Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:32 am Post subject: Bp W Column, 2.6.10
Reprinted Exclusively on AQ. May be reprinted anywhere.
To receive the email version, please send a blank email to dinoscopus@gmail.com
ELEISON COMMENTS CXXXIV (Feb. 6, 2010) : PAPAL ERROR II
Just coming out in English (see truerestoration.blogspot.com) is the valuable 100-page treatise in French by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St Pius X on the doctrine of Pope Benedict XVI : “The Faith imperilled by Reason”. The title says it all. Bishop Tissier’s thesis is that Benedict XVI allows human reasoning to adulterate the Catholic Faith. Let me paraphrase a paragraph from the Bishop’s conclusion which goes to the heart of the matter :-
“Benedict XVI frequently calls for a “hermeneutic of continuity”, meaning an interpretation of Vatican II and of Catholic Tradition which shows that there is no break but continuity between them. After studying the Pope’s teachings, I now realize that this “hermeneutic” goes further than I originally thought. It means not just a new reading of Faith and Reason, but a new birth of both, and it is of universal application. Firstly, each is to purify the other : Reason will stop Faith from sliding into intolerance, while Faith will heal Reason’s blind independence. Secondly, each is to regenerate the other: Reason will enrich the Faith with the liberal values of Enlightenment thinking, while Faith, suitably re-expressed for modern times, will win a hearing from Reason. And this process is to be applied across the board to all religions and all ways of reasoning. Without any one system of values being imposed on everybody, those values which keep the world going will be strengthened.”
Note here firstly how, on his own admission, Bishop Tissier originally under-estimated the breadth and depth of the Pope’s vision. Catholics following Tradition know that the Conciliar reconciling of the Faith with modernity (especially the sentence that I have underlined above) is wrong, and is destroying the Church, but they do need to recognize that it has been thought out with intelligence, however misguided, and it is held with conviction. Benedict XVI believes profoundly both in the old way of believing and in the new way of thinking, and he is confident that by his own way of solving any apparent problems between them, all men can be brought together. This “solution” drives his Papacy.
Alas, I cannot reconcile 2+2=4 with 2=2=5 by saying that four is “more or less than four and a half”, while five is “more or less than four and a half”, because four apples will remain obstinately four, while five oranges will persist in being five. Thus the true Faith may tolerate the person erring, but it cannot tolerate the error, while modern Reason may wish to see, but as long as it is modern it insists on putting its own eyes out, the eyes of the mind (Kant). At every turn Bishop Tissier demonstrates that the eternal Faith, revealed by God, cannot lie down with modern reasoning, fabricated by men, which is designed to exclude either God or at least his demands on men (Religious Liberty).
Thank you, your Excellency ! For, however charming may be the Pope’s prospect of “peace in our time”, it is not charm but truth in charity that will get us to Heaven.
Kyrie Eleison.
London, England _________________ Stephen Heiner
truerestoration.blogspot.com
but His Excellency said himself: Gratia non tollit naturam.
So the Catholic Faith is not contrary to human reason, instead, our human reason is a kind of imago Dei, like St. Augustine said once, one part of the similitudo of the Trinitatis Dei in our mind and heart.
So the Catholic Faith is the completion of the human reason.
I can't see where the Holy Father should be wrong.
I can't see where the Holy Father should be wrong.
Well I think that Bishops W et TdM think he is wrong if he really has this type of hegelian thinking :
Quote:
this “hermeneutic” goes further than I originally thought. It means not just a new reading of Faith and Reason, but a new birth of both, and it is of universal application. Firstly, each is to purify the other : Reason will stop Faith from sliding into intolerance, while Faith will heal Reason’s blind independence. Secondly, each is to regenerate the other: Reason will enrich the Faith with the liberal values of Enlightenment thinking, while Faith, suitably re-expressed for modern times, will win a hearing from Reason.
That is wrong. But is this really what the pope think. Who can be sure ?
I can't see where the Holy Father should be wrong.
Well I think that Bishops W et TdM think he is wrong if he really has this type of hegelian thinking :
Quote:
this “hermeneutic” goes further than I originally thought. It means not just a new reading of Faith and Reason, but a new birth of both, and it is of universal application. Firstly, each is to purify the other : Reason will stop Faith from sliding into intolerance, while Faith will heal Reason’s blind independence. Secondly, each is to regenerate the other: Reason will enrich the Faith with the liberal values of Enlightenment thinking, while Faith, suitably re-expressed for modern times, will win a hearing from Reason.
That is wrong. But is this really what the pope think. Who can be sure ?
