Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Popes are made sinless in virtue of their office.
Part of the problem is the unwillingness on the part of many to admit the plain fact that Popes aren't made sinless by virtue of their office. Usually the question is answered with a dodge, "Jesus Christ founded his Church on the Rock..." as if that is supposed to answer the question.
"So, that would leave open the possibility of a Pope not maintaining the rule of faith in his person."
I disagree and I refer you to Bellarmine's judgment about the impossibility of a heretical pope.
Wait a minute, "not maintaining the rule of faith" is not necessarily equivalent to being a heretic. How bad can a Pope be and still not be a heretic? I think the answers to questions like this are what will be needed to move the conversation concerning today's controversies forward.
In any case it is irrelevant since what we are discussing here is whether it could happen that the Roman Church cease to be Catholic,
Again, let's narrow this, by "Roman Church" what is it specifically we are talking about? Political and moral corruption in the Apostolic Palace? We both know that has existed over the centuries.
not whether the Pope could fall from his see, as would happen if he became a heretic.
I don't believe the Holy See has ever ruled definitively on the matter. Bellarmine's opinion is speculative. But he also envisaged a legitimate Pope having to be resisted. But the question I'm asking is how bad can a Pope be as a leader of the Church? I'm not talking sede, I'm asking what is the absolute worst thing or things a Pope can do and still retain the Chair? As I stated before, once we find that untouchable place, everywhere before that point is possible.
"For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor".
Looks like a sufficient guarantee to me that the Catholic religion will never end up having to be based out of Econe.
I don't see an explicit guarantee that a Pope will always "walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel" and I also don't see what the difference may be some day if a Pope needs to flee to Econe vs. Avignon or to another place if necessary. The Roman See is where the bishop of Rome is, even if he is not in Rome.
Of course, many in the SSPX don't see it that way.
Obviously Bishop de Mallerais is not stating that Econe is the Center and that Archbishop LeFebvre invoked the magisterium of the Church as if he was the Holy Father himself. The terms "echoe of tradition" and that LeFebvre is the saviour OF the Magisterium and proof of the Indefectibility of the Church. The comparison with St. Paul at Antioch with St. Peter can't be ignored
"Was he a card-carrying member of the SSPX apologist's task force?"
Not that I know of. Are you? :)
I'm definitely not. Just a Catholic layman. I was just trying to clarify your use of the term SSPX apologist.
"But it's explicitly stated to be a consequence of a saying that "cannot fail of its effect".
Look again:
"And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences."
The statement that "cannot fail of its effect" is "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
"No, the Catholic faith is always the same."
Really? What happened to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Yeah. That's the statement. Its effect is that "in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor".
... since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.
Looks like a pretty clear causal connection to me.
What happened to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
You tell me. I'm not aware of anything having happened to it.
"Not maintaining the rule of faith in his person" certainly sounds like him becoming heretical! But you say I have misunderstood you, so I'll accept that.
How bad can a Pope be and still not be a heretic?
It would seem that a Pope could be quite "bad" without being a heretic, by committing personal sins against courage, justice, prudence, temperance, hope, and charity without committing any sin directly against faith.
Again, let's narrow this, by "Roman Church" what is it specifically we are talking about? Political and moral corruption in the Apostolic Palace?
I am saying that the Roman Church, as a corporate entity of laity and clergy, can never cease to be Catholic; that is, she can never cease to preserve in herself the tradition handed down from the Apostles: "so when the Fathers or the Pontiffs say that the Roman Church cannot err, they want to say; in the Roman Church there will always be a Bishop teaching Catholicly and a people thinking Catholicly." (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 4 c. 4). Therefore the situation can never arise in which it would be necessary to create a sort of shadow-hierarchy to preserve the indefectibility of the Church, as the SSPX claims. "Your conception and your interpretation of these states of necessity are not consistent with faith in the indefectibility of the Church" (Cardinal Hoyos, Letter to Bishop Fellay, April 5, 2002).
