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
(02-08-2012, 03:07 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2012, 05:12 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 11:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 07:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I see.

But you concede that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law, right?

Firstly it should be pointed out that apostasy and heresy are two different things and the canon you referred to was regarding the former not the later.

And secondly yes, heretics are cut off from the church by divine law (at least this is the common opinion), however it does follow that they lose jurisdiction what would happen in the case of secretly heretical priests and bishops if their secret heresy made them lose jurisdiction? It would be total chaos and no one could be certain of anything, the church then can supply jurisdiction eclessia supplet and higher authorities i.e the Pope or the bishop in the case of priests can supply jursidiction notwithstanding the persons heresy.

The Church makes distinctions between material and formal heresy (internal forum), and notorious, public, and manifest heresy (external forum).

Please take note of the fact that every theologian who discusses the ipso facto deposition of a heretic from an office of authority in the Church mentions that his automatic deposition is effected by notorious, public, and manifest heresy, which all pertain to the external forum.

Again be aware that notorious, public and manifest have meaning peculiar to canon law, it is no good forcing conventional meanings onto the code

Exactly:
Canon 2197.1 Wrote:“A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so…”

Canon 2197.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

The article explained this quite well, I have only pasted it and am not going to do so again.
(02-08-2012, 04:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2012, 03:20 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2012, 09:05 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore unless one denies that the entire 1983 code is law

I certainly have my doubts.

Quote: one must look at the 1983 code and see if there any provisions corresponding to the provisions of the 1917 code as the former abrogated the latter. If not the entire point is moot as it would only apply to bishops prior to the coming into force of the new code one more than 25 years ago.
 
Canon 20, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Canon 21, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

How did you get to Canon 20 without reading Canon 6?  ???

Canon 6 s 1 'When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1) The code of Canon law promulugated in 1917..'

Because the Code of Canon Law contains both ecclesiastical law and divine law. The canons pertaining to ipso facto excommunication upon public heresy pertains to the divine law, not mere ecclesiastical law. The promulgation of the 1983 could only be said to abrogate specific ecclesiastical laws. It cannot abrogate the divine law. Not even the pope can change divine law.
(02-08-2012, 04:23 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]This is akin the argument that goes, "I will take the opinion of the pope on this matter over the opinion of some layman on a forum." You wouldn't accept that argument from JayneK, so I don't accept it from you. What the Church teaches is quite clear. Citing irrelevant canons that fail to point out the distinction between major and minor excommunication is not the mark of someone who "conducted a thorough study on the matter." Objectivity requires that you examine the argument itself, not the perceived credentials of the one making it.

The argument requires me to accept that you understand the source text better then the theologian who did the study and those who agree with him or that it was done in bad faith, neither are plausible. It is not an ad hominem authority, but rather a fact of probability, what is more likely that you are wrong or that those who studied the source texts, did the comparative works and all those that agree with him are wrong? It is more likely that you are wrong.

I have demonstrated that their arguments are false. They are citing laws that are (1) merely ecclesiastical in nature, (2) pertain to material/formal heresy, and/or (3) concern minor excommunication. This doesn't refute the principles of divine law that secure the unity of the Church. Again, who's more right: the SSPX or the pope? If I used your logic, I'd go with the pope. You seem to be stuck in a contradiction here.

Quote:
(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]She has actually declared it as certain. You have provided false objections that obfuscate what the Church teaches because they fail to recognize important distinctions in the law. That doesn't mean that the Church hasn't definitively pronounced one way or the other; it means that not everyone chooses to acknowledge the distinctions in the Church's law, for one reason or another. People disagree about whether the Novus Ordo's errors can be accepted or not. But you wouldn't conclude that because there are varying opinions on the matter, it is only one's opinion that they are not errors. The Church has defined what She has defined. That is not a matter of opinion, regardless of whether we're talking about the Church's law or the Novus Ordo's errors.

