [14]; si opes ingenii in Ecclesiae utilitatem transferre, oportet cognitionem rerum assequantur, eamque minime vulgarem, et ad excellentiam doctrinae propius accedant. Luctandum est enim cum hostibus non imperitis, qui ad elegantiam studiorum scientiam saepe dolis consutam adiungunt, quorum speciosae vibrantesque sententiae magno verborum cursu sonituque feruntur, ut in iis videatur quasi quid peregrinum instrepere. Quapropter expedienda mature sunt arma, hoc est, opima doctrinae seges comparanda omnibus, quicumque sanctissimis perarduisque muneribus in umbratili vita se accingunt.

Verum, quia vita hominis iis est circumscripta limitibus ut ex uberrimo cognoscendarum rerum fonte vix detur aliquid summis labiis attingere, discendi quoque temperandus est ardor et retinenda Pauli sententia: non pius sapere quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem [15]. Quare, quum clericis multa iam satis eaque gravia sint imposita studia, sive quae pertinent ad sacras litteras, ad Fidei capita, ad mores, ad scientiam pietatis et officiorum, quam asceticam vocant, sive quae ad historiam Ecclesiae, ad ius canonicum, ad sacram eloquentiam referuntur; ne iuvenes aliis quaestionibus consectandis tempus terant et a studio praecipuo distrahantur, omnino vetamus diaria quaevis aut commentaria, quantumvis optima, ab iisdem legi, onerata moderatorum conscientia, qui ne id accidat religiose non caverint.

Ut autem suspicio segregetur omnis clanculum se inferentis modernismi, non solum omnino servari volumus quae sub numero secundo superius praescripta sunt, sed praeterea praecipimus ut singuli doctores, ante auspicandas ineunte anno praelectiones, Antistiti suo textum exhibeant, quem sibi quisque in docendo proposuerit, vel tractandas quaestiones, sive theses; deinde ut per annum ipsum exploretur sua cuiusque magisterii ratio; quae si videatur a sana doctrina discedere, causa erit quamobrem doctor illico amoveatur. Denique, ut, praeter fidei professionem, iusiurandum det Antistiti suo, secundum adiectam infra formulam, et subscripto nomine.

Iusiurandum hoc, praemissa Fidei professione per formulam a sa. me. Decessore Nostro Pio IV praescriptam, cum adlectis definitionibus Concilii Vaticani, suo antistiti item dabunt:

I. Clerici maioribus ordinibus initiandi; quorum singulis antea tradatur exemplar tum professionis fidei, tum formulae edendi iurisiurandi ut eas accurate praenoscant, adiecta violati iurisiurandi, ut infra, sanctione.

II. Sacerdotes confessionibus excipiendis destinati et sacri concionatores, antequam facultate donentur ea munia exercendi.

III . Parochi, Canonici, Benéficiarii ante ineundam beneficii possessionem.

IV. Officiales in curiis episcopalibus et ecclesiasticis tribunalibus, haud exceptis Vicario generali et iudicibus.

V. Adiecti concionibus habendis per quadragesimae tempus.

VI. Officiales omnes in Romanis Congregationibus vel tribunalibus coram Cardinali Praefecto vel Secretario eiusdem sive Congregationis sive tribunalis.

VII. Religiosarum familiarum Congregationumque Moderatores et Doctores antequam ineant officium.

Professionis fidei, quam diximus, editique iurisiurandi documenta, peculiaribus in tabulis penes Curias episcopales adserventur, itemque penes Romanarum Congregationum sua quaeque officia. Si quis autem, quod Deus avertat, iusiurandum violare ausus fuerit, ad Sancti Officii tribunal illico deferatur.

IURISIURANDI FORMULA

« Ego... firmiter amplector ac recipio omnia et singula, quae ab inerranti Ecclesiae magisterio definita, adserta ac declarata sunt, praesertim ea doctrinae capita, quae huius temporis erroribus directo adversantur. Ac primum quidem Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci, adeoque demonstrari etiam posse, profiteor. Secundo, externa revelationis argumenta, hoc est facta divina, in primisque miracula et prophetias admitto et agnosco tamquam signa certissima divinitus ortae christianae Religionis, eademque teneo aetatum omnium atque hominum, etiam huius temporis, intelligentiae esse maxime accommodata. Tertio: Firma pariter fide credo, Ecclesiam, verbi revelati custodem et magistram, per ipsum verum atque historicum Christum, quum apud nos degeret, proxime ac directo institutam, eandemque super Petrum, apostolicae hierarchiae principem eiusque in aevum successores aedificatam. Quarto: Fidei doctrinam ab Apostolis per orthodoxos Patres eodem sensu eademque semper sententia ad nos usque transmissam, sincere recipio; ideoque prorsus reiicio haereticum commentum evolutionis dogmatum, ab uno in alium sensum transeuntium, diversum ab eo, quem prius habuit Ecclesia; pariterque damno errorem omnem, quo, divino deposito, Christi Sponsae tradito ab Eâque fideliter custodiendo, sufficitur philosophicum inventum, vel creatio humanae conscientiae, hominum conatu sensim efformatae et in posterum indefinito progressu perficiendae. Quinto: certissime teneo ac sincere profiteor, Fidem non esse coecum sensum religionis e latebris sub conscientiae erumpentem, sub pressione cordis et inflexionis voluntatis moraliter informatae, sed verum assensum intellectus veritati extrinsecus acceptae ex auditu, quo nempe, quae a Deo personali, creatore ac domino nostro dicta, testata et revelata sunt, vera esse credimus, propter Dei auctoritatem summe veracis.

Me etiam, qua par est, reverentia, subiicio totoque animo adhaereo damnationibus, declarationibus, praescriptis omnibus, quae in Encyclicis litteris «Pascendi» et in Decreto «Lamentabili» continentur, praesertim circa eam quam historiam dogmatum vocant. — Idem reprobo errorem affirmandum, propositam ab Ecclesia fidem posse historiae repugnare, et catholica dogmata, quo sensu nunc intelliguntur, cum verioribus christianae religionis originibus componi non posse. - Damno quoque ac reiicio eorum sententiam, qui dicunt, christianum hominem eruditiorem induere personam duplicem, aliam credentis, aliam Ristorici, quasi Iiceret historico ea retinere quae credentis fidei contradicant, aut praemissas adstruere, ex quibus consequatur dogmata esse aut falsa aut dubia, modo haec directo non denegentur. — Reprobo pariter eam Scripturae Sanctae diiudicandae atque interpretandae rationem, quae, Ecclesiae traditione, analogia Fidei, et Apostolicae Sedis normis posthabitis, rationalistarum commentis inhaeret, et criticen textus velut unicam supremamque regulam, haud minus licenter quam temere amplectitur. — Sententiam praeterea illorum reiicio qui tenent, dottori disciplinae historicae theologicae tradendae, aut iis de rebus scribenti seponendam prius esse opinionem ante conceptam sive de supernaturali origine catholicae traditionis, sive de promissa divinitus ope ad perennem conservationem uniuscuiusque revelati veri; deinde scripta Patrum singulorum interpretanda solis scientiae principiis, sacra qualibet auctoritate seclusa, eâque iudicii libertate, qua profana quaevis monumenta solent investigari. — In universum denique me alienissimum ab errore profiteor, quo modernistae tenent in sacra traditione nihil inesse divini; aut, quod longe deterius, pantheistico sensu illud admittunt; ita ut nihil iam restet nisi nudum factum et simplex, communibus historiae factis aequandum; hominum nempe sua industria, solertia, ingenio scholam a Christo eiusque apostolis inchoatam per subsequentes aetates continuantium.

Proinde fidem Patrum firmissime retineo et ad extremum vitae spiritum retinebo, de charismate veritatis certo, quod est, fuit eritque semper in episcopatus ab Apostolis successione [16]; non ut id teneatur quod melius et aptius videri possit secundum suam cuiusque aetatis culturam, sed ut nunquam aliter credatur, nunquam aliter intelligatur absoluta et immutabilis veritas ab initio per Apostolos praedicata [17].

«Haec omnia spondeo me fideliter, integre sincereque servaturum et inviolabiliter custoditurum, nusquam ab iis sive in docendo sive quomodolibet verbis scriptisque deflectendo. Sic spondeo, sic iuro, sic me Deus adiuvet et haec sancta Dei Evangelia.»


DE SACRA PRAEDICATIONE

Quandoquidem praeterea diuturna observatione sit cognitam Nobis, episcoporum curis ut annuntietur divinum Verbum pares non respondere fructus, idque, non tam audientium desidiae, quam oratorum iactantiae tribuendum putemus, qui hominis verbum exhibent magis quam Dei, opportunum censuimus, latine versum evulgare atque Ordinariis commendare documentum, iussu Decessoris Nostri fel. rec. Leonis X III a Sacra Congregatione episcoporum et regularium editum die XXXI mensis Iulii anno MDCCCXCIV et ad. Ordinarios Italiae atque ad religiosarum Familiarum. Congregationumque moderatores transmissum.

1. ° «Et in primis quod ad ea pertinet virtutum ornamenta quibus sacri oratores emineant potissimum oportet, caveant ipsi Ordinarii ac religiosarum familiarum Moderatores ne unquam sanctum hoc et salutare divini verbi ministerium iis credant qui nec pietate in Deum nec in Christum Filium eius Dominum nostrum caritate ornentur ac redundent. Istae enim si in catholicae doctrinae praeconibus desiderentur animi dotes, quavis tandem ii polleant dicendi facultate, aliud nihil profecto praestabunt quam aes sonans, aut cymbalum tinniens [18]: neque unquam id ipsis suppetet a quo evangelicae praedicationis vis omnis ac virtus derivatur, studium videlicet divinae gloriae aeternaeque animorum salutis. Quae quidem oratoribus sacris apprime necessaria pietas, eluceat oportet etiam in. externa vitae eorumdem ratione: ne sermone celebratis praeceptis institutisque christianis disserentium mores refragentur: neve iidem opere destruant quod aedificant verbo. Ne quid praeterea profani pietas eiusmodi redoleat: verum ea sit praedita gravitate, ut probet eos esse revera ministros Christi, et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei [19]. Secus enim, ut scite animadvertit Angelicus, si doctrina est bona et praedicatur maius, ipse est occasio blasphemiae doctrinae Dei [20]. — At vero pietati ceterisque christianis virtutibus comes ne desit scientia: quum et per se pateat, et diuturna experientia comprobetur, nec sapiens, nec compositum, nec frugiferum dicendi genus posse ab iis afferri, qui doctrina, praesertim sacra, non affluant, quique ingenita quadam freti celeritate verborum, suggestum temere adscendunt ac ferme imparati. Hi profecto aerem verberant, et inscii divina eloquia contemptu! obiiciunt ac derisioni; plane digni quibus aptetur divina illa sententia: Quia tu scientiam repulisti, repellam te, ne sacerdotio fungaris mihi [21]».

2. ° «Igitur episcopi et religiosarum familiarum antistites divini verbi ministerium ne cui sacerdoti committant, nisi ante constiterit, ipsum esse pietatis doctrinaeque copia rite instructum. Iidem sedulo advigilent ut ea tantum pertractanda sumantur, quae sacrae praedicationis sunt propria. Quae vero eiusmodi sint Christus Dominus tunc aperuit quum ait: Praedicate evangelium ... [22] Docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis [23]. Ad quae verba apte S. Thomas: Praedicatores debent illuminare in credendis, dirigere in operandis, vitanda manifestare, et modo comminando, modo exhortando, hominibus praedicare [24]. Et sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum: Annuntiantes eis vitia, quae eos declinare, et virtutes quas sectari oportet, ut poenam aeternam evadere et caelestem gloriam consequi valeant ". Quae omnia fusiore calamo persequutus f. r. Pius IX, haec scripsit: Non semetipsos, sed Christum crucifixum praedicantes, sanctissimae religionis nostrae dogmata et praecepta, iuxta catholicae Ecclesiae et Patrum doctrinam, gravi ac splendido orationis genere, populo clare aperteque annuncienti peculiaria singulorum officia accurate explicent, omnesque a flagitiis deterreant, ad pietatem inflamment, quo fideles, Dei verbo salubriter refecti, vitia omnia declinent, virtutes sectentur, atque ita aeternas poenas evadere et caelestem gloriam consequi valeant [25]. Ex quibus omnibus perspicuum fit, symbolum Apostolorum, divinum decalogum, Ecclesiae praecepta, Sacramenta, virtutes ac vitia, sua cuiusque conditionis officia, novissima hominis et cetera id genus aeterna vera, haec esse propria argumenta de quibus oporteat concionari».

3. ° «Sed rerum talium copiam et uberrimam et gravissimam recentiores divini verbi ministri haud raro nil pensi habent; uti obsoletum quid et inane negligunt ac paene abiiciunt. Hi nimirum quum probe compertum habeant recensita rerum momenta captandae populari gratiae, cui tantum inhiant, minus esse idonea; quae sua sunt quaerentes, non quae Iesu Christi [26], eadem plane seponunt; idque vel ipsis quadragesimae diebus ac reliquis solemnioribus anni tempestatibus. Una vero cum rebus immutante s nomina, antiquis concionibus recens quoddam ac minus recte intellectum alloquendi sufficiunt genus, quod CONFERENTIAM dicunt, menti cogitationique alliciendae magis aptum quam impellendae voluntati atque instaurandis moribus. Hi profecto haud secum reputant conciones morales omnibus, conferentias vix paucis prodesse; quorum si moribus diligentius perspectum foret per inculcatam saepe castitatem, animi demissionem, obsequium in Ecclesiae auctoritatem, hoc ipso praeiudicatas de fide opiniones exuerent lucemque veritatis promptiore animo exciperent. Quod enim complures de religione prave sentiunt, maxime inter catholicas gentes, id effrenatis animi cupiditatibus potius est tribuendum, quam vitio aberrantis intelligentiae, secundum divinam sententiam: De corde exeunt cogitationes malae... blasphemiae [28]. Hinc Augustinus Psalmistae referens verba: Dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus [29], commentatur: in corde suo, non in mente sua».

4. ° «Haec tamen non ita sunt accipienda quasi sermones id genus per se omnino sint improbandi, quum contra, si apte tractentur, perutiles possint esse aut etiam necessarii ad refellendos errores, quibus religio impetitur. Sed amovenda omnino est a suggestu pompa illa dicendi, quae in quadam rerum contemplatione magis quam in actione versatur; quae civitatem spectat propius quam religionem; quae denique specie nitet melius quam fructuum ubertate. Ea nempe omnia commentariis et academiis magis accommodata, dignitati atque amplitudini domus Dei minime congruunt. Sermones autem, seu conferentiae, quae propositam habent religionis tuitionem contra hostiles impugnationes, etsi quandoque necessarii, non omnium tamen humeris apti sunt, sed validioribus. Atque ipsis quidem oratoribus eximiis magna est adhibenda cautela, quod eiusmodi defensiones haberi non decet nisi ubi tempus aut locus aut audientium conditio eas necessario postulent, spesque adsit non fore fructu vacuas: cuius rei iudicium legitimum penes Ordinarios esse ambiget nemo. Oportet praeterea in sermonibus id genus probandi vis sacris doctrinis multo pius quam humanae sapientiae verbis innitatur, omniaque nervose dicantur ac dilucide, ne forte mentibus auditorum haereant altius impressae falsae opiniones quam opposita vera, neve obiecta magis quam responsa percellant. Ante omnia vero illud cavendum, ne talium sermonum frequentia moralium concionum dignitatem deminuat ab usuve removeat, quasi hae inferioris ordinis essent ac minoris faciendae prae pugnaci illo dicendi genere, adeoque concionatorum et auditorum vulgo relinquendae; quum contra verissimum sit conciones de moribus plerisque fidelibus esse maxime necessarias; dignitate vero contentiosis disceptationibus minime cedere; ita ut vel a praestantissimis oratoribus, coram quovis elegantiori frequentiorique coetu, saltem identidem summo cum studio essent habendae. Quod nisi fiat, multitudo fidelium cogetur audire semper loquentem de erroribus, a quibus plerique ipsorum abhorrent; nunquam de vitiis ac noxis, quibus eiusmodi auditoria prae ceteris inficiuntur».

