Author Topic: MEMO TO JOHNSON (Read 13648 times)

cantatedomino · « **on:** December 23, 2013, 09:03:43 AM »

Hi Sean,

I am going to give your arguments the study they deserve. This will do immense good to my soul, as it will, I'm sure, enrich my understanding and clarify my thinking.

I want to be fair to you and give your words due consideration.

Wherefore I have a couple of starting questions:

1. Is there anything in the magisterial deposit of the Church - Councils; Encyclicals; Summa Theologica; Patristics; pre-1983 Canon Law - that discusses formal versus material heresy?

2. Do you distinguish between some 'classical' SSPX R&R position and some SSPXBrand refabrication of same?

That's all for now, but I'm sure more questions are coming.

cathman7 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2013, 09:32:14 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Hi Sean,

I am going to give your arguments the study they deserve. This will do immense good to my soul, as it will, I'm sure, enrich my understanding and clarify my thinking.

I want to be fair to you and give your words due consideration.

Wherefore I have a couple of starting questions:

1. Is there anything in the magisterial deposit of the Church - Councils; Encyclicals; Summa Theologica; Patristics; pre-1983 Canon Law - that discusses formal versus material heresy?

2. Do you distinguish between some 'classical' SSPX R&R position and some SSPXBrand refabrication of same?

That's all for now, but I'm sure more questions are coming.

You are giving Sean far more attention than he deserves.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2013, 09:44:15 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Hi Sean,

I am going to give your arguments the study they deserve. This will do immense good to my soul, as it will, I'm sure, enrich my understanding and clarify my thinking.

I want to be fair to you and give your words due consideration.

Wherefore I have a couple of starting questions:

1. Is there anything in the magisterial deposit of the Church - Councils; Encyclicals; Summa Theologica; Patristics; pre-1983 Canon Law - that discusses formal versus material heresy?

2. Do you distinguish between some 'classical' SSPX R&R position and some SSPXBrand refabrication of same?

That's all for now, but I'm sure more questions are coming.

Cantate-

1) With regard to the 1st question:

There are very few English-language pre-Vatican II ecclesiology manuals.

But one that is usually available somewhere is Van Noort's.

It is actually a 3-volume set titled "Dogmatic Theology;" the 2nd volume is titled "Christ's Church," and contains the treatment you are seeking between material (covert and public) vs formal heresy (and the consequences to Church membership for each)

It contains a good treatment on precisely this issue.

I have also read other places that Sylvestri (spelling correct?) has one, though I have not read it.

2) With regard to the 2nd question

Personally, I do not make the distinction you are suggesting.

Actually, it never occurred to me that there was a neo vs classic understanding of the R&R position.

I would dismiss the idea, were it not for the present attitude in Menzingen, which seems to indicate they fear to remain in the R&R position too long, lest they drift into sedevacantism.

I find that fear unfounded, and certainly not dictated by anything inherent in the position itself (but perhaps by extraneous political or psychological causes?)

The R&R position received (in my opinion) its best elucidation in the SiSiNoNo 2-part theological justification of the 1988 consecrations (found on the 1st page of the library sub-forum titled "On the Doctrine of Necessity").

It takes several readings to absorb, but if at the end of the day you do not find it persuasive, I would say you can feel comfortable that you have exposed yourself to the best treatment of R&R nevertheless.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:03:02 AM »

By the way, Sean, I spoke with a priest last night, someone who deeply understands what is transpiring in the SSPX, and who has taken measures in his own life that make his actions align with his thinking. He's very, very smart.

He began to explain the formal/material heresy distinction. He is by no means finished explaining things to me, as we had to get off the phone.

One thing I came away with from the conversation is that when it comes to this subject, I think in metaphysical terms and not in juridical terms. A thing is what it is: id quod est.

The human intellect is created to apprehend the essences of things. Apprehension of natures is the first movement or act of the intellect. All judgments are subsequent to the first apprehension on essence.

I take for granted that there is an analogous function or faculty of the intellect belonging to the supernatural order, called the sensus catolicus, which gives the reason power to apprehend what is essentially Catholic and what is not.

