Posted on 05/14/2004 2:13:48 PM PDT by gbcdoj
Whatever happened to "Roma locuta; causa finita"?
I haven't been able to find the actual text of the condemnation. But it was a Papal Bull (source, see note 50), hence addressed to the whole Church. This fulfills the "pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority". Condemnations for heresy constitute a definition in a matter of faith, therefore it was ex cathedra.
This is starting to get silly. Before you know it, everybody and everything will be infallible. This makes a mockery of the faith in general.
In any case, no magisterial doctrine, certainly no papal bull, is de fide UNLESS it has been the constant teaching of the Church--and THAT certainly wasn't. There have been papal bulls on all sorts of stuff--much of it wrong.
The Church of the City of Rome is the Roman Catholic (as in universal) Church; and, as Christ promised, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the City of Rome is not a local church, confined to the Vatican State or Rome's city limits.
"Roma locuta; causa finita"?
Another fond saying that once was true, but is no longer because of Rome's own doubtful faith. It was a phrase aptly coined by a saint but never was any sort of formal doctrine. Rome is a circumlocution, of course, for the Pontiff himself--the way the White House is a circumlocution for the President. But it can also mean the Vatican bureaucracy--which means it's a pretty vague assertion. In fact, just because Rome speaks, the argument is far from ended. Sometimes it goes on for centuries.
Land of the Irish has it right--the "Church of the City of Rome" is the Universal Church--the Catholic Church. So is the Church of ultima ratio or of gbcdoj. But this is not the same thing as saying the LOCAL CHURCH of Rome is somehow infallible and indefectible.
The relator at Vatican I stated "thousands" of ex cathedra statements had already been issued from the Apostolic See.
In any case, no magisterial doctrine, certainly no papal bull, is de fide UNLESS it has been the constant teaching of the Church--and THAT certainly wasn't.
Any definition in a matter of faith or morals addressed to the entire Church is infallible.
That's a rather tendentious line of argument. It's clear Msgr. Fenton, who had access to the entire Bull, didn't understand it that way, and furthermore "the Church of the City of Rome" in its most obvious sense refers to the Church of the City of Rome.
So Venice has a different Church than Rome's, and Genoa has it's own Church? Raleigh, N.C. has a diffent Church than Charlotte's. Tell me, please, what do you think "catholic" means?
12. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches. (Bl. Pius IX, Profession of Faith at the First Vatican Council)Bl. Pius IX thought that there was more than one Church.
The distinction must be made between the particular Church, such as the church of the city of Rome, and the universal Catholic Church, which is identical with the Mystical Body of Christ. See the CDF Letter on "Some Aspects of the Church Understood As Communion" §7-10.
What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]
Neither of your past two posts refute my point. The underground Catholic church in China is just as "Roman" Catholic, if not more so, than Walter Kardinal Kasper. The Archdiocese of Campos, Brazil is just as "Roman" Catholic, if not more so, than Mahoney's hellhole in Los Angeles.
I'll repeat myself, the Roman Catholic Church is not confined to the physical boundaries of the Vatican state.
So when was this thing on the local church of Rome defined? You're talking through your hat again. Some of you think every papal hiccup is de fide. Not so. But the reason you do this is to elevate the pontiff to a religion in himself. He isn't the substance of our faith, nor has he some pipeline to the Holy Spirit. He is a man who sometimes makes mistakes except under very restricted circumstances--the latter times being extremely rare.
Also, this is the same person who was oddly asking for everyone's real-life name the other day for the sake of being honest and upfront.
An ex cathedra definition is an explicit and final doctrinal judgment given by the Pope, relating to faith or morals, in such sort that the faithful may be certain that the doctrine is judged by the Pope to belong to revelation, or to have with revelation a connection that is certain; and expressed in such a way that the obligation is made clear to all of giving full interior assent to the doctrine defined, or to the rejection of propositions condemned as directly or indirectly counter to Catholic faith. (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, "Infaillibilité du Pape")
Theologians, for instance, recognize as ex cathedra Pope Innocent X's condemnations of certain Jansenist heresies,[Denzinger 1092-1096 (DS 2001-2006).] although the word "define" never appears: after the heretical propositions, the Pope appended (with no pomp and less ceremony) a simple five-word thunderbolt: Declarata et damnata uti haeretica ("Declared and condemned as heretical"). (Fr. Brian Harrison O.S., "The Ex Cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae")
But the reason you do this is to elevate the pontiff to a religion in himself.
The condemnation is by Pope Sixtus IV, a "traditional" Pope, not John Paul II.
except under very restricted circumstances--the latter times being extremely rare.
BUT SOME WILL PERSIST AND SAY: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind - of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, THIS PROPOSAL SIMPLY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which proscribes the form to be observed in such judgments? (Relatio on Infallibility of Bp. Gasser at Vatican I)
McClave: I also find this multiple personality thing confusing - wouldn't it be better to sign up a different name for each user?
