FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp W Column, 5.30.09
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(06-02-2009, 11:15 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 10:21 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]Archbishop Lefebvre understood the extent of the infallibility of the Pope:

Quote:"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply." - Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976.

This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

Yes, I think he affirms the indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium here in the first sentence insofar as the teaching Church "cannot contain error".  On the other hand, he seems to open up to the thesis of sedevacantism insofar as the only possible explanation for the crisis (as he sees it) is that the Pope is not really the Pope.  Unfortunately, that road is also a dead end.

Denying facts truly leads to enabling the continued destruction.
(06-02-2009, 12:46 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 11:15 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 10:21 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]Archbishop Lefebvre understood the extent of the infallibility of the Pope:

Quote:"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply." - Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976.

This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

Yes, I think he affirms the indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium here in the first sentence insofar as the teaching Church "cannot contain error".  On the other hand, he seems to open up to the thesis of sedevacantism insofar as the only possible explanation for the crisis (as he sees it) is that the Pope is not really the Pope.  Unfortunately, that road is also a dead end.

Denying facts truly leads to enabling the continued destruction.

Which fact is being denied and by whom?
(06-02-2009, 01:10 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 12:46 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 11:15 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 10:21 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]Archbishop Lefebvre understood the extent of the infallibility of the Pope:

Quote:"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply." - Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976.

This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

Yes, I think he affirms the indefectibility of the Papal Magisterium here in the first sentence insofar as the teaching Church "cannot contain error".  On the other hand, he seems to open up to the thesis of sedevacantism insofar as the only possible explanation for the crisis (as he sees it) is that the Pope is not really the Pope.  Unfortunately, that road is also a dead end.

Denying facts truly leads to enabling the continued destruction.

Which fact is being denied and by whom?

The facts of the crisis.

Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply."
LOL  What fun! The Conciliarist and the Sedevacantist hold each other's hands to present a false front of error by excess.

This problem is described and the answer given in the SiSiNoNo article linked below that was previously linked to in this thread. Our Conciliarist friend and our Sedevacantist friend should both take the trouble to digest it.
Clear Ideas on the Pope's Infallible Magisterium
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNo...terium.htm
Quote:What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium," ...

... The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.

Quote:Posted by newschoolman
Prudential error has absolutely nothing to do with material heresy or errors in the order of faith and morals.
That is strange. Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
A Catholic who holds a material heresy without pertinacity is NOT a heretic at all and therefore NOT excommunicated. You are confusing this "distinction" and claiming that a Catholic can be a material heretic when he is just mistaken or ignorant.
That is also strange. In an earlier post you stated that  "What is not certain is whether a pope can be a heretic as a private person." In other words you previously admitted that a pope could possibly be a material heretic when infallibility was not engaged.

Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
Infallibility is a charism that protects the pope from making errors in faith and morals.
Infallibility only applies when the pope, as head of the universal Church, solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith or morals or asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine. Infallibility is not engaged should he promote beliefs that are novel or contradictory to the Catholic Faith. Such are examples of personal error that are necessarily confined to his Authentic Magisterium.



edited to add link.
(06-02-2009, 01:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]The facts of the crisis.

Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply."

Those are not facts but statements of opinion.  Have we really witnessed "the destruction of the Church"?  Really?  The Church is indefectible (indestructible).  Is this really the worst crisis in history?  That seems very debatable.    
(06-02-2009, 01:28 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 01:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]The facts of the crisis.

Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply."

Those are not facts but statements of opinion.  Have we really witnessed "the destruction of the Church"?  Really?  The Church is indefectible (indestructible).  Is this really the worst crisis in history?  That seems very debatable.    

It's debatable in some of the details, but not in the broad sense. This is an area where we respectfully part company.
(06-02-2009, 01:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 01:28 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 01:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]The facts of the crisis.

Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply."

Those are not facts but statements of opinion.  Have we really witnessed "the destruction of the Church"?  Really?  The Church is indefectible (indestructible).  Is this really the worst crisis in history?  That seems very debatable.    

It's debatable in some of the details, but not in the broad sense. This is an area where we respectfully part company.

Yes, now we have entered the realm of speculation and private opinions.  Which was the worst crisis in history?  I really don't have a ready answer for that one.
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 
(06-02-2009, 01:27 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]LOL  What fun! The Conciliarist and the Sedevacantist hold each other's hands to present a false front of error by excess.

And here's where the arrogant and ignorant SSPX defender begins to use ridicule when he is challenged. 

Quote:This problem is described and the answer given in the SiSiNoNo article linked below that was previously linked to in this thread. Our Conciliarist friend and our Sedevacantist friend should both take the trouble to digest it.
Clear Ideas on the Pope's Infallible Magisterium
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNo...terium.htm

I have read it and it is anything but clear.

Quote:
Quote:Posted by newschoolman
Prudential error has absolutely nothing to do with material heresy or errors in the order of faith and morals.
That is strange. Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

Except we aren't talking about "innocently differing" in a matter not yet defined.

Quote:
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
A Catholic who holds a material heresy without pertinacity is NOT a heretic at all and therefore NOT excommunicated. You are confusing this "distinction" and claiming that a Catholic can be a material heretic when he is just mistaken or ignorant.
That is also strange. In an earlier post you stated that  "What is not certain is whether a pope can be a heretic as a private person." In other words you previously admitted that a pope could possibly be a material heretic when infallibility was not engaged.

Infallibility is always engaged. It is not possible for a Catholic to be a "material heretic". He is either a heretic or he is simply mistaken or ignorant.

Quote:
Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
Infallibility is a charism that protects the pope from making errors in faith and morals.
Infallibility only applies when the pope, as head of the universal Church, solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith or morals or asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine. Infallibility is not engaged should he promote beliefs that are novel or contradictory to the Catholic Faith. Such are examples of personal error that are necessarily confined to his Authentic Magisterium.

Only solemn definitions are infallible? This is wrong.

"Scheeben" Wrote:SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor 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 therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Concil. Vat., sess. iv., cap. 4).

II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.

The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.

From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.




(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

That a Pope can make innocent error in a private capacity is clear in the Forward to Pope Benedict's book "Jesus of Nazareth":

"It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search "for the face of the Lord"...Everyone is free, then, to contradict me..."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16