5. ° « Quod si vitiis haud vacat argumenti delectus, alia, eaque graviora etiam, querenda occurrunt si animum quis referat ad orationis speciem ac formam. Quae, prout egregie edisserit Aquinas, ut reapse sit lux mundi, tria debet habere praedicator verbi divini: primum est stabilitas, ut non deviet a veritate: secundum est claritas, ut non doceat cum obscuritate: tertium est utilitas, ut quaerat Dei laudem et non suam [30]. At vero forma hodierna dicendi saepenumero, non modo longe abest ab illa evangelica perspicuitate ac simplicitate quae iisdem deberet esse propria, sed tota posita est in verborum anfractibus atque abditis rebus, quae communem populi captum excedunt. Dolenda sane res ac prophetae deflenda verbis: Parvuli petierunt panem, et non erat qui frangerei eis [31]. Sed illud etiam miserius, quod saepe his concionibus deest illa species religionis, afflatus ille christianae pietatis, illa denique vis divina ac Sancti Spiritus virtus interius loquentis et ad bonum pie permoventis animos: qua sane vi ac virtute sacris praeconibus semper essent usurpanda Apostoli verba: Sermo meus, et praedicatio mea, non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, sed in ostentione spiritus et virtutis [32]. Iidem contra freti persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, vix aut ne vix quidem animum ad divina eloquia intendunt et ad Scripturas Sanctas, quae sacrae praedicationi potiores uberioresque recludunt latices, uti diserte docebat nuper Sanctissimus Dominus Leo XIII hisce verbis gravissimis: - «Haec propria et singularis Scripturarum virtus, a divino afflatu Spiritus Sancti profecta, ea est quae oratori sacro auctoritatem addit, apostolicam praebet dicendi libertatem, nervosam victricemque tribuit eloquentiam. Quisquis enim divini verbi spiritum et robur eloquendo refert, ille non loquitur in sermone tantum, sed et in virtute, et in Spiritu Sancto, et in plenitudine multa [33]. Quamobrem ii dicendi sunt praepostere improvideque facere, qui ita conciones de religione habent et praecepta divina enunciant, nihil ut fere afferant nisi humanae  scientiae et prudentiae verba, suis magis argumentis quam divinis innixi. Istorum scilicet orationem, quantumvis nitentem luminibus, languescere et frigere necesse est, utpote quae igne careat sermonis Dei, eamdemque longe abesse ab illa, qua divinus sermo pollet virtute: Vivus est enim sermo Dei, et efficax, et penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti: et pertingens usque ad divisionem animae ac spiritus [34] . Quamquam hoc etiam prudentioribus assentiendum est, inesse in sacris Litteris mire variam et uberem magnisque dignam rebus eloquentiam; id quod Augustinus pervidit diserteque arguit [35], atque res ipsa confirmat praestantissimorum in oratoribus sacris, qui nomen suum assidute Bibliorum consuetudini piaeque meditationi se praecipue debere, grati Deo, affirmarunt [36]».

«En igitur eloquentiae sacrae fons facile princeps, Biblia. Sed qui ad nova exempla componuntur praecones, dicendi copiam non e fonte hauriunt aquae vivae, sed abusu haud sane ferendo, se ad humanae sapientiae cisternas dissipatas convertunt, et seposita doctrina divinitus inspirata, vel Ecclesiae Patrum et Conciliorum, toti sunt in profanorum recentiorumque atque adeo viventium scriptorum nominibus sententiisque proferendis: quae sane sententiae saepe interpretationibus ansam praebent, aut ambiguis aut valde periculosis. — «Alterum offensionis caput iniiciunt qui ita de rebus religionis disserunt, quasi omnia caducae huius vitae emolumentis commodisque metiantur, futurae ac sempiternae pene obliti: qui fructus quidem a christiana religione illatos hominum societati praeclare persequuntur; officia vero ab iisdem servanda dissimulant; Christi Servatoris unam efferunt caritatem; iustitiam silent. Inde istius praedicationis exiguus fructus, qua audita profanus homo persuasionem secumfert, etiam non mutatis moribus se fore christianum, dum dicat: Credo in Christum Iesum [37]». - Verum, quid ipsorum interest fructus colligere? Non id sane propositum habent, sed illud maxime, ut auditorum prurientes auribus iisdem assententur; dumque tempia referta videant, vacuos animos remanere patiuntur. Hac nempe de causa mentionem iniiciunt nullam de peccato, de novissimis, aliisque maximi momenti rebus, sed in eo toti sunt ut verba placentia effundant, tribunicia magis et profana eloquentia quam apostolica et sacra, ut clamores plaususque aucupentur; contra quos ita Hieronymus: Docente in Ecclesia te, non clamor populi, sed gemitus suscitetur: auditorum lacrimae laudes tuae sint [38]. Quo fit ut istorum conciones, quum in sacris aedibus tum extra, scenicum quendam apparatum exhibeant, omnemque speciem sanctitatis et efficaciam adimant. Hinc ab «auribus populi et plurium etiam e clero migravit voluptas, omnis quae a divino verbo hauritur; hinc bonis omnibus iniectae offensiones; hinc vel admodum exiguus, vel plane nullus, aberrantium profectus, qui, etiamsi interdum concurrant auditum, verba placentia, praesertim si magnificis illis illecti centies resonantibus humanitatis adscensum, patriam, scientiam recentius invectam, postquam dicendi peritum effuso prosequuti sunt plausu, templo iidem qui antea discedunt, haud eorum absimiles, qui mirabantur, sed non convertebantur [39]».

«Volens igitur haec Sacra Congregatio, ex mandato Sanctissimi Domini Nostri, tot ac tam improbandos abusus cohibere, Episcopos omnes et eos, qui religiosis Familiis institutisve ecclesiasticis praesunt tamquam supremi moderatores, compellat, ut apostolico pectore sese iisdem opponant omnique studio exstirpandos curent. Memores igitur eorum, quae a SS. Concilio Tridentino praescripta sunt [40]- Viros idoneos ad huiusmodi praedicationis officium assumere tenentur, - in hoc negotio perquam diligenter cauteque se gerant. Si de sacerdotibus agatur suae dioecesis impense caveant Ordinarii ne unquam iidem ad id muneris admittantur, quin prius de vita et scientia et moribus probati fuerint [41] hoc est nisi facto periculo aut alia opportuna ratione illos idoneos esse constiterit. Si vero de sacerdotibus res sit alienae dioecesis, neminem suggestum adscendere sinant, idque solemnioribus praesertim diebus, nisi prius ex testimonio scripto proprii Ordinarii vel religiosi Antistitis constiterit eosdem bonis moribus esse praeditos eique muneri pares. Moderatores vero sui cuiusque Ordinis, Societatis vel Congregationis religiosae neminem prorsus ex propriae disciplinae alumnis obire sinant concionatoris munus, eoque minus litterarum testimonio commendent locorum Ordinariis, nisi eiusdem perspectam habeant et morum probitatem et facultatem concionandi  uti decet. Si quem vero commendatum sibi litteris oratorem exceperint ac subinde experti cognoverint, eum in concionando a normis praesentium Litterarum discedere, cito in obsequium adigant. Quod si non audierit, a suggestu prohibeant, iis etiam, si opus fuerit, adhibitis canonicis poenis, quas res videatur postulare».

 Haec praescribenda censuimus aut recolenda, mandantes ut religiose observentur, gravitate permoti succrescentis in dies mali, cui serius occurri non potest sine summo periculo. Neque enim iam res est, quemadmodum ab initio, cum disputatoribus prodeuntibus in vestimentis ovium, sed cum apertis infensisque inimicis, iisque domesticis, qui facto foedere cum Ecclesiae capitalibus hostibus, propositam habent fidei eversionem. Sunt hi nempe, quorum audacia adversus deductam caelo sapientiam quotidie consurgit, cuius corrigendae sibi ius arrogant, quasi esset corrupta; renovandae, quasi esset senio confecta; augendae aptandaeque saeculi placitis, progressionibus, commodis, quasi eadem, non levitati paucorum, sed bono societatis esset adversa.

Hisce ausibus contra evangelicam doctrinam et ecclesiasticam traditionem nunquam satis opponetur vigilantiae aut severitatis nimium ab iis quibus commissa est sacri huius depositi custodia fidelis.

Quae igitur monita et salutaria mandata Motu hoc proprio ac certa scientia ediximus, ab universis catholici orbis quum Ordinariis tum etiam regularium Ordinum institutorumque ecclesiasticorum supremis Magistris religiosissime servanda, rata et firma consistere auctoritate Nostra volumus et iubemus, contrariis quibuslibet non obstantibus.

Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die I mensis Septembris, anno MDCCCCX, Pontificatus Nostri octavo.

PIUS PP. X.

*A.A.S., vol. II (1910), n. 17, pp. 655-680

[1] Dat. d. VIII septembr. MCMVII.

[2] LEO XIII , Encycl. «Aeterni Patris».

[3] De Ente et Essentia, proëm.

[4] LEO XIII, Litt ap., X dec. MDCCCLXXXIX.

[5] Alloc., « Pergratus Nobis » ad scientiar. cultores, VII martii MDCCCLXXX.

[6] Alloc, ut supra.

[7] XXV ian. MDCCCXCVII.

[8] Litt. Encycl. « Nobilissima», VIII febr. MDCCCLXXXIV .

[9] Act. Consess. Epp. Umbriae, novembri MDCCCXLIX , tit. II , art. 6.

[10] Instruct. S. G. NN. EE. EE., XXVII Ian. MCMII.

[11] Decr. II maii MDCCCLXXVII.

[12] Prov. XII, 8.

[13] II Ioan. 9.

[14] Tit. I, 9.

[15] Rom. XII, 3.

[16] IREN., 4, c. 26.

[17] Praeser. c. 28.

[18] I Cor. XIII, 1.

[19] I Cor. iv, 1.

[20] Comm. in Matth. v.

[21] Os. iv, 6.

[22] Marc., XVI, 15.

[23] Matth., XXVIII, 20.

[24] Loc. cit.

[25] Sess. V, cap. 2, De Reform.

[26] Litt. Enc. IX nov. MDCCCXLVI.

[27] Philip, II, 21.

[28] Matth. XV, 19.

[29] Psal. XIII, 1.

[30] Loc. cit.

[31] Thren. IV, 4.

[32] I. Cor. II, 4.

[33] I. Thess. I, 5.

[34] Hebr. iv, 12.

[35] De Doctr. christ. IV, 6, 7.

[36] Litt. encycl, de Studiis Script. Sacr., XVIII nov. MDCCCXCIII.

[37] Card. BAUSA, Archiep, Florentin., ad iuniorem clerum, 1892.

[38] Ad Nepotian.

[39] Ex Aug. in Matth, XIX, 25.

[40] Sess. V, c. 2, De reform.

[41] Conc. Trid., Sess. V, c. 2, De reform.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on July 30, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
should not be overlooked


Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?

 
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on July 31, 2014, 07:26:32 AM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Neil Obstat
should not be overlooked


Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?

 


That leaves him as a man who holds valid orders and a valid status of the Episcopal dignity, but one without jurisdiction or a formal mission from the Church.

Are you not a bit more concerned, that most of the Bishops so called, of the Church are not Bishops, and may not even be valid priests?
Where does that leave them?
Where does that leave you, or the flock?
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on July 31, 2014, 01:41:01 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Neil Obstat
should not be overlooked


Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?

 


You sound like a first class passenger for the next train to Rome.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on July 31, 2014, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Neil Obstat
should not be overlooked


Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?


The accusation of "schism" is a serious charge.  You have leveled it against anyone who would regard Bishop Williamson as a shepherd to a "flock" of faithful Catholics.  This accusation is wholly without merit.  We can only be grateful that your mouth is not a gun.  

St. Pius X in says Pascendi that, “Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical” (emphasis his).  This "triple authority" is derived respectively from the three-fold attributes that God has endowed His Church: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  It is important to remember always that these primarily are necessary properties of, and belong to, the Church by nature, and only secondarily and accidentally to individual churchmen.  

The purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e. disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are “doctrine” (dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical).  The exercise of "authority" outside of these ends, or in opposition to these ends, cannot be done with any legitimacy.  No Catholic can morally give obedience to any law, command, directive, etc. that harms the faith or leads to the loss of salvation of souls.

The faithful have a right to the sacraments and the true doctrine of the faith because God has imposed upon them the duty to know and believe His revealed truth and to worship Him in the public forum according to the "received and approved rites of the Church."  These "rights" of the faithful impose duties upon priests who hold ordinary jurisdiction but whenever these clerics prove to be unfaithful priest and fail in their duties, the faithful are free to seek from others their rights that are necessary to fulfill their obligations to God, and any priest is free to assume these responsibilities even in disobedience to any holding lawful jurisdiction.  The Church then provides a supplied jurisdiction to these priest because of the needs of the faithful.  If the faithful "flock" look to Bishop Williamson as a shepherd after receiving only "stones" and "serpents" from their ordinaries that cannot, in and of itself, constitute a schismatic act.    

Furthermore, schism is canonically defined as “the withdrawal of submission (subiectionis detrectatio) to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”(Canon 751).  An English translation of Canon 751 which defines schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would be an accurate translation of the Latin.

Although every act of schism is an act of disobedience, not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.  Since the canon 751 does not say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be complete, both materially and formally, in order to be guilty of the offense of schism.  Why?  Because, the more lenient interpretation of Canon 751 is in harmony with the canonical principle expressed in Canon 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.”  Canon 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does Canon 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a definition which favors charity to the accused.  Only those actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as offenses are understood to violate the law in question.

Canon 17 states that when there is some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” There are no “parallel places,” other than Canon 751 that explain what schism is. However, there are twenty-nine canons between Canon 1365 and Canon 1397 which implicitly explain clearly what schism is not. Specifically, these canons prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore  a fortiori, to a local ordinary. Since schism does incur excommunication, it logically follows that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to the local ordinary, which do not reach the very grave level of schism.

Canon 17 also stipulates that in interpreting a given canon, recourse “to the mind of the legislator” should be done. In Canon 751 it is evident that the mind of the legislator closely follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas because the definition of schism in Canon 751 is it taken almost verbatim from him. In the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: St. Thomas says, “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Consequently, the context for the definition of schism by St. Thomas is highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of Canon 751.

St. Thomas makes it clear that schism is a particular kind of disobedience, a distinct kind of sin.
Quote from: St. Thomas
"Objection 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) 'is disobedience against the heavenly commandments.' Therefore every sin is a schism."  St. Thomas replies (Q. 39, a.1, ad 2) that the "essence of schism is in rebelliously disobeying [the Church’s] commandments. I say ‘rebelliously’ because the schismatic shows obstinate scorn for the Church’s commandments and refuses to submit to her judgment. Not every sinner does that; and so not every sin is schism.” The specific examples given by St. Thomas in Q. 39, a 2.1, taken from the book of Numbers 16:30 and II Kings 17, make it clear that "rebelliously" is to be understood in the strict meaning of the term, as when subjects reject completely the authority of the lawful leader.  In the passage from the Book of Numbers, Core, Dathan, and Abiron, their followers, families and all their possessions were swallowed up by the earth in punishment for their total rejection of the authority of Moses. These men "stood up against Moses and Aaron, (and) they said: 'Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?'"  The rebellion of Core repudiated the entire authority of Moses to rule.  In the second example, St. Thomas mentions the ten tribes of Israel under Jeroboam, who completely separated themselves rejecting the legitimate authority of Reboam, the King of Judah who was the son of Solomon in the line of King David (I Kings 12: 26-33).


Every authoritative theologian after St. Thomas follows his criterion for the definition of schism. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that: “not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include, besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology, explains the difference between heresy and schism:

Quote from:  Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique
"Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan (commenting on St. Thomas' definition of schism) makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat)."
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique


The last clause in the above citation from DTC — “even while believing that he is [a lawful superior]”— makes it clear that he is referring to "formal schism."  "Material schism" is committed by all those — and only those — who completely reject the authority per se of a lawful superior. But the offense becomes formal only in the case of those who do so with malice, that is, when knowing that the superior in question is in fact lawful, but nonetheless refusing absolutely to submit to his authority in any way.

In fine, the consensus of every authoritative theologian is that the only kind of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a fortiori to the local ordinary, which constitutes material schism is the total repudiation of the Pope’s authority wherein one denies his duty to obey anything at all which he commands. It is the denial of papal jurisdiction per se.  Then, in order for the schism to be formal as well as material, and thus, culpable before God, it is necessary for the offender to be acting in bad conscience, out of pride or passion, which leads him to suppress and deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over himself, while knowing deep down that he is committing a sin in doing so.  That is, he must be acting with malice and/or culpable negligence.  

Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant.  It is calumny and a grave sin against charity and justice. If any faithful member of Jesus Christ's Catholic "flock," wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so until such time as those exercising ordinary jurisdiction do so in a manner directed to the proper ends of the Church that St. Pius said are "doctrine and worship."  

Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.  For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets, he has made accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  He will soon learn that obedience in and of itself is not a virtue at all unless it is regulated by the virtue of Religion.

Drew


P.S. The canonical and moral definition of schism is largely taken from the work of Fr. Brian Harrison which was used by Fr. Samuel Waters in his defense sent to Rome against the charge made by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia against Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission.  The exchanges between Fr. Waters and Philadelphia and Rome are published on the Mission web page.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 31, 2014, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: J.Paul
Columba,
Quote
Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

A better criticism might be made without introducing a loaded term that appears nowhere within the EC.


I made my point about this in a post which preceded Drew's observation. My comment to Drew was simply agreeing with his analysis.

As an aside, what was in a sense "loaded", was the introduction of the concept of " to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. "

You did not use "reformulate" in any post prior to Drew's. Closely following his seamless introduction of the term into this thread, you literally built your next post around "reformulate," even going so far as quote the dictionary definition.

"Reformulate" is loaded because Drew used that term for tying the EC to the founding document of the present crisis:

Quote from: John XXIII Vatican II Opening Address
What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms.

Why endlessly repeat such a loaded term if H.E.'s own words were sufficient for condemnation.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 31, 2014, 05:12:53 PM
Quote from: drew
It ultimately means that we follow the "Masters" and not the "truths."  I have called this change in "presentation" a "reformulation" of those truths.  I do not think that this is an unfair characterization of what is being said.

What you say here is within the bounds of a legitimate argument, but you previously made no such justification.

Quote from: drew in previous post
Which introduces the next problem with +Williamson's  EC regarding the "living magisterium" to reformulate perennial truths to a changing world.  This is the same thing Pope John XXIII said in his opening remarks at Vatican II, and it was the core principle of Pope Benedict XVI "hermeneutic of continuity" which directly referenced John XXIII's quotation.

One might argue for the interpretation of the EC as a call for reformulation, but your casual introduction of the term amounted to an unsupported assertion.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on July 31, 2014, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: J.Paul
Columba,
Quote
Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

Correction:  It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

After seeing Drew's post, I had to review the EC because I thought I must have missed "reformulate" in my first reading. When I realized that the loaded term was not in fact there, I felt personally misled. When I saw J.Paul and Cantarella repeating the charge as if it was established fact, I assumed they had been similarly misled but had failed to reread the EC.

I am not offended by anyone making a case that the EC proposes reformulation, but I do protest bald assertion made without an argument because it is a very serious charge.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on August 01, 2014, 07:59:27 AM
Columba,
Quote
You did not use "reformulate" in any post prior to Drew's. Closely following his seamless introduction of the term into this thread, you literally built your next post around "reformulate," even going so far as quote the dictionary definition.

"Reformulate" is loaded because Drew used that term for tying the EC to the founding document of the present crisis:

John XXIII Vatican II Opening Address said:
What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms.

Why endlessly repeat such a loaded term if H.E.'s own words were sufficient for condemnation.


I made my point about this problem, well before drew's post.

My comment after his post was due to the fact that the thrust of his analysis was dead on regardless of the term which he used, which by the way, is a an accurate description of the terms used by the Bishop. Both terms essentially  convey the same meaning without a qualifier inserted.

It is neither drew's fault or my own that this word is a hallmark of the modernists, and as such, is a loaded term.
 
The fault lies with H.E. for using such a concept without a proper distinction to limit the meaning.

Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 09:12:00 AM
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: J.Paul
Columba,
Quote
Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

Correction:  It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

After seeing Drew's post, I had to review the EC because I thought I must have missed "reformulate" in my first reading. When I realized that the loaded term was not in fact there, I felt personally misled. When I saw J.Paul and Cantarella repeating the charge as if it was established fact, I assumed they had been similarly misled but had failed to reread the EC.

I am not offended by anyone making a case that the EC proposes reformulation, but I do protest bald assertion made without an argument because it is a very serious charge.

If you want to get upset about something, find a more reasonable topic.  

Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.  

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 10:18:52 AM
.

Drew, thanks for all the support, but you might enjoy being informed that petwerp is under the delusion that I bother to read his stupid posts.

Quote from: drew
Quote from: petwerp
Quote from: Neil Obstat
should not be overlooked


Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

And he is furthermore under the delusion that I could possibly care less what he thinks, because I couldn't.   HAHAHAHAHA

Quote
Quote
He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?


The accusation of "schism" is a serious charge.  You have leveled it against anyone who would regard Bishop Williamson as a shepherd to a "flock" of faithful Catholics.  This accusation is wholly without merit.  We can only be grateful that your mouth is not a gun.  

The problem petwerp has is shooting his mouth off when nobody's listening.

Quote
St. Pius X in says Pascendi that, “Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical” (emphasis his).  This "triple authority" is derived respectively from the three-fold attributes that God has endowed His Church: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  It is important to remember always that these primarily are necessary properties of, and belong to, the Church by nature, and only secondarily and accidentally to individual churchmen.  

The purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e. disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are “doctrine” (dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical).  The exercise of "authority" outside of these ends, or in opposition to these ends, cannot be done with any legitimacy.  No Catholic can morally give obedience to any law, command, directive, etc. that harms the faith or leads to the loss of salvation of souls.

The faithful have a right to the sacraments and the true doctrine of the faith because God has imposed upon them the duty to know and believe His revealed truth and to worship Him in the public forum according to the "received and approved rites of the Church."  These "rights" of the faithful impose duties upon priests who hold ordinary jurisdiction but whenever these clerics prove to be unfaithful priest and fail in their duties, the faithful are free to seek from others their rights that are necessary to fulfill their obligations to God, and any priest is free to assume these responsibilities even in disobedience to any holding lawful jurisdiction.  The Church then provides a supplied jurisdiction to these priest because of the needs of the faithful.  If the faithful "flock" look to Bishop Williamson as a shepherd after receiving only "stones" and "serpents" from their ordinaries that cannot, in and of itself, constitute a schismatic act.    

It's nice for you to bring up supplied jurisdiction, but please keep in mind that petwerp, while he's probably CAPABLE of understanding the principle at least on a natural level, is nonetheless invincibly ignorant of its application due to his pertinacious and abiding zeal for being stupid on such matters.  

So, it's like you're talking to a wall of Z-Bricks.
(http://cdn50.networx.com/media/275x210/zbrick_4bd1918ae2a8a44b8fe15b8c19e57df3.jpg)

Quote
Furthermore, schism is canonically defined as “the withdrawal of submission (subiectionis detrectatio) to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”(Canon 751).  An English translation of Canon 751 which defines schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would be an accurate translation of the Latin.

Although every act of schism is an act of disobedience, not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.  

At this point you can rest assured that petwerp is entirely lost.  He would never have read this far.  But I do appreciate your detail, distinction and follow-through.  Thank you!

Quote
Since the canon 751 does not say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be complete, both materially and formally, in order to be guilty of the offense of schism.  Why?  Because, the more lenient interpretation of Canon 751 is in harmony with the canonical principle expressed in Canon 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.”  Canon 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does Canon 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a definition which favors charity to the accused.  Only those actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as offenses are understood to violate the law in question.

Canon 17 states that when there is some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” There are no “parallel places,” other than Canon 751 that explain what schism is. However, there are twenty-nine canons between Canon 1365 and Canon 1397 which implicitly explain clearly what schism is not. Specifically, these canons prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore  a fortiori, to a local ordinary. Since schism does incur excommunication, it logically follows that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to the local ordinary, which do not reach the very grave level of schism.

Canon 17 also stipulates that in interpreting a given canon, recourse “to the mind of the legislator” should be done. In Canon 751 it is evident that the mind of the legislator closely follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas because the definition of schism in Canon 751 is it taken almost verbatim from him. In the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: St. Thomas says, “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Consequently, the context for the definition of schism by St. Thomas is highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of Canon 751.

St. Thomas makes it clear that schism is a particular kind of disobedience, a distinct kind of sin.
Quote from: St. Thomas
"Objection 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) 'is disobedience against the heavenly commandments.' Therefore every sin is a schism."  St. Thomas replies (Q. 39, a.1, ad 2) that the "essence of schism is in rebelliously disobeying [the Church’s] commandments. I say ‘rebelliously’ because the schismatic shows obstinate scorn for the Church’s commandments and refuses to submit to her judgment. Not every sinner does that; and so not every sin is schism.” The specific examples given by St. Thomas in Q. 39, a 2.1, taken from the book of Numbers 16:30 and II Kings 17, make it clear that "rebelliously" is to be understood in the strict meaning of the term, as when subjects reject completely the authority of the lawful leader.  In the passage from the Book of Numbers, Core, Dathan, and Abiron, their followers, families and all their possessions were swallowed up by the earth in punishment for their total rejection of the authority of Moses. These men "stood up against Moses and Aaron, (and) they said: 'Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?'"  The rebellion of Core repudiated the entire authority of Moses to rule.  In the second example, St. Thomas mentions the ten tribes of Israel under Jeroboam, who completely separated themselves rejecting the legitimate authority of Reboam, the King of Judah who was the son of Solomon in the line of King David (I Kings 12: 26-33).


Every authoritative theologian after St. Thomas follows his criterion for the definition of schism. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that: “not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include, besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology, explains the difference between heresy and schism:

Quote from:  Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique
"Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan (commenting on St. Thomas' definition of schism) makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat)."
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique


The last clause in the above citation from DTC — “even while believing that he is [a lawful superior]”— makes it clear that he is referring to "formal schism."  "Material schism" is committed by all those — and only those — who completely reject the authority per se of a lawful superior. But the offense becomes formal only in the case of those who do so with malice, that is, when knowing that the superior in question is in fact lawful, but nonetheless refusing absolutely to submit to his authority in any way.

In fine, the consensus of every authoritative theologian is that the only kind of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a fortiori to the local ordinary, which constitutes material schism is the total repudiation of the Pope’s authority wherein one denies his duty to obey anything at all which he commands. It is the denial of papal jurisdiction per se.  Then, in order for the schism to be formal as well as material, and thus, culpable before God, it is necessary for the offender to be acting in bad conscience, out of pride or passion, which leads him to suppress and deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over himself, while knowing deep down that he is committing a sin in doing so.  That is, he must be acting with malice and/or culpable negligence.  

Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant.  It is calumny and a grave sin against charity and justice. If any faithful member of Jesus Christ's Catholic "flock," wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so, until such time as those exercising ordinary jurisdiction do so in a manner directed to the proper ends of the Church that Pope St. Pius X said are "doctrine and worship."  

Well said!  I wholeheartedly agree.

And then regarding the SGBF, the coveting of ordinary jurisdiction, arguably sinful:

Quote
[SG] Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.  For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets, he has made accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  He will soon learn that obedience in and of itself is not a virtue at all unless it is regulated by the virtue of Religion.

Drew


P.S. The canonical and moral definition of schism is largely taken from the work of Fr. Brian Harrison which was used by Fr. Samuel Waters in his defense sent to Rome against the charge made by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia against Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission.  The exchanges between Fr. Waters and Philadelphia and Rome are published on the Mission web page.


For those who are not quite up to speed (not including petwerp because he doesn't WANT to get up to speed), making accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity" (of Benedict XVI) amounts to ecclesiastical insanity, moral insanity, and all-around insanity.  In the Psalms and in the Te Deum, we pray, "Non confudar in aeternum."  Well, making accommodations to the hermeneutic of continuity is tantamount to saying,

"Please, I want to be confounded in eternity, so dear God, let me be so confounded."  

IOW, it is the total inversion of the Prayers of the Church, turning them on their head.

But petwerp won't understand that, nor does he want to. He'll no doubt prove the veracity of that, soon enough.  

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 10:36:46 AM
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Columba

You did not use "reformulate" in any post prior to Drew's. Closely following his seamless introduction of the term into this thread, you literally built your next post around "reformulate," even going so far as quote the dictionary definition.

"Reformulate" is loaded because Drew used that term for tying the EC to the founding document of the present crisis:

John XXIII Vatican II Opening Address said:
What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms.

Why endlessly repeat such a loaded term if H.E.'s own words were sufficient for condemnation.

Rather, why 'endlessly' complain about it?!  It's just ONE WORD, for crying out loud!  :facepalm:

Quote
I made my point about this problem, well before drew's post.

My comment after his post was due to the fact that the thrust of his analysis was dead on regardless of the term which he used, which by the way, is a an accurate description of the terms used by the Bishop. Both terms essentially  convey the same meaning without a qualifier inserted.

It is neither drew's fault or my own that this word is a hallmark of the modernists, and as such, is a loaded term.
 
The fault lies with H.E. for using such a concept without a proper distinction to limit the meaning.


I wouldn't at all be surprised if +W had considered using "reformulate" but decided not to, because of his preference to avoid the diversion that would erupt over its use.  But I doubt he would have anticipated that by NOT using "reformulate" that there would be such an eruption ANYWAY.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on August 01, 2014, 01:15:50 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

You have not attempted to refute my reasoning on that question but perhaps you may wish to dispute with J.Paul over whether that term is loaded.

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

My message contained criticism of the text. Bypassing such criticism, you find fault with the messenger. Why not follow your own advice against acting on feeling?
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 02:20:53 PM
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

You have not attempted to refute my reasoning on that question but perhaps you may wish to dispute with J.Paul over whether that term is loaded.

Maybe you weren't paying attention.  I said what is "loaded" is your penchant to criticize a good use of an appropriate word.  

What "reasoning" did you provide beyond your blanket statement insinuating that introducing a new word was somehow not appropriate?  Or, are you referring to how you FELT when you realized that word wasn't in the EC, therefore now you are talking about "reasoning" when all it was, was an emotional reaction?

The entire English language is available for our use.  Why do you presume that an EC limits us to a list of words which it alone contains when we endeavor to have any discussion of it?  Or, is this simply your way of squabbling over semantics so as to avoid a substantive discussion?  There are thousands of words +W did not engage in this EC, many of which are in THIS POST.  Does that make them "loaded terms" too???

Quote
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

My message contained criticism of the text. Bypassing such criticism, you find fault with the messenger. Why not follow your own advice against acting on feeling?

Your message contained criticism of Drew's text, that is, not +W's, when there wasn't anything to criticize.  You just made it up!  And when you were called out on it, you retreated into your cave of self-pity.  Now you're striking out again, like a snake.....   But I'm somehow the 'bad guy?' Curious.

But you can redeem yourself.

Show that you are interested in a substantive discussion, by commenting on the following:


Quote from: +W

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.



.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on August 01, 2014, 05:02:34 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

You have not attempted to refute my reasoning on that question but perhaps you may wish to dispute with J.Paul over whether that term is loaded.

Maybe you weren't paying attention.  I said what is "loaded" is your penchant to criticize a good use of an appropriate word.

??? Please cite.

Quote from: Neil Obstat
What "reasoning" did you provide beyond your blanket statement insinuating that introducing a new word was somehow not appropriate?  Or, are you referring to how you FELT when you realized that word wasn't in the EC, therefore now you are talking about "reasoning" when all it was, was an emotional reaction?

The entire English language is available for our use.  Why do you presume that an EC limits us to a list of words which it alone contains when we endeavor to have any discussion of it?  Or, is this simply your way of squabbling over semantics so as to avoid a substantive discussion?  There are thousands of words +W did not engage in this EC, many of which are in THIS POST.  Does that make them "loaded terms" too???

Quote
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

My message contained criticism of the text. Bypassing such criticism, you find fault with the messenger. Why not follow your own advice against acting on feeling?

Your message contained criticism of Drew's text, that is, not +W's, when there wasn't anything to criticize.  You just made it up!  And when you were called out on it, you retreated into your cave of self-pity.  Now you're striking out again, like a snake.....   But I'm somehow the 'bad guy?' Curious.

I would say that your exclusive reliance upon the ad hominem fallacy undermines your position except it is unclear whether you have a position regarding the point that I made.

One can only speculate, but it appears you do not disagree that the term "reformulate" was first introduced without explanation. Drew provided an explanation in a subsequent post. I responded only that he should made such explanation when he first introduced the term.

It would appear that you only beef (again, one can only speculate) is that I noticed and complained about what I thought was a misleading introduction of a loaded term.

If so, your feelings are duly noted.

Quote from: Neil Obstat
But you can redeem yourself.

Show that you are interested in a substantive discussion, by commenting on the following:


Quote from: +W

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

You invite me to address H.E.'s overall message instead of complaining about a flaw in Drew's response. The former is a larger issue, but the latter is not off-topic.