Bishop Fellay himself admits:
I am sure that theologians from the beginning of the 20th century would have considered us heretics if they had heard what we are saying, which is not a personal opinion, but merely a description of the current situation. I mean that in the past, theologians would have considered what is actually happening today to be impossible, inconceivable. (Conference, Brussels, June 13, 2005, in Christendom no. 1, Sept-Oct 2005)
"Not maintaining the rule of faith in his person" certainly sounds like him becoming heretical! But you say I have misunderstood you, so I'll accept that.
It's an undeniable fact that St. Peter did not walk uprightly with the gospel at Antioch. That wasn't heresy and he didn't lose his office because of that. So any Pope can commit the same imprudences and maintain his office and be reprehensible. So, the meaning from the Council must include those types of errors.
"How bad can a Pope be and still not be a heretic?"
It would seem that a Pope could be quite "bad" without being a heretic, by committing personal sins against
courage,
Let's say a Pope is undermined by his inferiors when it comes to a discipline of the Church (ie. altar girls) and instead of correcting the issue and making his will known, he does a flip flop on the issue and breaks his promise to Mother Teresa. Other examples might be communion in the hand, Church architecture, or in Liturgy with the priest facing God with the faithful behind him.
justice,
to deprive priests and faithful of the pious traditions of the Church for no legitimate reason. to protect criminals and allow the persecution of the innocent in his Church
prudence,
concerning ecumenism, possibly thinking he's striving towards an unknowable "unity" and instead promotes indifferentism and syncretism.
temperance,
an unhealthy love of performance and theater, an addiction to adulation.
hope,
by relying on secular means towards secular ends instead of spiritual means towards spiritual ends. (the UN or "solidarity" movement)
charity
by allowing those of false religions to be misled into thinking that they are on equal footing with the RCC.
without committing any sin directly against faith.
"Again, let's narrow this, by "Roman Church" what is it specifically we are talking about? Political and moral corruption in the Apostolic Palace?"
I am saying that the Roman Church, as a corporate entity of laity and clergy, can never cease to be Catholic; that is, she can never cease to preserve in herself the tradition handed down from the Apostles: "so when the Fathers or the Pontiffs say that the Roman Church cannot err, they want to say; in the Roman Church there will always be a Bishop teaching Catholicly and a people thinking Catholicly." (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 4 c. 4).
A bishop, not necessarily a Pope (the case of John 22 proves that) and not necessarily in Rome itself. And there will be a group of people thinking in the light of the faith. How small can that group be?
Therefore the situation can never arise in which it would be necessary to create a sort of shadow-hierarchy to preserve the indefectibility of the Church, as the SSPX claims. "Your conception and your interpretation of these states of necessity are not consistent with faith in the indefectibility of the Church" (Cardinal Hoyos, Letter to Bishop Fellay, April 5, 2002).
First the SSPX is not and does not claim to be a "shadow heirarchy". The bishops are as archbishop LeFebvre referred to them as "Sacrament Machines". The original avoidance of having one of the bishops as Superior was to avoid the accusations. The accusations happened anyway, so the policy was discontinued. Second, it doesn't seem that Card. Hoyos was providing a rebuttle that proved his point. And history seems to favor the situation as envisaged by the SSPX as possible.
Bishop Fellay himself admits: I am sure that theologians from the beginning of the 20th century would have considered us heretics if they had heard what we are saying, which is not a personal opinion, but merely a description of the current situation. I mean that in the past, theologians would have considered what is actually happening today to be impossible, inconceivable. (Conference, Brussels, June 13, 2005, in Christendom no. 1, Sept-Oct 2005)
And what did Fellay say right after that? But, just curious; What did you think of Fellay's conference? I thought he laid out his position very well. I've been passing that transcription along to several people.
"Your conception and your interpretation of these states of necessity are not consistent with faith in the indefectibility of the Church"
How can it be possible that this indefectibility of the Church extends to the conduct of every priest and every Bishop?
Clearly, it does not.
