bp williamson 5 30 column
#11
(06-03-2014, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: No, the difference is twofold.  One, the Oriental Schismatics do not believe in the living magisterium at all, they have a vague theory by which the faith percolates down through the ages and divine providence ensures that it remains pure.  In this they are exactly like Bishop Williamson.  Both regard the magisterium as a kind of optional extra that is respected when it is right.  Both deny its infallibility.  Two, the Oriental Schismatics are also heretics in denying the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, truths that their forebears clearly and indisputably accepted.  Sedevacantists don't deny these truths, we emphasise them.

The EO position on that has varied and was probably closer to our understanding at the time of the Filioque controversy--especially since they appealed to the authority of multiple General Councils to back up their position as well as a lack of universal consensus in the Church embracing the Filioque.

But if you don't want to use them as an example, let's use a hypothetical Catholic and whether a particular response is appropriate.

I know sedevacantists vary a lot, but this is how I have understood the general premise: the apparent organ of the Magisterium, in this case a Pope or a Council, taught error, therefore said putative organ was never a valid organ of the Magisterium to begin with. "The supposed Pope taught error, therefore he was not actually the Pope."

Say in 1336 I was convinced by the arguments that the traditional position was that the souls of the departed do not experience the beatific vision until the Final Judgment.  Benedict XII then issues his constitution Benedictus Deus to the contrary. I therefore recognize him to be in error and conclude that he is not the Pope at all. Am I right in my approach, but merely erring in my understanding of what was traditional and what was not?
Reply
#12
(06-04-2014, 10:01 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-03-2014, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: No, the difference is twofold.  One, the Oriental Schismatics do not believe in the living magisterium at all, they have a vague theory by which the faith percolates down through the ages and divine providence ensures that it remains pure.  In this they are exactly like Bishop Williamson.  Both regard the magisterium as a kind of optional extra that is respected when it is right.  Both deny its infallibility.  Two, the Oriental Schismatics are also heretics in denying the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, truths that their forebears clearly and indisputably accepted.  Sedevacantists don't deny these truths, we emphasise them.

The EO position on that has varied and was probably closer to our understanding at the time of the Filioque controversy--especially since they appealed to the authority of multiple General Councils to back up their position as well as a lack of universal consensus in the Church embracing the Filioque.

But if you don't want to use them as an example, let's use a hypothetical Catholic and whether a particular response is appropriate.

I know sedevacantists vary a lot, but this is how I have understood the general premise: the apparent organ of the Magisterium, in this case a Pope or a Council, taught error, therefore said putative organ was never a valid organ of the Magisterium to begin with. "The supposed Pope taught error, therefore he was not actually the Pope."

Say in 1336 I was convinced by the arguments that the traditional position was that the souls of the departed do not experience the beatific vision until the Final Judgment.  Benedict XII then issues his constitution Benedictus Deus to the contrary. I therefore recognize him to be in error and conclude that he is not the Pope at all. Am I right in my approach, but merely erring in my understanding of what was traditional and what was not?

Sedevacantism exists within a larger context.  That context includes the countless grave errors of Vatican II and its ambiguous, unCatholic, revolutionary, ambiguity.  But there's a larger, if possible even more important factor, and that is the gigantic schism of Paul VI, who imposed, via his bishops, a horrible new Protestant-approved liturgy upon the faithful.  When some of them asked for the old mass to continue, he doubled down and imposed it more severely.  When some priests refused to abandon the Mass of their ordination, they were verbally abused, accused of pride and disobedience, suspended, prematurely retired, basically persecuted.  Fifty thousand priests lost their vocations in ten years, and hundreds of thousands of consecrated virgins abandoned their religious houses.  The faithful were devastated.  Nobody ever mentions these facts because they can't compute them within this total myth of the New Pentecost and all the other lies about "renewal" that they have swallowed.  But these facts constituted a schism, and traditional Catholics were the remnant.  Not the only Catholics left, but the remnant that knew what it was to be a real Catholic.  The rest were in various states of total disorientation and confusion, and most still are.