The language in the EC is sloppy and evidently can be misleading. The resulting controversy underscores the importance of a) discussing such matters in terms that can never be misleading and b) detecting such language flaws where they exist.

How do I know Drew's initial introduction of the term "reformulate" was misleading? Because it had that effect on me. Initially it appeared that J.Paul and Cantarella were similarly misled, although J.Paul appears to have subsequently denied this for himself.

Soon after I raised the matter, I received a private message of agreement from another forum member that has not posted on this thread. So there is at least one other (and perhaps two) besides me who were misled. Therefore, Drew's post was objectively misleading at least to some degree.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 05:34:17 PM
.

You're still doing it, and I suppose that means this is all of which you are capable:

Quote

It would appear that you only beef (again, one can only speculate) is that I noticed and complained about what I thought was a misleading introduction of a loaded term.


On the contrary, my "beef" (your term) is that the word "reformulate" is PERFECTLY legitimate as Drew used it, and your being upset about it is your OWN PROBLEM, not everyone else's problem, which is what you keep trying to make it.  And THAT'S a problem, objectively (as opposed to your subjective problem).

Don't tell me:  I've lost you again....................

Quote

If so, your feelings are duly noted.


Your incessant penchant to repeat the description of your subjective misery over what someone else did that you would not have done is itself misleading because it has nothing to do with any substantive discussion.  And how I "feel" about it is irrelevant, and of no concern to me.  But it is to you, since that's all you care about -- how everyone "feels." Maybe you should be running a day-care center, because it's pretty clear you don't have all this time to worry about Internet virtual feelings if you had 7 children of your own on whose feelings about everything you would be focusing, instead of CI and members you've never met and probably never will.


True to form, you're refusing to redeem yourself.  

Typical of women, most of whom do not really belong in any substantive discussions like this one, you insist on focusing on the persons involved in the discussion and how they FEEL about things, rather than in the material under the topic -- by that I mean the facts of the EC's contents and the implications thereof, not whether everyone is COMFORTABLE with the discussion.  How you feel about what is said has little or nothing to do with the discussion, but I guess you'll never be willing to accept that and work with it, because you prefer to be COMFORTABLE in the conversation.  


For the final time, you can redeem yourself by focusing on the following, which is truly not off-topic:

Quote from: +W

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 06:44:29 PM
.

I'll start.

Quote from: +W

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.




In these two paragraphs, one finds the name "Nestor," referring to a patriarch of Constantinople who was condemned by the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 428.

The story of Ephesus and Nestorius and the Theotokos and the nature of Christ is far from lost to history, in fact, I just had the alarming experience of finding two young women on my front porch, eager to speak with me about "the Female Image of God" while they assured me that they believe in the Trinity and in God the Son as Incarnated on Earth as Jesus Christ;  HOWEVER, they could not answer my question, "How many natures does Christ have, one or two?"  Or, rather, their eventual answer was that Christ has one nature.  They were much more interested in sharing how they FEEL about "God the Mother" with me.  (Note:  not "the Mother of God" -- Theotokos, a word they never heard before -- but "God the Mother.")

Last time I checked, 2014 - 431 = 1583, so 1,583 years ago this question was settled, but here are two "Assembly of God" or "Elohim" or "Raelians" on my doorstep anxious to TEACH ME about something when they've paid no attention to the past 1,583 years of world history.

Do you suppose there could be two men, one Nestor and the other Nestorius, both for whom the patriarchate and condemnation would be true?  The following article from Wikipedia is interesting in this regard (Note, if +W's "Nestor" and this "Nestorius" are the same person, the whole point of +W's mentioning him, the rising up of the people, is found near the middle of this Wiki article.  I find that most fascinating, that is, far more interesting for a substantive discussion than how YOU or ANYONE ELSE "feels" about whether we should warn readers every time we "introduce terms" only "with an explanation" into the discussion, otherwise the reader might have a hormone reaction and that means the "term" was "loaded."):



Nestorius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2010)
Mar Nestorius
Archbishop of Constantinople
Born    c. 386
Germanicia, Syria (now Kahramanmaraş, Turkey)
Died    c. 450
Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah), Egypt
Honored in
   Assyrian Church of the East
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Feast    October 25
Controversy    Christology, Theotokos

Nestorius (/ˌnɛsˈtɔriəs/; in Greek: Νεστόριος; c. 386 – 450[1]) was Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 until August 431, when the emperor Theodosius II confirmed his condemnation by the Council of Ephesus on 22 June. His teachings included a rejection of the long-used title of Theotokos, "Mother of God", for Mary, mother of Jesus, and were misunderstood by many to imply that he did not believe that Christ was truly God. This brought him into conflict with other prominent churchmen of the time, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, whom he accused of heresy.

Nestorius sought to defend himself at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, but instead he found himself formally condemned for heresy by a majority of the bishops and subsequently removed from his see. On his own request he retired to his former monastery in or near Antioch. In 435 Theodosius II sent him into exile in Upper Egypt, where he lived on till 450, strenuously defending his orthodoxy. His last major defender within the Roman Empire, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, finally agreed to anathematize him in 451 during the Council of Chalcedon; from then on he had no defenders within the empire. But the Church of the East never accepted his condemnation. This led later to western Christians giving the name Nestorian Church to the Church of the East, even though it never regarded him as an authoritative teacher. The discovery and publication of his Book of Heraclides at the beginning of the 20th century led to a reassessment of his theology in western scholarship. It is now generally agreed that his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial. This is due to the fact that the Second Council of Constantinople of AD 553 confirmed the validity of the condemnation of Nestorius, refuting the letter of Iba that affirms that Nestorius was condemned without the due inquiry.[2]

Contents

    1 Life
    2 Nestorian controversy
    3 Later events
    4 Writings
    5 Legacy
    6 Bazaar of Heracleides
    7 Notes
    8 References
    9 External links

Life

Nestorius was born around 381/386 in Germanicia in the Roman province of Syria (now Kahramanmaraş in Turkey).[3] He received his clerical training as a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch. He was living as a priest and monk in the monastery of Euprepius near the walls, and gained a reputation for his sermons that led to his enthronement by Theodosius II as Patriarch of Constantinople following the death of Sisinnius I in 428.
Nestorian controversy

Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology. Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ God had been born as a man and insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer"), and those that rejected that title because God as an eternal being could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but did not find acceptance on either side.

"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two separate hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human. The teaching of all those churches which accept the Council of Ephesus is that in the Incarnate Christ is a single hypostasis, at once God and man.[4] This latter doctrine is known as the Hypostatic union. Nestorius's opponents charged him with detaching Christ's divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body, thereby denying the reality of the Incarnation. It is not clear whether Nestorius actually taught this.

Eusebius, a layman who later became the bishop of the neighbouring Dorylaeum, was the first to accuse Nestorius of heresy[5] but his most forceful opponent was Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria. All this naturally caused great excitement at Constantinople, especially among the clergy, who were clearly not well disposed towards the stranger from Antioch.[5] Cyril appealed to Celestine of Rome to make a decision, and Celestine delegated to Cyril the job of excommunicating Nestorius if he did not change his teachings in ten days.

Nestorius had arranged with the emperor in the summer of 430 for the assembling of a council. He now hastened it on, and the summons had been issued to patriarchs and metropolitans on 19 Nov., before the pope's sentence, delivered though Cyril of Alexandria, had been served on Nestorius.[5] Emperor Theodosius II convoked a general church council, sited at Ephesus, itself a special seat for the veneration of Mary, where the Theotokos formula was popular. The Emperor and his wife supported Nestorius while Pope Celestine I supported Cyril.

Cyril took charge of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, opening debate before the long-overdue contingent of Eastern bishops from Antioch arrived. The council deposed Nestorius and declared him a heretic.

In Nestorius' own words,

    When the followers of Cyril saw the vehemence of the emperor... they roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what had been done by them and they were running hither and thither. And... they took with them those who had been separated and removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without examination the things which were done without examination against me; and at the same time all of them, even those that had participated with me at table and in prayer and in thought, were agreed... against me and vowing vows one with another against me... In nothing were they divided.

But while the council was in progress, John I of Antioch and the eastern bishops arrived, and were furious to hear that Nestorius had already been condemned. They convened their own synod, at which Cyril was deposed. Both sides then appealed to the emperor. Initially, the imperial government ordered both Nestorius and Cyril deposed and exiled. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. Cyril was eventually allowed to return after bribing various courtiers.[6]
Later events

In the following months, 17 bishops who supported Nestorius' doctrine were removed from their sees. Eventually, John I of Antioch was obliged to abandon Nestorius in March 433. On August 3, 435, Theodosius II issued an imperial edict that exiled Nestorius from the monastery in Antioch in which he had been staying to a monastery in the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah), in Egypt, securely within the diocese of Cyril. The monastery suffered attacks by desert bandits, and Nestorius was injured in one such raid. Nestorius seems to have survived there until at least 450 (given the evidence of The Book of Heraclides), though we have no knowledge of when after this date he died.[7]
Writings

Very few of Nestorius' writings survive. There are several letters preserved in the records of the Council of Ephesus, and fragments of a few others; about thirty sermons are extant, mostly in fragmentary form. The only complete treatise we have is the lengthy defence of his theological position, called The Book of Heraclides, written in exile at the Oasis, which survives in Syriac translation. This must have been written after 450, as he knows of the death of the Emperor Theodosius II (29 July 450).[8][9]
Legacy

Though Nestorius had been condemned by the church, including by Assyrians[citation needed], there remained a faction loyal to him and his teachings. Following the Nestorian Schism and the relocation of many Nestorian Christians to Persia, Nestorian thought became ingrained in the native Christian community, known as the Church of the East, to the extent that it was often known as the "Nestorian Church". In modern times the Assyrian Church of the East, a modern descendant of the historical Church of the East, reveres Nestorius as a saint, although the modern church does not subscribe to the entirety of the Nestorian doctrine as it has traditionally been understood in the West. Parts of the doctrine were explicitly repudiated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV on the occasion of his accession in 1976.[10]

In the Roman Empire, the doctrine of Monophysitism developed in reaction to Nestorianism. This new doctrine asserted that Christ had but one nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. This doctrine was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, and misattributed to the non-Chalcedonian Churches. Today it is condemned as heresy in the modern Oriental Orthodox churches.
Bazaar of Heracleides

In 1895, a 16th-century book manuscript containing a copy of a text written by Nestorius was discovered by American missionaries in the library of the Nestorian patriarch in the mountains at Konak, Hakkari. This book had suffered damage during Muslim raids, but was substantially intact, and copies were taken secretly. The Syriac translation had the title of the Bazaar of Heracleides.[11] The original 16th-century manuscript was destroyed in 1915 during the Turkish massacres of Assyrian Christians.

In the Bazaar, written about 451, Nestorius denies the heresy for which he was condemned and instead affirms of Christ "the same one is twofold"—an expression that some consider similar to the formulation of the Council of Chalcedon. Nestorius' earlier surviving writings, however, including his letter written in response to Cyril's charges against him, contain material that suggest that at that time he held that Christ had two persons.

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 07:05:29 PM
...the whole point of +W's mentioning him, the rising up of the people, is found near the middle of this Wiki article.  It is here within the words of Nestorius himself, and it is perhaps telling that he accuses "the followers of Cyril" of having "roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God."  I guess you could say those were the days when people took their religion seriously, unlike today!  To be honest, if not for +W's reference to this, I dare say that in my reading of this Wiki article, I would likely have missed the import of this "uprising" entirely.

Please do not miss the innuendo, for it has been precisely on this matter alone, that Bishop Richard Willliamson has been dragged over the coals the past 6 (six) years because in Germany, it is precisely the matter of INCITING RACIAL UNREST over which his reputation has been smeared by the Zionists who hate him with a passion akin to that of Our Lord's.

...


Nestorius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.
.
.
   
Cyril took charge of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, opening debate before the long-overdue contingent of Eastern bishops from Antioch arrived. The council deposed Nestorius and declared him a heretic.

In Nestorius' own words,

    When the followers of Cyril saw the vehemence of the emperor... they roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what had been done by them and they were running hither and thither. And... they took with them those who had been separated and removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without examination the things which were done without examination against me; and at the same time all of them, even those that had participated with me at table and in prayer and in thought, were agreed... against me and vowing vows one with another against me... In nothing were they divided.

But while the council was in progress, John I of Antioch and the eastern bishops arrived, and were furious to hear that Nestorius had already been condemned. They convened their own synod, at which Cyril was deposed. Both sides then appealed to the emperor. Initially, the imperial government ordered both Nestorius and Cyril deposed and exiled. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. Cyril was eventually allowed to return after bribing various courtiers.[6]
Later events

In the following months, 17 bishops who supported Nestorius' doctrine were removed from their sees. Eventually, John I of Antioch was obliged to abandon Nestorius in March 433. On August 3, 435, Theodosius II issued an imperial edict that exiled Nestorius from the monastery in Antioch in which he had been staying to a monastery in the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah), in Egypt, securely within the diocese of Cyril. The monastery suffered attacks by desert bandits, and Nestorius was injured in one such raid. Nestorius seems to have survived there until at least 450 (given the evidence of The Book of Heraclides), though we have no knowledge of when after this date he died.[7]
Writings

Very few of Nestorius' writings survive. There are several letters preserved in the records of the Council of Ephesus, and fragments of a few others; about thirty sermons are extant, mostly in fragmentary form. The only complete treatise we have is the lengthy defence of his theological position, called The Book of Heraclides, written in exile at the Oasis, which survives in Syriac translation. This must have been written after 450, as he knows of the death of the Emperor Theodosius II (29 July 450).[8][9]
Legacy

Though Nestorius had been condemned by the church, including by Assyrians[citation needed], there remained a faction loyal to him and his teachings. Following the Nestorian Schism and the relocation of many Nestorian Christians to Persia, Nestorian thought became ingrained in the native Christian community, known as the Church of the East, to the extent that it was often known as the "Nestorian Church". In modern times the Assyrian Church of the East, a modern descendant of the historical Church of the East, reveres Nestorius as a saint, although the modern church does not subscribe to the entirety of the Nestorian doctrine as it has traditionally been understood in the West. Parts of the doctrine were explicitly repudiated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV on the occasion of his accession in 1976.[10]

In the Roman Empire, the doctrine of Monophysitism developed in reaction to Nestorianism. This new doctrine asserted that Christ had but one nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. This doctrine was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, and misattributed to the non-Chalcedonian Churches. Today it is condemned as heresy in the modern Oriental Orthodox churches.
Bazaar of Heracleides

In 1895, a 16th-century book manuscript containing a copy of a text written by Nestorius was discovered by American missionaries in the library of the Nestorian patriarch in the mountains at Konak, Hakkari. This book had suffered damage during Muslim raids, but was substantially intact, and copies were taken secretly. The Syriac translation had the title of the Bazaar of Heracleides.[11] The original 16th-century manuscript was destroyed in 1915 during the Turkish massacres of Assyrian Christians.

In the Bazaar, written about 451, Nestorius denies the heresy for which he was condemned and instead affirms of Christ "the same one is twofold"—an expression that some consider similar to the formulation of the Council of Chalcedon. Nestorius' earlier surviving writings, however, including his letter written in response to Cyril's charges against him, contain material that suggest that at that time he held that Christ had two persons.

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on August 01, 2014, 08:35:28 PM
Drew,

What you copied is really irrelevant and your assertions of me lying and your comments about Bp. Fellay are themselves calumnious.

A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction. That is why I qualified what I wrote with "If", "truly" viz. do you really understand what you are saying? Only a diocesan bishop has a flock. His auxiliaries do not, the Society bishops do not and Bp. Williamson does not. Indeed, both Bp. Tissier de Mallarias and Abp. Lefebvre have both made it clear that no jurisdiction was ever conferred and that any jurisdiction which does exist is only with the individual.

A bishop's flock includes a clerical-flock as well as a lay-flock. This obviously implies a hierarchy. Fr. Chazel has already hinted at this a priest is nothing without a bishop [or words to that effect] and it is clear that resistance priests do regard him as their head (even if only informally). Whereas the Society and Bp. Lefebvre always made clear that they were not establishing a parallel hierarchy. Indeed not only is, for example, Bp. Tissier de Mallarias subject to the authority of the US District Superior, but also the prior of the Chicago priory.

Bp. Williamson has already stated "It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church ..."; he is clearly telling everyone to abandon and refuse any link to the hierarchy. Presuming he believes what he says: there ought to be no hierarchy and I'll do my best to dismantle it.