It has nothing with Hegel in common.
According to Hegel Faith "Glaube" is not over the reason "Vernunft".
According to the Hegelian Philosophy Faith/Glaube is a more primitive status of human mind. Each status of mind is only complete and perfect, if it is grasped by the reason. While the Pope holds to the Catholic maxim dating back to St. Anselm of Canterbury: fides quaerens intellectum.
So it is a very old and orthodox Catholic Principle, which is also the main difference between Catholics and Lutherans, that we, still search to understand, while the Lutherans say that the faith alone is sufficient.
Our Holy Father stands firmly on the ground of the Catholic Tradition.
As the Second Vatican Council is not a Dogmatic Council, but only a Pastoral one, the article on Religious Liberty is not taken as a dogma into the Depositium Fidei.
So it is not well thought out to say that the Church Teaching is incoherent. The Dogma-system as we have it now is coherent: it hasn't changed during the Vat I. in the 19th. century. There is no innate contradiction in this system.
While the Vat. II. document on Religious Liberty is a practical guidance to rule the relationship between the Church, modern society, and the modern state. And it must be interpreted before it application, and if the society changes, this document should also be adapted as it is NOT ABOUT THE TIMELESS TRUTH, but ABOUT THE MOMENTARY SITUATION OF THE CHURCH IN HER RESPECT AS A HUMAN INSTITUTION IN THE HUMAN SOCIETY.
Here's my take on this topic. Faith is a gift from Almighty God is what we were taught as youngsters and although it may be offered to all men, not all men accept it and/or nurture it. So, if it is a gift from God can it be saddled with error in the sense that what was once believed as true sometime because of circumstances of the world becomes untrue? Obviously not. If Faith is a gift from God, it obviously supplants reason which exists in the natural order (all men have reason to some degree as part of their make-up). In other words reason can assist Faith but never contradict it.
But I would be careful about saying what the holy father believes in his heart or hearts because I cannot speak to him directly and ask him the many questions that I have concerning statements he has made. Yet, in the final analysis it matters little what I think since the holy father is given graces and charisms attached to his Office that no one else has. IMHO we must trust in the Providence of Almighty God and leave judgments concerning the holy father up to Him alone. That said, perhaps the discussions will provide answers to the questions I'm sure we all have. _________________ Pre-Vatican II Catholic-16 yrs Catholic schooling.
According to Hegel Faith "Glaube" is not over the reason "Vernunft".
Yo may be right. But I am quite sure that our 2 bishops are very sensitive about what can be held for every kind of dialectic. Wojtila was hegelian. And so should be our german pope.
Quote:
According to Walter Kaufman, although the triad is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous.
The triad is usually described in the following way:
* The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
* The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition.
* The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Yo may be right. But I am quite sure that our 2 bishops are very sensitive about what can be held for every kind of dialectic. Wojtila was hegelian. And so should be our german pope.
Quote:
According to Walter Kaufman, although the triad is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous.
The triad is usually described in the following way:
* The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
* The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition.
* The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis but reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Pope John Paul II was not Hegelian, as far as I know, he wrote his doctoral thesis on the Philosophy of Life of Max Scheler, a convert to Catholicism.
Max Scheler comes from the School of Husserl, like Edith Stein, or St. Therese, and he was praised by the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset.
So you can't say that JPII came from the Hegelian school.
As for our Pope Benedict XVI, he is obliged to the Platonic school, the Platonic school has influenced the early Christians greatly, Thomas Aquinas still talked about the participation of Existence, which is clearly a Platonic concept. Platonic thinking formed the Thinking of Anselm of Canterbury, St. Bonaventure, the school of Chartre, and so on. Indeed the Platonic School was the more conservative one in early and high middle ages, while the Aristotelian school which started with St. Thomas Aquinas was the more innovative one. One should keep in mind that the writings of Aristotle were not completely translated into Latin until the 14th. century.
The teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert began as one of the first to comment the translations of Aristotle. And St. Thomas commented the almost all logic writings of Aristotle, his Physics, Metaphysics and Politics.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote his doctoral thesis on Augustine and later on Bonaventure. Though we can't call Augustine directly a Platonic, but Augustine was well acquainted with the ideas of Plato. Bonaventure, as a Franciscan, came from the Augustine tradition, but the Neoplatonic thinking which was quite influential in early Christianity and early middle ages formed also his theology.
As for the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, it is not an invention of Hegel, nor the essence of his philosophy, though many laymen of philosophy think so, but not justified.