So, when we look at this non-auto demolition we blame the men who did it.  That's really our argument.

We can go back to the basic question now if you like - which I answer exactly as I did before.  We don't adopt the lie of religious liberty because the Church has already infallibly condemned it.  Nobody has even alleged that any Church figure, let alone the Roman Pontiff, had previously condemned the Filioque.  No, the Greeks were simply disobedient to the magisterium, which in turn they only came up with as an excuse for their schism.
Reply
#13
(06-06-2014, 09:50 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(06-04-2014, 10:01 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-03-2014, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: No, the difference is twofold.  One, the Oriental Schismatics do not believe in the living magisterium at all, they have a vague theory by which the faith percolates down through the ages and divine providence ensures that it remains pure.  In this they are exactly like Bishop Williamson.  Both regard the magisterium as a kind of optional extra that is respected when it is right.  Both deny its infallibility.  Two, the Oriental Schismatics are also heretics in denying the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, truths that their forebears clearly and indisputably accepted.  Sedevacantists don't deny these truths, we emphasise them.

The EO position on that has varied and was probably closer to our understanding at the time of the Filioque controversy--especially since they appealed to the authority of multiple General Councils to back up their position as well as a lack of universal consensus in the Church embracing the Filioque.

But if you don't want to use them as an example, let's use a hypothetical Catholic and whether a particular response is appropriate.

I know sedevacantists vary a lot, but this is how I have understood the general premise: the apparent organ of the Magisterium, in this case a Pope or a Council, taught error, therefore said putative organ was never a valid organ of the Magisterium to begin with. "The supposed Pope taught error, therefore he was not actually the Pope."

Say in 1336 I was convinced by the arguments that the traditional position was that the souls of the departed do not experience the beatific vision until the Final Judgment.  Benedict XII then issues his constitution Benedictus Deus to the contrary. I therefore recognize him to be in error and conclude that he is not the Pope at all. Am I right in my approach, but merely erring in my understanding of what was traditional and what was not?

Sedevacantism exists within a larger context.  That context includes the countless grave errors of Vatican II and its ambiguous, unCatholic, revolutionary, ambiguity.  But there's a larger, if possible even more important factor, and that is the gigantic schism of Paul VI, who imposed, via his bishops, a horrible new Protestant-approved liturgy upon the faithful.  When some of them asked for the old mass to continue, he doubled down and imposed it more severely.  When some priests refused to abandon the Mass of their ordination, they were verbally abused, accused of pride and disobedience, suspended, prematurely retired, basically persecuted.  Fifty thousand priests lost their vocations in ten years, and hundreds of thousands of consecrated virgins abandoned their religious houses.  The faithful were devastated.  Nobody ever mentions these facts because they can't compute them within this total myth of the New Pentecost and all the other lies about "renewal" that they have swallowed.  But these facts constituted a schism, and traditional Catholics were the remnant.  Not the only Catholics left, but the remnant that knew what it was to be a real Catholic.  The rest were in various states of total disorientation and confusion, and most still are.

So, when we look at this non-auto demolition we blame the men who did it.  That's really our argument.

We can go back to the basic question now if you like - which I answer exactly as I did before.  We don't adopt the lie of religious liberty because the Church has already infallibly condemned it.  Nobody has even alleged that any Church figure, let alone the Roman Pontiff, had previously condemned the Filioque[size=10pt] No, the Greeks were simply disobedient to the magisterium, which in turn they only came up with as an excuse for their schism.[/size]

Why do I think it's slightly more complicated than that?  Or, perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you.... ???
Reply
#14
(06-06-2014, 09:50 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(06-04-2014, 10:01 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-03-2014, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: No, the difference is twofold.  One, the Oriental Schismatics do not believe in the living magisterium at all, they have a vague theory by which the faith percolates down through the ages and divine providence ensures that it remains pure.  In this they are exactly like Bishop Williamson.  Both regard the magisterium as a kind of optional extra that is respected when it is right.  Both deny its infallibility.  Two, the Oriental Schismatics are also heretics in denying the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, truths that their forebears clearly and indisputably accepted.  Sedevacantists don't deny these truths, we emphasise them.

