Author Topic: Eleison Comments CCCXLIII (343) Feb. 8 2014 (Read 2632 times)

Miseremini · « **on:** February 11, 2014, 04:54:49 PM »

Number CCCXLIII (343) 8 February2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY – I
Probably sedevacantists’ main problem is the Church’s infallibility (Conciliar Popes are horribly fallible, so how can they be Popes ?). However, infallibility needs to be looked at for more than just to alleviate sedevacantism. The modern problem of preferring authority to truth is vast.

“Infallibility” means inability to err, or to fall into error. The First Vatican Council defined in 1870 that the pope cannot err when four conditions are present: he must (1) be speaking as Pope, (2) on a question of Faith or morals, (3) in a definitive fashion, and (4) with the clear intention of binding the whole Church. Any such teaching belongs to what is called his “Extraordinary” Magisterium, because on the one hand Popes rarely engage all four conditions, and on the other hand he teaches many other truths which cannot err or be wrong because they have always been taught by the Church, and therefore they belong to what Vatican I called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium”, also infallible. The question is, how does the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium relate to the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium ?

Mother Church teaches that the Deposit of Faith, or public Revelation, was complete at the death of the last Apostle alive, say, around 105 AD. Since then no further truth has been added, or could be added, to that Deposit, or body of revealed truths. Then no “extraordinary” definition can add one iota of truth to that Deposit, it only adds, for the sake of believers, certainty to some truth already belonging to the Deposit, but whose belonging had not been clear enough beforehand. In a fourfold order comes firstly, an objective REALITY, independent of any human mind, such as the historical fact of the Mother of God’s having been conceived without original sin. Secondly comes TRUTH in any mind conforming itself to that reality. Only thirdly comes an infallible DEFINITION when a Pope engages all four conditions to define that truth. And fourthly arises from that definition CERTAINTY for believers as to that truth. Thus whereas reality generates the truth, a Definition merely creates certainty as to that truth.

But the reality and its truth already belonged to the Ordinary Magisterium, because there is no question of any Pope defining infallibly a truth outside of the Deposit of Faith. Therefore the Ordinary Magisterium is to the Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail to dog ! The problem is that the Definitiom of 1870 gave such prestige to the Extraordinary Magisterium that the Ordinary Magisterium began to pale in comparison, to the point that Catholics, even theologians, scratch around to fabricate for it an infallibility like that of the Extraordinary Magisterium. But that is foolishness. The Extraordinary presupposes the Ordinary Magisterium, existing only to give certainty (4) to a truth (2) already taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

Let the point be illustrated from a snow-capped mountain. The mountain in no way depends on the snow, except for it to be made even more visible than it already is. On the contrary the snow depends completely on the mountain to be where it, the snow, is. Similarly the Extraordinary Magisterium does no more for the Ordinary Magisterium than to make it more clearly or certainly visible. As winter closes in, so the snowline descends. As charity grows cold in modern times, so more definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium may become necessary, but that does not make them the perfection of the Church’s Magisterium. On the contrary, they signal a weakness of believers’ grasp of the truths of their Faith. The healthier a man is, the fewer pills he needs. Next week, the application both to sedevacantism and to the present crisis of the SSPX.

Kyrie eleison

Summary –

The Church’s infallible Ordinary Magisterium is to the Pope’s infallible Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail is to dog.

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2014, 04:59:14 PM »

I am glad it is finally here. I was worried that there wouldn't be one this week.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2014, 05:48:16 PM »

Quote from: Relatio of Bp. Gasser, relator of the Faith at Vatican I

1. In what sense can the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff be said to be personal? It is said to be personal in order to exclude in this way a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church. Indeed, infallibility is said to be personal in order thereby to exclude a distinction between the See and the one who holds the See. Since this distinction did not acquire any patrons in the general congregations, I shall refrain from saying anything about it. Therefore, having rejected the distinction between the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, between the See and the possessor of the See, that is, between the universal series and the individual Roman Pontiffs succeeding each other in this series, we defend the personal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as this prerogative belongs, by the promise of Christ, to each and every legitimate successor of Peter in his chair.