I am thinking metaphysically and not juridically; wherefore I am thinking in more simple terms than you are.

Now some essences cannot be perceived or apprehended with the unaided human reason - the divine and the intellectual. Some truths cannot be attained without Divine Revelation.

However I believe that reason enlightened by faith is competent to judge, based on his actions in the external forum, that a man does not hold the Catholic Faith, especially when that man holds a canonical office, the authority of which is given specifically and exclusively so that he might teach the integral Faith to the Church and the world.

An uncatechized little old lady who goes around kissing statues in a church all the time yet who also consults the local strega for a cure for a migraine, is one thing.

A pope or a bishop who teaches and acts in accordance with heresy (modernism); who abandons the public worship of the Church; who encourages and teaches billions of Catholics to abandon the public worship of the Church; who attempts to abrogate the entire Roman Rite; who pays explicit tribute to the principles and ideologies of the freemasonic sect - against the Lord and against His Christ; who teaches men sycretism and that all religions are salvific; who tells the Jєωs that they are saved without the Blood of the Lamb!; who teaches big bang, cosmic evolution - in direct contravention of Sacred Writ and the Tradition of the Church; and who gives vicious example in his public demeanor and in his protection and promotion of a worldwide, church-sanctioned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator conspiracy, so that Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church are incessantly held up to mockery, scorn, and derision, and so that millions of souls are scandalized right out the door of the only religion that can save them; is quite another.

This prelate's infidelity to Christ we can determine - even in the absence of a juridical pronouncement.

The above ironclad facts form the basis for my judging the essential infidelity of these hideous monsters.

RESOLUTION: I will study the effete distinctions you propound in the hopes that, with God's help, I can blow them out of the water.

P.S. The priest told me something last night that made me freeze in my tracks. He stated emphatically that a man who is not Catholic cannot be a pope, so that if we hold this then we are SV.

I now totally understand why the SSPX cannot admit the first principle I keep talking about: He Ain't Catholic! They believe that to affirm such a thing automatically makes them SV, and they don't want to go down that road - perhaps merely for political reasons, perhaps because they sincerely think it is a sin.

I cannot say that at this time I believe that a man who is not Catholic cannot be a pope. I have to determine whether this is absolute truth or a theological opinion yet to be pronounced on.

I will say this: In order to study meritoriously, so that God will bless and protect our efforts, we have to look at this first premise with perfect objectivity - not worrying about where it will ultimately lead us. We must trust in God.

Can we judge aright that these men are not Catholic? It's going to take a lot of convincing before I believe that we cannot.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #4 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:08:51 AM »

Quote from: obscurus

Quote from: cantatedomino
Hi Sean,

I am going to give your arguments the study they deserve. This will do immense good to my soul, as it will, I'm sure, enrich my understanding and clarify my thinking.

I want to be fair to you and give your words due consideration.

Wherefore I have a couple of starting questions:

1. Is there anything in the magisterial deposit of the Church - Councils; Encyclicals; Summa Theologica; Patristics; pre-1983 Canon Law - that discusses formal versus material heresy?

2. Do you distinguish between some 'classical' SSPX R&R position and some SSPXBrand refabrication of same?

That's all for now, but I'm sure more questions are coming.

You are giving Sean far more attention than he deserves.

No way.

I am giving God my intellect and my will.

I want to be open to grace and not closed off to it by my own arrogance and self-complacency.

I believe I am correct. If I am, then no harm but good will come to the table. If I am wrong, then I too must recalibrate.

cathman7 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:12:50 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: obscurus
Quote from: cantatedomino
Hi Sean,

I am going to give your arguments the study they deserve. This will do immense good to my soul, as it will, I'm sure, enrich my understanding and clarify my thinking.

I want to be fair to you and give your words due consideration.

Wherefore I have a couple of starting questions:

1. Is there anything in the magisterial deposit of the Church - Councils; Encyclicals; Summa Theologica; Patristics; pre-1983 Canon Law - that discusses formal versus material heresy?