You have misunderstood what I have said, the issue is a matter of theological opinion not fact, I am not saying 'Well opinions differ so it must be a matter of opinion' I am stating that:
i) The Church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, and
ii)as a result there is a range of opinions of which yours is one

If you would like to prove your assertion that it is not in fact a matter of opinion but in fact de fide feel free to do so.

The Ordinary Magisterium teaches that those who publicly defect from the faith lose membership in the Church. I could post countless teachings reiterating the Church's teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but I think you already know what the Church teaches here. If this were not true, then unity of the Church would be a sham. The unity of the Church involves a unity of belief, which consists of a unity of profession (Mystici Corporis Christi). Authority in the Church comes from faith. If there is no faith, there is no authority. If you want to argue that those outside the Church can somehow legitimately command those inside with the power of God, then I think the burden is on you to show how that is possible and where it has been taught that it is possible.

Quote:There is a problem here. 'Publicly abandoning the faith' and 'heresy' are not equivalent, a bishop standing up and declaring 'I repudiate the faith and embrace communism/lutheranism/islam etc...' is different from a bishop manifesting theologically erroneous or heretical propositions. The sections you have cited do not apply to the potential case at hand.

Please cite your sources. Public abandonment of the faith is effected by heresy and apostasy. If you don't think one abandons the faith by publicly apostatizing or by publicly professing heresy, then please show where the Church teaches that one doesn't abandon the faith by heresy and apostasy.
This thread got derailed big time.
This evolved to be an apologia pro sede vacans.

Well I hope this thread moves to the cornfield so we Catholics can have a go at it.
Meanwhile:


Is a sedevacantist to be considered a non-Catholic?

It is certainly of Faith that Our Lord gave the powers of the keys to the successor of Peter, and that the pope is the Church’s visible head. However, it is not of Faith that Our Lord would not leave His Church for a time without a visible head. There have been times in past history of up to three years without a pope, and times during which nobody really knew who the true pope was. Consequently the belief that this particular person is not the pope is not necessarily a denial of the Catholic Faith.

The traditional Code of Canon Law (canon 1325, §2) defines a schismatic as one who refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. However, given the present confusion of the Church and the fact that we are obliged by our Faith to refuse so many of the liberal, ecumenical statements of Pope John Paul II, it is not necessarily obvious that a sedevacantist actually refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and that he is consequently a schismatic.

Nevertheless, it is preposterous to say, as the sedevacantists do, that there has not been any pope for more than 40 years, for this would destroy the visibility of the Church, and the very possibility of a canonical election of a future pope.

Just submission to the pope is a principle of unity in the Church, along with the Faith, the sacraments, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is all contained in the definition of the Church contained in the catechism:

    The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

However, he is not the only factor of unity. This is the misconception shared by both modernists and sedevacantists alike. They say that nothing matters but the pope and become modernist like him, or they say that nothing matters but the pope, and he is destroying the Church, so therefore there is no pope. The real problem of the present crisis in the Church is that the pope is no longer acting as principle of unity, as he ought, for he is no longer adequately promoting the unity of Faith, sacraments and the Mass that has always characterized the Catholic Church.

It is consequently true that there can be some theological discussion as to whether sedevacantists are formally schismatic or not. The answer to this depends on the degree of sedevacantism. There are radical sedevacantists that call us heretics since we are in communion with a heretic (Wotyla), so they say. These are certainly schismatic, for they clearly reject communion with true Catholics, who are in no way modernist. By making their sedevacantism a quasi-article of faith they certainly fall into the second category of persons that canon 1325, §2 declares to be schismatic: "He is a schismatic who rejects communion with members of the Church subject to him (i.e., the Sovereign Pontiff)."  It is consequently by their refusal to be a part of the Church, and effectively making the "church" as they see it consist only in sedevacantists that they are certainly schismatic.

