Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 37828 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Reputation: +2896/-667
  • Gender: Male
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #165 on: January 23, 2023, 08:47:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ST FRANCIS DE SALES:

    "Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric" - The Catholic Controversy (p306 in my edition)

    When St Francis says "explicitly a heretic", does that mean a material heretic, or a formal heretic? Formal, I would say, because nobody is a heretic and outside the Church simply on account of a materially heretical statement.

    Exactly! The pertinent part is: “he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church“……He has already fallen…….THEN…..the CHURCH acts. He already lost his office automatically, then to tidy up everything, the Church makes a declaration.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #166 on: January 23, 2023, 08:50:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They have no nsswer for this ^^^

    Sean, why do you continue to ignore the three Doctors of the Church I’ve quoted?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #167 on: January 23, 2023, 09:01:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, why do you continue to ignore the three Doctors of the Church I’ve quoted?

    So you’re conceding Paul IV - cuм ex is irrelevant?
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #168 on: January 23, 2023, 09:02:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Exactly! The pertinent part is: “he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church“……He has already fallen…….THEN…..the CHURCH acts. He already lost his office automatically, then to tidy up everything, the Church makes a declaration.

    “…and the Church must deprive him…”

    You ‘accidentally’ forgot to include that part.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Online Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1510
    • Reputation: +1236/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #169 on: January 23, 2023, 09:02:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:

    Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.
    ST ANTONINUS  (+1459):
     
    In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.

    Is St Antoninus talking of any and every kind of heretic? A secret heretic? A material heretic? Only a formal heretic? Are monitions and demonstration of pertinacity and a declaration necessary to know that he is a heretic before, "by that fact alone", he is separated from the Church? Can anyone provide any context to this quote?

    Three centuries later, one of his Dominican successors taught this:

    BILLUART (+1757):

    "The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2



    Online Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1510
    • Reputation: +1236/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #170 on: January 23, 2023, 09:27:51 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.

    This is not rocket science.  Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.

    You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.

    Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.

    This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical.  Period.  End of Story.  Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.

    You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion".  Unbelievable.
    This chair of Peter cannot fail, what does it mean? It's not rocket science:

    "'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail; and when you have converted, strengthen your brethren' (Luke 22:31). From this text, St Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter I to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3..., Leo IX in a letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the Sixth Council (act 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council..., Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect... Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgement must be followed... For we read Acts ch 15 that the Council said: 'It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'; such also now is the Pontiff's teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Ghost so that he cannot err." - St Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Lib 3, Cap 5

    "But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone - God forbid - whould presume to contradict this our definition; let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus

    "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 the 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 infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal" - Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on Infallibility of Vatican I






    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #171 on: January 24, 2023, 04:02:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • “…and the Church must deprive him…”

    You ‘accidentally’ forgot to include that part.

    I only excluded that part because it’s unnecessary to understand the first part, that he “falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church”.  AFTER it is recognized that he has fallen from his office, it must be declared by the Church that it has deprived *the former pope* of all that he once possessed so that a new pope can be elected. I don’t understand why you don’t follow this concept.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #172 on: January 24, 2023, 04:17:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BILLUART (+1757):

    "The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2



    Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, disagrees:


    “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”


    Assuming Billuart’s quote is accurate, which one do you prefer to follow?


    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #173 on: January 24, 2023, 04:22:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This chair of Peter cannot fail, what does it mean? It's not rocket science:

    "'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail; and when you have converted, strengthen your brethren' (Luke 22:31). From this text, St Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter I to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3..., Leo IX in a letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the Sixth Council (act 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council..., Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect... Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgement must be followed... For we read Acts ch 15 that the Council said: 'It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'; such also now is the Pontiff's teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Ghost so that he cannot err." - St Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Lib 3, Cap 5

    "But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone - God forbid - whould presume to contradict this our definition; let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus

    "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 the 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 infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal" - Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on Infallibility of Vatican I

    Using your line of reasoning, every time there is an interregnum, the chair of Peter fails.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #174 on: January 24, 2023, 04:28:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you’re conceding Paul IV - cuм ex is irrelevant?

    As I’ve expressed above, the arguments compliment and support one another. 
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #175 on: January 24, 2023, 05:04:31 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • BILLUART (+1757):

    "The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2




    I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?


    From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:




    To answer this, and to oppose St. Bellarmine teaching that we should judge a heretic by his external acts, another theologian was needed, Fr. Charles-Rene Billuart. Here we have the most astounding opinion:

    “According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”

    The footnote at the above sentence is directing us to Billuart, De Fide (Diss.V, A.III,No.3,obj.2).

