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, 07:45 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 07:22 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 07:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 06:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(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."

I do think it rather silly to contemplate such a radical contradiction between the private and public life of the same person -- the Pope.  But putting aside the question of the inner life of the Pope -- we know that in his public teaching office he is not liable to teach heresy.  I think that is the key point in this thread.  

All the more reason for you to be able to admit you got the relatio wrong. :)

Well, I may revisit that sometime and let you know if I change my mind.  But, again, its really academic as far as I am concerned.  What really matters is the Pope acting in a public and magisterial capacity.  For now, I will leave the question of his private life to the "experts". 

I reviewed again the relatio (briefly) and note the following for clarity:
1) It affirms that the gift of infallibility is a "personal" charism of the Pope
2) But the personal charism only comes into effect when the Pope acts in or engages the "public" role of his universal teaching office (magisterium) in matters of faith and morals
3) As a private theologian the Pope is not infallible or immune from error
4) Yet, Bellarmine's teaching is noted:  it is "probable and pious" that the Pope -- as a private person -- can't adhere to heresies -- even if he is subject to err in other respects.  PA and the relatio don't seem to go into the matter beyond this as the teaching primarily deals with the "public" aspects of the Pope in his relation to the Church.     
The "rupture theology" canard has been given at least a brief answer here:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...479.0.html
(06-03-2009, 07:27 PM)dedalus28 Wrote: [ -> ]The "rupture theology" canard has been given at least a brief answer here:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...479.0.html

Thanks for the link.  I will have a look...
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
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....
Catholic dogma teaches that i) the Church is a perfect society, ii) it is a hierarchical society with a visible head iii) Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
... 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.
False reasoning. You do not have the power or the authority to judge a pope, nor any other bishop. It is reserved to the Church itself and the Church, as Catholic dogma binds, has a visible head. Who is the visible head of your "Church"?

By rejecting its head for the past forty-odd years one denies that the Church is a perfect, visible, hierarchical society.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
How do we know when the pope is "asserting what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? Do we compare it to some documents? Doesn't that make us our own pope?
He repeats what was already defined as part of the Deposit of Faith either by solemn papal ex cathedra definition ,or else defined by Oecumenical Council, or else held unanimously by the Fathers and believed universally by the Church, i.e. Tradition.

Quote: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.
Quote:Posted by newschoolman
That is no heresy...so have no fear.
But it is an obvious error relating to faith that has resulted in disastrous consequences. You cannot skip round it that easily by stating that it is not a heresy. It is obviously erroneous. Yet your whole argument is that in regard to faith and morals the Teaching Authority is always infallible so that it can never assert error under any circumstances in regard to faith and morals.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
The Church nor the Pope (in his capacity as pope) can err in matters of faith and morals. What you are rather confusedly proposing is heretical. You've made some other statements that are simply ridiculous:
From the introduction of Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: "With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable."

Quote:Posted by lamenabili sane
Then there's the old standard accusation of "despair".  At least you put a new twist on it; usually the conclusion causes "despair"...but you say "despair" causes the conclusion. Did you mean to say it that way or did you just get that wrong as well?
I meant exactly what was written. Despair of the crisis has caused you to reach the erroneous conclusion that the past several popes are not Catholic, but heretics, and that the Church is not a visible, perfect, hierarchical society as Catholic dogma binds us to believe.

(06-04-2009, 01:54 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
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....
Catholic dogma teaches that i) the Church is a perfect society, ii) it is a hierarchical society with a visible head iii) Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time.

"Cardinal Franzelin" Wrote:VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE

15.  "Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity.  The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant.  Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.

"From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right.  It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith.  Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world.  The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy.  For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See EVEN WHEN VACANT, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)

16.  " ...When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains *one*, and the *Spirit of truth* remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.
Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*."  (Ibid. p. 223)


[
Quote:But it is an obvious error relating to faith that has resulted in disastrous consequences. You cannot skip round it that easily by stating that it is not a heresy. It is obviously erroneous. Yet your whole argument is that in regard to faith and morals the Teaching Authority is always infallible so that it can never assert error under any circumstances in regard to faith and morals.

It is not heresy and neither is it erroneous.  I simply asserts that love of God and love of neighbor are so closely connected that you can't have one without the other.  This was also treated by Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est.
"PoG" Wrote:Yet your whole argument is that in regard to faith and morals the Teaching Authority is always infallible so that it can never assert error under any circumstances in regard to faith and morals.

No, neither the Pope nor the Church can teach to the faithful any error in faith and morals. This does not mean all of this teaching is infallible, as you continually suggest. You are saying that there can be errors in faith and morals...that is contrary to the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. It is heretical. 
(06-04-2009, 09:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
"PoG" Wrote:Yet your whole argument is that in regard to faith and morals the Teaching Authority is always infallible so that it can never assert error under any circumstances in regard to faith and morals.

No, neither the Pope nor the Church can teach to the faithful any error in faith and morals. This does not mean all of this teaching is infallible, as you continually suggest. You are saying that there can be errors in faith and morals...that is contrary to the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. It is heretical. 

Right, the non-infallible (fallible) teaching is subject to error -- not in the realm of faith and morals, per se -- but in the prudential order.
lamentabili sane Wrote: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.
Not anymore than those who claimed that Nestorius was truly a bishop with jurisdiction before he publicly preached his heresy. So were all those that claimed he really held jurisdiction before he preached heresy not Catholics? One must formally be excommunicated (whether Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ) for Catholics to be bound not to be in ecclesiastical communion with such a person. But according to you, all the jurisdictional offices of the Church are empty, so how could there ever be such formal excommunications?
Is it not far more an implicit denial that the Church's visible unity when you believe that Her See of Unity, the See of Rome, could be vacant for over 40 years and with no bishops with jurisdiction to claim the Apostolic See or any Cardinals in conclave to elect a Pope? Where is your Church's Offices of Authority and Jurisdiction, I ask? If you say you have none, then how can you say you have a visible Church? Without an elected Pope at some point, there can be no Church. A country that failed to elect a President for such a period of time would likely be considered no longer a country, if it didn't crubble before that time. A kingdom without a king for such a time would likely fall apart from confusion. Your idea only gives us a body dead by decapitated with hope of a resurreciton, and a kingdom without a king and no nobility left where from to get a king.
"GodFirst" Wrote:One must formally be excommunicated (whether Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ) for Catholics to be bound not to be in ecclesiastical communion with such a person.

GodFirst,

Let me make a suggestion.

Go to the CE online and look up "excommunication". Then actually read it. Then try to understand it well. Then come back here and tell us what you find.

LS
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16