There are other sedevacantists, who do not hold their opinion as a question of Faith, but just as a private opinion, and who do not condemn other traditional Catholics who do not share their opinion. On account of the confusion of the present crisis and the fact that they do not refuse communion with Catholics who have the true Faith, it is not unreasonable to hold that such persons are not formally schismatic.

However, the real danger with the sedevacantists, over and above the question of their being formally schismatic, is that they fail to have a Catholic attitude. Their rash and excessive condemnatory attitude, not only towards the pope and the modernists, but also towards Catholics simply trying to live their Catholic life, and other traditional Catholics, leads them to fall into rigorism, formalism and legalism, and to condemning everybody else. They easily fall into pharisaical pride. They are a real plague to the traditional movement here in the United States. Such people have no sense of obedience or submission, and often commit rash judgment. They do not feel at home in the Society’s chapels where the Church’s Faith, sacraments, doctrines and Mass are preached together with the interior life of charity and self-sacrifice as the means for restoring all things in Christ. 

Do sedevacantists really love the Church? Do they not judge Pope Benedict XVI personally, as they say?

It is certainly true that many sedevacantists (i.e., those who believe that the pope has lost the office of the papacy through his heretical actions) think that they love the Church. But they do not love her as she really is, with all her faults and defects. If a man would not love his wife as she really is, but rather a mental picture of how he would like her to be, would he really love her?

Some sedevacantists might state that they do not judge the pope personally. However, to state that his heretical actions remove him from office is to make a public, official judgment. Only a higher authority in the Church can make such a judgment. However, there is no higher authority than the pope, which is why the axiom is to be held Papa a nemine judicatur —the pope is judged by no one. By stating that he has lost the papacy, sedevacantists personally judge the pope, as if they had authority over him. This is not Catholic, regardless of the gravity of his materially heretical actions. It is the Protestant principle of personal judgment which is thereby erected into a principle of Faith, thus destroying the visibility and hierarchy of the Church.



OREMUS PRO PONTIFICE NOSTRO BENEDICTO XVI


There I said it.

[Image: Crimson-Tide-movie-03.jpg]


Capt. RAMSEY: Just so we understand each other, I don't have any problems with questions or doubts. As I've said to you before, I'm not seeking the company of kiss-asses. But you got something to say to me, you say it in private. And if privacy doesn't permit itself, then you bite your &@!%!^# tongue. Are we clear about that, commander?

XO HUNTER: As a bell, sir.


Capt. RAMSEY: Those sailors out there are just boys, boys who are trained to do a terrible, non-thinkable thing. If that ever occurs, the only re-assurance they'll have that they're doing the proper thing is gonna derive from their unqualified belief in the unified chain of command. That means, we don't question each other's motives in front of the crew. It means, we don't undermine each other. It means, in a missile drill, they hear your voice right after mine, without hesitation. You agree with that policy, sailor?

XO HUNTER: Absolutely, sir.



Capt. RAMSEY: We're here to preserve democracy, not to practice it.



----I was watching Crimson Tide while reading your post Tapatio.
Great post Tapatio. We stick to the One True Faith with The One True Church. 
Una, Sola Santa Catolica Apostolica y Romana.
:w2go:


(02-09-2012, 01:22 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2012, 04:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2012, 03:20 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2012, 09:05 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore unless one denies that the entire 1983 code is law

I certainly have my doubts.

Quote: one must look at the 1983 code and see if there any provisions corresponding to the provisions of the 1917 code as the former abrogated the latter. If not the entire point is moot as it would only apply to bishops prior to the coming into force of the new code one more than 25 years ago.
 
Canon 20, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Canon 21, 1983 Code of Canon Law Wrote:In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

How did you get to Canon 20 without reading Canon 6?  ???

Canon 6 s 1 'When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1) The code of Canon law promulugated in 1917..'

Because the Code of Canon Law contains both ecclesiastical law and divine law. The canons pertaining to ipso facto excommunication upon public heresy pertains to the divine law, not mere ecclesiastical law. The promulgation of the 1983 could only be said to abrogate specific ecclesiastical laws. It cannot abrogate the divine law. Not even the pope can change divine law.