The Triad-scheme was a component of late ancient philosophy: Plotin, Proclus and so one. The Triad-scheme was very important to Augustine, see his teaching of the Triad of the human soul in his De Trinitate.
The Triad-scheme was also eminent for the early Christian theologians in Ireland, for example John Scot Eriugena.
As for the thesis-antithesis-synthesis schema I pray you read the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The structure of the works of Thomas Aquinas is basically:
1. A Proposition which should be discussed. and the arguments for it (Pro)
2. The negation of the Proposition and the arguments (Contra).
Then St. Thomas decides himself how to solve the problem, and remove the conflicts between the pro and contra.
How nice, is there someone who knows better than Popes?
Holy Mother Church.
And who has THE CLAIM to represent the WHOLE CHURCH?
Over 2,000 years of Traditional Faith and the Pope WHEN he speaks of Faith and morals. When did it become dogma that the Pope knows and represents the Faith more than anyone else? _________________ Jesus, Mary, Joseph save souls!
How nice, is there someone who knows better than Popes?
Holy Mother Church.
And who has THE CLAIM to represent the WHOLE CHURCH?
Over 2,000 years of Traditional Faith and the Pope WHEN he speaks of Faith and morals. When did it become dogma that the Pope knows and represents the Faith more than anyone else?
When? How astonishing that you don't know! IN the FIRST VATICANUM: The Dogma of PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
and that is exactly the reason why the so called "old catholics" split away from the Church and founded their own group, now they are in communion with the Anglicans. Google once "Ignaz Döllinger", he is the theologian who was responsible for this schism.
How nice, is there someone who knows better than Popes?
Holy Mother Church.
And who has THE CLAIM to represent the WHOLE CHURCH?
Over 2,000 years of Traditional Faith and the Pope WHEN he speaks of Faith and morals. When did it become dogma that the Pope knows and represents the Faith more than anyone else?
When? How astonishing that you don't know! IN the FIRST VATICANUM: The Dogma of PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
and that is exactly the reason why the so called "old catholics" split away from the Church and founded their own group, now they are in communion with the Anglicans. Google once "Ignaz Döllinger", he is the theologian who was responsible for this schism.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Or visa versa. Represent the Church to the world, yes. Represented AS the Church, no. He is infallible in Faith and Morals. Not everything involving the Church. He can be wrong. Holy Mother Church cannot.
If the Pope chooses to think differently than the Church, which it seems in some things he is, he is wrong. He is still a man, and I folllow no man blindly. Pope or not. _________________ Jesus, Mary, Joseph save souls!
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Or visa versa. Represent the Church to the world, yes. Represented AS the Church, no. He is infallible in Faith and Morals. Not everything involving the Church. He can be wrong. Holy Mother Church cannot.
If the Pope chooses to think differently than the Church, which it seems in some things he is, he is wrong. He is still a man, and I folllow no man blindly. Pope or not.
What a modern thinking! The Pope can't choose to think differently than the Church! If you believe in the Apostolic Succession of Peter and the Charisma of the bishops, you can't look upon Popes and bishops in their episcopate and Pontificate as private persons.
Follow the Pontificate just means to follow the Vicar of Christ.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 3188 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:08 pm Post subject:
teresa wrote:
dymphna17 wrote:
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Or visa versa. Represent the Church to the world, yes. Represented AS the Church, no. He is infallible in Faith and Morals. Not everything involving the Church. He can be wrong. Holy Mother Church cannot.
If the Pope chooses to think differently than the Church, which it seems in some things he is, he is wrong. He is still a man, and I folllow no man blindly. Pope or not.
What a modern thinking! The Pope can't choose to think differently than the Church! If you believe in the Apostolic Succession of Peter and the Charisma of the bishops, you can't look upon Popes and bishops in their episcopate and Pontificate as private persons.
Follow the Pontificate just means to follow the Vicar of Christ.
So I suppose Pope Liberius who, under Arian influence, excommunicated St. Athanasius was thinking like the Church?
You need to learn the difference between infallibility and inerrancy, lest you fall into the error of "Mottramism."
(This takes its name, of course, from Rex Mottram, Julia Flyte's husband in Brideshead Revisited. At one point, Rex decides to convert to Catholicism in order to have a proper Church wedding with Julia. But the sincerity of his conversion becomes suspect when he is willing to agree with any absurdity proposed in the name of Catholic authority, and shows no intellectual curiosity into its truth or falsehood. As his Jesuit instructor, Father Mowbray describes his catechetical progress:
"Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: 'Just as many as you say, Father.' Then again I asked him: 'Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said 'It's going to rain', would that be bound to happen?' 'Oh, yes, Father.' 'But supposing it didn't?' He thought a moment and said, "I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.'")
