Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.  (Read 12199 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JPaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3832
  • Reputation: +3712/-282
  • Gender: Male
ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2014, 03:53:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #31 on: July 26, 2014, 06:35:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #32 on: July 26, 2014, 07:22:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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  

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #33 on: July 26, 2014, 09:41:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18079
    • Reputation: +8204/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #34 on: July 27, 2014, 06:29:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    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:



    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18079
    • Reputation: +8204/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #35 on: July 27, 2014, 06:41:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    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.  


    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18079
    • Reputation: +8204/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #36 on: July 27, 2014, 07:30:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline peterp

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 203
    • Reputation: +0/-5
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #37 on: July 27, 2014, 11:57:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    ... from a bishop to his flock ...


    If this is truly what you and others think then you are Schismatic.


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18079
    • Reputation: +8204/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #38 on: July 28, 2014, 04:01:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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, 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.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline peterp

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 203
    • Reputation: +0/-5
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #39 on: July 30, 2014, 11:22:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

     

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #40 on: July 31, 2014, 07:26:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1260
    • Reputation: +1266/-64
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #41 on: July 31, 2014, 01:41:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #42 on: July 31, 2014, 04:28:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #43 on: July 31, 2014, 04:46:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #44 on: July 31, 2014, 05:12:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16