I do not believe for one minute, anyone with a basic grounding - yes even a N.O. Grounding - in Catholicism cannot fail to smell the stench of protestantism in what Bp. Williamson has done and is doing.

So yes, if you all believe that Bp. Williamson has a flock, in the true sense, that is schismatic.

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon.

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.

Charity, justice etc. I won't hold my breath waiting...
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on August 01, 2014, 09:03:58 PM
Columba,
Quote
How do I know Drew's initial introduction of the term "reformulate" was misleading? Because it had that effect on me. Initially it appeared that J.Paul and Cantarella were similarly misled, although J.Paul appears to have subsequently denied this for himself.


To eliminate all speculation, I was not misled at all. I agreed with his use of the term due to the fact that it characterized what the Bishop said perfectly, and thus I commented using his term. Drew's meaning and intent was very clear. It was not confusing and it was not misleading, to me, and while I cannot speak for Canterella, I believe that she too, grasped his intended point as well.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 11:01:33 PM
Quote

Please do not miss the innuendo, for it has been precisely on this matter alone, that Bishop Richard Willliamson has been dragged over the coals the past 6 (six) years because in Germany, it is precisely the matter of INCITING RACIAL UNREST over which his reputation has been smeared by the Zionists who hate him with a passion akin to that of Our Lord's.
...



IOW, what the enemies of the Faith are doing to +W of late is the same kind of thing the heretic Nestorius was attempting to do 15 centuries ago.  The tables have turned, though, and the outcry in ancient times to defend Tradition when the common man had the faith, has devolved into a state of affairs today whereby the mere threat or insinuation of "racial unrest" is sufficient to render judicial sanctions against a good bishop when he dares to say what is verifiable but also happens to be most politically incorrect.  

As the courts say, "historical truth has nothing to do with it."  What they cannot deny is that "political incorrectness" has become grounds for court action against anyone who 'offends' the Modernist status quo by way of same.

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 01, 2014, 11:37:55 PM
.

Sorry, but this one is too good to pass up.  Father Alain Lorans' intro to the new DICI 299 (http://www.dici.org/en/) (it heads the new email version but it's from January - Bis repetita non placent - 1-08-2014)  --  provides an example of an alternative phrasing for:

The "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."



Drum roll, please...............

He is "in a very delicate situation.  He ceaselessly has to correct, reframe, nuance….  He must constantly explain with infinitesimal subtleties…."


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on August 02, 2014, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: peterp
Drew,What you copied is really irrelevant and your assertions of me lying and your comments about Bp. Fellay are themselves calumnious.


What exactly are you claiming was "copied" in my last post?  Every source drawn from was attributed, but beyond the attributions, the composition was my own.  As to its relevancy if you did not see it then you did not understand the problem with your unjustifiable accusations against Neil Obstat.  

Next, exactly where did I call you a "liar" in my last post?  The word is not even used in my post.  And lastly, if you are accusing anyone of "calumny," which is a grave sin, you have to do two things: establish a lie and prove the lie is intentional for the purpose of damaging the reputation of another, neither of which you have done.   In fact, to charge someone with "calumny" without producing evidence of calumny is in fact a good example of what calumny is.

Quote from: peterp
A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction. That is why I qualified what I wrote with "If", "truly" viz. do you really understand what you are saying? Only a diocesan bishop has a flock. His auxiliaries do not, the Society bishops do not and Bp. Williamson does not. Indeed, both Bp. Tissier de Mallarias and Abp. Lefebvre have both made it clear that no jurisdiction was ever conferred and that any jurisdiction which does exist is only with the individual.

A bishop's flock includes a clerical-flock as well as a lay-flock. This obviously implies a hierarchy. Fr. Chazel has already hinted at this a priest is nothing without a bishop [or words to that effect] and it is clear that resistance priests do regard him as their head (even if only informally). Whereas the Society and Bp. Lefebvre always made clear that they were not establishing a parallel hierarchy. Indeed not only is, for example, Bp. Tissier de Mallarias subject to the authority of the US District Superior, but also the prior of the Chicago priory.


What your previous post indicated is that you have no idea about the moral or legal denotations and connotations of the word, schism.  You made the accusation, which is of grave matter, against Neil Obstat, that he was "schismatic."  I have assumed that you have acted out of ignorance, which does not excuse but only mitigates the fault.  But after my last post you can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse, therefore, the moral imputation is a much more serious matter.  If after reading my last post you can do one of two things.  Apologize to Neil Obstat and retract the accusation or prove it.

You are treating jurisdiction as if it is created by positive law.  IT is not.  Jurisdiction exists in God's Church because of the nature of the Church God created.  It follows from the attribute of Authority He has endowed His Church.  Positive law simply regulates how jurisdiction is normally exercised.  It does not create it nor does it destroy it.  IT is obvious that Archbishop Lefebvre did not legally establish "jurisdiction"  because he does not possess the competency to do so. But, that is in fact irrelevant except as it applies to Bishop Fellay.

Since Bishop Fellay is already exercising canonical "jurisdiction" upon members of the SSPX the obvious question should be, Who gave it to him and when did it happen?  Was it when he made the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity?
 
Quote from: peterp
Bp. Williamson has already stated "It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church ..."; he is clearly telling everyone to abandon and refuse any link to the hierarchy. Presuming he believes what he says: there ought to be no hierarchy and I'll do my best to dismantle it.

I do not believe for one minute, anyone with a basic grounding - yes even a N.O. Grounding - in Catholicism cannot fail to smell the stench of protestantism in what Bp. Williamson has done and is doing.

So yes, if you all believe that Bp. Williamson has a flock, in the true sense, that is schismatic.


It is difficult to believe that you are serious in attempting to make this argument.  Nothing is properly defined, nothing affirmed is proven and, even if we were to make the assumption that your propositions are true, the conclusions do not necessarily follow.  The only conclusions that can be drawn from your argument are about you.  

Just because +Williamson does not assume jurisdiction does not prevent him from exercising it upon those who ask it from him.  Nor is failing to assume jurisdiction evidence of "protestantism" or desire to "dismantle" the hierarchy of the Church.  In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable.   It does not follow that a specific violation of law that governs ordinary jurisdiction is evidence of schism. There are numerous historical examples that can be cited to prove this but reason alone should easily make the case.  Why do you suppose that a SSPX or Resistance priest can validly remit sins in the sacrament of Penance today?   The law of the Church requires jurisdiction for validity of the sacrament.  How then do you suppose that is jurisdiction applied?  Does the priest hearing a confession then become schismatic by doing so?  It is through the rights of the penitent that jurisdiction is supplied to the priest.

Quote from: peterp
"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon.

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.

Charity, justice etc. I won't hold my breath waiting...


"Soon"?  It is immaterial if it occurs sooner or later, but that it will occur has already been determined.  What is material is that the theological objections that would prevent it have been removed.  They were removed a long time ago.  The entire secretive GREC discussions, which began in 1997, presuppose acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity."  Furthermore, the doctrinal discussions with Rome do so as well.  The evidence that proves this is that there was no demands from the SSPX for any dogmatic clarification of modern doctrinal teachings.  It never happened.  Romans are not dummies.  They would have never entered into discussions if that had any real concerns that +Fellay would actually appeal to dogma.  

Next time you see +Bishop Fellay ask him about the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity.   You should not be surprised to learn that he made it long ago.

Drew
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 03, 2014, 03:45:53 AM
.

Your whole post is stellar, drew, but this part really gets me:

Quote from: drew
... The entire secretive GREC discussions, which began in 1997, presuppose acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity."  Furthermore, the doctrinal discussions with Rome do so as well.  The evidence that proves this is that there was no demands from the SSPX for any dogmatic clarification of modern doctrinal teachings.  It never happened.  Romans are not dummies.  They would have never entered into discussions if that had any real concerns that +Fellay would actually appeal to dogma.  

Next time you see +Bishop Fellay ask him about the 1989 Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity.   You should not be surprised to learn that he made it long ago.

Drew

A superficial reader might complain that the "hermeneutic of continuity" didn't exist until 2010 (or whatever year it was), so how could GREC have presupposed any acceptance of something that wouldn't arrive for 10 more years?

This is where principles come into play.  The principle of the denial of the principle of non-contradiction is a matter of ancient history.  The Greek philosophers 400 years before Christ dealt with this obstacle and did so just fine.  That's because they could t-h-i-n-k.  

The problem with GREC is that it presumed to deny the principle of non-contradiction even before Benedict XVI attempted to legitimize such an act of intellectual insanity with his deviant and repulsive screed.  That GREC set foot into that same snake pit of suicide before the "hermeneutic of continuity" did is obviated by the egregiousness of the act itself, regardless of which one came first.  

Furthermore, readers ought to know that this infamous Oath of Fidelity (1989?) was a replacement for the Oath Against Modernism.  Needless to say, it covers none of the anti-Modernist promises of Sacrorum Antistitum.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!   (Directed at flaming lowbrow liberals like petwerp, whose posts I can't be bothered to read anyway.)

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on August 04, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Drew, rather than using the quote feature I'll just answer in bullet form as your reply in a number of places didn't make sense or follow.

1. I know you attributed what was copied, but the text copied is not relevant; this has nothing it do with an instance of disobedience.
 
2. You accused me of calumny (1st post) which you define as a lie for the intention of damaging the reputation of another (2nd post). Thus, you are calling me a liar and attributing intent (both of which are not true).

3. The ignorance here is on your part: i) Your last post was largely irrelevant and shows you have no grasp of the subject. This has nothing to do with disobedience; ii) You completely ignored my qualification - a true understanding of the term bishop's flock - since if Neil thinks as you do regarding the term, he too would be utterly clueless; iii) there was no intent to damage a reputation but rather it serve as a warning to him and others.

4. I'll repeat this "A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction." It is a flock, both a clerical-flock and a lay-flock, within a territory over which a bishop has been bestowed the power to govern.  It is attached to an ecclesiastical office by law and is automatically acquired by one who acquires the office. To claim jurisdiction over all or part of another bishop's flock is an act of usurpation.

5. Let me explain jurisdiction to you: Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful and lead them to eternal life. This power was conferred by Christ on the Church. The pope draws on this power and confers a share of it upon the Church's clerics. It is the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'. Only the baptized are subject to jurisdiction. It is necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of those upon whom jurisdiction has been conferred. Those who reject the Church's jurisdiction are no longer members of the Church.

6. You seem incapable of distinguishing between flock and individual. The supplied jurisdiction of the Society bishops is exercised on a case by case over individuals in need, namely, confirmands, seminarians of the Society and affiliated communities) - that's all. Supplied jurisdiction is not possessed one moment before or after the action. Only an individual can make use of the benefit of supplied jurisdiction. Flock denotes an ordinary jurisdiction. Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction is obvious from his title.

7. To arbitrarily choose to place oneself under the jurisdiction of another (bishop) is to reject the Church's lawful authority, that is, one's local ordinary. To reject the Church's authority is to put oneself outside the Church. To claim "In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable." demonstrates, at least, a schismatic attitude; it implies a rejection of Church authority.

8. Reposting your calumnies regarding Bp. Fellay below as you refused to answer them with recent interview responses:

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.", "but that it will occur has already been determined."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon. Now you assert that some form of agreement is already in place [I note that you added sooner or later to give you some more leeway]
“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”  (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.
Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle. (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.
That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)
For Benedict XVI, Vatican Council II is part of Tradition. It is a total equivocacy. When Vatican II says the opposite of what was affirmed until then, there are no “hermeneutics of continuity” (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

Drew, please don't waffle again it just looks like you are trying to avoid the obvious. Using you own criteria please prove and provided evidence for you claims and demonstrate Bp. Fellay was lying. Not hearsay, inuendo etc. Evidence. If you can't stop cowering behind waffle, man-up and retract your comments.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2014, 05:01:14 PM
.

Wait a minute................ I'm having déjà vu.............


Vatican II Déjà Vu, that is!



The unclean spirit of Vat.II (a.k.a. the error of Russia) has spread into the XSPX.

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on August 04, 2014, 05:15:58 PM
peterp,
It seems that you are engaging in an exercise of self abuse here. You are outclassed by the opponents whom you have chosen to debate.

This whole line of argument is itself, irrelevant, and the steadfast defense of Bishop Fellay is quite unconvincing.  The answer to all of your prosecutorial questions lie in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012.
This modernist document refutes Bishop Fellay's protestations of remaining the same, and holding the faith as the highest priority, as in it, he appears to accept much of Rome's modernist orientation.

In Bishop Fellay's own words, and signed by his own hand, and submitted to the Roman modernists.



Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2014, 10:41:56 PM
Quote from: J.Paul

peterp,
It seems that you are engaging in an exercise of self abuse here. You are outclassed by the opponents whom you have chosen to debate.

This whole line of argument is itself, irrelevant, and the steadfast defense of Bishop Fellay is quite unconvincing.  The answer to all of your prosecutorial questions lie in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012.
This modernist document refutes Bishop Fellay's protestations of remaining the same, and holding the faith as the highest priority, as in it, he appears to accept much of Rome's modernist orientation.

In Bishop Fellay's own words, and signed by his own hand, and submitted to the Roman modernists.


Oh, but, but, but, +F already said that it wasn't going to continue to work!  

:roll-laugh1:           :roll-laugh1:           :roll-laugh1:          :roll-laugh1:        
 


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on August 05, 2014, 04:07:28 PM
Quote from: J.Paul
peterp,
It seems that you are engaging in an exercise of self abuse here. You are outclassed by the opponents whom you have chosen to debate.

This whole line of argument is itself, irrelevant, and the steadfast defense of Bishop Fellay is quite unconvincing.  The answer to all of your prosecutorial questions lie in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012.
This modernist document refutes Bishop Fellay's protestations of remaining the same, and holding the faith as the highest priority, as in it, he appears to accept much of Rome's modernist orientation.

In Bishop Fellay's own words, and signed by his own hand, and submitted to the Roman modernists.





Really? All I'm doing is para-phrasing Bp. Tissier de Mallarais, Fr. Miaskiewicz, the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it not really me who's being argued with. Irrelevant? Possibly, but only to a Sede Vacantist.

The 2012 Doctrinal Declaration is really no different from the the May 5th Protocol. There are some subtlties (e.g. legitimately promulgated) which opponents of any agreement (from both inside and outside of the Society) have sought to twist for their own ends, but they are essentially the same.

Bp. Fellay has already said that the document needed to be read and understood within a certain context. It was, in the end, almost a political just as must as a doctrinal one:

The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
(Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

I can understand you holding to the document with your own spin, ignoring all the explanations and clarifications of the past two years, refusing to see it in its proper context, calling Bp. Fellay a liar etc. The 'modernist' accusation is just a ruse, a means to end. The real reason is: you don't want any agreement under any circumstances, even a 'we accept you as you are' agreement. At least come out and admit it.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on August 05, 2014, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul
peterp,
It seems that you are engaging in an exercise of self abuse here. You are outclassed by the opponents whom you have chosen to debate.

This whole line of argument is itself, irrelevant, and the steadfast defense of Bishop Fellay is quite unconvincing.  The answer to all of your prosecutorial questions lie in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012.
This modernist document refutes Bishop Fellay's protestations of remaining the same, and holding the faith as the highest priority, as in it, he appears to accept much of Rome's modernist orientation.

In Bishop Fellay's own words, and signed by his own hand, and submitted to the Roman modernists.





Really? All I'm doing is para-phrasing Bp. Tissier de Mallarais, Fr. Miaskiewicz, the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it not really me who's being argued with. Irrelevant? Possibly, but only to a Sede Vacantist.

The 2012 Doctrinal Declaration is really no different from the the May 5th Protocol. There are some subtlties (e.g. legitimately promulgated) which opponents of any agreement (from both inside and outside of the Society) have sought to twist for their own ends, but they are essentially the same.

Bp. Fellay has already said that the document needed to be read and understood within a certain context. It was, in the end, almost a political just as must as a doctrinal one:

The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
(Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

I can understand you holding to the document with your own spin, ignoring all the explanations and clarifications of the past two years, refusing to see it in its proper context, calling Bp. Fellay a liar etc. The 'modernist' accusation is just a ruse, a means to end. The real reason is: you don't want any agreement under any circumstances, even a 'we accept you as you are' agreement. At least come out and admit it.


Yes, please!   A delicate document indeed! When dealing with the doctrine of the Church and most especially, when discussing doctrine with modernists one does not deal in delicacies. One employs only unambiguous truths. There can never be an excuse for using imprecise or subtle terms which can imply anything other than the one true and unmovable truth.