No, the argument is whether the requirements for this loss of office and thereby jurisdiction have changed or not, it is clear they have as the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code insofar as it could please don't obfuscate the issue.
(02-09-2012, 01:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2012, 04:23 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]This is akin the argument that goes, "I will take the opinion of the pope on this matter over the opinion of some layman on a forum." You wouldn't accept that argument from JayneK, so I don't accept it from you. What the Church teaches is quite clear. Citing irrelevant canons that fail to point out the distinction between major and minor excommunication is not the mark of someone who "conducted a thorough study on the matter." Objectivity requires that you examine the argument itself, not the perceived credentials of the one making it.

The argument requires me to accept that you understand the source text better then the theologian who did the study and those who agree with him or that it was done in bad faith, neither are plausible. It is not an ad hominem authority, but rather a fact of probability, what is more likely that you are wrong or that those who studied the source texts, did the comparative works and all those that agree with him are wrong? It is more likely that you are wrong.

I have demonstrated that their arguments are false. They are citing laws that are (1) merely ecclesiastical in nature, (2) pertain to material/formal heresy, and/or (3) concern minor excommunication. This doesn't refute the principles of divine law that secure the unity of the Church. Again, who's more right: the SSPX or the pope? If I used your logic, I'd go with the pope. You seem to be stuck in a contradiction here.

Quote:
(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]She has actually declared it as certain. You have provided false objections that obfuscate what the Church teaches because they fail to recognize important distinctions in the law. That doesn't mean that the Church hasn't definitively pronounced one way or the other; it means that not everyone chooses to acknowledge the distinctions in the Church's law, for one reason or another. People disagree about whether the Novus Ordo's errors can be accepted or not. But you wouldn't conclude that because there are varying opinions on the matter, it is only one's opinion that they are not errors. The Church has defined what She has defined. That is not a matter of opinion, regardless of whether we're talking about the Church's law or the Novus Ordo's errors.

You have misunderstood what I have said, the issue is a matter of theological opinion not fact, I am not saying 'Well opinions differ so it must be a matter of opinion' I am stating that:
i) The Church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, and
ii)as a result there is a range of opinions of which yours is one

If you would like to prove your assertion that it is not in fact a matter of opinion but in fact de fide feel free to do so.

The Ordinary Magisterium teaches that those who publicly defect from the faith lose membership in the Church. I could post countless teachings reiterating the Church's teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but I think you already know what the Church teaches here. If this were not true, then unity of the Church would be a sham. The unity of the Church involves a unity of belief, which consists of a unity of profession (Mystici Corporis Christi). Authority in the Church comes from faith. If there is no faith, there is no authority. If you want to argue that those outside the Church can somehow legitimately command those inside with the power of God, then I think the burden is on you to show how that is possible and where it has been taught that it is possible.

Quote:There is a problem here. 'Publicly abandoning the faith' and 'heresy' are not equivalent, a bishop standing up and declaring 'I repudiate the faith and embrace communism/lutheranism/islam etc...' is different from a bishop manifesting theologically erroneous or heretical propositions. The sections you have cited do not apply to the potential case at hand.

Please cite your sources. Public abandonment of the faith is effected by heresy and apostasy. If you don't think one abandons the faith by publicly apostatizing or by publicly professing heresy, then please show where the Church teaches that one doesn't abandon the faith by heresy and apostasy.

You have demonstrated nothing merely repeated your argument ad absurdam and expected people to ignore your lack of evidence.

There is no point in dealing with your arguments as you are conflating issues:
I) loss of membership in the church,
ii) loss of office and jurisdiction

You also don't understand the canonical meanings of heresy, public, notorious and so forth. You continue to ignore the correct definitions and thus your argument is fundamentally flawed.