    Although this sentence is given without quotation marks, in later publications it will have such. It would be significant, if the quotation was true. Let’s open “De Fide”, to check the source of the quotation carefully:

    Dissertatio V (De Vittis Fidei Oppositis), Articulus III (De Apostasia):

    Qui ab Ordine Sacro fine legitima dispensatione retrocedit ad statum Seacularem, est apostata & peccat mortaliter; quia deserit statum cui per Ecclesiam erat solemniter mancipatus, quem deserere vetant plures Canones, poenis impositis contra transgressores.(1)

    In English translation it is:

    One who leaves Holy Orders without a legitimate dispensation [in order] to return to a secular state, is an apostate and sins mortally; because to quit the religious state, in which one was solemnly enrolled by the Church, is forbidden by several Canons, which impose penalties against transgressors.

    The relevance of the sentence from “A little Catechism…” to the source given in the footnote is null. As it was already said, this “quotation” of Billuart, which is  false and fabricated, has been spread wide and far.  We might even suppose that every SSPX district printed it in its own bulletin and since 2001 nobody dared to check the comparability of the “quoted” sentence with the given source! We can assume that this infamous  sentence is just a summary (a precise one, at that) of the SSPX attitude regarding post Vatican II Council heretical popes.  Let’s look at it again: “[C]hrist, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to even manifestly heretical pontiff” – this is utterly unheard and opposite to the Church teaching. How astonishing that it was “cited” as Billuart’s work! SSPX theologians must have been desperate to have the “quotation” to support themselves and to give us confirmation of their own philosophy.









    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #176 on: January 24, 2023, 05:56:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?


    From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:




    To answer this, and to oppose St. Bellarmine teaching that we should judge a heretic by his external acts, another theologian was needed, Fr. Charles-Rene Billuart. Here we have the most astounding opinion:

    “According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”

    The footnote at the above sentence is directing us to Billuart, De Fide (Diss.V, A.III,No.3,obj.2).

    Although this sentence is given without quotation marks, in later publications it will have such. It would be significant, if the quotation was true. Let’s open “De Fide”, to check the source of the quotation carefully:

    Dissertatio V (De Vittis Fidei Oppositis), Articulus III (De Apostasia):

    Qui ab Ordine Sacro fine legitima dispensatione retrocedit ad statum Seacularem, est apostata & peccat mortaliter; quia deserit statum cui per Ecclesiam erat solemniter mancipatus, quem deserere vetant plures Canones, poenis impositis contra transgressores.(1)

    In English translation it is:

    One who leaves Holy Orders without a legitimate dispensation [in order] to return to a secular state, is an apostate and sins mortally; because to quit the religious state, in which one was solemnly enrolled by the Church, is forbidden by several Canons, which impose penalties against transgressors.

    The relevance of the sentence from “A little Catechism…” to the source given in the footnote is null. As it was already said, this “quotation” of Billuart, which is  false and fabricated, has been spread wide and far.  We might even suppose that every SSPX district printed it in its own bulletin and since 2001 nobody dared to check the comparability of the “quoted” sentence with the given source! We can assume that this infamous  sentence is just a summary (a precise one, at that) of the SSPX attitude regarding post Vatican II Council heretical popes.  Let’s look at it again: “[C]hrist, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to even manifestly heretical pontiff” – this is utterly unheard and opposite to the Church teaching. How astonishing that it was “cited” as Billuart’s work! SSPX theologians must have been desperate to have the “quotation” to support themselves and to give us confirmation of their own philosophy.

    You have to be quite gullible to believe that Avrille fabricated a quote, and some anonymous Irish blogger has discovered it.

    I’ll contact Avrille and ask for a response.

    NB: I sent the following email-

    “A public question has arisen regarding the veracity of a quotation contained within the Little Catechism of Sedevacantism attributed to Rene Billuart, and I wondered if you could shed any light on it to silence our sedevacantist adversaries: (Here follows the quote of the anonymous Irish blogger).”

    When I receive a response, I will post it.  It may take a week +/-.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #177 on: January 24, 2023, 06:08:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You have to be quite gullible to believe that Avrille fabricated a quote, and some anonymous Irish blogger has discovered it.

    I’ll contact Avrille and ask for a response.

    Good! If they don’t give a response, would you consider looking into the reference yourself?
     Of course, the quote is questionable just for the fact that it came after and contradicts Bellarmine.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #178 on: January 24, 2023, 06:12:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good! If they don’t give a response, would you consider looking into the reference yourself?
     Of course, the quote is questionable just for the fact that it came after and contradicts Bellarmine.

    No, it does not contradict Bellarmine (the same article quotes him as saying the heresy must be formal and manifest, the definition of which seem to be perpetual mental blocks for sede apologists).
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #179 on: January 24, 2023, 06:16:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good! If they don’t give a response, would you consider looking into the reference yourself?

    Is there an online copy?

    If not, I’ll go to the local Archdiocesan seminary library and see if they have a copy in mothballs somewhere.  If they do, I’ll take pics of the book and passages and post them here.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."