Thank you for your great post. The scene you described from Brideshead
Revisited is one of my favorites - very funny and yet so pathetic. I have learned a new term: Mottramism! _________________ Salve Regina
What a modern thinking! The Pope can't choose to think differently than the Church!
That's why Popes have never endorsed heresy, fathered children, poisoned rivals, sold bishophrics, prayed with heretics and idolators, or kissed the koran. If they have, then you propose that the Church thinks all of these things are permissible.
Pope John Paul II was not Hegelian, as far as I know, he wrote his doctoral thesis on the Philosophy of Life of Max Scheler, a convert to Catholicism.
Max Scheler comes from the School of Husserl, like Edith Stein, or St. Therese, and he was praised by the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset.
So you can't say that JPII came from the Hegelian school.
Max Scheler converted to Catholicism for a period of time but then fell away from the Faith. One cannot call Scheler a Catholic philosopher.
Wikipedia:
"Max Scheler was born in Munich, Germany, August 22, 1874, to a Lutheran father and an Orthodox Jewish mother. As an adolescent, he turned to Catholicism, likely because of its conception of love, although he became increasingly non-committal around 1921. After 1921 he disassociated himself in public from catholicism."
It's true that Scheler and Husserl were not formally Hegelians. They were phenomenologists. JPII was certainly not a Hegelian -- his "personalism" was a form of the phenomenological approach.
I don't understand the philosophy of BXVI well enough to comment on it, but I believe that when people describe him as "hegelian," they are referring to his tendency to try to reconcile opposites, rather than referring to a specific school of philosophy.
"Scheler defies the notion of a creator-God. Deity, Man, and World form one becoming process of unification taking place in absolute time."
"The process of a universal, cosmic becoming in absolute time has two increasingly mutually penetrating poles; (1) an uncreated vital energy, or “Impulsion,” and (2) “Spirit.” Without life, which is the form of impulsion, spirit is shown to be impotent to bring anything into existence. Spirit needs realizing factors such as life-conditions, history, economics, geo-politics, social and geographic conditions that make possible for spirit to realize ideas “with” them. Sometimes such realizing factors allow ideas to at least in part work in practice, sometimes, as we all know, they just don’t. Needless to emphasize that Scheler’s position on the functions of impulsion and spirit is akin to pragmatism, especially that of W. James whom he considered to be a “genius.”
"One can get a glimpse of the unity of the becoming of the unfinished Deity, of World and Humanity, in Scheler’s last book, The Human Place in the Cosmos (1928). But the posthumous bulk of this is contained in Volumes 11 and 12 of the Collected Edition. References to Buddha can be found in these volumes, especially with regard to the notion of suffering and non-resistance. Max Scheler's non-Darwinian theory of evolution is more compatible with recent archeological findings in Chad (Toumaď) which point to a previously unknown genus-species being at the basis of humankind's famiily tree, rather than to the ape-hypothesis."
How nice, is there someone who knows better than Popes?
What? We cannot know the Faith? We cannot know if a Pope says or does something contrary to the Faith? Why are we then required to study for and pass tests in preparation for the Sacraments of Holy Communion and Confirmation? What is meant by the term sensus catolicus? What is meant by the phrase properly formed conscience?
Some never tire of relying upon, and imposing upon others, pure sentimentality and the mere appearance of rectitude.
What a modern thinking! The Pope can't choose to think differently than the Church!
That's why Popes have never endorsed heresy, fathered children, poisoned rivals, sold bishophrics, prayed with heretics and idolators, or kissed the koran. If they have, then you propose that the Church thinks all of these things are permissible.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 3188 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject:
Walburga wrote:
Penitent,
Thank you for your great post. The scene you described from Brideshead
Revisited is one of my favorites - very funny and yet so pathetic. I have learned a new term: Mottramism!
It's kind of famous. I lifted it from a classic posting to his own (now defunct) blog by a Canadian Catholic, Mark Cameron.
How nice, is there someone who knows better than Popes?
What? We cannot know the Faith? We cannot know if a Pope says or does something contrary to the Faith? Why are we then required to study for and pass tests in preparation for the Sacraments of Holy Communion and Confirmation? What is meant by the term sensus catolicus? What is meant by the phrase properly formed conscience?
Some never tire of relying upon, and imposing upon others, pure sentimentality and the mere appearance of rectitude.
What do you mean with "we": your own individual subject? or the subjective opinion of a group? Or the partial interpretation of a group of persons?
