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
You have been misinformed.  Look up Honorius in Catholic Encyclopedia, for example.  You will see the matter clarified.  Furthermore, the Papal Magisterium is perpetually indefectible (a charism that is always engaged) -- not only when defining dogmas (Ex Cathedra).  Again, read the article referenced above.  See the added footnotes with commentary from Bishop Gasser's official relatio to PA... 


http://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?  On the contrary, the documents of VII are really Catholic (ABL signed all 16) -- and the Magisterium of the Popes has not defected.  

Except none of this addressing the facts of the crisis. Like I said schoolman, you are arguing with facts.
The following (footnote #6) from the work cited above adds further clarity.  We are not talking about Ex Cathedra definitions here -- but the perpetual immunity from falling into errors of faith and the teaching of heresy.

++++++++++++++++++  

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)
(05-30-2009, 05:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.  

Except none of this addressing the facts of the crisis. Like I said schoolman, you are arguing with facts.

I refer you to the Papal Address to the Roman Curia (December 22, 2005).
(05-30-2009, 04:58 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]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:

Pope Sixtus IV was dead wrong. The Church has corrected him by showing that an individual Pope is protected only Ex-Cathdera.

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!"

We have an infallible Dogmatic Council that trumps Pope Sixttus IV and every other theologian who defends Honorius.  Thre Magisterium has already spoken on Popes and heresy.

Pope Leo II clarified the matter of Honorius in a letter to the Spanish bishops.  This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."

In other words, Honorius did not teach heresy -- but was negligent and allowed it to persist.  Therefore, Pope Sixtus IV is NOT "dead wrong" in condemning the proposition that "The Church of the city of Rome can err."  Look it up in Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (#730). 
(05-30-2009, 05:03 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]The following (footnote #6) from the work cited above adds further clarity.  We are not talking about Ex Cathedra definitions here -- but the perpetual immunity from falling into errors of faith and the teaching of heresy.

++++++++++++++++++  

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)

They have that book online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4ClPRR0HrHEC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=bishop+gasser&source=bl&ots=Slr8XBYl2K&sig=imNCoMM6WwxT1gsZk-1N7fzdX-c&hl=en&ei=N6QhSp7cLZDwtAOS3czzAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA21,M1

That section is from Part II of that book. Bishop Gasser in talking about Papal Infallibility. The chapter which starts on page 21 is all about Papal Infallibility. That is Ex-Cathedra statements.
(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. 

newschoolman, are we to be suprised that you are attacking Bishop W's defense of the traditional understanding of the Church's teachings? 

Where does +W say the Magisterium of the Popes has defected?
(05-30-2009, 05:28 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Pope Leo II clarified the matter of Honorius in a letter to the Spanish bishops.  This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."

In other words, Honorius did not teach heresy -- but was negligent and allowed it to persist.  Therefore, Pope Sixtus IV is NOT "dead wrong" in condemning the proposition that "The Church of the city of Rome can err."  Look it up in Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (#730).   

Cannot the same argument about Honorius be applied to JP2 in many ways?
(05-30-2009, 05:28 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Pope Leo II clarified the matter of Honorius in a letter to the Spanish bishops.  This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."

In other words, Honorius did not teach heresy -- but was negligent and allowed it to persist.  Therefore, Pope Sixtus IV is NOT "dead wrong" in condemning the proposition that "The Church of the city of Rome can err."  Look it up in Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (#730).   

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/...,pope.html

"St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

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