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, 03:31 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 03:18 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 03:14 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 03:10 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 02:56 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 02:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(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. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

No, not a private heretic.  I said that there can be theological error in the capacity of private theologian -- but such errors would never equate to heresies against the dogmas of the faith.

If that "theological error" is heretical and it is held with pertinacity...the holder is a heretic, no matter who he is.

Such error would never be heretical in nature.

That's the pious belief.

"St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic [as a private person]) is probable and easily defended … Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic.

I am not only relying on Bellarmine here.  I refer to PA and Bishop Gasser's relatio.  After summarizing Bellarmine's position he states:

"...the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourch place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."

Therefore, the "most common and certain opinion" in the time of Bellarmine has been affimed by the First Vatican Council in the teaching of PA, Chapter IV.

You've got this completely wrong.

Quote:Bp. Gasser, in the relatio, is clearly differentiating the schema from the pious opinion (which was extreme in that it was not the common opinion).  He was also dealing with the Gallican idea that “'in questions of faith the judgement of the Pope is not irreformable unless supported by the consent of the Church…'”.

Bp. Gasser is quoting Bellarmine here:

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.”

Also, from Bp. Gasser:

"Since, however, it (the opinion of Pighuis) is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic.”

"Before concluding the general account which I have been giving you, I must answer a very serious objection raised in this pulpit, to the effect that we wish to elevate the extreme opinion of a certain school of theologians into a dogma of the Faith.  This is indeed a serious objection, and when I heard it from the lips of a distinguished and very highly respected orator, I bowed my diminished head et oratio mea in sinu meo convertebatur.  Good heavens! do you thus twist and turn about our words and intentions so as to attribute to us the design of giving the opinion of a certain extreme school the dignity of a dogma, and so as to make Bellarmine, in a manner, the author of the fourth proposition in the Declaration of the Gallican clergy?  For to begin with the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the most reverend orator fathers on Bellarmine: 'the Pope cannot define anything infallibly apart from the rest of the Bishops and without the co-operation of the Church,' and the notorious fourth article: 'in questions of faith the judgement of the Pope is not irreformable unless supported by the consent of the Church…'

"Turning now to the doctrine set forth in the Schema**, the commissioners are unjustly defamed on the score that they want to invest an extreme opinion, namely that of Albert Pighi, with the dignity of an article of faith.  Pighi's opinion, which Bellarmine incidentally calls pious and probable, was that the Pope in his private capacity as an individual theologian could not possibly fall into nor teach heresy, although he might err through ignorance.

** Note that the Schema referred to here was the text on papal infallibility.  The Gallicans, in their malice, were claiming that the text implied that the pope was infallible even when not speaking ex cathedra, that is, from the Chair of Peter.

Also, from James Broderick, S.J. :

"… This is plain from Bellarmine's own pages where he expounds Pighi's opinion: It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.).  From the testimony of this passage, it is obvious that the doctrine of the schema is not the view of Albert Pighi nor the extreme view of any school.  It is Bellarmine's view, the very self-same one which he teaches in the place cited by the most reverend orator, and which he calls certissimam  and asserendam or rather, as he says, revising his statement, sententiam communissimam et certam."[1]

[1 ] Quoted by James Broderick, S.J., "Robert Bellarmine," Longmans, Green and Co., 1928 & 1950, Vol. I, pp. 188, 189.
Here is the continuous quote for full context.  Clearly this is something affirmed by the council that was formerly already held as "most common and certain".

Quote:As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the deputation is unjustly  accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of dogma.  For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.  To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words:

"It can be be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously beleiving something contrary to the faith." 

From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

Gasser, Relatio
(06-02-2009, 04:51 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the continuous quote for full context.  Clearly this is something affirmed by the council that was formerly already held as "most common and certain".

Quote:As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the deputation is unjustly  accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of dogma.  For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.  To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words:

"It can be be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously beleiving something contrary to the faith." 

From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

Gasser, Relatio

The Council DID NOT affirm the view of Albert Pighuis. Exactly.

