FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(02-04-2012, 06:12 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Sadly being given an unlawful command is anything but unusual in today's Church vis a vis the new mass, ecumenicism, 'EMHC's', lay women and men reading in the mass, Communion in the hand, the list goes on and you can rest assured it is very long. Whilst disobedience may be a more common danger than blind obedience, among certain kinds of people vis a vis 'conservative catholics' and semi trads, blind obedience is a bigger issue.

In my experience, accusations of blind obedience are far more common than actual blind obedience.  Much of the time it is just a put down that more extreme trads use to put down people they disagree with.  I have lost count of the number of times someone has accused me of blind obedience and it has never been true. 

(02-04-2012, 06:12 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]And yes I am well aware than only an unlawful command justifies disobedience of legitimate authority, so I cannot see where you are going with that one  ???

It sounded like you were saying that our current circumstances justify disobedience.

(02-04-2012, 06:12 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]What then do you advise priests to do who are told to allow Communion in the Hand or be disciplined? Or celebrate the new mass? Or not celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass? Or allow lay readers or EMHC's? Or to attend and promote ecumenical activities? The authority is certainly legitimate and on paper the commands can be lawful, but in reality they contradict divine law and so the commands are unlawful.

I would not say that everything on that list contradicts divine law, but a priest who believes they contradict divine law is obliged to disobey.  However, he shows that he does not reject the authority of his superiors by accepting the discipline that is a consequence of disobeying.
Let's put it this way: do we, in conscience, owe obedience to heretics?

Say a person is convinced that a certain priest, bishop or even the pope is a manifest heretic. One wouldn't then be obliged to obey. That is to say, obedience is rooted in faith and not the other way around. Unity in faith produces obedience, obedience doesn't produce unity in faith. Even if such a person were wrong in his assessment, he would nevertheless be violating his conscience by obeying prelates believed to be manifest heretics.
So what's the deal, have you folks read this, http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/02...ready.html? I'm confused, are they in or are they out? I think the Church needs them, I guess we'll see.
(02-04-2012, 06:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Let's put it this way: do we, in conscience, owe obedience to heretics?

Say a person is convinced that a certain priest, bishop or even the pope is a manifest heretic. One wouldn't then be obliged to obey. That is to say, obedience is rooted in faith and not the other way around. Unity in faith produces obedience, obedience doesn't produce unity in faith. Even if such a person were wrong in his assessment, he would nevertheless be violating his conscience by obeying prelates believed to be manifest heretics.

Could you quote some Church documents that support the claim that we do not owe obedience to manifest heretics? 
(02-04-2012, 07:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 06:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Let's put it this way: do we, in conscience, owe obedience to heretics?

Say a person is convinced that a certain priest, bishop or even the pope is a manifest heretic. One wouldn't then be obliged to obey. That is to say, obedience is rooted in faith and not the other way around. Unity in faith produces obedience, obedience doesn't produce unity in faith. Even if such a person were wrong in his assessment, he would nevertheless be violating his conscience by obeying prelates believed to be manifest heretics.

Could you quote some Church documents that support the claim that we do not owe obedience to manifest heretics? 

Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].

"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.

"Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope ["ad bene esse," to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope ("ad bene esse papae"). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter", but only "ad bene esse."

"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter", but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.

"Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary "ad bene esse", and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

"Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'

"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'

"St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

"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.
(02-04-2012, 07:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 07:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 06:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Let's put it this way: do we, in conscience, owe obedience to heretics?

Say a person is convinced that a certain priest, bishop or even the pope is a manifest heretic. One wouldn't then be obliged to obey. That is to say, obedience is rooted in faith and not the other way around. Unity in faith produces obedience, obedience doesn't produce unity in faith. Even if such a person were wrong in his assessment, he would nevertheless be violating his conscience by obeying prelates believed to be manifest heretics.

Could you quote some Church documents that support the claim that we do not owe obedience to manifest heretics? 

Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

Well I was serious that I was interested in seeing a quote, but I wasn't questioning that you were right.  I wanted to see how the Church presented this with more context in order to help my own understanding.  The quote you selected was very helpful.  Thank you.
(02-04-2012, 02:33 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
Meg Wrote:The pope truly wanted to give traditional Catholics a place in the Church.

The Church should be traditional in the first place, not divided up into groups such as, "modernists here, liberals there, and traditionalists over there."