Without getting into the specifics of what constitutes material heresy, there are priests NOW who teach that homosexual behavior is not sinful, who knowingly give communion to supporters of abortion and couples cohabiting in illicit relationships, who teach that the miracles performed by Our Lord did not occur, and on and on.
While the Church as the supernatural Body of Christ is indefectible, it is not the case that everyone who claims the mantle of Catholicism conforms in all regards to Catholic dogma.
You are relying on a statement that something "has been" in the past as a guarantee that it can never happen, when it is happening all around you.
Did you click on the Vatican link above and read Saint Pius X on modernists, thoroughly and carefully? A pope and a saint clearly says that you are mistaken in your central thesis. A pope and a saint clearly says that Hoyos was mistaken (although I personally think Hoyos was lying).
Men—priests, bishops, cardinals—are not indefectible. We have no guarantee that they will not attack—have not attacked—the Catholic faith, in an attempt to change it to something more to their (modernist, which is to say leftist) liking.
You take statements that a pope can never fall into heresy as a guarantee that he can't be mistaken; that he can't be politicked into things he doesn't really understand, that he can't be threatened, intimidated, flim-flammed...
There is no guarantee that such men will not attain to great power within the Church, and will not work great harm. There is no guarantee that such enemies of the Church will not teach thus and so, when true Catholic teaching is just the opposite of what they say. There is no guarantee whatsoever of any of those things.
The only guarantee we have is that in the end—which could be thousands or tens of thousands of years from now—Our Lord wins.
The first time this happened the parties to the disagreement were Saints Peter and Paul—and yet you insist that there is a guarantee it will never happen, so when Mahoney institutes buggering boys as a sacrament, we must obey. You use those arguments to insist on obedience to the very modernists that Saint Pius X called "enemies of the Church."
I understand your desire for reliability in Catholic authority. I share it. I hate being told by a priest, "We don't think that's a sin any more," when the Catholic Church held it to be a sin for 19+ centuries.
But I can see the difference between what modernists are teaching now and what the Catholic Church taught for 19+ centuries, and I see no indication of any new Divine Revelations that justify those changes. I can see changes in liturgy which, while not heretical, weaken the power of the liturgy to bind the faithful to the Church—and I can see that such was exactly the objective of those who instituted the changes.
You say Mahoney; I say Aquinas. You say Bernardin; I say Augustine. You say Vat II; I say 19+ centuries of coherent teaching and Tradition.
However, I also say that only time and experience will open your eyes, so this is most likely my last post on this thread.
How can it be possible that this indefectibility of the Church extends to the conduct of every priest and every Bishop?
You appear to have erected some sort of strawman, or you are speaking to someone other than me.
A pope and a saint clearly says that you are mistaken in your central thesis
Quote him, then. My words, followed by his words contradicting them. I've read all of Pascendi and I daresay that I agree with all of it. Whether the SSPX can say the same is another question; "The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favour Modernism ... by criticising scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries" (§48).
You take statements that a pope can never fall into heresy...
As meaning exactly what they mean in their literal and intentional sense.
You say Mahoney; I say Aquinas. You say Bernardin; I say Augustine.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but both Aquinas and Augustine were Catholics. Claiming them for the schism is as absurd as the Donatist appeal to St. Cyprian; "securus iudicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse, qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum" (St. Augustine, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. 3, 4:24).
Claiming them for the schism is as absurd as the Donatist appeal to St. Cyprian;
I'm curious about your reasoning for the use of the term "schism." What is the criteria that makes you determine that there really is a "schism?" Is it data based on objective facts or just the non-sequitur statement of JPII in Ecclesia Dei?
The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favour Modernism either by extolling the Modernists or excusing their culpable conduct, by criticising scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries; and towards those who show a love of novelty in history, archaeology, biblical exegesis, and finally towards those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer to them the profane.