However, I see where you err.  That last sentence from Gasser refers to infallibility.  The rest refers to the opinion that the pope can never become a heretic, even as a private person (i.e. Pighuis' opinion).  Gasser is contrasting them.  You have incorrectly compressed the two parts of the commentary and made Gasser say something he doesn't say.
(06-02-2009, 05:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 04:51 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the continuous quote for full context.  Clearly this is something affirmed by the council that was formerly already held as "most common and certain".

Quote:As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the deputation is unjustly  accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of dogma.  For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.  To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words:

"It can be be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously beleiving something contrary to the faith." 

From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

Gasser, Relatio

The Council DID NOT affirm the view of Albert Pighuis. Exactly.

However, I see where you err.  That last sentence from Gasser refers to infallibility.  The rest refers to the opinion that the pope can never become a heretic, even as a private person (i.e. Pighuis' opinion).  Gasser is contrasting them.  You have incorrectly compressed the two parts of the commentary and made Gasser say something he doesn't say.

Nonsense.  Gasser simply says that what is affirmed is not just some opinion of an extreme school -- it is the teaching of Bellarmine -- and one that was held as "the most common and certain opinion."
(06-02-2009, 05:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 05:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 04:51 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the continuous quote for full context.  Clearly this is something affirmed by the council that was formerly already held as "most common and certain".

Quote:As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the deputation is unjustly  accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of dogma.  For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.  To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words:

"It can be be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." 

From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

Gasser, Relatio

The Council DID NOT affirm the view of Albert Pighuis. Exactly.

However, I see where you err.  That last sentence from Gasser refers to infallibility.  The rest refers to the opinion that the pope can never become a heretic, even as a private person (i.e. Pighuis' opinion).  Gasser is contrasting them.  You have incorrectly compressed the two parts of the commentary and made Gasser say something he doesn't say.

Nonsense.  Gasser simply says that what is affirmed is not just some opinion of an extreme school -- it is the teaching of Bellarmine -- and one that was held as "the most common and certain opinion."

It's not "nonsense", it's true. I'm not sure why you can't see it. Bellarmine calls the opinion of Pighuis, "probable and pious" NOT "the most common and certain opinion".

"Bellarmine" Wrote:"It can be be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously beleiving something contrary to the faith." 


"the doctrine in the proposed chapter" is NOT that of Pighuis but the proposed definition of papal infallibility.

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma."

The opinion of Pighuis was what was being misrepresented by the Gallican clergy as what was about to be defined in regard to papal infallibility.





These are two interesting quotes that seem very complimentary.  The first from Gasser states the impossiblity that the "Pontiff should fall into error of faith":

Quote:Cf. First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870.  In his official Relatio of July 11, 1870 on chapter four of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Bishop Gasser stated the following: “This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church.  But if the Pontiff should fall into error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.  The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.’” (Cf. Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, pp. 24-25)

Then this from Cardinal Journet where he makes a connection between the indefectibility of the Church and the indefectibility of Peter:

Quote:Cardinal Journet notes that the indefectibility of the magisterium or “teaching Church” is linked to the indefectibility of Peter: “At the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, Jesus, to whom all power has been given in heaven and on earth, sends His disciples to evangelize the world, promising His assistance till the end of the world. What is explicitly designated here is the indefectibility of the teaching Church. But the teaching Church, and every believing Church sustained by her, has Peter for foundation (Matt. xvi. 13-20). To say that the Church is truly indefectible, and that it is truly based on the assistance promised to Peter, is to say in a way that is as yet implicit but already real that the assistance promised to Peter is indefectible….To say that the flock of Christ has a visible pastor on earth, and to say that this flock is indefectible, is to say in a way that is still undoubtedly latent, but real, that the visible pastor of the Church is, as such, indefectible.” (Cf. Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, Sheed and Ward, 1955, pp. 440-441)
Quote:I'm not sure why you can't see it

Because I have read the complete relatio of Bishop Gasser and understand each of these quotes in context -- and many others that I simply dont have the time to transcribe for you.

In any case, let me say that this is ultimately about a distinction between the private life and public office of the same person -- the Pope.  While all agree that the former is (at least) probable and pious, the latter is certain.  I will say, however, that Journet's quote (above) provides further evidence, not only for the latter, but also for the former.  Finally, this is a rather "academic" question -- since Catholics relate to the Pope -- not in his interior and private life -- but in his public role and in his teaching office or magisterium.
Quote:Posted by newschoolman
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.
The plain facts of the matter, as noted by the other posters at the beginning of the thread, dictate that your understanding of this is mistaken.