2. Do you distinguish between some 'classical' SSPX R&R position and some SSPXBrand refabrication of same?

That's all for now, but I'm sure more questions are coming.

You are giving Sean far more attention than he deserves.

No way.

I am giving God my intellect and my will.

I want to be open to grace and not closed off to it by my own arrogance and self-complacency.

I believe I am correct. If I am, then no harm but good will come to the table. If I am wrong, then I too must recalibrate.

I cannot argue with this then. We all must be open to the Truth and to the workings of grace in our souls.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:16:03 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Cantate-

1) With regard to the 1st question:

There are very few English-language pre-Vatican II ecclesiology manuals.

But one that is usually available somewhere is Van Noort's.

It is actually a 3-volume set titled "Dogmatic Theology;" the 2nd volume is titled "Christ's Church," and contains the treatment you are seeking between material (covert and public) vs formal heresy (and the consequences to Church membership for each)

It contains a good treatment on precisely this issue.

I have also read other places that Sylvestri (spelling correct?) has one, though I have not read it.

2) With regard to the 2nd question

Personally, I do not make the distinction you are suggesting.

Actually, it never occurred to me that there was a neo vs classic understanding of the R&R position.

I would dismiss the idea, were it not for the present attitude in Menzingen, which seems to indicate they fear to remain in the R&R position too long, lest they drift into sedevacantism.

I find that fear unfounded, and certainly not dictated by anything inherent in the position itself (but perhaps by extraneous political or psychological causes?)

The R&R position received (in my opinion) its best elucidation in the SiSiNoNo 2-part theological justification of the 1988 consecrations (found on the 1st page of the library sub-forum titled "On the Doctrine of Necessity").

It takes several readings to absorb, but if at the end of the day you do not find it persuasive, I would say you can feel comfortable that you have exposed yourself to the best treatment of R&R nevertheless.

Sean, the lawyer in me has to constantly loop back and rephrase the answer of the person I'm questioning. I do this for precision by clarification. When the person can sign off on the way I have rephrased something, then I know our minds have reached a mutual understanding.

Tell me if this is correct:

The only places where I will find the subjects of material versus formal heresy and R&R discussed, are textbooks on theology and SSPX publications. There are no conciliar, patristic, or papal sources for these teachings.

Is that correct?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:44:54 AM »

Dogmatic Theology (Volume II: Christ's Church)
by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D
English Translation of the 5th Edition of Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi
1956

Chapter II: The Members of the Church
Article 1: Who Are Members of the Church?
Scholion 1: Who Are Not Members of the Church?

"From the principles laid down, it is fairly easy to know which classes of men are excluded from membership in the Church. A few exceptional cases, however, pose some difficulties. These will be discussed briefly in the course of dealing with clear-cut cases of nonmembership.

"The following classes of men are definitely not members of the Church: (a) the nonbaptized; (b) public heretics;* (c) public schismatics; (d) total excommunicates.

[Here follows an extensive footnote to explain the concept of "public heretic"]

"*A heretic is one who denies a truth of [/i]divine and Catholic faith[/i]: i.e., a truth which has been revealed by God and proposed by the Church for belief (see vol. III of this series, nos 210 and 259). Heretics are classified as "public" or "occult," "formal" or "material." A public (notorious) heretic is one whose heresy is known to a large number of people, even if he has not formally joined the ranks of an heretical church; an occult heretic is one whose errors in faith are either totally unknown, or known only to a few. A formal heretic is one who stubbornly and guiltily adheres to heresy; a material heretic is one who innocently and in good faith subscribes to some heretical doctrine.

[Here follows a treatment of the case of schismatics, before returning to the case of heretics,hich Ideliberately omit, to stay on subject]

"b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic Faith and from the external profession of that Faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors - baptism, profession of the same Faith, union with the hierarchy - pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that , unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism, or heresy, or apostasy. (MCC 30; italics ours)

"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example, Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: If public, material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church, in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church?" How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one's faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

"When it comes to a question of occult heretics remaining members of the Church, theologians are in sharper disagreement and the intrinsic probability of their respective arguments seems better balanced than in the previous case..."

