Eleison Comments " Momentous Decision"
#31
(10-30-2012, 12:31 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 10:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: That's precisely the problem, they're appealing to a "dead" magisterium. There is no special charism in the SSPX that they receive further guidance, like the Pope who has a living magisterium and special charism.

Catholic bishops have no "special charism"?

By himself, a bishop does not receive the kind of guidance that the Pope does from Christ. When an archbishop goes against Peter, there is much more risk of error than if Peter goes against an archibshop. This is true even on a practical level. Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings, for all their merits, does not speak for anybody but himself. Even as the founder of the SSPX, his teaching hold authority as moral inspirations and a feeling of adhering to his legacy. There is nothing that binds them to continue to hold his views of Dignitatis Humanae, or some other document. When he died, his teaching died effectively. With a Pope, many if not most of their teachings live on in the Magisterium. This is not to demean him, but to have a realistic viewpoint of his position. Some people seem to view the Archbishop like he did no wrong, or never was wrong, or his practical views at one point could not be overturned at a later point based on new information and understanding, which he did not have.

(10-30-2012, 12:31 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-29-2012, 10:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: The best they can do is analyze the situation based on what they know now and what is being required now. What Lefebvre wrote in 1974 is almost completely irrelevant. And every trads privy to the SSPX history knows he waffled back and forth.

Such as?

I do not wish to quote them, because they are from sedevacantist articles. But his love/hate relationship with the Pope/Vatican/Conciliar Church is pretty well known. You can write an article which has "softline" quotes, and another with "hardline" quotes, a la Bishop Williamson style, and they both would be genuinely Lefebvrian. Also depending on the event (Assisi, excommunications, etc.), he would say very strong words, and then he would qualify them as passionate/heat of the moment when negotiating with the Pope later. It makes me think of the style of teaching in the Koran, which on one page has the compassionate Muhammed, and on another, the war-monger and hater. If we use their principle of abrogation, we are left with ... ?
Reply
#32
(10-30-2012, 01:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: By himself, a bishop does not receive the kind of guidance that the Pope does from Christ.

The Pope gets no special "guidance" except that which he is open to.  This nonsense of dehumanizing the Pope and turning him into "SuperPope" is nauseating. 

[Image: 10723879.jpg]

Quote: When an archbishop goes against Peter, there is much more risk of error than if Peter goes against an archibshop.

On what  evidence do you make that judgement? 

Quote: This is true even on a practical level. Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings, for all their merits, does not speak for anybody but himself.

Archbishop LeFebvre's "teachings" are the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Echoing God's truth is just as true if the Pope, the bishop or Hitler and Stalin repeat it correctly. 

Quote:  Even as the founder of the SSPX, his teaching hold authority as moral inspirations and a feeling of adhering to his legacy.

What the Popes bind to the universal Church in teaching still binds LeFebvre and the faithful even if the current Popes don't act like they believe it. 

Quote:  There is nothing that binds them to continue to hold his views of Dignitatis Humanae, or some other document.

He never claimed to "bind" anyone. it's the document that does the "binding" with the Pope's authority IF it is invoked. 

Quote: When he died, his teaching died effectively.

No. The teaching of the Catholic faith that he passed on cannot die. 

Quote: With a Pope, many if not most of their teachings live on in the Magisterium.

It's not "their" teachings any more than LeFebvre's  It's the Church's teachings and if it's Magisterial, it's forever.  JPII can't refute Archbishop LeFebvre if LeFebvre is working under the teaching bound by Pius XII. 

Quote: This is not to demean him, but to have a realistic viewpoint of his position. Some people seem to view the Archbishop like he did no wrong, or never was wrong, or his practical views at one point could not be overturned at a later point based on new information and understanding, which he did not have.

There's very little of that.  Your points are actually more applicable to the post-concilair (though not exclusively) Popes. 

Reply
#33
" As for the excluded bishop, any donations to him or his cause will have to wait a little until the necessary arrangements can be set up. But be sure of one thing: he is not thinking of retiring."

Is it just me or does this sound reminiscent of the declarations made by Fr Corapi just before the "Black Sheepdog" vanished?
Reply
#34
(10-30-2012, 03:16 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 01:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: By himself, a bishop does not receive the kind of guidance that the Pope does from Christ.

The Pope gets no special "guidance" except that which he is open to.  This nonsense of dehumanizing the Pope and turning him into "SuperPope" is nauseating.

Mr friend, you're reading into my post. The Pope is the Pope. Since his office is supreme in the Church, it stands to reason that the grace to "open up" to grace is greater than other bishops, and the grace to cooperate with that grace is greater. As with all Christians, the Pope can resist those graces.


(10-30-2012, 03:16 PM)Gerard Wrote: Archbishop LeFebvre's "teachings" are the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Echoing God's truth is just as true if the Pope, the bishop or Hitler and Stalin repeat it correctly.