Obviously the SSPX agree with all of Pascendi. The statement immediately following the above quote you provided (and the subsequent paragraph ) describe a situation that proves a conflict in the current situation. You can't show obedience towards those who show a love of novelty in history, archaeology, biblical exegesis...and those who are not preferential towards scholasticism. That covers a majority of the prelates in positions of power and influence. And so, obedience must be understood in the light of scholasticism. (ie. perfect, true and false)
"The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favour Modernism ... by criticising scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries"
Sigh. You just can't get it straight.
That was written before modernism began to issue orders in the name of ecclesiastical authority.
You insist on obedience to enemies of the Church simply because they briefly occupy offices to which they have no right.
The Pope has no right to his office?
You're smarter than that to know that's not what he meant. [sigh] You do better at presenting your argument when you don't use tactics like this.
The pope [and other church men] have no right to attempt to destroy the Church, either purposefully, misguidedly or by neglecting their duties. The pope and bishops are by free will permitted to try. Although they will not be permitted to succeed they can do a heck of a lot of damage in the meantime. We are obligated to resist being spiritual casualties of their efforts.
He said:
You insist on obedience to enemies of the Church simply because they briefly occupy offices to which they have no right.
If he's not talking about the Pope, then who? What "enemies of the Church" have I been insisting on obedience to?
We are obligated to resist being spiritual casualties of their efforts.
Excellent point! One of the consistent defenses that neos (and I'm not talking about gbcdoj, I'm referring to the overly emotional Envoy/Cath Answers/ EWTN crowd) fall back on when confronted with the realities of the current crisis is : "Well, the Church is indefectible and Christ is the winner in the end." As if they think that is a guarantee of their personal salvation.
If he's not talking about the Pope, then who?
Local Ordinaries?
What "enemies of the Church" have I been insisting on obedience to?
What do you think of the issue of obedience to a local ordinary who is overtly engaging in policies that hurt the Church (eg. Mahoney coming to the conclusion that no liturgical abuse takes place in L.A. so JPII's last encyclical does not apply) ? Other examples would be prelates who support unCatholic positions and use their office to promote their socio-political agendas.
"The Pope has no right to his office?"
I knew I should have let it drop.
You know full well that's not what I meant.
To be specific, what I meant was that men like Law, Bernardin, and Mahoney have forfeited any moral right they had to their offices through their faithless conduct.
And that's without even getting into the issue of men who entered the priesthood with the intent of damaging the Church.
Perhaps you should try saying what you mean. You apparently assume that I can read your thoughts; I can only read what you write. You claimed that I was insisting on obedience to "enemies of the Church", in response to my quotation of Pascendi insisting on obedience to the Holy Father. You now list as some of them "Law, Bernardin, and Mahoney". Strange. Where have I been telling you to be obedient to them?
PS: Cardinal Law resigned and Bernardin is dead. Who exactly are supposed to be their subjects again?
Obviously the clergy and faithful there should follow the directives of higher authority rather than the Cardinal, if they ever did contradict.
(1) The word of the Pope in judgment, which by itself is sufficient.
This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, §9)
(2) The argument used by the Pope, which is quite clear and compelling.
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. ("Ecclesia Dei", §2)
(3) The testimony of traditional Catholic belief on the matter; to give just two examples:
For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. (Pius VI, Charitas, §10)
After the Ascension St. Peter and his successors take the place of Christ as visible head of the Apostolic body, with full authority to carry out His will: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven."6 Consequently the Roman Pontiff, as sucessor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic Body, i. e., he alone has authority to constitute bishops, since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body.The very nature of episcopal office and of the primacy proves that the Roman Pontiff has exclusive authority to constitute bishops for every part of the Church. Bishops are shepherds for portions of the flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one becomes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy,-the preservation of unity,-could not be realized if the bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to her supreme pastor.
The authority of the Roman Pontiff to constitute bishops for all parts of the Church may be exercised directly by personal appointments, or indirectly by delegating others ...
6 Matt. xvi, 19. (E. Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, St. Louis: Herder, 1927. p. 408-9)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.