You guys can go on and on about the Mass (which is truly an important issue), but the problem is more fundamental than that: it's about the Catholic Faith itself.  The hierarchy has perverted it, if not in theory (officially), then certainly in practice (e.g., ecumenical prayer gatherings, papal praise for heretics and for heretical sects).

There is nothing new about the hierarchy being imperfect in its practice of the Catholic Faith.
When have they ever made  drastic changes to the sacraments? Where is the infallible document that says this can be done? I have read from at least one theologian, maybe more, that the Pope should be resisted if this happens.

(Not to derail the thread, but I might mention in passing that eminent theologian Francisco Suarez taught, with the approbation of Holy Mother Church, that if the pope were to change the sacraments in such a way that in so doing he attacked them, he would ipso facto--by that very fact--become a schismatic. Carry on.  :) )
(02-04-2012, 05:40 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]If a command is not clearly unlawful, the presumption is in favour of obedience.

As you know, JayneK, I don't have a horse in this particular race, but I would like to know whence you derive this teaching. The relevant theological principle in moral theology is "lex dubia non obligat." You can find commentary on this principle of moral theology here, and you can see how it has been used by the Church before here. Here is a relevant portion of the latter concerning internal argumentation for probalism:
Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:According to the axiom: lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind. But a law is doubtful when there is a solidly probable opinion against it. Hence it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty (cf. Tanquerey, "Theologia Fundamentalis", n. 409).
(02-04-2012, 06:54 PM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: [ -> ]So what's the deal, have you folks read this, http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/02...ready.html? I'm confused, are they in or are they out? I think the Church needs them, I guess we'll see.

They've always been "in" meaning in the Church.  The only question is, will some sort of structure be set up that allows them to continue to function and ordain priests with Rome's approval. If that article accurately quotes Bishop Fellay, the SSPX is only asking not to be told to accept "these things" which I assume is Vatican II, or the more dubious parts of it.  If all they are truly asking for is to be left alone and not forced to sign off on Vatican II, I don't see why Rome wouldn't jump at that offer.  My understanding was they were asking for Rome to either repudiate portions of the Council documents or issue official clarifications.  There's no way Rome will do that, not at this time anyway.  So, I don't think the SSPX is being unreasonable at all if, again, the article is an accurate representation of what His Excellency said.

But, like you say, we'll see. 
(02-04-2012, 06:46 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 06:12 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Sadly being given an unlawful command is anything but unusual in today's Church vis a vis the new mass, ecumenicism, 'EMHC's', lay women and men reading in the mass, Communion in the hand, the list goes on and you can rest assured it is very long. Whilst disobedience may be a more common danger than blind obedience, among certain kinds of people vis a vis 'conservative catholics' and semi trads, blind obedience is a bigger issue.

In my experience, accusations of blind obedience are far more common than actual blind obedience.  Much of the time it is just a put down that more extreme trads use to put down people they disagree with.  I have lost count of the number of times someone has accused me of blind obedience and it has never been true. 

(02-04-2012, 06:12 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]And yes I am well aware than only an unlawful command justifies disobedience of legitimate authority, so I cannot see where you are going with that one  ???

It sounded like you were saying that our current circumstances justify disobedience.

(02-04-2012, 06:12 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]What then do you advise priests to do who are told to allow Communion in the Hand or be disciplined? Or celebrate the new mass? Or not celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass? Or allow lay readers or EMHC's? Or to attend and promote ecumenical activities? The authority is certainly legitimate and on paper the commands can be lawful, but in reality they contradict divine law and so the commands are unlawful.

I would not say that everything on that list contradicts divine law, but a priest who believes they contradict divine law is obliged to disobey.  However, he shows that he does not reject the authority of his superiors by accepting the discipline that is a consequence of disobeying.

That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

And no I said that in our current circumstances one:
a)will need to disobey more often than not as unlawful commands will be given far more often then usual, and
b)one needs to ensure that the commands one is given is lawful, particularly it from someone who has either lost the faith or who holds heterodox ideas

Of course you wouldn't Jayne, but I am sure some people believe they either contradict divine law or break higher law, as for accepting discipline while it may be admirable I hardly see how its compulsory and further in certain circumstances it would render the disobedience almost pointless.Offering the TLM to 200 vs 10 for example or being banned from preaching as you denounce Vatican 2.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25