This fellow, who is a Bishop of the Church, is all the more obliged to NOT have employed such deceptive means to the Romans. Did he think that they were to stupid to notice?  Did he think that we were all to stupid to notice?

He uses the time honored excuse of us not understanding his context whenever he makes a gaff or an unsound assertion. That ship both sailed and sank, years ago.

Starting this whole ruckus over Neil's casual reference to a flock, is indeed a foolish exercise. Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock, and neither does Bishop Fellay. There is no reasoned point to be made from such gnat straining.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 06, 2014, 01:13:47 PM
.

Speaking of using appropriate references,,,,,,,,,,

Let's just say we all have a quick look at the Liberalism of Bishop B'nai Fellay, why don't we?




"Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal-Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of States;   they have been the ruin of France.  Believe me:  the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune [he's referring to Communism, before the name was developed].  I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary." -Bl. Pius IX

"People are not wanting who pretend to form an alliance between light and darkness, and to associate justice with iniquity in favor of those doctrines called Liberal-Catholicism, which, based on the most pernicious principles, show themselves favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals;  they lead their partisans to esteem, or, at least, to tolerate iniquitous laws, as if it were not written that no one can serve two masters.  Those who thus conduct themselves, are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies, not only because, without being warned of it, perhaps even without being conscious of it, they second the projects of wicked men, but also because, keeping within certain limits, they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine. [Cf. the abominable AFD of 2012, and the pernicious Six Conditions of the General Chapter of the same year, which was held while the abominable AFD was confined to covert clandestine secrecy]  They thus deceive the indiscreet friends of conciliation and seduce honest people, who would otherwise have strenuously combatted a declared error."

The Holy Pontiff warns against the deleterious effect of Liberals like B'nai +Fellay, for the damage they would cause if not identified, quarantined, and expelled for being the noxious contagion that they are.  But instead of that, what we now have afoot is the venomous contagion itself taking power and directing this 'expulsion' agenda, akin to spiritual AIDS, AGAINST the GOOD in the Church, so as to ultimately extinguish all of Sacred Tradition.

Here, then is the message the Holy Pontiff bequeaths to the Resistance insofar as it faithfully adheres to the Sacred Tradition that B'nai +Fellay attacks so relentlessly:

"What we praise above all in your religious enterprise is the absolute aversion which, as we are informed, you show towards the principles of Liberal-Catholicism [e.g., the corrupt agenda of the XSPX] and your intrepid determination to root them out as soon as possible.  In truth you will extirpate the fatal root of discord and you will efficaciously contribute to unite and strengthen the minds of all [faithful Catholics] in so combatting this insidious error, [an error] much more dangerous than an open enemy because it hides itself under the specious veil of zeal and of charity, and [to unite and strengthen the Resistance] in so endeavoring to protect the people in general from its contaminating influence."  



The Principles of Liberal-Catholicism..

..(Are) more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies,
(they) pretend to form an alliance between light and darkness,
and to associate justice with iniquity,
(they are) favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals,  
they lead their partisans to esteem, or at least to tolerate iniquitous laws,
the true causes of the destruction of States,
(they're) more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies,
not only because they second the projects of wicked men, but also because
they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine --
-- all within certain 'reasonable' limits, of course,
lest the Fellayites and mind-numbed lemmings like petwerp
and andy's loan and John McFartland might wake up.

In this way, B'nai +Fellay deceives the indiscreet friends of true conciliation,
and seduces honest people,
people who would otherwise have strenuously combatted a declared error.


.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on August 06, 2014, 07:53:32 PM
Quote from: peterp
Drew, rather than using the quote feature I'll just answer in bullet form as your reply in a number of places didn't make sense or follow.

1. I know you attributed what was copied, but the text copied is not relevant; this has nothing it do with an instance of disobedience.
 
2. You accused me of calumny (1st post) which you define as a lie for the intention of damaging the reputation of another (2nd post). Thus, you are calling me a liar and attributing intent (both of which are not true).


For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism.  That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term.  The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor.  If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it.  You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

Quote from: peterp
3. The ignorance here is on your part: i) Your last post was largely irrelevant and shows you have no grasp of the subject. This has nothing to do with disobedience; ii) You completely ignored my qualification - a true understanding of the term bishop's flock - since if Neil thinks as you do regarding the term, he too would be utterly clueless; iii) there was no intent to damage a reputation but rather it serve as a warning to him and others.


You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application.  It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."  

Quote from: peterp
4. I'll repeat this "A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction." It is a flock, both a clerical-flock and a lay-flock, within a territory over which a bishop has been bestowed the power to govern.  It is attached to an ecclesiastical office by law and is automatically acquired by one who acquires the office. To claim jurisdiction over all or part of another bishop's flock is an act of usurpation.


You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction.  So what?  If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities.  Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

Quote from: peterp
5. Let me explain jurisdiction to you: Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful and lead them to eternal life. This power was conferred by Christ on the Church. The pope draws on this power and confers a share of it upon the Church's clerics. It is the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'. Only the baptized are subject to jurisdiction. It is necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of those upon whom jurisdiction has been conferred. Those who reject the Church's jurisdiction are no longer members of the Church.


The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms.  I have already explained this question in a previous post.  Try to read it more carefully.  Since  you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction."  

Quote from: peterp
6. You seem incapable of distinguishing between flock and individual. The supplied jurisdiction of the Society bishops is exercised on a case by case over individuals in need, namely, confirmands, seminarians of the Society and affiliated communities) - that's all. Supplied jurisdiction is not possessed one moment before or after the action. Only an individual can make use of the benefit of supplied jurisdiction. Flock denotes an ordinary jurisdiction. Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction is obvious from his title.


Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'" does so on a "case by case" basis "over individuals in need."  I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this claim.  

Quote from: peterp
7. To arbitrarily choose to place oneself under the jurisdiction of another (bishop) is to reject the Church's lawful authority, that is, one's local ordinary. To reject the Church's authority is to put oneself outside the Church. To claim "In any state of apostasy even within a restricted geographical area, the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable." demonstrates, at least, a schismatic attitude; it implies a rejection of Church authority.


"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual.  No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily"  with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction.  If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind.   In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.  

About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century.  It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area"  and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy.  So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution?  Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?  

"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology.  There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

Quote from: peterp
8. Reposting your calumnies regarding Bp. Fellay below as you refused to answer them with recent interview responses:

"Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.", "but that it will occur has already been determined."
Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon. Now you assert that some form of agreement is already in place [I note that you added sooner or later to give you some more leeway]
“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”  (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

"For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.
Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle. (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

"accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.
That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.” (Bp. Fellay, Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)
For Benedict XVI, Vatican Council II is part of Tradition. It is a total equivocacy. When Vatican II says the opposite of what was affirmed until then, there are no “hermeneutics of continuity” (Le Rocher, April/May 2014)

Drew, please don't waffle again it just looks like you are trying to avoid the obvious. Using you own criteria please prove and provided evidence for you claims and demonstrate Bp. Fellay was lying. Not hearsay, inuendo etc. Evidence. If you can't stop cowering behind waffle, man-up and retract your comments.


The metaphor of a "train" going to Rome is attributed to Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, the second assistant to Bishop Fellay, who is reported to have said, "The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off." Bishop Fellay has already removed any possible obstacles to his return to Rome and therefore the metaphor of a "train" that travels on a determined track and direction is most appropriate.  The only question is with regard to speed - sooner or later, it ends up at the station.  The "obstacles" have been so completely removed that there is no longer any grounds to argue that a "state of emergency" and therefore a "state of necessity" exists.  Those still following Bishop Fellay at this time can offer no moral justification for doing so.  

Is Bishop Fellay a liar or is eveybody else?  He overthrew the norms adopted by the General Chapter 2006 that there would be "no practical agreement without a doctrinal solution" and has followed his own prescription for that agreement in 2012 that he approved.  The General Chapter was not informed about GREC in 2006.  Since they established the norms that Bishop Fellay was obligated to follow, they necessarily possessed a right to know of this fact.  

In Bishop Fellay's reply written by Fr. Pfluger to the Letter from the Three Bishops he admits to acting in a secretive manner because of their "attitude" (perhaps, a "schismatic attitude"?) has kept the "Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters." This is an open admission of duplicity which he apparently believes he is entitled to. If he has not revealed his intentions honestly to the "three bishops" or the General Chapter, why would think that he has leveled with anyone else, especially you?  Fr. Pfluger also says that the Society should proceed with a practical agreement because, "To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end."  The Letter even explains the reason for a practical agreement now: "Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer."  Rome demands a "practical agreement" and Bishop Fellay agrees.  

The duplicity of Bishop Fellay is evident again in Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera's report that Bishop Fellay most favorably approved of a 'reverently' offered Novus Ordo and said that even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have opposed the Novus Ordo offered in such a manner.  Or Bishop Peter Elliott who said that Bishop Fellay and/or the priests in his presence told him that the "Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular."  These reports were denied by Bishop Fellay.  Who is the liar?  

The Open Letter by the 37 priests from the French District documents numerous examples of duplicity of Bishop Fellay and his assistants.  Are these 37 priests lying or is Bishop Fellay?  The Carmelites in Germany have separated from the SSPX and accused Bishop Fellay of duplicity.  The Dominicans in France have done the same and published, for limited distribution, a history documenting this behavior.  Who is lying, Bishop Fellay or the Carmelites and the Dominicans?

The secretive GREC discussions presupposed the "hermeneutic continuity" and so did the "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome.  Without the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity" they could not have taken place.  It is really immaterial anymore what Bishop Fellay has said; it is however most material what he has done.  By quoting Bishop Fellay's denial of his accepting the Hermeneutic of Continuity you are just providing more documentary proof that he is a liar.  If Bishop Fellay were interested in "preserving the Faith" as you claim, his doctrinal discussions would have ended with demands for dogmatic declarations and the publication of a syllabus of errors against the "hermeneutic of rupture"  that is the only Catholic answer to the demand for a practical agreement from Rome.  It never happened.  

Remember, it was the same Bishop Fellay who said he rejected the "hermeneutic of continuity" who also said, that Religious Liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” (CNS interview, May 2012)  

When do think Bishop Fellay made the 1989 Profession of Faith and took the Oath of Fidelity?  Do you think he will lie about it if you ask him?  Or is he, what you would say, developing a "schismatic attitude"?

Drew  
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Columba on August 07, 2014, 10:50:34 AM
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: peterp
[...]
Bp. Fellay has already said that the document needed to be read and understood within a certain context. It was, in the end, almost a political just as must as a doctrinal one: [...]

Yes, please!   A delicate document indeed! When dealing with the doctrine of the Church and most especially, when discussing doctrine with modernists one does not deal in delicacies. One employs only unambiguous truths. There can never be an excuse for using imprecise or subtle terms which can imply anything other than the one true and unmovable truth.

Indeed, it is not possible to discern the true meaning of text written ambiguously. That is the the intended purpose of ambiguity. St. Pius X identified the formulation of theology in vague language as the hallmark of the Modernists he condemned.

It is pointless to argue over the meaning of text intentionally obscure, but actions speak louder than words. Clearly +Fellay intended to be ambiguous and that is the hallmark of a Modernist.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on August 07, 2014, 02:25:24 PM
Columba,
Quote
Clearly +Fellay intended to be ambiguous and that is the hallmark of a Modernist.


He has admitted to the deliberate obscuring of meanings in the document, and to listen to him, he seems rather proud of his "erudite cleverness".
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on September 05, 2014, 09:55:30 PM
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul
peterp,
It seems that you are engaging in an exercise of self abuse here. You are outclassed by the opponents whom you have chosen to debate.

This whole line of argument is itself, irrelevant, and the steadfast defense of Bishop Fellay is quite unconvincing.  The answer to all of your prosecutorial questions lie in the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012.
This modernist document refutes Bishop Fellay's protestations of remaining the same, and holding the faith as the highest priority, as in it, he appears to accept much of Rome's modernist orientation.

In Bishop Fellay's own words, and signed by his own hand, and submitted to the Roman modernists.





Really? All I'm doing is para-phrasing Bp. Tissier de Mallarais, Fr. Miaskiewicz, the Catholic Encyclopedia, so it not really me who's being argued with. Irrelevant? Possibly, but only to a Sede Vacantist.

The 2012 Doctrinal Declaration is really no different from the the May 5th Protocol. There are some subtlties (e.g. legitimately promulgated) which opponents of any agreement (from both inside and outside of the Society) have sought to twist for their own ends, but they are essentially the same.

Bp. Fellay has already said that the document needed to be read and understood within a certain context. It was, in the end, almost a political just as must as a doctrinal one:

The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.
(Angelus Press Conference, Oct 2013)

I can understand you holding to the document with your own spin, ignoring all the explanations and clarifications of the past two years, refusing to see it in its proper context, calling Bp. Fellay a liar etc. The 'modernist' accusation is just a ruse, a means to end. The real reason is: you don't want any agreement under any circumstances, even a 'we accept you as you are' agreement. At least come out and admit it.


Yes, please!   A delicate document indeed! When dealing with the doctrine of the Church and most especially, when discussing doctrine with modernists one does not deal in delicacies. One employs only unambiguous truths. There can never be an excuse for using imprecise or subtle terms which can imply anything other than the one true and unmovable truth.

This fellow, who is a Bishop of the Church, is all the more obliged to NOT have employed such deceptive means to the Romans. Did he think that they were to stupid to notice?  Did he think that we were all to stupid to notice?

He uses the time honored excuse of us not understanding his context whenever he makes a gaff or an unsound assertion. That ship both sailed and sank, years ago.

Starting this whole ruckus over Neil's casual reference to a flock, is indeed a foolish exercise. Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock, and neither does Bishop Fellay. There is no reasoned point to be made from such gnat straining.


This is a different argument. Before you were, in effect, calling Bishop Fellay a liar.

Now, proven wrong, you claim he should not be so "delicate". But in that case you condemn Archbishop Lefevre - as I just posted on another thread, did he not - at the very least - playdown his 1974 declaration? Did he not on the one hand declare the Roman Curia was filled with anti-Christs and yet, simultaneously, seek an agreement with these "anti-Christs"? Did he not have second thoughts about the May 5th protocol, having a sleepless night and longing for morning to come so he could send a new response to Rome ... which was penned "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. ..."?

Was St. Thomas More wrong with his defense silence means consent? Similarly, I was recently asked to pen a letter to a local ordinary petitioning him not to sell the only diocean church where they celerbrate the [Indult] Latin Mass. According to you I should call a spade a spade and write:
"Dear Bishop/Mr. xxxx ..., please forgive me regarding your title but I am unsure of the validity of you ordination and consecration. In addition, being a heretic, you have automatically lost your office so I really have no idea why I'm writing to you in the first palace. That aside, regarding the proposed selling of ...". What do you think the result would be?

I'm sorry put if you cannot grasp the diplomacy and politics in all of this - the Archbishop certaintly did and so do the Society Bishops - then you really are clueless.

Regarding Neil's reference, I do not know what he thinks, but if it was a casual remark it is now irrelelavent since Drew has taken up the baton; he expilitly rejects the authority of his local ordinary. Ordinary jurisdictiom no longer applies to him, this is how these people think, so no it is now certainly not "gnat straining".
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on September 05, 2014, 11:19:16 PM
Quote from: drew
For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism.  That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term.  The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor.  If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it.  You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

This is both false and calumny because you have deliberately ignore the qualifier (of which you have been told about repeatedly). You did not provided an exposition , it was an argumentation. The exposition appeared originally in The Remanant. It was not relevant (save the definition of schism) because the argumentation deals with disobedience not a rejection per se of authority. Your first posts left no door open as it stated, falsely "Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny ...". You also conclude that I know it to be a lie (which is clearly not the case) and that there is an intent to injure which is also not the case (as already explained to you). Simply Drew, you are a liar.
Quote from: drew
You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application.  It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."

I notice you completely ignore the term bishop's flock. I didn't write the argumentation (that you wrongly label exposition) "shows no grasp of the subject" but it is YOU who has no grasp of the subject.
Quote from: drew
You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction.  So what?  If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities.  Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?

"So what?" - just about sums it up you don’t have a clue what you are writing about. I notice you didn't addess the term bishop’s flock again. And when you have J.Paul, who is hardly a “Felleyite”,  stating “Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock…”  it becomes screaming obviously to everyone that you do not understand meaning of the terms used:
"... the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep." (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais defines the limits of their jurisdiction to two groups - those seeking the sacrament of confirmation and holy orders - "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works."
Your logic and understanding of Bishop Fellay jurisdiction faulty. He has ordinary jurisdiction over members of the Society as the Superior General, and supplied jurisdiction in the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, over religious communities etc.