[There follows a footnote #9 showing the authorities who claim occult heresy does not sever one from Church membership, attributed to Salaverri, which includes St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Billuart, Franzelin, etc]

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2013, 10:52:02 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Cantate-

1) With regard to the 1st question:

There are very few English-language pre-Vatican II ecclesiology manuals.

But one that is usually available somewhere is Van Noort's.

It is actually a 3-volume set titled "Dogmatic Theology;" the 2nd volume is titled "Christ's Church," and contains the treatment you are seeking between material (covert and public) vs formal heresy (and the consequences to Church membership for each)

It contains a good treatment on precisely this issue.

I have also read other places that Sylvestri (spelling correct?) has one, though I have not read it.

2) With regard to the 2nd question

Personally, I do not make the distinction you are suggesting.

Actually, it never occurred to me that there was a neo vs classic understanding of the R&R position.

I would dismiss the idea, were it not for the present attitude in Menzingen, which seems to indicate they fear to remain in the R&R position too long, lest they drift into sedevacantism.

I find that fear unfounded, and certainly not dictated by anything inherent in the position itself (but perhaps by extraneous political or psychological causes?)

The R&R position received (in my opinion) its best elucidation in the SiSiNoNo 2-part theological justification of the 1988 consecrations (found on the 1st page of the library sub-forum titled "On the Doctrine of Necessity").

It takes several readings to absorb, but if at the end of the day you do not find it persuasive, I would say you can feel comfortable that you have exposed yourself to the best treatment of R&R nevertheless.

Sean, the lawyer in me has to constantly loop back and rephrase the answer of the person I'm questioning. I do this for precision by clarification. When the person can sign off on the way I have rephrased something, then I know our minds have reached a mutual understanding.

Tell me if this is correct:

The only places where I will find the subjects of material versus formal heresy and R&R discussed, are textbooks on theology and SSPX publications. There are no conciliar, patristic, or papal sources for these teachings.

Is that correct?

Cantate-

I have no idea wherein all the sources making the distinction between formal/material/public/covery heretics are contained.

I just pointed you to one that was on my bookshelf.

Whether Fathers, Doctors, Councils, etc. proclaimed on the matter is beyond me.

St. Robert Bellarmine also wrote on the matter, per the footnote in my previous post (as did Billuart, Suarez, Franzeline, etc).

PS: Interestingly enough, Van Noort seems to state that "public, material heretics" lose membership in the Church as the "more common opinion."

At this point, it is for the sedes to determine which article of the faith Francis denies (i.e., rather than just making comments which seem to imply being proximate to a denial).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:16:57 AM »

Equally interesting is the fact that the reasons Van Noort adduces for placing the presumption against Church membership for public heretics are practically identical to those of Mithrandylan (i.e., in the other sede thread).

As Van Noort states his opinion is the "more common" view, I would be interested to see what his opponents reason.

Would be even more interesting to know whether the post-V2 collapse would have impacted his opinion (or as my previous post stated, whether these Popes have not actually uttered formally heretical denials of doctrine, or opinions which necessarily imply denials of dogma).

The "biggie" here of course would be Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae.

Everything else, be weaseled out of, thanks to intended ambiguity.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:23:17 AM »

At risk of confusing the matter, it was interesting to see that Van Noort mentions communion with the hierarchy as one of the 3 conditions for membership in the Church.

Obviously, a sedevacantist lacks this communion, and according to Van Noort, would be outside the Church (i.e., schismatic).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:42:58 AM »

The question I wish he would have addressed is the possibility of a hierarchy losing membership in the Church for public heresy.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #12 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:44:44 AM »

Sean, thank you so much for all of the information.

Pray for me that I study according to the will of God.