Viva Christo Rey: I'm still waiting for the retraction, now that your ridiculous list of "heresies" has been completely discredited. Since all the heresies didn't really exist, clearly the Pope is still Pope and you should submit to him.
You are starting to get boring with these pedantic citations. Anybody can selectively quote obscure references to make a point--there are two thousand years of theological opinions to choose from. The bottom line is that you want to make a god of a man--and act as if the Roman Pontiff had some direct communication with God Almighty Himself on a day-to-day basis. He has not any such communication. He prays as others do and makes his human judgments, nothing more for the most part. He is as vulnerable to sin and error as the next person--unless he defines something clearly and unambiguously ex cathedra and infallibly. This pontiff has never done so--and most others don't do so very often. One of the theological dangers Catholics are prone to is to exaggerate the powers of the papacy to the extent that they make him their religion. This is nonsense--and, as far as I'm concerned, a form of idol-worship.
A condemnation by the Roman Pontiff as "manifest heresy" is far from a mere opinion.
The bottom line is that you want to make a god of a man--and act as if the Roman Pontiff had some direct communication with God Almighty Himself on a day-to-day basis.
No, I want to believe that "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine" (Pastor aeternus) and that "we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth...Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth." (Mystici Corporis Christi)
He is as vulnerable to sin and error as the next person
It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith. (St. Robert Bellarmine, de Romano Pontifice, Book 4, Ch. 6)
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching ... For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. (CDF, Instruction Donum Veritatis)
This pontiff has never done so--and most others don't do so very often.
"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" was ex cathedra. Your limited understanding of infallibility is far different from that of the First Vatican Council.
This is nonsense--and, as far as I'm concerned, a form of idol-worship.
Believing that the Pope is not a heretic and that the universal Mass of the Church is a valid, licit, and Catholic rite is now "idol worship".
Again it must be noted that we have gotten a bit off track. It has been shown that it was the teaching of Pope Sixtus IV that the belief "the local Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is a "manifest heresy". Also it has been shown that condemnations by the Pope for heresy constitute a definition. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that St. Cyprian and St. Bellarmine also considered the Roman local Church infallible, as did Cardinal Hosius and John Driedo. Other writers who affirm this are noted in the OP. Therefore we must consider as de fide that "the local Church of the city of Rome cannot fall into error" and hold with St. Cyprian that Rome is the place "to where faithlessness is not able to have any access". Sedevacantism is thereby disproved, for it affirms that "the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit" have in fact fallen away from the faith.
Yes--but this is precisely what the present Pontiff does not do. By focusing on novelties, he beclouds the faith and is instrumental in its destruction. There was never a guarantee this could not happen under a bad pope. In fact, it is happening--the evidence is everywhere. It is not just that the hierarchy is corrupt, but it is faithless as well. You refuse to believe this. But it is inarguable.
Again, you post quotes from Bellarmine and others as if this proved something. For instance, you have Bellarmine stating that it is all right to believe the pontiff cannot err. Why point this out since this he argues only that one may piously hold this if one wishes? Nowhere does he state the notion is true--only that it is "probable" and "pious"--and no doubt seemed so back then. But pious people believe a lot of nonsense all the time--and this would be one of those excesses of belief that make genuine healthy criticism by realistic Catholics extremely difficult. How can there ever be reform if every criticism is greeted with cries of pious outrage and horror? Reform becomes a thousand times harder when criticism seems shocking and disillusioning because to the ignorant trained to worship the pope, it indicates he is only a man and not a god? This is why I state you may cite these pious dictums to your heart's content--they prove nothing. To the ears of traditionalists who have heard them used over and over as a means for cover-ups of Vatican idiocies and abominations rather than as a means for protecting the faith, they are hardly convincing.
As for Sixtus' dictum that the local Church of Rome is infallible--he was all too fallible when he stated that. It only proves popes can make mistakes--and make them often. There is nothing in Sacred Scripture nor in Tradition which obliges any Catholic to hold such an extreme position. Besides, the proof that it is wrong is the state of the local Church of Rome today.
Do you have a definitive source for this statement? I have heard this bandied about, but I have never seen conclusive documentation. I've strongly wondered whether this were really true, and you state it rather categorically, as if you're certain of the facts.
Does this also apply to Pope Paul VI and/or John Paul I?
Recently I had this same debate via email with a traditional apologist, and he said that we need to distinguish between the realm of fact and the realm of law. For example, O.J. Simpson was found "Not Guilty" by a jury, but that doesn't mean that he didn't actually kill Nicole Simpson.
This person says that in the same way, whether or not there is any legal means to conclude that the Pope has deviated into heresy, there is still the factual reality. And the realm of factual reality takes precedence of the realm of law.
So we would be required by conscience to withdraw submission from a heretical pope even if there were no legal authority capable of officially deposing him from his seat. I'm not sure if I found his argument entirely convincing, but neither could it be dismissed easily. And at the very least, it makes a strong argument for the position contra your statement regarding what is the crucial question here.
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.