The Faith, written with Big initial Letter, is reserved alone to the interpretation of the Whole Mother Church represented by the Council and the Pontifex, Vicar of Christ.
Responsible for the interpretation of the Faith and the Orthodoxy was earlier the Office of the Holy Inquisition, and today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
[quote="cantatedomino"][quote="et cum spirit 220"]
teresa wrote:
What a modern thinking! The Pope can't choose to think differently than the Church!
That's why Popes have never endorsed heresy, fathered children, poisoned rivals, sold bishophrics, prayed with heretics and idolators, or kissed the koran. If they have, then you propose that the Church thinks all of these things are permissible.[/quot]
You mixed up Popes as private persons and Pope in their rôle of Vicar of Christ.
The Dogma issued in the First Vatican Council about the Infallibility of the Pope was easily misunderstood in the way you described.
A Pope can sin as a private person, but his Teaching ex cathedra can't be erroneous, that includes: Dogma issued by him, his encyclicals and so one.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Or visa versa. Represent the Church to the world, yes. Represented AS the Church, no. He is infallible in Faith and Morals. Not everything involving the Church. He can be wrong. Holy Mother Church cannot.
If the Pope chooses to think differently than the Church, which it seems in some things he is, he is wrong. He is still a man, and I folllow no man blindly. Pope or not.
What a modern thinking! The Pope can't choose to think differently than the Church! If you believe in the Apostolic Succession of Peter and the Charisma of the bishops, you can't look upon Popes and bishops in their episcopate and Pontificate as private persons.
Follow the Pontificate just means to follow the Vicar of Christ.
So I suppose Pope Liberius who, under Arian influence, excommunicated St. Athanasius was thinking like the Church?
You need to learn the difference between infallibility and inerrancy, lest you fall into the error of "Mottramism."
(This takes its name, of course, from Rex Mottram, Julia Flyte's husband in Brideshead Revisited. At one point, Rex decides to convert to Catholicism in order to have a proper Church wedding with Julia. But the sincerity of his conversion becomes suspect when he is willing to agree with any absurdity proposed in the name of Catholic authority, and shows no intellectual curiosity into its truth or falsehood. As his Jesuit instructor, Father Mowbray describes his catechetical progress:
"Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: 'Just as many as you say, Father.' Then again I asked him: 'Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said 'It's going to rain', would that be bound to happen?' 'Oh, yes, Father.' 'But supposing it didn't?' He thought a moment and said, "I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.'")
(rimshot)
This topic is not at all new, it was already discussed in the Late Middle Ages, at the time when many theologians wanted to reject the Primacy of the Pope and make the Council more authoritarian than the Pope.
But we know they failed. And the First Vaticanum defined that it can't be so.
The arguments of the Pope who excommunicated St. Athanasius, and many other examples from the Church history, are used by Marsilius of Padua, William of Occam and so on, who argued against the Papal authority.
If anyone among you is interested, you can read the Political Writings of Occam, you can find exactly the same examples and argumentations.
But as I said before, the Church decided otherwise. The Authority of the Pope was established a Dogma in the 19th. century.
The Catholics in my region are having a local argument about Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and the Rosary Crusade. Some are making pronouncements not unlike yours, teresa. Finally a friend of mine nailed it, and when I read it I could not help thinking of you. I therefore submit what he wrote in response to the substance-less pabulum you are here promoting. Your words come across more like a mantra than teaching. Also, your words are light on their feet. Where do they ever hit the ground of reality - the reality of what is taking place in the Church?
Quote:
Obedience is a moral virtue. Unlike theological virtues (faith, hope and charity), moral virtues are not absolutes. They are a balance between excess and defect, and can be violated in either direction - that is, by not obeying when we should, or by obeying when we should not. For example, the soldiers in Hitler's army were not practicing true obedience when they obeyed the orders to kill millions of innocent people. Neither were the martyrs failing in true obedience when they refused to offer incense to the idols. It is never permitted to obey a command contrary to a theological virtue, since unlike the moral virtues, theological virtues are an absolute.
The following is taken from the encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officia, written by Pope Paul IV during the Council of Trent. During this time of confusion resulting from the Protestant revolt, it was suspected that Cardinal Morone secretly embraced some of the Protestant errors. It was this suspicion that moved Pope Paul IV to write the following encyclical:
Pope Paul IV: "By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.
“In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling" (Cum Apostolatus Officio).