The EO position on that has varied and was probably closer to our understanding at the time of the Filioque controversy--especially since they appealed to the authority of multiple General Councils to back up their position as well as a lack of universal consensus in the Church embracing the Filioque.

But if you don't want to use them as an example, let's use a hypothetical Catholic and whether a particular response is appropriate.

I know sedevacantists vary a lot, but this is how I have understood the general premise: the apparent organ of the Magisterium, in this case a Pope or a Council, taught error, therefore said putative organ was never a valid organ of the Magisterium to begin with. "The supposed Pope taught error, therefore he was not actually the Pope."

Say in 1336 I was convinced by the arguments that the traditional position was that the souls of the departed do not experience the beatific vision until the Final Judgment.  Benedict XII then issues his constitution Benedictus Deus to the contrary. I therefore recognize him to be in error and conclude that he is not the Pope at all. Am I right in my approach, but merely erring in my understanding of what was traditional and what was not?

Sedevacantism exists within a larger context.  That context includes the countless grave errors of Vatican II and its ambiguous, unCatholic, revolutionary, ambiguity.  But there's a larger, if possible even more important factor, and that is the gigantic schism of Paul VI, who imposed, via his bishops, a horrible new Protestant-approved liturgy upon the faithful.  When some of them asked for the old mass to continue, he doubled down and imposed it more severely.  When some priests refused to abandon the Mass of their ordination, they were verbally abused, accused of pride and disobedience, suspended, prematurely retired, basically persecuted.  Fifty thousand priests lost their vocations in ten years, and hundreds of thousands of consecrated virgins abandoned their religious houses.  The faithful were devastated.  Nobody ever mentions these facts because they can't compute them within this total myth of the New Pentecost and all the other lies about "renewal" that they have swallowed.  But these facts constituted a schism, and traditional Catholics were the remnant.  Not the only Catholics left, but the remnant that knew what it was to be a real Catholic.  The rest were in various states of total disorientation and confusion, and most still are.

So, when we look at this non-auto demolition we blame the men who did it.  That's really our argument.

"Blaming the men who did it" and saying they defected from the Church are two different things.  I'm not sure how the Pope imposing a new rite can be considered a schismatic act.  The Church has taught that the Pope has such authority.

The Council of Trent declared this general power to be within the Church:

Council of Trent, Chapter Ii, session 21 Wrote:It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.

Since the Pope possesses the full authority of the Church, the authority to modify rites belongs to him as was clarified by Pius XII:

Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

In discussing the limits to the Pope's authority at the First Vatican Council, the common phase that his power is "ad aedificationem non ad destructionem" was brought up.  The relator explained that this refers to destroying the Church by eliminating constituent elements of the Church--the Pope, for example, cannot abolish the episcopate.  But I can find no evidence that any particular rite is such a constituent element.

Note, neither of the above Magisterial texts say the Pope or Church can only do these things when they (especially in hindsight) actually are most expedient, but when they judge them to be most expedient--the Pope can issue a new rite if he judges that it should be done, according to the doctrine of the Church.  I cannot see how exercising this authority can be therefore called schism.

John Lane Wrote:We can go back to the basic question now if you like - which I answer exactly as I did before.  We don't adopt the lie of religious liberty because the Church has already infallibly condemned it.  Nobody has even alleged that any Church figure, let alone the Roman Pontiff, had previously condemned the Filioque.  No, the Greeks were simply disobedient to the magisterium, which in turn they only came up with as an excuse for their schism.
The Greeks argued that the Filioque was condemned, since modifications to the traditional Creed were condemned in general.  In any event, they appealed to their understanding of what was taught universally by the Church, which is of equal authority to a definition.  Whether they were right or wrong in thinking it condemned is not at issue here, since your comparison earlier in the thread was based on what one subjectively thinks to have been condemned, not necessarily what actually has been ("they merely erred in understanding what was [condemned] and what wasn't.") 

