Author Topic: Response from Menzingen on Canonizations: (Read 5133 times)

Matto · « **Reply #45 on:** May 05, 2014, 01:54:51 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The lawful papal electors still live in the world, appointed by a true Pope.

Who are they?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #46 on:** May 05, 2014, 04:15:42 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that the Pope is infallible in matters concerning faith or morals, thus including canonizations in that definition.

Therefore, that so and so is in heaven part of the Deposit of Faith?

Ambrose · « **Reply #47 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:02:21 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose
The lawful papal electors still live in the world, appointed by a true Pope.

Who are they?

They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.

Matto · « **Reply #48 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:10:14 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.

I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?

Ambrose · « **Reply #49 on:** May 05, 2014, 06:36:52 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.

I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?

The Church will never run out of members of the hierarchy, so I am not worried about it. Their lives are in the hands of God, and we know that the hierarchy will exist until the end if the world.

We do not rely on "Novus Ordo" bishops, we look to Catholic bishops who have kept the Faith through the crisis. Adherence to the Conciliar church or it's antipopes is not in and of itself proof of heresy.

The fact is that Catholics since the beginning of this crisis have remained in the Conciliar church, while erroneously believing that this sect is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they have lost their Faith or are out of the Church, only that they fail to recognize where the Church is.

In order for a Catholic bishop to lose his office due to heresy, he must meet the canonical definition of a heretic. To this date, May 5, 2014 I have never read any case against any of these bishops which would demonstrate that they are heretics, and by that have lost their offices. The only thing I have ever seen are groundless assumptions, with absolutely no accompanying evidence.

Luker · « **Reply #50 on:** May 05, 2014, 07:18:24 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Ambrose
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.

I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?

The Church will never run out of members of the hierarchy, so I am not worried about it. Their lives are in the hands of God, and we know that the hierarchy will exist until the end if the world.

We do not rely on "Novus Ordo" bishops, we look to Catholic bishops who have kept the Faith through the crisis. Adherence to the Conciliar church or it's antipopes is not in and of itself proof of heresy.

The fact is that Catholics since the beginning of this crisis have remained in the Conciliar church, while erroneously believing that this sect is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they have lost their Faith or are out of the Church, only that they fail to recognize where the Church is.

In order for a Catholic bishop to lose his office due to heresy, he must meet the canonical definition of a heretic. To this date, May 5, 2014 I have never read any case against any of these bishops which would demonstrate that they are heretics, and by that have lost their offices. The only thing I have ever seen are groundless assumptions, with absolutely no accompanying evidence.

Following Ambroses post, here are some possibilities:

1. Bishops in the Eastern Catholic Rites that have if not vocally rejected Vatican II and the changes, but have kept the Faith and kept their Rite substantially intact.

2. Bishops in the underground (True) Catholic Church in China. Information on them is hard to come by, but considering the persecution they have been under and either been in prison or in hiding, some of them I think could certainly be for all intents and purposes, 'pre Vatican II'

3. Bishops in other remote locations such as Africa. The African bishops/clergy seem much more conservative than the Western NO clergy to begin with. I am sure at least some have kept the faith intact.

4. Bishops in the Latin Rite in N America/Europe/Latin America. There are many of them. Not all of them make the news for outrages/abuses. It is hard to know, since the Vatican II agenda has been so fully implemented in the west, but maybe there is a small diocese or few here and there that have mostly, if not completely resisted the changes?

Ambrose · « **Reply #51 on:** May 05, 2014, 09:06:11 PM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Ambrose
They are those bishops and members of the Roman Clergy who have not defected from the Faith. Their name are known, but the only question remaining is how to distinguish the ones who have kept the Faith from those who have not.

I generally think the sedevacantist position makes sense but this is the one area where I think the sedevacantist arguments do not make sense. They rely on unknown orthodox Novus Ordo bishops appointed by a true pope without whom they say the Church would fail. Will you renounce your sedevacantist position in ten years when the last Pope John XXIII Bishop dies?

The Church will never run out of members of the hierarchy, so I am not worried about it. Their lives are in the hands of God, and we know that the hierarchy will exist until the end if the world.

We do not rely on "Novus Ordo" bishops, we look to Catholic bishops who have kept the Faith through the crisis. Adherence to the Conciliar church or it's antipopes is not in and of itself proof of heresy.

The fact is that Catholics since the beginning of this crisis have remained in the Conciliar church, while erroneously believing that this sect is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they have lost their Faith or are out of the Church, only that they fail to recognize where the Church is.

In order for a Catholic bishop to lose his office due to heresy, he must meet the canonical definition of a heretic. To this date, May 5, 2014 I have never read any case against any of these bishops which would demonstrate that they are heretics, and by that have lost their offices. The only thing I have ever seen are groundless assumptions, with absolutely no accompanying evidence.

Following Ambroses post, here are some possibilities:

1. Bishops in the Eastern Catholic Rites that have if not vocally rejected Vatican II and the changes, but have kept the Faith and kept their Rite substantially intact.

2. Bishops in the underground (True) Catholic Church in China. Information on them is hard to come by, but considering the persecution they have been under and either been in prison or in hiding, some of them I think could certainly be for all intents and purposes, 'pre Vatican II'

3. Bishops in other remote locations such as Africa. The African bishops/clergy seem much more conservative than the Western NO clergy to begin with. I am sure at least some have kept the faith intact.