Quote from: drew
The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms.  I have already explained this question in a previous post.  Try to read it more carefully.  Since  you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction.

The Roman Pontiff is the source of jurisdiction upon this earth, all power emanates from him:
"... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz,  p.28)
"When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
"If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
"In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)
Quote from: drew
Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'"[1] does so on a "case by case"[2] basis "over individuals in need."[3]  I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this.[4]

[1] As previously quoted: i) Miaskiewicz, p.28, p.197; ii) Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379; iii) Can. 144 §1;
[2] i) "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
ii) "... every single time that this reputed bishop or pastor under the requisite conditions of canon 209 attempts the performance of a jurisdictional act, he receives the necessary jurisdiction in actu. Thus, he does not possess the jurisdiction one moment before nor a single moment after the performance of the action. It does not matter how many acts he performs. The jurisdiction is always supplied in the self-same manner: in actu." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(iii) "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 Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Angles);
[3] i) "... the individual is to make use of the benefit of canon 209 ..." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(ii) "it is a personal and not a territorial jurisdiction. It is very important to understand this. Your priests have jurisdiction over your persons and not over a territory." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
[4] There's no paper work, it's just you simply do not understand jurisdiction. Seriously Drew, use the serach facility of CathInfo and you will see jurisdiction/supplied jurisdiction has been done to death. And there are some excellent references.  
Quote from: drew
"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual.  No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily"  with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction.  If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind.  In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.

Your "shepherd" is your local ordinary. To reject his authority is schismatic. You wrote: "If any faithful member ... wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so ...". No he isn't, it is "necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom." (Members of the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia).
Quote from: drew
About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century.  It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area"  and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy.  So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution?  Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?

We don't need a strawman example, you simply need to understand the difference between to deny and to not comply. To deny that laws apply is to reject the subject's jurisdiction (it is the subject's power to apply laws), where as to not comply with an exercise of the law is an act of disobedience against the subject.
Quote from: drew
"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology.  There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on September 06, 2014, 12:06:27 AM
Quote from: drew
Is Bishop Fellay a liar ...

Sorry I didn;t addres these falsehoods in the last post.

I notice that you did not address your camlmnies that I highlighted previously.

But to answer your waffle:
i)
a) You inserted the word express,
b) this quote is dubious to say the least.
c)you claimed "that it will occur has already been determined." of which have provided no proof for this assertion.

ii) You use terms like [legall] norms without understanding what you are writing:
a) the declaration did not define legal "norms";
b) the declaration did not exclude there ever being a practical agreement;
c) the declaration did not curtail or restrict the superior general's role;
d) the declaration did not deal with post-doctrinal discussions or events;
e) the meeting in Albano (Obtober 2012) agreed that Bp. Fellay should continue negotiations with Rome.

iii) The "three bishops" letter is now an irrelevance. There is an updated one of the three society bishops published on the 25th anniversary of their consecrations. You use words like duplicity (deceitfulness, dishonesty) without any evidence and really it says alot about you when you believe Cardinal Llovera/Bishop Elliott/CNS as being the oracles of truth.

iv) GREC is nothing knew it has been know about for years:
http://angeluspress.org/blog/catholic-or-compromised-what-is-the-grec/

v) I gave you an explicit quote from Bp. Fellay rejecting "Hermeneutic of Continuity". You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Drew you are a liar.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: JPaul on September 06, 2014, 08:31:33 AM
Pterp,
Quote
This is a different argument. Before you were, in effect, calling Bishop Fellay a liar.

Now, proven wrong, you claim he should not be so "delicate".


Proven wrong? I think not.

Quote
But in that case you condemn Archbishop Lefevre - as I just posted on another thread, did he not - at the very least - playdown his 1974 declaration? Did he not on the one hand declare the Roman Curia was filled with anti-Christs and yet, simultaneously, seek an agreement with these "anti-Christs"? Did he not have second thoughts about the May 5th protocol, having a sleepless night and longing for morning to come so he could send a new response to Rome ... which was penned "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. ..."?  But in that case you condemn Archbishop Lefevre - as I just posted on another thread, did he not - at the very least - playdown his 1974 declaration? Did he not on the one hand declare the Roman Curia was filled with anti-Christs and yet, simultaneously, seek an agreement with these "anti-Christs"? Did he not have second thoughts about the May 5th protocol, having a sleepless night and longing for morning to come so he could send a new response to Rome ... which was penned "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. ..."?


I do condemn his inconsistency, which thank you, you have amply demonstrated, and admitted to, in the above.
Catholic principals and Truth do not know of politics, diplomacy, and "delicacies". They require one stand. one form, and one response.
SiSi NoNo.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on September 06, 2014, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism.  That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term.  The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor.  If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it.  You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

This is both false and calumny because you have deliberately ignore the qualifier (of which you have been told about repeatedly). You did not provided an exposition , it was an argumentation. The exposition appeared originally in The Remanant. It was not relevant (save the definition of schism) because the argumentation deals with disobedience not a rejection per se of authority. Your first posts left no door open as it stated, falsely "Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny ...". You also conclude that I know it to be a lie (which is clearly not the case) and that there is an intent to injure which is also not the case (as already explained to you). Simply Drew, you are a liar.


Your objection here is superficial and pointless.  I provided both an exposition and an argument addressing your false accusation against Neil Obstat of schism.  The exposition was necessary because terms must be properly exposited to write accurate propositions and structure sound arguments.  As to the claim that the "exposition appeared originally in The Remnant" is not entirely accurate, it is immaterial, and implies plagiarism.
 
The article you are referring was written by Fr. Brian Harrison and was published in the Remnant.  But what is the point.  I cited Fr. Harrison's contribution in the post script to my post.  Furthermore, I had an email exchange with Fr. Harrison in which I discussed using his exposition and arguments in the defense of Fr. Samuel Waters in his case against a decree of excommunication from Archbishop Chaput.  So not only have I credited Fr. Harrison for his intellectual contribution, I have also  personally consulted with him before using his arguments.

The essential point is that you demonstrated complete ignorance regarding the legal and moral meaning of the word schism that you irresponsibly made against Neil Obstat.  You should be grateful to me and Fr. Harrison for dispelling your ignorance.  Now that you have had a proper exposition of the word you have no excuse for your accusation of schism.  

Let other be the judge as to who is a "liar."  


Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application.  It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."

I notice you completely ignore the term bishop's flock. I didn't write the argumentation (that you wrongly label exposition) "shows no grasp of the subject" but it is YOU who has no grasp of the subject.
Quote from: drew
You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction.  So what?  If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities.  Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?


"So what?" - just about sums it up you don’t have a clue what you are writing about. I notice you didn't addess the term bishop’s flock again. And when you have J.Paul, who is hardly a “Felleyite”,  stating “Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock…”  it becomes screaming obviously to everyone that you do not understand meaning of the terms used:
"... the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep." (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais defines the limits of their jurisdiction to two groups - those seeking the sacrament of confirmation and holy orders - "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works."
Your logic and understanding of Bishop Fellay jurisdiction faulty. He has ordinary jurisdiction over members of the Society as the Superior General, and supplied jurisdiction in the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, over religious communities etc.


I have no problem with the quotation taken from +Tissier but you do not understand what he is saying.  Bishop Fellay does not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" over the SSPX or anyone else, and is in fact himself subject to ordinary jurisdiction.  That is assuming that he has not privately taken the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity and in reward for which he has been secretly given ordinary jurisdiction.  But would anyone be surprised to learn that this what has in fact happened?

But to the point, +Tissier said that "our jurisdiction is... exercised... case by case over the persons who are in need."  That is, the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church because of the rights of the faithful.  And this is exactly what I have already explained to you.

Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All who exercise jurisdiction in the Church as shepherds do so by participation in the priesthood of Christ.  The ordinary exercise of this power that belongs to the Church is delegated by the Pope according to legal norms, but if the Pope fails in teaching the faith or in the worship of God, or those to whom he has delegated jurisdiction fail, then any member of the flock of Christ is at liberty to seek a faithful shepherd to follow.  

Schism is the denial of jurisdiction per se.  The denial of jurisdiction per accidens is not.


Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms.  I have already explained this question in a previous post.  Try to read it more carefully.  Since  you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction.

The Roman Pontiff is the source of jurisdiction upon this earth, all power emanates from him:
"... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz,  p.28)
"When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
"If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
"In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)


The Pope is not the "source of jurisdiction upon this earth."  The "source" of jurisdiction is God.  "All power in heaven and on earth is given to Me (Jesus Chrsit)."  When God founded His Church He endowed His Church with the attributes of authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  Jurisdiction is grounded upon the attribute of authority.  The Pope in his office exercises this power of the Church.  The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff.  When the Pope dies or resigns jurisdiction does not die or resign with him.  Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms.  Supplied jurisdiction in not delegated according to legal norms except in the case of "common error or in doubt" which are addressed in the Code of Canon Law.  I repeat, with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created by positive laws and it is not exercised by positive law.  Those who have argued that traditional priest exercise supplied jurisdiction according to canonical norms have done a real disservice to all faithful Catholics.  No SSPX priest does or has ever exercised supplied jurisdiction by virtue of the prescriptions of positive law because of "common error or doubt."

The authorities you are quoting are only addressing the legal prescriptions of jurisdiction.  They are not dealing with the situation during a time of general apostasy in the hierarchy.


Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'"[1] does so on a "case by case"[2] basis "over individuals in need."[3]  I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this.[4]

[1] As previously quoted: i) Miaskiewicz, p.28, p.197; ii) Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379; iii) Can. 144 §1;
[2] i) "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
ii) "... every single time that this reputed bishop or pastor under the requisite conditions of canon 209 attempts the performance of a jurisdictional act, he receives the necessary jurisdiction in actu. Thus, he does not possess the jurisdiction one moment before nor a single moment after the performance of the action. It does not matter how many acts he performs. The jurisdiction is always supplied in the self-same manner: in actu." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(iii) "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 Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Angles);
[3] i) "... the individual is to make use of the benefit of canon 209 ..." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
(ii) "it is a personal and not a territorial jurisdiction. It is very important to understand this. Your priests have jurisdiction over your persons and not over a territory." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
[4] There's no paper work, it's just you simply do not understand jurisdiction. Seriously Drew, use the serach facility of CathInfo and you will see jurisdiction/supplied jurisdiction has been done to death. And there are some excellent references.


You are conflating two distinct categories.  Bishop Tissier understands the problem and you do not.  I agree that supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis and have said this from my first post.  You have not.  It is so because it is the individual person's needs that create the supplied jurisdiction.  It is the penitent in need of absolution that gives the jurisdiction to the traditional priest.  The problem is that you have claimed that it is "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  The only situations where supplied jurisdiction conferred by the Pope are addressed in Canon Law.  The positive law of the Church does not address directly all the multitudinous situations were supplied jurisdiction may be necessary.  This fact is recognized in Canon Law which states that the highest law is the salvation of souls.


Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
"Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual.  No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily"  with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction.  If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind.  In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.

Your "shepherd" is your local ordinary. To reject his authority is schismatic. You wrote: "If any faithful member ... wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so ...". No he isn't, it is "necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom." (Members of the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia).


Again, so what?  You are addressing the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction.  Now, as  explained before from St. Pius X, the purpose of jurisdiction is to teach the doctrines of the Catholic faith and offer the proper worship to God.  Jurisdiction has no authority to teach error or corrupt worship.  

You apparently do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo doctrine or worship and if that is the case, then you have no right to act in matters of doctrine or worship outside the authority of your local ordinary.  You are publically admitting that you have no right to attend a SSPX Mass or to receive the sacraments from any SSPX priest without the permission of your local ordinary.  So why are you posting on this forum?  


Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century.  It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area"  and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy.  So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution?  Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?

We don't need a strawman example, you simply need to understand the difference between to deny and to not comply. To deny that laws apply is to reject the subject's jurisdiction (it is the subject's power to apply laws), where as to not comply with an exercise of the law is an act of disobedience against the subject.


The straw man is not my example.  It is you or whoever else "we" refers.  You have made unsubstantiated accusations and cannot examine jurisdiction with any greater moral insight than a Pharisee.
 
I have said nothing about the distinction between "to deny" and "to not comply" so who is inventing a straw man?  I hope you don't smoke.  If you understood the distinction, I would not have had to explain to what schism is in the first place.  If you would re-read my post you will find the qualification that any of the faithful are free to follow +Williamson as their shepherd until those exercising ordinary jurisdiction teach correct doctrine and proper worship of God.  If the local ordinary did this, then there would be no right or reciprocal duty to for supplied jurisdiction.  

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
"Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology.  There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.


Does the  "p" after peter stand for "pan"?  

Drew
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: drew on September 06, 2014, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: drew
The metaphor of a "train" going to Rome is attributed to Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, the second assistant to Bishop Fellay, who is reported to have said, "The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off." Bishop Fellay has already removed any possible obstacles to his return to Rome and therefore the metaphor of a "train" that travels on a determined track and direction is most appropriate.  The only question is with regard to speed - sooner or later, it ends up at the station.  The "obstacles" have been so completely removed that there is no longer any grounds to argue that a "state of emergency" and therefore a "state of necessity" exists.  Those still following Bishop Fellay at this time can offer no moral justification for doing so.  

Is Bishop Fellay a liar or is eveybody else?  He overthrew the norms adopted by the General Chapter 2006 that there would be "no practical agreement without a doctrinal solution" and has followed his own prescription for that agreement in 2012 that he approved.  The General Chapter was not informed about GREC in 2006.  Since they established the norms that Bishop Fellay was obligated to follow, they necessarily possessed a right to know of this fact.  

In Bishop Fellay's reply written by Fr. Pfluger to the Letter from the Three Bishops he admits to acting in a secretive manner because of their "attitude" (perhaps, a "schismatic attitude"?) has kept the "Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters." This is an open admission of duplicity which he apparently believes he is entitled to. If he has not revealed his intentions honestly to the "three bishops" or the General Chapter, why would think that he has leveled with anyone else, especially you?  Fr. Pfluger also says that the Society should proceed with a practical agreement because, "To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end."  The Letter even explains the reason for a practical agreement now: "Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer."  Rome demands a "practical agreement" and Bishop Fellay agrees.  

The duplicity of Bishop Fellay is evident again in Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera's report that Bishop Fellay most favorably approved of a 'reverently' offered Novus Ordo and said that even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have opposed the Novus Ordo offered in such a manner.  Or Bishop Peter Elliott who said that Bishop Fellay and/or the priests in his presence told him that the "Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular."  These reports were denied by Bishop Fellay.  Who is the liar?  

The Open Letter by the 37 priests from the French District documents numerous examples of duplicity of Bishop Fellay and his assistants.  Are these 37 priests lying or is Bishop Fellay?  The Carmelites in Germany have separated from the SSPX and accused Bishop Fellay of duplicity.  The Dominicans in France have done the same and published, for limited distribution, a history documenting this behavior.  Who is lying, Bishop Fellay or the Carmelites and the Dominicans?

The secretive GREC discussions presupposed the "hermeneutic continuity" and so did the "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome.  Without the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity" they could not have taken place.  It is really immaterial anymore what Bishop Fellay has said; it is however most material what he has done.  By quoting Bishop Fellay's denial of his accepting the Hermeneutic of Continuity you are just providing more documentary proof that he is a liar.  If Bishop Fellay were interested in "preserving the Faith" as you claim, his doctrinal discussions would have ended with demands for dogmatic declarations and the publication of a syllabus of errors against the "hermeneutic of rupture"  that is the only Catholic answer to the demand for a practical agreement from Rome.  It never happened.  

Remember, it was the same Bishop Fellay who said he rejected the "hermeneutic of continuity" who also said, that Religious Liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” (CNS interview, May 2012)  

When do think Bishop Fellay made the 1989 Profession of Faith and took the Oath of Fidelity?  Do you think he will lie about it if you ask him?  Or is he, what you would say, developing a "schismatic attitude"?

Drew

Sorry I didn;t addres these falsehoods in the last post.

I notice that you did not address your camlmnies that I highlighted previously.