Having said this, the notion of papal infallibility is not yet sufficiently defined. The personal infallibility of the Pope must be more accurately defined in itself in the following way: it does not belong to the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as he is a private person, nor even inasmuch as he is a private teacher, since, as such, he is equal with all other private teachers and, as Cajetan wisely noted, equal does not have power over equal, not such power as the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church Universal. Hence we do not speak about personal infallibility, although we do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal. Indeed it should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of divine assistance. By the authority of the papacy, the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith. Thus, the sentence "The Roman Pontiff is infallible" should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal.

2. In what sense can the infallibility of the Pope be said to be "separate"? It is able to be called "separate," or rather distinct because it rests on a special promise of Christ and therefore on a special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which assistance is not one and the same with that which the whole body of the teaching Church enjoys when united with its head. For since Peter and his successor are the center of ecclesiastical unity, whose task it is to preserve the Church in a unity of faith and charity and to repair the Church when disturbed, his condition and his relation to the Church are completely special; and to this special and distinct condition corresponds a special and distinct privilege. Therefore, in this sense there belongs to the Roman Pontiff a separate infallibility. But in saying this we do not separate the Pontiff from his ordained union with the Church. For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support. Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church. This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted.

The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church. The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies which the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See regarding the case, or when the bishops themselves are infected by the sad stain of error. And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2014, 07:47:55 PM »

What a brilliant and concise analysis of a topic so often considered difficult or "out of reach." I especially liked the simple analogy of the dog to its tail, regarding the relationship between the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Magisterium. Easy to remember! Thank you, Bishop Williamson!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:12:23 PM »

.

For the record, 7 pages of discussion have already occurred elsewhere.

.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:36:19 AM »

What is His Excellency saying?

That the Ordinary Universal Magisterium isn't quite as infallible as the Extraordinary Magisterium?

How can this be? Is HE suggesting that there are degrees of infallibility?

When the Ordinary Universal Magisterium preaches against women priests, this is infallible teaching. Is an Extraordinary pronouncement also necessary? Is HE saying that every teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium has to be defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium in order for it to be fully infallible?

I don't understand.

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:14:08 PM »

I think that he is positing that the Extraordinary Magisterium is a frosting upon the truth which is expounded in the Ordinary. That is, that it will always be in perfect accord with the Ordinary but adds to it, the dimensions of complete and everlasting certainty and the character of Divine and immutable law.
The Magisteriums are never competing with one another. They are the same voice issuing from the same source, each serving the function proper to it.

The Extraordinary Magisterium serving to remove all doubt and possibility of erroneous interpretation of the Ordinary teaching of the Church. Closing the door to any further debate about any given point of a particular doctrine, forever.
Infallible is infallible, a truth is a truth in both, but there is a difference in the application of that authority. The Ordinary teaches the truth, the Extraordinary can shout down and dispel any opposition to it.

(The above applies to the Catholic Church's Magisteriums, the Conciliar sect's being anyone's guess )

Francisco · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:32:34 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

I think that he is positing that the Extraordinary Magisterium is a frosting upon the truth which is expounded in the Ordinary. That is, that it will always be in perfect accord with the Ordinary but adds to it, the dimensions of complete and everlasting certainty and the character of Divine and immutable law.
The Magisteriums are never competing with one another. They are the same voice issuing from the same source, each serving the function proper to it.

The Extraordinary Magisterium serving to remove all doubt and possibility of erroneous interpretation of the Ordinary teaching of the Church. Closing the door to any further debate about any given point of a particular doctrine, forever.
Infallible is infallible, a truth is a truth in both, but there is a difference in the application of that authority. The Ordinary teaches the truth, the Extraordinary can shout down and dispel any opposition to it.

(The above applies to the Catholic Church's Magisteriums, the Conciliar sect's being anyone's guess )

Thanks for this explanation, J.Paul. Remember the time when Abp Lefebvre and the SSPX would say, that invalidity was creeping in as far as the N.O.M. was concerned because " more and more Masses were in danger of becoming invalid as more of the new and younger priests did not know what the intention of the Church was". ? Since the Summorum Pontificuм, this opinion has been forgotten and the N.O.M. has been accepted by the SSPX hierarchy as the Official (Ordinary) Rite of the Church, while the TLM is the frosting (Extraordinary) rite on the liturgical cake.

Bishop Williamson should start exposing the u-turns of the SSPX . Will Fr Pfluger and company refuse to celebrate the New Mass?

