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
Stephen, are we to be surprised that you defend Bishop W's rupture theology?  On the contrary, the documents of VII are really Catholic (ABL signed all 16) -- and the Magisterium of the Popes has not defected. 
I sense an impending thread movement.
(05-30-2009, 01:04 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen, are we to be surprised that you defend Bishop W's rupture theology?  On the contrary, the documents of VII are really Catholic (ABL signed all 16) -- and the Magisterium of the Popes has not defected. 

From SiSiNoNo website:

In general, the mentality at the Second Vatican Council was little if at all Catholic. This can be said because of an inexplicable and undeniable man-centeredness and sympathy for the "world" and its deceptive values, all of which ooze from all of the Council's documents. More specifically, Vatican II has been accused of substantive and relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, significant omissions and, what counts even more, of grave errors in doctrine and pastorality.

 
Vatican II's Ambiguous Juridical Nature

First of all, ambiguity pervades the Second Vatican Council's nature as to law (i.e., "juridical nature"). This remains unclear and appears indeterminate because Vatican II termed itself simply a "pastoral Council" which, therefore, did not intend to define dogmas or condemn errors. This can be seen from the address delivered at the Council's opening by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and in the Notificatio, publicly read on November 5, 1965. Therefore, the Council's two Constitutions, Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), which, in fact, do concern matters of dogmas of the Faith, are dogmatic only in name and in a solely descriptive sense.

The Council wanted to disqualify the "authentically manifest and supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Pope Paul VI). This is an insufficient figure of speech for an ecumenical council since such councils always embody an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium, with the Pope deciding to exercise its exceptional nature together with all of the bishops assembled by him in council. He acts therein as the suprema potestas of the entire Church, which he possesses by Divine right. Neither does reference to the "authentic character" of Vatican II explain things, because such a term generally means "authoritative" relative to the Holy Father's sole authority, not to his infallibility. The "mere authenticum"ordinary Magisterium is not infallible, while the ordinary Magisterium is infallible. In any case, the ordinary Magisterium's infallibility does not have the same characteristics as the extraordinary Magisterium. Thus, it cannot be applied to the Second Vatican Council.
I do not want to give the impression that SSPX = rupture theology.  On the contrary, there are voices in the SSPX that more or less reject such views.  For example Bishop Fellay recently stated the following with respect to Tradition, Vatican II and organic doctrinal development:

“Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as ‘what has been believed at all times, everywhere and by all’ (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development."  (Cf. Fellay, Press Release of March 12, 2009, DICI)

Yet, Williamson and others continue to profess the novelties of rupture theology.  Let them reconcile their theories with the constant teaching of the Church (see below).

(05-30-2009, 12:45 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]This is just another manifestation of Rupture Theologyhttp://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excerpt:

What is implicit in rupture theology is an assertion that the Papal Magisterium, as such, can defect in faith and morals by teaching heresy.  Opposed to this view, however, is the constant teaching of the Papal Magisterium concerning its own indefectibility in the realm of faith and morals.  For example, Pope Sixtus IV condemned outright the proposition that: “The Church of the city of Rome can err.”  The First Vatican Council would later set forth this teaching as follows:

"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well known doctrine has been kept holy...knowing full well that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of errors, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour..."


This teaching has been continually affirmed by the Popes.  Pope Pius XI, for example, reminds us of the “perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”  A few years later Pope Pius XII would affirm that the Church is “spotless in the Sacraments” and also “in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate…”


Some may ask whether the Second Vatican Council can be considered an “exception” to the rule as if the divine assistance could somehow be suspended for a period of time and the Magisterium of the Popes could now suddenly defect from faith and morals.  Pope Paul VI explicitly rejected such a notion:


“Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.   We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail’ (Lk 22:32).”
(05-30-2009, 01:04 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen, are we to be surprised that you defend Bishop W's rupture theology? 

OK, we get the point.  You don't like Bishop Williamson.  You have the freedom to like and dislike whom you choose, but let's stick to the main topic.

I read the article.  I thought it was well-written and the claim well-defended.  It makes sense that Authority should exist only in as much as it serves Truth.  Where, after all, does authority come from?  As for the claim that "Traditionalists" have the Truth and "Conciliarists" don't, I don't think that was his main point.  I think his main point was that if Tradition has the Truth and if the conciliar Church does not, then no one would be obilged to follow the directives of the conciliar Church in so far as they contradicted the Truth.  It's a valid point, in my opinion.  I'm sure we know how he personally feels about where the Truth is, but take what he says for yourself, and not for what you want to hear.
Amazing analysis by bishop Williamson. This man is truly one of only thinking bishops left in the world. No Novus Ordo bishop is even close to the serious thinking of a man like Williamson. They are mediocre men for the most part.

Can Popes fall into error and their teachings heretical? Yes. Popes are only free from error when they speak Ex-Cathedra. Popes can contradict the Ordinary Magisterium.

We had a Pope declared a heretic and excommunicated by the sixth ecumenical Dogmatic Council of the Church and two popes. Pope Honorius was declared a heretic for teaching the Monothelite heresy by the Third Council of Constantinople and his successors Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II.
Actually they weren't. By labeling them as "heretic" they were accused of not doing enough to stop heresy and were condemned as accessories to heresy, if you will. The judgment of heretics is reserved to the Church, and since no one in the Church is higher than the pope, he cannot be judged a heretic.
(05-30-2009, 04:07 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]Actually they weren't. By labeling them as "heretic" they were accused of not doing enough to stop heresy and were condemned as accessories to heresy, if you will. The judgment of heretics is reserved to the Church, and since no one in the Church is higher than the pope, he cannot be judged a heretic.

The Church can only declare a Pope a heretic after he is dead. The Third Council of Constantinople took place 42 years after the death of Pope Honorius. Pope Agatho during this Council and Pope Leo II years later, both agreed and declared Honorius a heretic.

Pope Honorius was not condemned because he didn't stop heresy or was an accessory, but held the heresy himself as a heretic and taught it. He was anathematized.

In the words of the the Third Council:
" And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."
The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
The same tired arguments won't wash.  Honorius was not condemned for teaching heresy.  Rather, he was judged to be "negligent" in the face of rampant heresy (Popes can be sinful, weak and even negligent).  The magisterium of the Pope, as such, can't teach herresy or defect in the order of faith.  On the other hand, there can be error in the "prudential order" involving practical reason in determined cases -- but these are never confused with error in faith, per se, or the teaching of heresy.  It's all explained here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html
(05-30-2009, 04:35 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]The same tired arguments won't wash.  Honorius was not condemned for teaching heresy.  Rather, he was judged to be "negligent" in the face of rampant heresy.  The magisterium of the Pope, as such, can't teach herresy or defect in the order of faith.  On the other hand, there can be error in the "prudential order" involving practical reason in determined cases -- but these are never confused with error in faith, per se, or the teaching of heresy.  It's all explained here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

Read the anathemas in the Council. He declared a heretic and anathematized not for being "negligent" but for holding the heresy and writing it about it, supporting it in his letter.

Vatican I taught as infallible that a Pope is only protected from error by the holy Spirit when he speaks Ex-Cathedra. Pastor Aeternus had a five point test in which the Pope had to have all five aspects of it in order for his teaching to be Ex-Cathedra.

The teaching of Pope Honorius was not Ex-Cathedra and he never used Papal Infallibility. Therefore he can be in heresy and error.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16