If a Pope was to deviate from the faith he should not tbe followed into error. Papal Infallibility does not prevent a Pope from deviating from the faith. The charism of infallibility is engaged only when the Pope defines a dogma of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. If the Pope is not defining a dogma, it is possible for him to fall into error. One example of a Pope falling into error is John XXII who taught publicly, on numerous occasions, that the souls of the blessed would not possess the beatific vision until after the resurrection and final judgment, an error he later renounced.
Catholic Encyclopedia: "In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. ... John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. The Spirituals, always in close alliance with Louis of Bavaria, profited by these events to accuse the pope of heresy, being supported by Cardinal Napoleon Orsini. In union with the latter, King Louis wrote to the cardinals, urging them to call a general council and condemn the pope" (End).
Pope Adrian IV went so far as to call Pope John XXII a heretic:
Pope Adrian: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)." (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
In the next quote, the same Holy Father explains that heresy legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors – even when the superior is the Pope.
Pope Adrian: "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII).
When defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility, the fathers of the First Vatican Council found 40 instances when a Pope deviated from the faith.
Popes are not infallible in all they do and say. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholics are simply holding to what the Church has always taught in the face of doctrinal confusion and ambiguous (at best) documents. The Church is in an unusual situation similar to what occurred during the Arian crisis, when (according to Cardinal Newman) approximately 80% of the Bishops fell into the Arian heresy. The hero of the day, St. Athanasius, was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocese 5 times, spent 17 years in exile, and suffered an unjust excommunication by Pope Liberius (the first Pope not to be canonized). The saying at the time was Athanasius Contra Mundum (Athanasius Against the World). He, along with St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. Gregory, and a few others, stood virtually alone against the mass of Bishops. In the end, however, they were proven right. They knew that the teaching of the Church does not change, and that by holding fast to Tradition they would be vindicated - and they were.
Cardinal Newman: “[At the time of the Arian heresy] There was the temporary suspense of the function of Ecclesia Docens [teaching Church - the hierarchy] as about 80 percent of the bishops fell into heresy. The body of bishops failed in their confession of the faith.... The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicaea on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course, there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phoebadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose;... And again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places; but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy. This is a very remarkable fact; but there is a moral in it. Perhaps it was permitted in order to impress upon the Church at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to her long temporal ascendancy, the greatest evangelical lesson, that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak constitute her real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory."
According to Cardinal Newman, St. Athanasius (not Pope Liberius), was the "principal instrument, after the Apostles, by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world."
The following was written by Bishop Graber of Regensburg.
Bishop Graber: "What happened over 1600 years ago [during the Arian crisis] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria today is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transformed to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character" (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23).
Does the precedent of the Arian crisis provide us with any lessons for our time? It certainly does. Let's consider some quotes written during that time. The first is from the hero of the day - who at the time appeared to be an excommunicated schismatic - St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith:
The following is a letter St. Athanasius wrote to his followers:
St. Athanasius: May God console you!... What saddens you ... is the fact that others [the Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle -- the one who keeps the buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,... rouse yourselves, brethren,... seeing them now seized upon by aliens. True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way. You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. --Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412
Notice, he doesn't say you are required to attend Mass where abuses are taking place and where the Priest is a heretic. No. He says the Churches are good when "everything takes place there in a holy way". He asks the question "who wins, those who have the Churches (where everything is not taking place in a holy way) or those who are outside the local Churches (SSPX for example) but who keep the faith? He then gives the obvious answer. Fortunately, the SSPX has provided Churches for those who think like St. Athanasius and want nothing to do with abuses and heresy.
Here's a few other quotes from the Bishops who kept the faith during the Arian crisis:
St. Basil: "Our afflictions are well known without my telling; the sound of them has gone forth over all Christendom. The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set at nought; the discoveries of innovators hold sway in churches. Men have learned to be speculatists instead of theologians. The wisdom of the world has the place of honor, having dispossessed the glorying of the cross. The pastors are driven away. grievous wolves are brought in instead, and plunder the flock of Christ. (cf. Appendix V of John Henry Cardinal Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century)
St. Gregory Nazianzus: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel [the Church] by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, differing from each other only in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle being overcome by fear, or by interests or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance". (Orationes 21:24 -360)
St. Basil: The danger is not confined to one Church.... This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord's flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven."