That being said, I think you are right to go with the position of the medieval canonists that a Pope could not be considered to have defected due to heresy if it was a "new heresy" (ie not one previously condemned). It's simply a fact of practicing theology that disputes arise--before the judgment of the Church, one theologian argues his proposition is a legitimate conclusion or development based on accepted principles and another that it is not.  If such individuals could judge one another outside the Church, the visibility of the Church would cease.

Looking at the particular issue you brought up, I gather then that you believe the Pope and the rest of the epicopate at the Council defected from the Church by assenting to the decree Dignitatis Humane, correct? Assuming your premises that what was contained in Dignitatis Humanae was definitively condemned, I think this is a more cogent argument than the one you make above.  The public obstinate refusal of the infallible teaching authority would certainly be sufficient for the kind of heresy that would cause one, even the bishop of Rome, to cease to be an in re member of the Church. 

That being said, I think your premises are flawed.  There was no such public refusal.  Certain definitive judgments, as well as other acts, were brought up, debated and discussed, and the Council judged its declaration to not ultimately be at variance with them.  There was no condemnation of such past definitive judgments or refusal of them.  They were taken into account.

Likewise, I would also argue with the Council that its position was never definitively condemned.  You can find condemnations of an unlimited liberty and of liberty predicated on the principle of indfferentism, but not of the limited liberty predicated on the freedom of the act of faith (and explicitly not indifferentism) that the Council proposed.  It's simply not the same thing, and given the principles you seem to be applying (obeying the Magisterium unless something has already been definitively condemned), then you should side with the Magisterium in this case.

Just because the language may at a quick glance seem similar, it doesn't mean there actually isn't something that differentiates them.  Cardinal Manning address this in his well-known book on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost.  He point out various instances through history of this and concludes:

Cardinal Manning Wrote:Again, language which once was heterodox may become the test of truth, as the Homoousion, which was condemned by the Council of Antioch in the Sabellian sense, and in half a century was inserted in the Creed by the Council of Nice. No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.




Reply
#15
You haven't heard of the schismatic pope thesis?  Read the following from Cardinal John de Torquemada, the Spanish theologian and relative of the Inquisitor.  To demonstrate that a “Pope can separate himself illegitimately from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the head of the Church, and therefore fall into schism," Cardinal Torquemada uses three arguments:

1 – (...) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able without doubt to fall into schism.

2. The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, dil. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt quidam and Contra statuta (25, q. 1). Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism.


That's a pretty much word-perfect description of what Paul VI did in the mid-60s. He separated himself from those who remained attached to tradition, and he displayed manifest pertinacity by persecuting them when they failed to join him in his revolt from tradition.
Reply
#16
Two things in relation to your remaining arguments.

1.  Religious liberty as taught by V2 is a definite error, as the SSPX and many others have shown.  Example: http://sspx.org/en/node/1245
Now we you don't agree on that subject we won't agree on anything that depends upon it.

2.  Traditional Catholics reject the New Mass as an incentive to impiety, to say the very least.  Yet the Council of Trent anathematised as follows: "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."  So we have a problem.  The problem is the New Mass.  If the Ottaviani Intervention was disputable when it appeared (it wasn't) then the fruits of the New Mass proved it in spades.  It destroyed the Church.  Again, if you don't accept the traditional Catholic view of the New Mass then we won't agree on anything that follows from that view either.

The SSPX "Superior General's Letter to Friends and Benefactors," #54, (19 March 1998): "'The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought with it the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of faith in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ', accompanied by the resolute intention, clearly shown by the Roman authorities, to continue with 'their work of destroying the reign of Our Lord, as proved by Assisi, and by Rome's confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on religious liberty'".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)