Posted on 07/07/2004 7:16:03 AM PDT by ultima ratio
I haven't followed your debate on the Lefebvre consecrations very closely, but ultimately the issue comes down to this: Was Lefebvre paranoid, imprudent, disloyal, etc. to doubt the word of the Vatican that they would approve an episcopal consecration in the future.
One could validly take either side of that argument, but let me offer this bit of evidence regarding trusting the Vatican's word about future episcopal consecrations: It has been 16 years now, and where is the bishop for the FSSP? According to the Vatican view, the Fraternity IS the SSPX, the loyal SSPX who stayed with the "barque of Peter," the ones who continued the SSPX defense of tradition but within the structure of the Church. So where is their bishop? Haven't they been waiting all these years? Don't they have a seminary in the US (in addition to one in Europe) with more seminarians than a dozen US dioceses combined? Why don't they have a bishop to ordain those seminarians? Aren't they opening parishes, saying the Latin Mass around the world, including in Africa, and defending the traditional Catholic faith in a time of crisis when so many bishops and dioceses are in open apostasy? So why don't they have a bishop to lead them in these activities? When new auxiliary bishops are appointed every week to help destroy the faith in apostate dioceses, why has the Fraternity of St. Peter had to wait 16 years with no end in sight?
You wrote in #211:
In other words, only papal utterances which guard Tradition have divine protection, novelties do not.
This is a tautology. Any statement of error obviously is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Vatican I does not make such banal statements. Rather, it says that the Holy Spirit assists the Holy Father precisely so that this is averted. Furthermore, implcit in your exegesis is the idea that sometimes the Holy Spirit assists the Holy Father and sometimes He doesn't and we i.e. you, decide when that is. Again, Protestantism.
In your latest post, you now write:
1. The protection of the Holy Spirit wasn't granted so that popes might go off on tangents proclaiming new doctrines.
Exactly. Writing this in the positive mood, it was granted to prevent this. And The Holy Spirit does. Or does He? Sometimes? Only when you say so?
2. His revelation is granted only to GUARD what has been handed-down to us from the apostles and the deposit of faith.
This is true. But why the word "only"? Omit it. The sentence makes perfect sense without it.
It seems that it's not only Vatican II documents that give you trouble. Vatican I also seems a little beyond you.
Wrong. On several fronts. First of all F. A. Sullivan is speculating at best. Secondly the divine assistance would not be for the papal error, but for those individuals who might later correct the error. So it's not papal errors which are assisted, but those in the Church who would later clean up the papal messes.
It seems to be possible that a Pope, teaching modo ordinario, might propose a judgment that would have to be corrected afterward, without the whole Church being drawn into error thereby. In such a case, the divine assistance would be enough to assure that the error would be corrected before it was generally accepted by the Church and to prevent the erroneous teaching from becoming the traditional teaching of the Holy See. (F.A. Sullivan, De Ecclesia, I: Quaestiones Theologiae Fundamentalis, Rome: 1963, p. 350)Precisely. And this is exactly what we need to work on with our whole heart and soul for the next generation -- to see to it that the errors of the current pontificate do not become "traditional teaching." We cannot allow the idea that Jews do not need to convert to Christ to become a "traditional teaching." We cannot allow the idea that wives needn't submit to the authority of their husbands to become "traditional teaching." We cannot allow the idea that "liturgy is always in the process of becoming" to become a "traditional teaching." We have to fight today to show the heretical nature of these teachings before fatal and irreparable damage is caused to the Catholic faith.
You really don't know what you're talking about. What I said was perfectly correct. Papal utterances are divinely protected only when they guard what has been transmitted from the apostles and the deposit of faith. Novelties don't qualify for protection.
This was not a tautology since the First Vatican Council was directing its language precisely in opposition to those pope-worshipers like yourself who made exaggerated claims on behalf of popes for all kinds of novel doctrines. It was shooting down claims of divine protection in such cases.
Excellent point. Well put.
Re: FSSP
Rome's view was always that a bishop for the Society wasn't necessary - since the FSSP didn't require one as a condition of reunion, they didn't get it.
Look at Campos, though. The agreement included a successor for Rangel, and a successor was indeed given.
No, I don't know what you are talking about.
What on earth does this statement mean? Novelties don't qualify for protection
As I said in #222, I'm getting a picture of a grab bag of Papal writings and teachings, each of which has to be plucked out indivdually and inspected by you or whoever to see if the label on the product says "Inspected and approved by the Holy Spirit". In the bag will be some defective merchandise because the Holy Spirit doesn't check everything.
Is that your position?
I'm a Catholic and I thought that Jesus' promises to Peter, re-capitualted in Vatican I and other councils, had removed that problem from us.
Good point. What you're saying is that when you're negotiating with Rome, you only get what you demand. Any concession is interpreted as a weakness. Nothing will be given to you that isn't iron-clad guaranteed in writing and public knowledge. Don't rely on them to be nice, or to keep their word if they can't be nailed down. This is good advice to keep in mind, and we should be thankful that the FSSP have demonstrated this for us.
Look at Campos, though. The agreement included a successor for Rangel, and a successor was indeed given.
True. So negotiate first, because once you're in, the die is cast and you're not getting anything that wasn't already guaranteed.
I'm confused. I thought you lived in North Carolina, where there is no indult, and attended the SSPX chapel in Mount Holly. Or has something changed since we discussed this?
I did. I have since moved.
A novelty is a new doctrine never taught by the Church before. These would not be divinely protected. It would help if you read a few books on the present crisis. Read Romano Amerio's Iota Unum; read Guimares' In the Murky Waters of Vatican II; read The Great Facade by Woods and Ferrara--for starters. If you don't know what I mean by such a statement, the fault is yours, not mine.
Traditionalists don't get bishops because their view of Catholicism is incompatible with the revolution. Campos got a bishop because they demanded it as a condition for regularizing their status. The FSSP don't get one because they sold their birthrights cheaply for a mess of potage. The truth is Rome is not interested in giving Catholic Tradition any more viability than it already has. It wants to destroy Tradition ultimately, not preserve it.
Exactly!
No kidding. So is it your position that Pope John Paul II has taught error to be binding to the Universal Church in matters of Faith and Morals?
That is not my position. Only ex cathedra statements on faith and morals are universally binding--and they are never novelties. JPII would not dare attempt to make one of his novel beliefs binding on the universal Church. Were he to attempt to do so, his own legitimacy as pope would immediately be called into question.
So if you agree no errors have been introduced into the Universal Church in matters of Faith and Morals why aren’t you in communion with the Bishop of Rome?
This is all way over your head. Post to me when you've got something sensible to say.
You have no good answer to my question so you feel the need to talk down to me. I retract my previous statement that I’m not denying you’re a Catholic. gbcdoj was correct, Schismatics aren't Catholics. You sir, are a hypocrite.
I think that if the Pope were to write in such a manner he would be accused of denying Papal infallibility.
If the Pope were to impose something upon the universal Church as binding (with required interior assent), such a judgment would be infallible and have a note of at least ecclesiastical faith. The only legitimacy that could be called into question would be the Catholic legitimacy of the detractors of said definition.
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.