St. Basil: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, -- a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven. --Epistulae 242 (376)
St. Basil: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into the deserts. The people are in lamentation.... Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up; our altars are deprived of spiritual worship. No longer are there Christians assembling, teachers presiding, saving instructions, celebrations, hymns by night, or that blessed exultation of souls, which arises from communion and fellowship of spiritual gifts.... The ears of the simple are led astray, and have become accustomed to heretical profaneness. The infants of the Church are fed on the words of impiety". --Epistulae 243, to the Bishops of Italy and Gaul (376)
Commenting on the passage, “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:15-16)", Abbot Gueranger wrote the following:
Gueranger: "When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the Bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject in the Faith are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of Revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals. Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circumstances when religion itself is at stake. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable" (The Liturgical Year).
Obedience is a great virtue, but not when it is being used in the destruction of the faith.
What do you mean with "we": your own individual subject? or the subjective opinion of a group? Or the partial interpretation of a group of persons?
Gueranger:"When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the Bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject in the Faith are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of Revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals.
Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circumstances when religion itself is at stake. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable" (The Liturgical Year).
I love my Pope. I love the Church which is the Universal Church spread around the world, containing the invisible Church and the visible Church and I believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and if I want to be obey Christ I have to obey the Pope.
I love my Pope. I love the Church which is the Universal Church spread around the world, containing the invisible Church and the visible Church and I believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and if I want to be obey Christ I have to obey the Pope.
Translated:
1. cantate does not love the pope.
2. cantate does not love the papacy.
3. cantate does not believe in papal infallibility.
4. cantate does not believe in the church's indefectability.
6. cantate does not believe Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ.
6. cantate does not obey Christ.
Response:
1. teresa has her head in the sand.
2. teresa is in denial.
3. teresa is proposing a hermeneutic of sentimentality.
I love my Pope. I love the Church which is the Universal Church spread around the world, containing the invisible Church and the visible Church and I believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and if I want to be obey Christ I have to obey the Pope.
Translated:
1. cantate does not love the pope.
2. cantate does not love the papacy.
3. cantate does not believe in papal infallibility.
4. cantate does not believe in the church's indefectability.
6. cantate does not believe Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ.
6. cantate does not obey Christ.
Response:
1. teresa has her head in the sand.
2. teresa is in denial.
3. teresa is proposing a hermeneutic of sentimentality.
Oops, cantate, you don't have to take what I said in such a personal way.
I didn't really mean to make allusion to your states of mind. So there is no need to apply what I wrote about myself on yourself in the way of your Translation.
But I would like to know what I should be, according to you, in denial?
In denial of the crisis of the Church nowadays? Not at all. I see things I dislike, I see misuses, I am angry at times and I see the necessity to turn the tide back to the Catholic Tradition.
But every time I see also lay and priests give testimonies to their faith: under dictatorships, in time of suppression, and many of them also of the NO, I see very good parish priests and I have enough hope in Our Holy Mother Church.
Every time I get angry I remind myself of the passage of the Gospel where the apostles got fearsome in the boat as the storm came and Jesus was asleep. Don't lose hope in Him.
And dear cantate, to be sure that nobody misunderstands what I wrote above:
I choose to endure what went wrong in the Church, if the Church is the body of Christ and I am a part of this Mystical Body, and if this Body suffers because of the misuses of some modernists, I can do nothing but endure the sufferings, and contribute the little I can do to make the Body of Christ to become healthy again.
That is what I meant to say.
And I assert again that it is only my personal way of being a lay woman.
Perhaps you know better what one should do in time of crisis, and perhaps you are right in some points. But I think you would also allow me to explain myself.
In denial of the crisis of the Church nowadays? Not at all. I see things I dislike, I see misuses, I am angry at times and I see the necessity to turn the tide back to the Catholic Tradition.
A. Do you not see the heresy and apostasy that has essentially taken out the hierarchy, dear teresa? What you have qualified subjectively as "things I dislike" are objective and manifest sins against the Catholic Faith, which all faithful Catholics must combat, unto blood if necessary. The words used to describe these horrible realities are integrally important. To refuse to use the correct terminology is an indication of denial. It is also an indication that you are arguing from passion, rather than from rationality.
B. Do you not believe that the revolution in the Church should be militantly, vociferously, and vehemently opposed? Is not this the way to turn back the tide? How will we overcome our enemies if we do not engage them? They will not go away on their own volition. They will only go away when they are militantly contradicted. And it's not merely permissible that we do this. It's an obligation on our part.
C. If the pope is promoting the revolution, by word or deed, does this not need to be contradicted, in order to remain faithful to Christ? The Church is not identical to the Pope. Do you hold this? Do you hold for the proposition that the Pope can never be contradicted by his inferiors? If you do then you are not in line with Tradition. The very first Council of the Church, held at Jerusalem, evidenced the rule when St. Paul resisted Peter to his face. We are not automatons. We all have free will. We must use our free will, guided by a well-formed intellect, to defend the Faith, even against Popes infatuated with novelties. We abide in history, teresa, not in a subjective fantasy.
