Rorate Caeli: Many FI priests petitioning to be relieved of pontifical vows
#59
(05-17-2014, 04:41 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Miles Immaculatae,
I apologize for having offended you, and would like you to know that I was not trying to have you banned.  I was merely defending my position that to be a Modernist is to be a heretic.  You've defended yourself by saying, "I do believe Pope Francis is Modernist... I was not accusing anybody of heresy."  But Modernism is a heresy, so how can one be a Modernist without simultaneously being a heretic?  This is where your responses have left me confused.

I do know what this forum is about (and that Traditional Catholicism is so much more than about the TLM), as I've been here for more than five years.  My own position, to be clear, is that Pope Francis is not actually the Sovereign Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church precisely because he is a Modernist; I hold to the sedevacantist position.

Once again, I do apologize to you.  I was not looking for an argument, but considered the consequences of both your and Scotus' statements ("modernist," "heterodox") and was surprised that nothing was said.  Again, I don't want either of you to get into trouble (I'm especially a fan of Scotus' posts), but I simply had gotten the impression that the rules have been relaxed somewhat, given Francis' many, many troubling statements over the past year.

GodFirst,
Yes, Protestants are considered to be formal heretics in the external forum, while perhaps many or even most of them are considered as being in good faith.  You said that, "Catholics cannot be formal heretics unless a superior make such a judgment rightfully and justly declares them excommunicated," but the problem with that is the Roman Pontiff has no canonical superior and so cannot be judged as Pope.  He would have already fallen from office through his violation of divine law (by committing an act of formal heresy) and then would be canonically judged as a non-Catholic.

As for the posssibility of a Catholic being a material heretic, please see this article: http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

John S. Daly Wrote:What muddied the waters was the misleading linguistic development by which material heresy was said to make the person professing it a material heretic. No conclusion could seem more natural to the layman, but it does not in fact follow in logic. A retired lion-trainer is not, after all, a man who trains retired lions! And a serious problem arises when one designates as a material heretic anyone who assents, without moral guilt, to a heretical proposition. The first is that you have created a category which comprises two quite distinct sorts of member and you therefore run the risk of confusing the two. For according to that definition, a good Catholic who inadvertently holds a condemned doctrine, not realising that it is condemned is a material heretic. And so too is a Protestant if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church's status. And while it is true that there is a resemblance between the two cases (for both indeed hold in their minds unorthodox doctrine and neither is culpable in the eyes of God for doing so), nevertheless there is also a huge gulf between them. For the former is a Catholic, habitually adhering to the Catholic rule of faith, whereas the latter is a non-Catholic, with no knowledge of the correct rule of faith and tossed about on the treacherous sea of private opinion.

The inevitable consequence of this misleading assimilation of two such different sorts of person is that they will gradually come to be considered truly alike. This could happen in either of two ways. Mistaken Catholics could be regarded as no better than Protestants in good faith (and some “hard-liners” have practically taken this view, arguing that the most innocent error creates a presumption of heretical animus - a notion we have already seen to be false). More common has been the no less calamitous view that a Protestant, if invincibly ignorant of the status of the Church, is no worse off than a Catholic who inadvertently makes an incorrect doctrinal statement - as though adherence to the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. submission to the Magisterium, were irrelevant, whereas in fact it is what juridical membership of the Church depends on.

Correctly, the material element involved in being a heretic is conscious dissent from the Catholic rule of faith, while the formal element is the perverse state of the will which this entails. The distinction thus made, a Catholic who inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence may perhaps be said to have advanced a material heresy; but he cannot be called a material heretic. He is not a heretic in any sense. A heretic is one who dissents altogether from the Catholic rule of faith, and he will be called a material heretic if he is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church which he rejects, and a formal heretic if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him, so that his dissent from it is culpable. (This is clearly explained by Cardinal Billot: De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 4, pp. 289-290)


So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic.

Once again, you've made some very good points, formerbuddhist.  The general belief is that the Council was valid and that we must accept it.  In all honesty, it wasn't strictly pastoral, as the language used by several of the documents make clear.  Moreover, it has certainly been interpreted by the Magisterium: we have a new Mass, new rites for the Sacraments, a new Code of Canon Law, a new universal Catechism, and now, new Vatican II saints.  As Catholics, we aren't allowed to pick and choose what we'll accept from the Magisterium, as they are the "Church Teaching" and we are the "Church Taught."  Pope Pius IX, among others, condemned the opinion that Catholics can disregard even the merely disciplinary decrees of the Holy See and still glory in the name of Catholic (cf. Quartus Supra, n. 12 f.): http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

You're not helping the situation. You are inclined to provoke formerbuddhist into becoming sedevacantist or Orthodox, undoing the reassurances myself and other posters on this thread have given him. Elsewhere on this forum you have demonstrated you have a neo-Catholic attitude, insisting Pope Francis and his predecessors are not modernist and that we are bound not to say this as Catholics, even though this is kinda the whole premise of Traditional Catholicism. Read up on the websites information about Traditional Catholicism, because it's not all about having a penchant for the TLM, it goes deeper than that.

The major weakness of your assertions is that Pope Pius IX was not referring to modernist, or heretical decrees, which we always have a duty to resist.  You are comparing the Church in Pius IX's time to now, but the Church presently is in a state of unprecedented emergency, exemplified by the recent canonisations of modernist Pontiff's, and the probable canonisation of Paul VI, which formerbuddhist is rightly traumatised by. 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Rorate Caeli: Many FI priests petitioning to be relieved of pontifical vows - by Miles Immaculatae - 05-17-2014, 05:17 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)