To take Gaudium et Spes as an example:
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apolog...-n24b.html

You will no doubt assert that the documents of Vatican II are Magisterial. Yet GS 24, directly contradicting Our Blessed Lord and Divine Revelation, erroneously states that "love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment". Our Lord taught that "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.  This is the first and greatest commandment.  The second is like to this:  Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:35-40)

That is a very plain and serious error relating to the very essence of faith.

If one is not able to make the correct theological distinction that it is possible for the Authentic Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals one would have to despair and come to the same conclusion as lamentibili sane.

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
Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
I have read it and it is anything but clear.
It is precisely your inability to understand and make the correct distinctions that leads you to reject the Church.

Quote:"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."
Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
Except we aren't talking about "innocently differing" in a matter not yet defined.
You have misread the quote. It says "innocently differing from some doctrine already defined."

Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
Only solemn definitions are infallible? This is wrong.
It is wrong but that is not at all what I wrote. For some reason you have ignored the second part of the sentence: "or asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine." The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium is, as the name suggests, infallible. This is clearly enunciated in the SiSiNoNo article which, you write, is "anything but clear" to you.

Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
Infallibility PROTECTS the pope from errors in faith and morals, including the disciplines of the Church. You are just flat wrong about this.
Only if one believes that the Church no longer exists as a visible society and that there has been no pope or bishops for the past forty-odd years. The truth is that infallibility protects the pope from issuing erroneous definitions in matters of faith and morals, not from making erroneous statements about things already infallibly defined. That is a big difference. Vatican II, by the admission of its popes and bishops, attempted no new definition of  anything. The errors contained within its documents can only belong to the non-infallible Authentic Magisterium.

Quote:Posted by lamentibili sane
And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.
Okay. I can recognise that distinction.
(06-02-2009, 06:20 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I'm not sure why you can't see it

Because I have read the complete relatio of Bishop Gasser and understand each of these quotes in context -- and many others that I simply dont have the time to transcribe for you.

In any case, let me say that this is ultimately about a distinction between the private life and public office of the same person -- the Pope.  While all agree that the former is (at least) probable and pious, the latter is certain.  I will say, however, that Journet's quote (above) provides further evidence, not only for the latter, but also for the former.  Finally, this is a rather "academic" question -- since Catholics relate to the Pope -- not in his interior and private life -- but in his public role and in his teaching office or magisterium.

I have and have read the complete relatio as well. You are claiming that Vatican I defined papal infallibility as including the pious belief that a pope could never disappear into heresy as a private person. That is obviously wrong as the definition you have quoted many times does not contain this.

Bishop Zinelli, Relator of the Faith at the same Council, did also hold the view of Pighuis as a pious opinion, showing how far from the mind of the Church is the idea that a pope could become a heretic, but without definitively adopting Pighi’s doctrine.  He spoke as follows:

"Confident in supernatural Providence, we judge it to be quite probable that that will never happen.  But God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking."
"PoG" Wrote:Only if one believes that the Church no longer exists as a visible society and that there has been no pope or bishops for the past forty-odd years.

What kind of visible society?

The position of St. Robert arises by simple logic from his definition of the Church as a visible institution. As such, it must have a visible membership, distinguishable from other men by visible (perceivable) means. The Church is a visible unity of faith. One who departs from that unity by a perceivable rejection of her teachings (a heretic), by this very fact ceases to belong to that unity, by his own act.

St. Robert Bellarmine's doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in Mystici Corporis where four requirements for membership are given: (1) those who are baptized, (2) who profess the Faith integrally, (3) who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and (4) who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication. Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized. Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church's judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

Those who claim, by whatever reasoning, that the post conciliar popes are truly Popes, implicitly accept that the Church has no visible unity in faith. They accept as members of the Church not only them, but all the bishops in their communion, and all those who openly reject both the teachings and the authority of the Church, none of whom, or virtually none, have been excommunicated. Thus they deny, in effect, the unity of the Church.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16