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2014, 08:06:13 AM »

Francisco,

Quote

Will Fr Pfluger and company refuse to celebrate the New Mass?

I think so for now, but when the Springtime comes to Menzingen and the faithfulfruit is ripe probably so.( But in Latin of course)

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2014, 02:19:59 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

I think that he is positing that the Extraordinary Magisterium is a frosting upon the truth which is expounded in the Ordinary. That is, that it will always be in perfect accord with the Ordinary but adds to it, the dimensions of complete and everlasting certainty and the character of Divine and immutable law.
The Magisteriums are never competing with one another. They are the same voice issuing from the same source, each serving the function proper to it.

The Extraordinary Magisterium serving to remove all doubt and possibility of erroneous interpretation of the Ordinary teaching of the Church. Closing the door to any further debate about any given point of a particular doctrine, forever.
Infallible is infallible, a truth is a truth in both, but there is a difference in the application of that authority. The Ordinary teaches the truth, the Extraordinary can shout down and dispel any opposition to it.

(The above applies to the Catholic Church's Magisteriums, the Conciliar sect's being anyone's guess )

That's not what he's saying however. He's saying the Ordinary can be in error. In other words, until the cake is frosted, it's just a cake. Infallibility is the frosted cake, which is wrong.

Frances · « **Reply #10 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:16:38 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Francisco,
Quote
Will Fr Pfluger and company..................celebrate the New Mass?

...............when the Springtime comes to Menzingen and the faithfulfruit is ripe probably so.( But in Latin of course)

:dancing-banana:MANY will be unable to tell the difference between the True Mass and the novus ordo in Latin.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** February 14, 2014, 06:52:24 PM »

Quote from: Frances

Quote from: J.Paul
Francisco,
Quote
Will Fr Pfluger and company..................celebrate the New Mass?

...............when the Springtime comes to Menzingen and the faithfulfruit is ripe probably so.( But in Latin of course)

:dancing-banana:MANY will be unable to tell the difference between the True Mass and the novus ordo in Latin.

Dominoes n' biscuts................

Frances · « **Reply #12 on:** February 14, 2014, 11:43:35 PM »

:dancing-banana:

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Frances
Quote from: J.Paul
Francisco,
Quote
Will Fr Pfluger and company..................celebrate the New Mass?

...............when the Springtime comes to Menzingen and the faithfulfruit is ripe probably so.( But in Latin of course)

:dancing-banana:MANY will be unable to tell the difference between the True Mass and the novus ordo in Latin.

Dominoes n' biscuts................

:dancing-banana:"Oreos......"

:dancing:"It's so speewityouwell!"
:guitar:Kum by ya, my lord, kum by ya....

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2014, 07:54:48 AM »

.

The following is adapted from Recusant #12, p.25f:

Grave Scandal

[/size]
Fr. Themann, in his "Resistance to What?" presentation, would have us believe that some people who are opposed to the current SSPX liberalism assert as follows:

"Up until 2011, so the argument goes, Bishop Fellay put doctrine in first place. Now he puts the practical agreement, the canonical structure in first place" (Found in minute 39:10 of the 2-1/2 hour CD set).

However, as is true of most people resisting the currrent SSPX's sometimes not-so-subtle but conspicuous liberalism, we (as being among those willing to call ourselves "the Resistance,") hold that Bishop Fellay's slide into liberalism began much earlier. We have been concerned for years before 2011: e.g., when Bishop Fellay accepted one of JPII's favorite phrases, referring to the Jєωs as our "Elder Brothers" in early 2009. (Confer: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-Jєωs-are.html )

However much Bishop Fellay might rationalize to himself that he gives this phrase ("Elder Brothers") a different meaning in his own mind, than what the conciliar Church gives it, it is a grave scandal.

And furthermore, the scandal becomes now even more grave with this article posted on the SSPX website (subject of another thread on CI), wherein the present leadership of the Society claims that there is no such thing as "the conciliar Church." They claim that, “The Church of Pius XII — the Church of St. Pius X — the Church of St. Pius V — these 'Churches' do not exist, any more than the 'conciliar Church' or 'modernist Rome' exist — these are merely expressions to describe the state of the Church or of Rome since the last Council, since they [sic] have been infested with a 'non-Catholic sort of thinking' that tries to give them [sic] a more 'worldly' face.”

