Posted on 05/14/2004 2:13:48 PM PDT by gbcdoj
This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]
I have posted instead on this thread, Apostolic Constitutions of Holy Roman Pontiffs, and from canonized Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church learned works on this subject, including the original Latin, Italian and French texts, and their exact source and location.
You are correct that the Church cannot err. Your conclusion is that the novus is therefore correct. Wrong. The correct answer is that the novus ordo missae, and those who promulgated it, are in now way part of the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church - rather they are of satan, as are their works.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was one of the most eminent theologians of 20th Century America. He was trained at the Angelicum in Rome and did his doctoral dissertation under the revered theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. From 1944 to 1963, he was editor of the theological journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review. He also defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation," and upheld the traditional Papal Teaching on the Confessional State.
Every single one of the articles they post are obsessively geared toward the trad/Rome flamewars that most around here have put aside as of late in the name of harmony.
Note how famliar they seem with this forum and posting here and how such doesn't coincide with their joined date.
They're deceptive trolls and/or re-treads banees and should be regarded as such. One even admitted to "sharing a desk at work" with banned poster Steven Hand after being put on the spot.
They think they're clever but they're not. If the mods can't or won't deal with them, let them be known for what they are.
I have no relation, at all, with "McClave". I have never met him, Stephen Hand, or any of the writers of the site "Traditional catholic reflections" nor corresponded with any of them in any way, except perhaps on this board. This is my only account I have ever had on this forum, and as for the supposed familiarity - this is accounted for by the fact that I registered on Jan 1 and posted first on March 14 - about the "separation of church and state" (supporting the position of Bl. Pius IX) and not about anything to do with the Society or any other traditionalist group.
Viva Christo Rey is not a SSPXer - he is a sedevacantist. At the very least a material schismatic according to the Society (cf. Sedevacantism), which believes that the Pope is actually a Pope and expelled the sedevacantist "Society of St. Pius V" members. Surely you have nothing against attempting to assist a schismatic out of his schism, or defending Blessed John XXIII from the totally unwarranted charge of contumacious heresy!
It is from a 1950 article by Msgr. Joseph Fenton (as is clearly stated in the OP), conservative and arch-enemy of Fr. John Courtney-Murray and his theses on religious liberty. He served with Cardinal Ottaviani on the preparatory commission for Vatican II which produced the document on "Religious Tolerance" rejected by the Council. As CatherineSiena posted:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was one of the most eminent theologians of 20th Century America. He was trained at the Angelicum in Rome and did his doctoral dissertation under the revered theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. From 1944 to 1963, he was editor of the theological journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review. He also defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation," and upheld the traditional Papal Teaching on the Confessional State.
The fact that you don't know who he is indicates that you have not even read Michael Davies' book on religious liberty - yet you have the audacity to judge the Supreme Pontiff a heretic!
You are correct that the Church cannot err. Your conclusion is that the novus is therefore correct. Wrong. The correct answer is that the novus ordo missae, and those who promulgated it, are in now way part of the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church - rather they are of satan, as are their works.
You'd do better if you read the article. It has an interesting part which states the proposition "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" was condemned as manifest heresy by Pope Sixtus IV. This thesis is exactly the error of Luther:
For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world -- as you are not ignorant -- than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness...
And it is exactly the thesis you hold! But as is pointed out - the Roman Church is indefectible and infallible. This means the diocese of Rome will persevere until the end of time. And this is what proves the error of the sedevacantist heresy - it holds that the local Church of Rome has fallen into error - for as Pius XII points out in Mediator Dei: "let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief" (§48) - and ceased to be part of "the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church".
Is there any way to get ahold of old copies of the American Ecclesiastical Review? The individual articles I've read from it are outstanding (including contributions by Ottaviani) and there are few writings you can find these days that are comparable in breadth and scope (the possible exception being John McCarthy and Brian Harrison's work for the Roman Theological Forum).
It may be a worthwhile project for someone to look into what it would take to transfer the material to the Internet. At a time where Catholic Universities have stripped the title "theologian" of any useful meaning, the wisdom of dedicated Catholic theologians of a generation past are welcome and necessary.
You could try emailing the Catholic Culture staff - they must have gotten copyright permission and the articles from someone. CUA Press might still have old copies. I agree, the articles in the journal which have been put online are brilliant.
I did find this: "Vols. 16-169 (last publ.). 1897-1975. Bound" for $2500. Bit expensive...it gives an email to ask for quotes on individual issues though.
It may be a worthwhile project for someone to look into what it would take to transfer the material to the Internet.
Yep.
This site looked promising until I realized it was the old PetersNet site. I still find their rating system quite amusing, particularly its combination of dire "fidelity" warnings according to a strange set of standards (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=114 or http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=997) with critiques of site usability and user interface (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=863). They also put a large amount of emphasis on what other sites a site they review links to (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=334).
Does anyone else have an opinion on this rating system?
I suppose they'd rate Alfons Cardinal Stickler as having a poor fidelity as well, for writing "we can say the theological attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass corresponds with the theological incorrectness of the Vatican [II] Mass".
Now, hows' that for humor?
Huh? On the defense now?
I thought we were defending the Pope!
Is this an SSPX-Sede-Gruner-Feeneyite-Whatever private club?
Did we come in the wrong door?
I thought this was a "Religion" section? Show us (orthodox, Roman, Catholics) where we are allowed to post as Freepers and we'll stay there since you can't follow an argument without obsessively bringing up Steven Hand or whomever the heck freaks you out....
Free speech is free speech. Let it go.
All Remnant folks...
What a cocktail! Maybe The Remnant is cover for an Acid trip----beyond contradiction?
OK then, admit you're a troll or Steven Hand himself and I'll stop the "namby pamby". Until then I'll consider you a dishonest poster with an agenda. Are you writing from the computer you admittedly share with him tonight?
BTW, when you say "we're" who are you referring to? Those who came to FR long after I did and were banned a long time ago? If so I have no desire whatsoever to "discuss theology" with you.
Me hat's off you ya, sir. Someone on Free Republic actually believes in free speech! Whatta ya know?
There's hope here yet.
Me hat's off to you ya, sir. Someone on Free Republic actually believes in free speech! Whatta ya know?
There's hope here yet.
It's like a syndrome. For some reason there are people who feel the need to judge, attack, correct, hound and badger traditionalist Catholics of all stripes. It doesn't come across as heartfelt concern for a brother's soul either, it comes across as neurotic and mean spirited at times.
Do yourself and everyone else a favor and worry about the homos, power mongers, apostates, heretics, clowns and whatever else. Once we take care of them we can worry about those who worship Jesus devoutly. Even if they may not be doing it correctly in your view.
(Posing like Reagan) There you go again! I'm only an elf (but a heterosexual one!) Why are you so obsessed?
Quotheth, he, again: Those who came to FR long after I did and were banned a long time ago? If so I have no desire whatsoever to "discuss theology" with you.
So much for free speech. You want to excommunicate, excommunicate...cast into the outer darkness... It must be a papal fantasy, born of too much private judgement and heaping doses of The Angelus Magazine.
Watch out or you'll be donning the robes and mitre, don't ya know? You won't be the first either...
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.