As far as I am concerned I have achieved what I set out to do namely to prove we cannot ignore bishops because we believe them to have professed heresy, if this is to be continued it will have to move to the cornfield.
TrentCath,

You have already conceded that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law. The new code of Canon law can't "abrogate" divine law. A man who publicly professes heresy cannot hold authority and jurisdiction in the body to which he manifestly no longer belongs to.

You are the one arguing that professing the Catholic faith does not really matter in order to have authority and jurisdiction in the Church which is absurd!

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.
(02-09-2012, 10:07 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]TrentCath,

You have already conceded that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law. The new code of Canon law can't "abrogate" divine law. A man who publicly professes heresy cannot hold authority and jurisdiction in the body to which he manifestly no longer belongs to.

You are the one arguing that professing the Catholic faith does not really matter in order to have authority and jurisdiction in the Church which is absurd!

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

That is an oversimplification of my view but again I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that justifies disobeying bishops and further committing the sin of presumption by believing them to be heretics as they have professed what we believe is a heresy. I have justified my view with copious quotes and references to canon law, the opposing view on the other hand has been characterised by a misunderstanding of canonical terms and arguments ab adsurdam as well as an over reliance on a particular view of particular theologians rather than the oppossing views of other theologians of great weight.
(02-09-2012, 04:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-09-2012, 10:07 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]TrentCath,

You have already conceded that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law. The new code of Canon law can't "abrogate" divine law. A man who publicly professes heresy cannot hold authority and jurisdiction in the body to which he manifestly no longer belongs to.

You are the one arguing that professing the Catholic faith does not really matter in order to have authority and jurisdiction in the Church which is absurd!

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

That is an oversimplification of my view but again I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that justifies disobeying bishops and further committing the sin of presumption by believing them to be heretics as they have professed what we believe is a heresy.

It was a layman who first called out the heresy of Nestorius. Profession is not subjective. 
Quote: I have justified my view with copious quotes and references to canon law,

Lists of quotes don't have much weight if they are being misapplied. What you provided made several errors that I pointed out. Whoever wrote the article seems to have considered a few canons only in coming to a conclusion in  much the same way that Protestants use only a few Scripture passages to justify their actions. The study of canon law is comprehensive and requires that all of it--including the various distinctions made therein--be considered simultaneously in order to know what it means. Canon 2314 doesn't specifically treat of public heresy, but 188.4 does (and 192.1 applies it to the vacation of an ecclesiastical office by the law itself).

You tried to redefine what abandoning the Faith means, but you did not support your view. Abandoning the Faith can be effected many ways, two of which include heresy and apostasy per divine law. You cannot abrogate that with the 1983 Code or by saying that one has to announce that he's abandoning the Faith. The Church is not simply a man-made structure. The unity of the Catholic Church is supernaturally bound by divine law, which is effected even before we know it, as even the Code of Canon Law points out. Islam, on the contrary, is a religion that is legally bound by a mere unity of government. It takes time for the law to catch up to someone, but with Catholicism it is instant. As I pointed out, if this were not so, the unity of the Church would be merely theoretical, but not actual. Unity of Faith is maintained by a unity of profession, which is one of the two constituents that make up the visibility of the Church: formal and material visibility. If heretical prelates can publicly profess heresy without immediate consequence, then there is no actual unity of profession, which destroys what is known as formal visibility, and there is no real unity of Faith, either. These are divine attributes of the Church that can't be dispensed with by mere disciplinary law, regardless of what the 1983 Code says. It could only (theoretically) have the power to abrogate ecclesiastical laws. It could not have the power to abrogate divine law, which is found in the 1917 Code of Canon law.


Quote: the opposing view on the other hand has been characterised by a misunderstanding of canonical terms and arguments ab adsurdam as well as an over reliance on a particular view of particular theologians rather than the oppossing views of other theologians of great weight.

I advise you to re-read the discussion. The quotes you brought to the table use canons don't pertain to public and manifest heresy, treat of minor excommunication as opposed to major excommunication, and overlook the divine law that is present among many of the canons of the 1917 Code.
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