But to answer your waffle:
i)
a) You inserted the word express,
b) this quote is dubious to say the least.
c)you claimed "that it will occur has already been determined." of which have provided no proof for this assertion.

ii) You use terms like [legall] norms without understanding what you are writing:
a) the declaration did not define legal "norms";
b) the declaration did not exclude there ever being a practical agreement;
c) the declaration did not curtail or restrict the superior general's role;
d) the declaration did not deal with post-doctrinal discussions or events;
e) the meeting in Albano (Obtober 2012) agreed that Bp. Fellay should continue negotiations with Rome.

iii) The "three bishops" letter is now an irrelevance. There is an updated one of the three society bishops published on the 25th anniversary of their consecrations. You use words like duplicity (deceitfulness, dishonesty) without any evidence and really it says alot about you when you believe Cardinal Llovera/Bishop Elliott/CNS as being the oracles of truth.

iv) GREC is nothing knew it has been know about for years:
http://angeluspress.org/blog/catholic-or-compromised-what-is-the-grec/

v) I gave you an explicit quote from Bp. Fellay rejecting "Hermeneutic of Continuity". You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Drew you are a liar.


The term "waffle" is synonymous  with duplicity.  Bishop Fellay is guilty of duplicity by his own admission in the letter addressed to the three bishops.  And I have provided plenty of additional evidence by many priests and religious to substantiate the charge.  Your replies have addressed nothing.  As for the GREC discussions, they were only common knowledge among the insiders.  Bishop Fellay never acknowledged the discussions until they were publicly exposed.  

You have yet to understand that the GREC discussions and the Doctrinal Discussions with Rome presuppose the hermeneutic of continuity.  Bishop Fellay's denial of the hermeneutic of continuity is only evidence of his lying.

Now you have made the accusation against me of duplicity without evidence and that will be hard to produce since evidence for a "waffle" requires that I have said one thing to you and something else to another on the same question.  So you are back to where we began are exchange, that is, you making an unsubstantiated allegation against another.  

Neil Obstat was right.  You are not worth the trouble to read.  

Drew

Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on October 15, 2014, 05:20:00 PM
Quote from: drew
Your objection here is superficial and pointless.  I provided both an exposition and an argument addressing your false accusation against Neil Obstat of schism.  The exposition was necessary because terms must be properly exposited to write accurate propositions and structure sound arguments.  As to the claim that the "exposition appeared originally in The Remnant" is not entirely accurate, it is immaterial, and implies plagiarism.
 
The article you are referring was written by Fr. Brian Harrison and was published in the Remnant.  But what is the point.  I cited Fr. Harrison's contribution in the post script to my post.  Furthermore, I had an email exchange with Fr. Harrison in which I discussed using his exposition and arguments in the defense of Fr. Samuel Waters in his case against a decree of excommunication from Archbishop Chaput.  So not only have I credited Fr. Harrison for his intellectual contribution, I have also  personally consulted with him before using his arguments.

The essential point is that you demonstrated complete ignorance regarding the legal and moral meaning of the word schism that you irresponsibly made against Neil Obstat.  You should be grateful to me and Fr. Harrison for dispelling your ignorance.  Now that you have had a proper exposition of the word you have no excuse for your accusation of schism.  

Let other be the judge as to who is a "liar."


Drew, the exposition was Fr. Harrison's not yours. You used his exposition to formulate an argument (in defense of Fr. Walters) which you think (wrongly) can also be used here. It cannot. You may think it "pointless" but that just shows your level of ignorance. The "point" is this:
 
(i) there is no treatment whatever in Harrison's exposition that rejects as schismatic (since they are) your claims of:
- a complete rejection per se - not just specific instances of disobedience - of a local ordinary's jurisdiction;
- since there exists a state of apostacy in most, if not all, the Church's hierachy;
- consequently ordinary jurisdiction no longer operates;
- therefore, an individual is not subject to his local ordinary's jurisdiction;
- so the individual is at liberty to chose whichever Shepherd he wishes;
- even one prohibited from exercising his ministry by the Church [I suspect Harrison would acknowledge Rome's declaration that the Shepherd in question does "not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."];

(ii) in Harrison's exposition is there no treatment of "... or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (c.751) - except in noting that it did not apply in that specific case. This is why, on your own, you could only muster a lame (and false) two sentence defense on this point in your "open letter'; your lack of competence is obvious and it is clear, as previously stated, you have no grasp of the subject.

 I had already acknowledged in my first post that you referenced Harrison, the issue here is your underhanded attempt to misuse and falsify his exposition to defend your false claims including, now, your inuendo (viz. that an email correspondence with him also confirms this). You are a liar for the reasons previously given (viz. guilty of calumny etc.), the falsification of Harrison's exposition, and the attempt to portray your argument as an exposition validated by Harrison.

Drew, given that you have identified yourself as the author of the open letter on the Mission's website, you need to answer this question: In what capacity are you writing, is it a personal one or on behalf of the Mission?

Quote from: drew
I have no problem with the quotation taken from +Tissier but you do not understand what he is saying.  Bishop Fellay does not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" over the SSPX or anyone else, and is in fact himself subject to ordinary jurisdiction.  That is assuming that he has not privately taken the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity and in reward for which he has been secretly given ordinary jurisdiction.  But would anyone be surprised to learn that this what has in fact happened?

But to the point, +Tissier said that "our jurisdiction is... exercised... case by case over the persons who are in need."  That is, the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church because of the rights of the faithful.  And this is exactly what I have already explained to you.


Because of your lack of understanding you again failed to grasp what is being said. The quotes from +Tissier de Mallerais gave:
(i) a definition of Bishop's Flock (the two words you are too petrified to mention),
(ii) defined the limits of their supplied jurisdiction (viz. confirmands and seminarians), and
(iii) showed a jurisdiction over individuals and not a flock (as others have noted).
This is what +Tissier de Mallerais is stating: they lack any flock and their supplied jurisdiction is limited to two instances. Again, you demonstrate complete ignorance on all this, as well as in your understanding of Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction: he has the power of ordinary jurisdiction from his office (as Superior General) over members of the SSPX. You wrongly think the laity are members, they are not, save  those of the Third Order - over which his ordinary jurisdiction extends and clerics.

You have falsified +TdM's quote (with elipses). He is quite specific on the limits of their supplied jurisdiction, namely, confirmations and ordinations; that is all.

Quote from: drew
Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All who exercise jurisdiction in the Church as shepherds do so by participation in the priesthood of Christ.  The ordinary exercise of this power that belongs to the Church is delegated by the Pope according to legal norms, but if the Pope fails in teaching the faith or in the worship of God, or those to whom he has delegated jurisdiction fail, then any member of the flock of Christ is at liberty to seek a faithful shepherd to follow.  

Schism is the denial of jurisdiction per se.  The denial of jurisdiction per accidens is not.

I'll reply to this in the next quote but you and again demostrate you have no knowledge on the subject matter and the last sentence is idiotic. But even more, you haven't thought your perverse logic through: since you concede to the pope only an accidental power, yet claim the denial of such power is not schism!

Quote from: drew
The Pope is not the "source of jurisdiction upon this earth."  The "source" of jurisdiction is God.  "All power in heaven and on earth is given to Me (Jesus Chrsit)."  When God founded His Church He endowed His Church with the attributes of authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  Jurisdiction is grounded upon the attribute of authority.  The Pope in his office exercises this power of the Church.  The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff.  When the Pope dies or resigns jurisdiction does not die or resign with him.  Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms.  Supplied jurisdiction in not delegated according to legal norms except in the case of "common error or in doubt" which are addressed in the Code of Canon Law.  I repeat, with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created by positive laws and it is not exercised by positive law.  Those who have argued that traditional priest exercise supplied jurisdiction according to canonical norms have done a real disservice to all faithful Catholics.  No SSPX priest does or has ever exercised supplied jurisdiction by virtue of the prescriptions of positive law because of "common error or doubt."

The authorities you are quoting are only addressing the legal prescriptions of jurisdiction.  They are not dealing with the situation during a time of general apostasy in the hierarchy.


Drew, firstly and most importantly, your ignorance on jurisdiction leads you to espose heresy:
"... power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff."
This is Febronianism, a heresy, condemned by the church.

and to reject doctrine:
"Supplied jurisdiction in [sic] not delegated according to legal norms [viz. Law promulgated by the Roman Pontiff] ..."
This statement can only mean there exists two separate sources of jurisdition; one outside the authority of the pope. It is a rejection of Mystici Corporis Christi; that within the Mystical Body jurisdiction eminates from two heads.

Secondly, you fail to comprehend what is meant by "source of jurisdiction upon this earth". Let me explain it to you in the most simplist of terms (by quoting Miaskiewicz): "Jurisdictional power was conferred by Christ upon the Church. From this source the Roman Pontiff has ever drawn the plenitude of this power. And having drawn from Christ, the Church, through the Pope, has traditionally conferred upon her subjects a share in that power by means of legitimate commission."
Hence, Christ is the remote source and the Pope the proximate source of jurisdiction, understand? And in this case the law can be seen as an 'immediate source' in that it supplies "executive power of governance" (I did embolden it last time but you failed to grasp the significance). This is why during an interregnum the supplementary principle is still applicable. And you are wrong, delegated jurisdiction bestowed by the Pope does cease on his death. Ordinary jurisdiction, being attached to an office by law, continues, that should have been obvious for anyone with a basic knowledge of jurisdiction.

Thirdly, it is clear you think supplied jurisdiction to be a diffent species from ordinary or delegated jusridiction. It isn't. "Supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner ... ", to quote Miaskiewicz again. Further, you are incapable of distiguishing between ordinary or delegated jurisdiction; when you write nonsense like "Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms." it shows your complete ignorance of the terms. So much for terms must be properly expoisted to write accurate propositions and structure sounds arguments.

"... with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created ..."
Simply, Drew, you don't even know the basics. You are completely clueless in what you write:
i) there are more than two 'exceptions'. Try reading the canons on absolution in danger of death or dispenations of martrimonial impedements (just two examples);
ii) these two exceptions are not 'limited' but wide ranging; they apply to all kinds of jurisdictional activity - you simply don't understand the terminology;
iii) jurisdiction is bestowed not created;

Forthly, I have provided you with serveral, authorative, sources (I can add Bellamine too, and quoted in DTC) who have stated all jurisdiction eminates, on earth, from the Soverign Pontiff. Cardinal Ottaviani stated that what was common doctrine must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Pius XII (published in Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici). Whereas, Drew, your incompetence is clear both in the fact that you cannot reference any authorative sources and you cannot even get the terminology right.

Quote from: drew
You are conflating two distinct categories.  Bishop Tissier understands the problem and you do not.  I agree that supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis and have said this from my first post.  You have not.  It is so because it is the individual person's needs that create the supplied jurisdiction.  It is the penitent in need of absolution that gives the jurisdiction to the traditional priest.  The problem is that you have claimed that it is "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  The only situations where supplied jurisdiction conferred by the Pope are addressed in Canon Law.  The positive law of the Church does not address directly all the multitudinous situations were supplied jurisdiction may be necessary.  This fact is recognized in Canon Law which states that the highest law is the salvation of souls.


It is good you now accept supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis (since the sources I gave did blow you away). I can understand you claiming that you always said this (and of course that I did not), but any reader can review the posts; this all began because you could not differentiate between an individual and a bishop's flock (and what this term means, which is why you're too scared to mention it, and why someone else [J.Paul] did it for you).
All jurisdiction eminates from the Soverign Pontiff as already shown. Your heresy of accidental papal power has been addressed previously.

Quote from: drew
Again, so what?  You are addressing the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction.  Now, as  explained before from St. Pius X, the purpose of jurisdiction is to teach the doctrines of the Catholic faith and offer the proper worship to God.  Jurisdiction has no authority to teach error or corrupt worship.  

You apparently do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo doctrine or worship and if that is the case, then you have no right to act in matters of doctrine or worship outside the authority of your local ordinary.  You are publically admitting that you have no right to attend a SSPX Mass or to receive the sacraments from any SSPX priest without the permission of your local ordinary.  So why are you posting on this forum?

None of this follows but, again, this is due to your lack of understanding of what jurisdiction is, and it has't even occurred to you that if you followed your logic through you would reject the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction for the same reasons you reject your local ordinaries ... which would mean? Farcical, but you would still contend that is not schismatic!

Quote from: drew
The straw man is not my example.  It is you or whoever else "we" refers.  You have made unsubstantiated accusations and cannot examine  jurisdiction with any greater moral insight than a Pharisee.
 
I have said nothing about the distinction between "to deny" and "to not comply" so who is inventing a straw man?  I hope you don't smoke.  If you understood the distinction, I would not have had to explain to what schism is in the first place.  If you would re-read my post you will find the qualification that any of the faithful are free to follow +Williamson as their shepherd until those exercising ordinary jurisdiction teach correct doctrine and proper worship of God.  If the local ordinary did this, then there would be no right or reciprocal duty to for supplied jurisdiction.

It is clear that you have no understanding of jurisdiction. You cannot even use the correct terms (even though you wrote terms must be properly expoisted) and the name-calling denotes a desparation. I thought the rhyming "to deny" and "to not comply" might make it easier for you to understand the difference - an instance of refusal to obey (to not comply with a certain command) not being schismatic but a refusal of obedience per se (to deny all jurisdiction) being schismatic. I don't know how to put it more simply.

Quote from: drew
Does the "p" after peter stand for "pan"?


Drew, if you now need to resort to name-calling then it is clear you can muster no sensible response. Further if what you wrote here is also the thinking of the 'Mission' it validates Bishop Chaput's actions.

This 'Mission' is not a Catholic association. It was not validly erected as Bishop Chaput rightly pointed out [You should be aware that the supplementary principle will not allow the arrogation of a power only conferred upon Ordinaries; the Church will not supply].
If the Mission concurs with your claims of multiple sources of jurisdiction it denies Catholic doctine.
If it concurs with your claims listed at the being of this post, it is a schismatic sect.
If it concurs with your views of accidental papal power it is an heretical sect.

Readers beware.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on October 15, 2014, 10:00:29 PM
peterp,

A Jewish lawyer who has been reading the Open Letters on SS Peter and Paul Mission website for two years (over and over) in order the prove the Mission a cult...etc. has converted and asked to be baptized last Thursday, Oct. 9th. confessing Our Lord Jesus Christ as God. Obviously, the Mission is defending the Catholic faith and saving souls. And your newly "reintegrated" SSPX?... well we know where that is going. You are not going to convert the Romans, they will convert you.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/open_letters.htm

Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 16, 2014, 04:03:25 AM
.

Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32836&min=75#p1)
Quote from: drew

Does the  "p" after peter stand for "pan"?

Drew



The whole username is misspelled, missing a 'w'.  It should have "petwerp."

.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: Charlotte NC Bill on October 20, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
It's amazing this Teflon cult of Bishop Fellay amongst most SSPX'ers. He's still ( mostly ) treated like the anointed one, chosen to lead traditional Catholics. His inconsistencies don't matter as long as they get their bells and smells next Sunday. Some folks here drove all the way to the new Seminary to hear him. I wouldn't drive the 1/2 hr. to Mt. Holly if he came.
Title: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
Post by: peterp on October 21, 2014, 08:35:01 PM
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
peterp,

A Jewish lawyer who has been reading the Open Letters on SS Peter and Paul Mission website for two years (over and over) in order the prove the Mission a cult...etc. has converted and asked to be baptized last Thursday, Oct. 9th. confessing Our Lord Jesus Christ as God. Obviously, the Mission is defending the Catholic faith and saving souls. And your newly "reintegrated" SSPX?... well we know where that is going. You are not going to convert the Romans, they will convert you.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/open_letters.htm




Marie Auxiliadora, I have no knowledge about your Jewish friend but I doubt he has been privy to the things Drew has written on this forum.

Perhap you should direct him here, or direct him to:

i) Miaskiewicz's dissertation on Supplied Jurisdiction and how the supply of jurisdiction cannot extend beyond the limits within which it is restricted by law. So how was this so-called "mission" erected, when only an Ordinary has the power to erect a pius union?

ii) Mystici Corporis Christi. Perhaps he can explain why Drew is right and this is wrong: "Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth."

iii) explain away Drew's comment of:
"The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff."
    versus
"Hence it is that heretics have ever sought to destroy or at least to weaken this legislative power. The following are the chief errors on this head: ... Nicholas de Hontheim suffragan of the Archbishop of Treves, having in 1763 published a book under the assumed name of Febronius, conceded to the Pope but an accidental power to enact or rather propose laws ..." (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Sebastian Bach Smith [includes an approbation by Blessed John Henry Newman])

By the way, I should remind you that the "mission" - according to it's website - considers itself "integrated" and has, on a number of occasions, asked the local Ordinary to come and bless the "Mission" and to administer confirmations. But I think you've just let something slip; it is all lip-service with no real desire for this at all.

So it remains for Drew to tell us in what capacity he is writing since what he has written does reflect on the "Mission". Would you not agree?