The Local Church of Rome

Catholic Culture ^ | June 1950 | Joseph Clifford Fenton

[AAABEST]

I notice that you won't deny that you're him. At least there's hope that you're truly Catholic and won't lie directly to my face. It's a step in the right direction anyway.

[gbcdoj]

You may be a nice person but so far you seem obsessed with trads. We have enough of those around and your posts have not been limited to sedevacantists.

Well, I'm not 'obsessed with trads' - see here for example, where I was discussing the filioque and schism with an Eastern Orthodox poster. Most of my "anti-traditional" posts were in response to stuff like this: "It is, in fact, the Lutheran worship service adapted for Catholics by a committee of humanists. Its theology is Protestant, not Catholic, and it violates strictures established by the Council of Trent. It is therefore an abomination and a danger to the faith." and "The current crop of blighters were all formal heretics before being putatively elected and hence never did, or could ever, occupy the papal throne or possess the Keys of Peter."

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.

On the subject of "mean spirited", my current discussion with Viva Christo Rey started out with this post of his:

The author, who decries the well-meaning laity obsessing over triviliaties while the Church burns, is guilty of the same, because it is not the Roman Catholic Church, but a false edifice, constructed of tarpaper, by apostates who have usurped titles alone, and have thus led the untutored faithful from the true Body of Christ under the whip of "obedience", obedience to error, lies, untruth, scheming, heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege and apostasy.

The only real solution is to call error, error, lies, lies, apostasy, apostasy, and that which stinks of satan, is of satan and inseparable from it.

And then to return to what the Church has taught, always, in all places and by all, in other words the normal state of affairs before hell opened and spewed forth "Vatican 2", remain in communion with those who hold the true Faith, and separate oneself and flee from those spewing forth heresy, especially from those heretics who purport to possess authority

assaulting what even the Society recognizes as the One Church of Christ as a "false edifice". St. Pius V would have had a man burned at the stake for what is written above. This fulfills everything laid down by St. Thomas in the Summa for "schismatics properly so called" (ST II-II q. 39 a. 1).

It's clear Viva Christo Rey simply doesn't understand Catholic theology well enough. For instance, he asserted on the other thread that religious liberty is a heresy - except it isn't. Even the most authoritative condemnation of religious liberty, by Bl. Pius IX in Quanta Cura, was only infallible but not dogmatic. He, after repeated requests, still hasn't produced a pertinacious heresy of Bl. John XXIII or Paul VI, even after slandering them as "formal heretics". Not to mention the fact "no one who is not a Catholic bishop may conclude definitively that a Pope is a notorious heretic" (Fr. Harrison O.S., cf. Wernz-Vidal 1942, vol. II, p. 518)

[Maximilian]

gbcdoj is one of the n00bs that enjoys coming in here as of late to constantly stir the pot, bait and harass traditional Catholics and those who worship in Society chapels.

I have not gotten that impression. I am impressed with the quality of the material that gbcdoj is posting. While I don't agree with him, it would be unfair to mis-characterize his participation. In contrast, the other person you mention has done little except throw around gratuitous insults. But while gbcdoj's position may be similar to that other person, his style is night and day. And "style" consists of things like courtesy and charity and knowledgeableness, which it makes it an important consideration.

[Maximilian]

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

John Vennari has been re-printing quite a bit of material from American Ecclesiastical Review in Catholic Family News. I believe that he is travelling to his local seminary library and transcribing old copies by hand.

[Maximilian]

Me hat's off you ya, sir. Someone on Free Republic actually believes in free speech! Whatta ya know?

I, on the other hand, agree with Pope Pius IX:

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

Quanta Cura "Condemning Certain Errors" 1864

[McClave]

Cheer up good man.

[McClave]

I, on the other hand, agree with Pope Pius IX:

Yes, yes, the Catholic Churuch condemns all free speech but yours. How simple. Thomas Aquinas would be surprised at the way you construe Pius IX!