Do not miss the nuance (subliminal??) that the UNIDENTIFIED author (one of the Menzingen-denizens??) of this screed posted on sspx.org would ostensibly place those, misconstrued by others to be of the 'conciliar Church' and 'modernist Rome', into some SEPARATE group of people, that is, separate from the SSPX. But would they then be somehow still INSIDE the Church? Does the current SSPX leadership even know what the Church is?

As bowler and Stubborn would say at this point, "I put it to you that they do consider such people separated in faith to be eligible for salvation, for they would appear to believe that there effectively is salvation outside the Church, even while they may say they deny that there is." But I digress.

As St. Thomas teaches, there should be such a bright line separating us from heretics, that "with us and heretics, the very words ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their error." (Summa, IIIa, Q.16, a.8, Respondeo.)

Quote from: Francisco - J.Paul - Frances - J.Paul - Frances

Will Fr Pfluger and company..................celebrate the New Mass?
...............when the Springtime comes to Menzingen and the faithful-fruit is ripe, probably so. (But in Latin of course)

~~:dancing banana:~~
MANY will be unable to tell the difference between the True Mass and the novus ordo in Latin.

Dominus vobiscuм -- might sound like "Dominoes n' biscuits" ...
But "Oreos" -- black on the outside and white on the inside -- (racism ??) :confused1:

Quote

Dominoes n' biscuts................ ~~:dancing banana:~~
"Oreos......" ~~:in-cense:~~ ~~:dan-cing:~~
"It's so speewityouwell!" ~~:gui-tar:~~
Kum by ya, my lord, kum by ya.... ~~: mad :~~

Quote from: TheRecusant #12, page 26

As St. Thomas teaches, there should be such a bright line separating us from heretics, that "with us and heretics, the very words ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their error." (Summa, IIIa, Q.16, a.8, Respondeo.)

This teaching of St. Thomas likewise applies to music, even if he did not present it as such.

For when the music of pagans or protestants is heard in Church, it effects in the mind of the listener the impression that we seem to countenance the errors of non-Catholics.

Imagine going to a CLM in another town somewhere, when you're on holiday or a pilgrimage, and hearing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" or "Rock of Ages" or "Amazing Grace" or "We Will Gather By the River" or the like, sung by the choir.

What would you think?

Or, like in my question to Clavis, "Are we allowed to think?"

Imagine being a protestant convert to the Catholic Faith, and the Church outside of which there is no salvation, and believing in that, and having had years of "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and "Rock of Ages" and "Amazing Grace" and "We Will Gather By the River" and the like, in your own personal experience -- years that you now want to put behind you, years that you want to confess were years of sin, when you may not have known any better, and now, you hope and pray that you do know better; but now, going to Mass, you find yourself reminded of your erstwhile abominable life of sin, just by hearing the choir sing, and you are being led to return to it, "as a dog returns to his vomit."

Or, is that too uncomfortable to think about?

Is that why we're not allowed to think, Clavis?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2014, 08:18:58 AM »

.

It might not be obvious what message I'm trying to give, above.

The SSPX is in a gradual slide into Modernism.

Bishop Fellay is promoting the slide, and he has been trying to accelerate it since 2011. But having hit a wall of Resistance in 2012, he has been trying to backpedal and adjust his downward-slide-speed over the past few months, after having expelled +W and the other "difficult" priests.

(Among whom, Fr. Hewko mysteriously remains one who is not so far expelled -- a matter that he seems to be at a loss to explain, himself.)

This gradual slide into Modernism MUST eventually accommodate non-Catholic music at Mass.

This gradual slide into Modernism MUST eventually accommodate non-Catholic doctrine.

This gradual slide into Modernism MUST put 'normalization' with modernist Rome IN FRONT OF adherence to the Faith as it was handed down to us from the Apostles, and through ABL, among others.

THEREFORE,

Do not be surprised when you find accretions of NovusOrdo this-and-that into your local SSPX chapel, over the next few months and years.

If you don't have the gumption to stand up now, and to make your Resistance to their errors known, come what may, don't bother to complain later when the new stuff is brought in like a delivery of new furniture from a Hollywood Movie Set Company. Because you're not bothering to stand up now, you can't bother to complain about it later.

Just don't bother. If it's too much trouble now, it will be too much trouble later.