You are correct. I didn't say they were false. The Pope's encyclicals have much more weight on the Church's teachings and future than an Archbishop's letter to his flock. That was my point.
Reply
#35
(10-30-2012, 04:18 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Mr friend, you're reading into my post. The Pope is the Pope. Since his office is supreme in the Church, it stands to reason that the grace to "open up" to grace is greater than other bishops, and the grace to cooperate with that grace is greater. As with all Christians, the Pope can resist those graces.

It stands to reason if it's reasonable to make things up about the papacy.  How can you tell when a Pope is resisting those graces (e.g.. St. Peter) and a bishop is not resisting those graces (St. Paul) and it turns out the bishop is correct over the Pope? 


Quote: You are correct. I didn't say they were false. The Pope's encyclicals have much more weight on the Church's teachings and future than an Archbishop's letter to his flock. That was my point.

An encyclical by a modern Pope about the BVM with personal reflections that ambiguously describes her Assumption into Heaven has less weight than a bishop quoting the infallible definition of Pius XII on the matter. 

In other words a bishop transmitting the magisterial teaching of the Church is more valuable and has more weight than the Pope giving opinions and not invoking the magisterium of the Church. 
Reply
#36
(10-30-2012, 03:16 PM)Gerard Wrote: Archbishop LeFebvre's "teachings" are the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Echoing God's truth is just as true if the Pope, the bishop or Hitler and Stalin repeat it correctly. 

Quote:  Even as the founder of the SSPX, his teaching hold authority as moral inspirations and a feeling of adhering to his legacy.

What the Popes bind to the universal Church in teaching still binds LeFebvre and the faithful even if the current Popes don't act like they believe it. 

Quote:  There is nothing that binds them to continue to hold his views of Dignitatis Humanae, or some other document.

He never claimed to "bind" anyone. it's the document that does the "binding" with the Pope's authority IF it is invoked. 

Quote: When he died, his teaching died effectively.

No. The teaching of the Catholic faith that he passed on cannot die. 

Quote: With a Pope, many if not most of their teachings live on in the Magisterium.

It's not "their" teachings any more than LeFebvre's  It's the Church's teachings and if it's Magisterial, it's forever.  JPII can't refute Archbishop LeFebvre if LeFebvre is working under the teaching bound by Pius XII.   

Quote: This is not to demean him, but to have a realistic viewpoint of his position. Some people seem to view the Archbishop like he did no wrong, or never was wrong, or his practical views at one point could not be overturned at a later point based on new information and understanding, which he did not have.

There's very little of that.  Your points are actually more applicable to the post-concilair (though not exclusively) Popes. 

A suspended Bishop is not allowed by the Church to speak for the Church at all. In other words, his words carry no authoritative weight at all. So in this particular case, it's the Pope who has the authority to speak for the Church, not the bishop in question.
Reply
#37
(10-31-2012, 04:41 PM)Meg Wrote: A suspended Bishop is not allowed by the Church to speak for the Church at all. In other words, his words carry no authoritative weight at all. So in this particular case, it's the Pope who has the authority to speak for the Church, not the bishop in question.

This is the default position.  We are in a crisis that extends all the way to the papacy.  We are not in what St. Thomas Aquinas called the "normal mode." 

The salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church.  A bishop who strengthens the faithful is not bound to obey orders that lead to the destruction of the faith, even if those orders are given by the Pope. 

Paul VI stated just before the end of the Council that he was "about to blow the 7 trumpets of the Apocalypse."  That and his own writings on the concept of "Kenosis" give a clear indication that his intention for the Council was the destruction of what he'd been elected to protect.  It wasn't his call to decide that it was time for the Church to sink and shrink before the world, but that's what he wanted.  John XXIII believed that a "new Pentecost" would come out of Vatican II with massive conversions.  JPII wanted a bunch of things all connected with a "this world" mentality.  They were all concerned in one way or another about things that are not the mission of the Church.  They stopped worrying about the salvation of souls and we are in this crisis because of that. 

People often blame Rahner and Kung for most of the damage today but I think the most deadly pestilence that has crept into the Church and enabled this disintegration of faith and structure has been Hans Urs von Balthazar.  If you take his ideas and bring them to their natural conclusion of Universal Salvation, you've got to start focusing your time and attention on something else.  The next life is taken care of, so we've got to make this life the one we are working for. 
Reply
#38
(10-31-2012, 09:25 PM)Gerard Wrote: We are not in what St. Thomas Aquinas called the "normal mode."
Where does he say this? Thanks
(10-31-2012, 09:25 PM)Gerard Wrote: The salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church.
Higher than giving God glory?
(10-31-2012, 09:25 PM)Gerard Wrote: People often blame Rahner and Kung for most of the damage today but I think the most deadly pestilence that has crept into the Church and enabled this disintegration of faith and structure has been Hans Urs von Balthazar.  If you take his ideas and bring them to their natural conclusion of Universal Salvation, you've got to start focusing your time and attention on something else.  The next life is taken care of, so we've got to make this life the one we are working for.
Have you read the Card. Siri posting on Rorate Cœli? It's good.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)