4. Bishops in the Latin Rite in N America/Europe/Latin America. There are many of them. Not all of them make the news for outrages/abuses. It is hard to know, since the Vatican II agenda has been so fully implemented in the west, but maybe there is a small diocese or few here and there that have mostly, if not completely resisted the changes?

Great post Luker! The only task that we have as Catholics if we wish to identify the hierarchy is to figure out which bishops still have the Faith, and which have defected.

The Church supplies when it is necessary for the common good and when there is common error. I think it is safe to say that bishops who are appointed that continue the use of the Novus Ordo Missae and the Vatican II theology, especially that which is taught by the CCC would not be part of the common good.

So, it would seem that we could isolate appointees in the Roman rite to pre-1970 appointees, and bishops of the Eastern rites who have continued to support the teaching of the Church and have not embraced the novelties of Vatican II, the postV2 "popes" and the CCC.

Nishant · « **Reply #52 on:** May 06, 2014, 06:39:39 AM »

Sorry, Ambrose, I really don't want to get into this on this thread. We've gone over this before, and your thesis is problematic for at least five reasons, being expressly contrary to one defined dogma and the resuscitation of a proposition condemned at Constance. Your theory of how Apostolic succession can be continued without the Petrine succession is contradicted, among other sources, by cuм Ex, as I will mention in a new thread. (Even the suggestion of the same is an affront on the Church's monarchical constitution, only a Successor of Peter can make formal Successors of the Apostles, otherwise Peter is not the Rock on which the Church is built).

Quote from: SSPX.org

The Church is indefectible ... in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors ... is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?

And though a sede vacante certainly cannot be prolonged beyond the point when all bishops appointed by the last Pope die, that does not mean that it can necessarily be prolonged up to that point. If all remaining Roman clergy or Ordinaries recognize a single candidate, it is impossible that the Church be in a sede vacante. You must profess communion with these to remain in the Church, and since they profess communion with the Pope, you must profess communion with him. Therefore, it is impossible, as all theologians teach, when all the authorities of the Church profess communion with the Pope, for the Pope not to be the Pope.

Quote from: SSPX.org, citing Cardinal Billot

God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election

Ecclesia Militans, canonizations are dogmatic facts, in the judgment of which the Church cannot err. That the Church is infallible in Her judgments is itself a revealed truth and the object of this judgment, inseparably connected with revelation and contained in it not formally but implicitly, is called the secondary object of infallibility.

Quote from: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ott

To the secondary objects of infallibility belong... the canonization of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.

Quote from: Fr. Sylvester Hunter, 1895

... then a further decree may be issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint” and is to be honored as such in the whole Church with public veneration. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church

Quote from: St. Alphonsus

To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Will you tell me it doesn't matter what "Tom" or "Bob" (God forgive me, but it is necessary to show the consequences Fr. Pfeiffer's position leads to) thought, because, after all, St. Thomas or St. Robert may not be Saints? Do you see how problematic it is to say the Church has never held canonizations to be infallible?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #53 on:** May 06, 2014, 07:02:08 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Ecclesia Militans, canonizations are dogmatic facts, in the judgment of which the Church cannot err. That the Church is infallible in Her judgments is itself a revealed truth and the object of this judgment, inseparably connected with revelation and contained in it not formally but implicitly, is called the secondary object of infallibility.

Quote from: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ott
To the secondary objects of infallibility belong... the canonization of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.

Quote from: Fr. Sylvester Hunter, 1895
... then a further decree may be issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint” and is to be honored as such in the whole Church with public veneration. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church

Quote from: St. Alphonsus
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Will you tell me it doesn't matter what "Tom" or "Bob" (God forgive me, but it is necessary to show the consequences Fr. Pfeiffer's position leads to) thought, because, after all, St. Thomas or St. Robert may not be Saints? Do you see how problematic it is to say the Church has never held canonizations to be infallible?

Nishant, please define for me what you mean by "dogmatic fact".

Centroamerica · « **Reply #54 on:** May 06, 2014, 08:11:14 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #55 on:** May 06, 2014, 08:57:53 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Nishant
Ecclesia Militans, canonizations are dogmatic facts, in the judgment of which the Church cannot err. That the Church is infallible in Her judgments is itself a revealed truth and the object of this judgment, inseparably connected with revelation and contained in it not formally but implicitly, is called the secondary object of infallibility.

Quote from: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ott
To the secondary objects of infallibility belong... the canonization of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration.

Quote from: Fr. Sylvester Hunter, 1895
... then a further decree may be issued by which the Pontiff defines that the person is a “Saint” and is to be honored as such in the whole Church with public veneration. No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Church

Quote from: St. Alphonsus
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Will you tell me it doesn't matter what "Tom" or "Bob" (God forgive me, but it is necessary to show the consequences Fr. Pfeiffer's position leads to) thought, because, after all, St. Thomas or St. Robert may not be Saints? Do you see how problematic it is to say the Church has never held canonizations to be infallible?

Nishant, please define for me what you mean by "dogmatic fact".

They're indirect objects of infallibility, so you wouldn't understand. :smoke-pot:

Things like the legitimacy of papacies are dogmatic facts. Canonizations could probably be called them as well.

What Nishant is driving at, and what Fr. Pfeiffer can't see through his tunnel vision (nor can many others) is that this neo-minimalism "definitions only" traditionalism undermines traditionalism itself, as in rejecting the very notion of indirect objects of infallibility, there is nothing to stop these faithful from rejecting the legitimacy of Pope Pius V, in which case they would then reject the very missal the traditional position uses, the very council wherein the Catholic faith was so eloquently explained, etc.