I choose to endure what went wrong in the Church, if the Church is the body of Christ and I am a part of this Mystical Body, and if this Body suffers because of the misuses of some modernists, I can do nothing but endure the sufferings, and contribute the little I can do to make the Body of Christ to become healthy again.
Endurance, dear lady, is a very high virtue, and it plays a definitive part in our sanctification in these trying times; but endurance must never replace militancy, and it must never justify cowardice and complacency.
I know not how old you are; and I know not what took place at your Confirmation. I am 48, and was confirmed a la the novus ordo. Some six or so years ago I presented myself to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, to be conditionally Confirmed in the Catholic Rite of Confirmation. I received a brisk slap on the cheek, which consummated the preparation I made. I prepared myself to be a soldier of Christ, a member of the Church Militant, ready to shed my blood in defense of the Faith, if called upon by God to give that kind of witness.
And even if that witness is not required of me, I am still under the seal of the Holy Ghost, by which I must fight God's enemies and Our Lady's enemies with all of the ability and talent and energy I can muster. This is fidelity to the Faith of our Fathers, and fidelity to Christ.
Every Christian soldier has been put on notice by God that we are at war, apocalyptic war. The enemy is both within and without. He who is not with Me is against Me. Make sure, dear lady, that your endurance does not replace your militancy. Pick up your Cross and follow the Savior, Whose Sacred Heart was pierced first by the necessity of having to face off to and contradict the High Priest of the Old Religion.
"I abjure Thee by the living God." The High Priest commanded Jesus to give witness of Himself, in contradiction of the High Priest's novelties. In obedience to that High Priest's authority, the Lord gave answer, but it was not the answer that pleased the heretic. The Lord Jesus Christ, Who appeared so meek and so longsuffering - and indeed He was those things - is the fiercest Warrior that will ever exist. Those virtues were put in the service of war - war against the devil and war against sin.
Nothing could stop the Lord's Mouth from uttering the Truth. And, in imitation of so great a Captain, nothing should stop our mouths either.
As for the prelates who contradict the faith, I think it's time for them to go. I see Pope Benedict replacing them one after the other with more orthodox ones, the most recently example is the new Archbishop of Brussels.
And as for the others (priests, theologians at Universities, nuns, parish priests) who contradict the faith or lead a life contrary to the Gospel, I hope they will see their mistake and repent.
But you see, I am a woman, so if you choose to be a soldier, I, accordingly to my gender, try to be a nurse. Hope we will both do our job for the Lord properly.
As for the prelates who contradict the faith, I think it's time for them to go. I see Pope Benedict replacing them one after the other with more orthodox ones, the most recently example is the new Archbishop of Brussels.
And as for the others (priests, theologians at Universities, nuns, parish priests) who contradict the faith or lead a life contrary to the Gospel, I hope they will see their mistake and repent.
But you see, I am a woman, so if you choose to be a soldier, I, accordingly to my gender, try to be a nurse. Hope we will both do our job for the Lord properly.
I'm a woman too, and probably too much like a man for my own good! God bless you lady!
but His Excellency said himself: Gratia non tollit naturam.
So the Catholic Faith is not contrary to human reason, instead, our human reason is a kind of imago Dei, like St. Augustine said once, one part of the similitudo of the Trinitatis Dei in our mind and heart.
So the Catholic Faith is the completion of the human reason.
I can't see where the Holy Father should be wrong.
Teresa,
I agree that the Catholic Faith is the completion of human reason. I do not agree that Benedict XVI is correct in his view of Faith and Reason, and more importantly in his practical application of his view.
It is hard to read Ratzingers works and see a harmony between Faith and Reason. Bishop Tissier is right that BXVI uses modernism in his theology.
We cannot believe in the old way and think/teach in this new way. If you read the acts of the magesterium, you must reject all attempts to reconcile modernism to Catholic thought. And Bishop Williamson is right, as any thinking person would be, that "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 5" are irreconcilable statments.
I read his "An Introduction to Christianity", "The Spirit of the Liturgy", "The Salt of the Earth" and of course his encyclicals, I have a glance into his doctoral thesis on St. Augustine and his book on Bonaventure.
I will read his "Jesus of Nazareth" as soon as I get time and I will, if I get enough spare time, read all of his works.
He is a great theologian, a lovely man, and I have every reason to love him.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. . . 