And for all of us, here is the prayer we each should say every day in order to remain in the truth. It is the prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas:

O INFINITE Creator, who in the riches of Thy wisdom didst appoint three hierarchies of Angels and didst set them in wondrous order over the highest heavens, and who didst apportion the elements of the world most wisely: do Thou, who art in truth the fountain of light and wisdom, deign to shed upon the darkness of my understanding the rays of Thine infinite brightness, and remove far from me the twofold darkness in which I was born, namely, sin and ignorance. Do Thou, who givest speech to the tongues of little children, instruct my tongue and pour into my lips the grace of Thy benediction. Give me keenness of apprehension, capacity for remembering, method and ease in learning, insight-in interpretation, and copious eloquence in speech. Instruct my beginning, direct my progress, and set Thy seal upon the finished work, Thou, who art true God and true Man, who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.

CREATOR ineffabilis, qui de thesauris sapientiae tuae tres Angelorum hierarchias designasti et eas super caelum empyreum miro ordine collocasti atque universi partes elegantissime distribuisti: Tu, inquam, qui verus fons luminis et sapientiae diceris ac supereminens principium, infundere digneris super intellectus mei tenebras tuae radium claritatis, duplices, in quibus natus sum, a me removens tenebras, peccatum scilicet et ignorantiam. Tu, qui linguas infantium facis disertas, linguam meam erudias atque in labiis meis gratiam tuae benedictionis infundas. Da mihi intelligendi acuмen, retinendi capacitatem, addiscendi modum et facilitatem, interpretandi subtilitatem, loquendi gratiam copiosam. Ingressum instruas, progressum dirigas, egressum compleas. Tu, qui es verus Deus et homo, qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:11:08 PM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

1917 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: HERESY:

"The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State. "St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas."

In the case of the post-conciliar popes, the choice and the thing chosen would be the religious and political doctrines of the modernists, the evolutionists, the freemasons, the scientists, the protestants, and the Jєωs, to name some.

In the case of the post-conciliar popes, the adhesion to parties in Church or State includes alliances with modernist/crypto Jєω/marxist theologians, canons, priests, religious, and bishops; judaeo-masonic heads of state and financial conglomerates; organized sodomy; organized copernicanist/relativist/evolutionist scientism; and world communism.

In the case of the post-conciliar popes, we may say and we must say that they both profess the Faith of Christ and corrupt its dogmas. They say they are Catholic but they do not. They say but they do not. The empirical evidence of this is so overwhelming, that a demonstration is not necessary.

Sean, do you dispute any of this?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:23:23 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

1917 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: HERESY:

"The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State. "St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas."

In the case of the post-conciliar popes, the choice and the thing chosen would be the religious and political doctrines of the modernists, the evolutionists, the freemasons, the scientists, the protestants, and the Jєωs, to name some.

In the case of the post-conciliar popes, the adhesion to parties in Church or State includes alliances with modernist/crypto Jєω/marxist theologians, canons, priests, religious, and bishops; judaeo-masonic heads of state and financial conglomerates; organized sodomy; organized copernicanist/relativist/evolutionist scientism; and world communism.

In the case of the post-conciliar popes, we may say and we must say that they both profess the Faith of Christ and corrupt its dogmas. They say they are Catholic but they do not. They say but they do not. The empirical evidence of this is so overwhelming, that a demonstration is not necessary.

Sean, do you dispute any of this?

Cantate-

I accept the sentence you pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

But I do not see the relevance of your commentary to whether or not the Pope/Popes/hierarchy have lost membership in the Church:

1) At issue is whether the Pope/Popes have committed public, material heresy (If you say yes, please given an example; the closest I can come is the promulgation/acceptance of Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae);

2) And if we get that far, is it true a public, material heretic loses membership in the Church (i.e., Van Noort says it is the "more common" opinion);

3) And if we get past that, is any old layman able to determine when the Pope/hierarchy has left the Church?

4) And if we get past that, it would need to be demonstrated how the visibility of the Church has been maintained despite a universally schismatic hierarchy (i.e., Van Noort also seems to imply, based on his stress of the issue of visibility, that it would not be possible to pretend visibility is upheld by 4 SSPX bishops, and a handful of questionable consecrated Thuc bishops).