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
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004...Vacant.htm

Quote: 3.1.  Can a pope be heretic?

It has been taught by various popes that a pope can teach heresy against the Faith. Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)." Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and "teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith", and he instructed, "do not follow him". He said: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen).

Pope Adrian VI wrote that as a private theologian before ever being elected Pope.  Furthermore, they were taken from lecture notes captured by students and the material was never reviewed by the author.  It is irresponsible to present that quote as an authentic Papal teaching.
The Church has been very clear on this point:

"...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..."

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

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).”
Quote:Posted by newschoolman
Pope Adrian VI wrote that as a private theologian before ever being elected Pope.
But that does not stop you from making appeal to theologians.

Quote:Posted by newschoolman
Furthermore, they were taken from lecture notes captured by students and the material was never reviewed by the author.
Who claims that the material was never reviewed by the author (except you)? Commentarius in Lib. IV Sententiarum Petri Lombardi was originally published without his knowledge but is, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, one of his two chief works and it went to many editions. Do you wish us to believe that Pope Adrian VI never knew that one of the two works that had made his name as a theologian had been repeatedly published? Or do you wish us to believe that as pope he condemned and withdrew as erroneous opinion"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics."?

The simple fact is that as pope he continued to hold and promote the same belief if he did not act to prevent its distribution through the well-known and widely published Commentary on the Sentences.

Quote:Posted by newschoolman
It is irresponsible to present that quote as an authentic Papal utterance.
Best you contact Fr. Boulet to tell him that he is irresponsible and the DS of the Canadian District of SSPX to tell him that he is also irresponsible for allowing it to published on the internet.

I notice that you write nothing about the quote attributed to Venerable Pope Pius IX, although you keep quoting from the Vatican Council summoned by him. Why is that?

I also notice that you make no distinction in regard to the "Magisterium of the Popes", but often use the phrase in a vague manner and present quotes dealing with the "perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy"  as if everything an individual pope says, does or writes constitutes "the Church".
Clear ideas on the Pope's Infallible Magisterium
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infall...terium.htm

Why is that? Are you one of these devotees of so-called 'Living Tradition' that believe that whatever a pope writes or says cannot be in error?
(06-01-2009, 08:54 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Posted by newschoolman
Pope Adrian VI wrote that as a private theologian before ever being elected Pope.
But that does not stop you from making appeal to theologians.

Not only theologians.  I quoted Vatican I (PA) as well as from Bishop Gasser's official relatio.  I quoted from Papal Encyclicals and standard theological works.  And you expect us to reject all of that in favor of two (non-magisterial) texts?
(06-01-2009, 08:54 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]The simple fact is that as pope he continued to hold and promote the same belief if he did not act to prevent its distribution through the well-known and widely published Commentary on the Sentences.

Yes, according to CE it was "published without his knowledge."  Why would he think to retract something that he did not know was even published and attributed to him?  Regardless, it is non-magisterial -- and nobody should attempt to present it as if it were.
"Best you contact Fr. Boulet to tell him that he is irresponsible and the DS of the Canadian District of SSPX to tell him that he is also irresponsible for allowing it to published on the internet.

I notice that you write nothing about the quote attributed to Venerable Pope Pius IX, although you keep quoting from the Vatican Council summoned by him. Why is that?"

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

Yes, I think it is irresponsible of the SSPX to represent it as Papal teaching.  It shows bad scholorship or worse.  What about Pope Pius IX?  I think its going to take a lot more background and context to understand the letter in question.  Certainly it is not intended to contradict the teaching of Vatican Council I:

"...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..."

 
Quote:I also notice that you make no distinction in regard to the "Magisterium of the Popes", but often use the phrase in a vague manner and present quotes dealing with the "perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy"  as if everything an individual pope says, does or writes constitutes "the Church".

Why is that? Are you one of these devotees of so-called 'Living Tradition' that believe that whatever a pope writes or says cannot be in error?

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

Read this again (with my emphasis):

"...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..."

We are talking about the teaching authority (magisterium) directly linked to Peter.  Can the Papal Magisterium defect in the teaching of faith and morals?  No.  Can Peter err in any other respect?  Yes, Peter can err in the "prudential order."  What does that mean?  Well, consult the work cited above on "Rupture Theology":  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

I read through that blog entry, and i have to read it more, but at first glance it seems like just a rehashing of the Neo-Catholic position we've heard for the last 30+ years with a shiny new name full of rhetoric (they needed something new since "schismatic" went out with the remitting of the excommunications).  Though, I will study it more carefully in case there's something I'm missing.

As far as V2 goes, it would be nice if the Popes actually used their magisterial charism and taught what the heck it meant instead of letting everyone come to their own conclusions and doing whatever they wanted "in the spirit of V2" - mostly bad things.  So far JP2 and B16 have asked the theologians to help out by describing V2 in light of tradition, and, AFAIK the theologians have done squat until the SSPX negotiations started.

Look if V2 is described in the light of tradition as most people agree it needs to be, you're not going to see much disagreement from trads.  The problem is that it hasn't been, and it's been acted upon in a direction opposite from tradition.
(06-01-2009, 07:19 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004...Vacant.htm

Quote: 3.1.   Can a pope be heretic?

It has been taught by various popes that a pope can teach heresy against the Faith. Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)." Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and "teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith", and he instructed, "do not follow him". He said: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen).

A heretic is self judged. Heresy, Schism, and apostasy are Latæ Sententiæ excommunications. If these popes were truly public heretics they would no longer be Catholics. Go look it up in the CE under HERESY and EXCOMMUNICATION.

"Catholic Encyclopedia, Excommunication" Wrote:A jure and ab homine

Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial.

Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legis lator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".

Public and occult

Excommunication ferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latæ sententiæ may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum.





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