Why not start a "Totalitarian Republic" website for yourSelf and call yourselves Grimreepers? It would suit your principles of (private) interpretation. You and AAA WORST (that other emblem of self-disclosure who wishes he were a private EYE!)

You pronounce this thread quite dead.

[McClave]

....I am impressed with the quality of the material that gbcdoj is posting

Don't fall for it, gbcdoj. Calculated Max flattery. He's notorious for it.

[Maximilian]

Calculated Max flattery. He's notorious for it.

Well it's nice to know that I'm notorious for something.

[gbcdoj]

FR is a private forum, and hence there is no "free speech" here. On the other hand, Leo XIII's teaching on the matter deserves to be made known:

In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known. (Libertas)

McClave, your posts on this thread aren't really helping you advance your cause at all...

[gbcdoj]

I am impressed with the quality of the material that gbcdoj is posting...etc.

Thank you, Maximilian. I believe I can say the same for you.

[Maximilian]

In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone

Leading off with "however" is a dead giveaway that Leo XII was not coming out in favor of free speech as your little snippet implied. Here is the rest of the paragraph:

23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which -- as We have before said and must again and again repeat -- it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.

The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint.

Clearly Pope Leo XIII was not quite ready to join the ACLU.

[gbcdoj]

Nope, not the ACLU for Leo XIII. But on questions where neither divine Revelation nor the Church of Christ have pronounced sentence, free discussion may be given.

[McClave]

Cause? No cause to advance here, we fear (there's really lots of us who are with McClave here you know). The only cause that hitherto succeeds here is anti-Catholicism, anti-"free"speech. Private interpretation----of what Catholicism is.

We'll watch gbcdoj convert Max and AAA to Vatican II as interprted by John Paul II and the magisterium.

You see, these good clowns talk about humor, but reject it at every turn. The rather employ mockery against the Pope and, of course, against those who defend him.

Really, outside this little forum this place is known as a nuthouse. We try to persuade people to give these time, and allow the process...

That is charity because it Hopes against seeming futility. When one prefers private interpretation to the magisterium one is a essentially Protestant, and Protestants always think they are the true faith.

So we keep on in Hope and humor. Ian and your friends

[McClave]

Max and gbcdo (Now there's a clear name, gbcdo!):

Ever has it been that flattery succeeds to destroy souls where persecution fails. PS Someone send me a private email telling me who all these guys really are, since they are so inquisitive about I, McClave, and company.

[McClave]

FR is a private forum, and hence there is no "free speech" here.

A very frightened forum. But, as you say it is private with no free speech here, you are (in calling this "Free" Republic) anti-constitutional (incapable of employing its principles even in this nutty tiny micro-forum) -----and thus hypocrisy itself.

Came in the wrong door, we, I guess. Thought free speech was allowed within catholic dogmatic parameters in a place called "Free" Republic. Thatnks for the correction. Everything makes sense now. You not only are Luther, but Pol Pott if you had power.

Bye.

[Viva Christo Rey]

Since you quoted Harrison alledgedly quoting Wernz-Vidal, try this on for size:

Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII

De Summo Pontifice
translated by J.S. Daly

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]

453.        By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.


A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".


The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.


Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.


Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...


Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

[Viva Christo Rey]

Furthermore:

FRANCIS XAVIER WERNZ, S.J. (1842-1914) SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE JESUITS & RECTOR OF THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY AT ROME AND FRANCOIS D'ASISE VIDAL Y BARRAQUER (1868-1943) CARDINAL

Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church. (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian University, 1937], Vol. VII, p.398

[Viva Christo Rey]

DOM PROSPER LOUIS PASCAL GUERANGER, O.S.B. (1805-1875)

"When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to defend itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the treasure of revelation, there are certain points that every Christian necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend." (L'anne liturgique - Le temps de la septuagesime, 1932)

[Viva Christo Rey]

FR. ADRIAN FORTESCUE (1874-1923)

"The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament; he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. He has no fresh inspiration nor revelation. "His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy....

(The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 27-28)