The UOM, Heresy, and the Apostolic Succession
Oct 31, 2023 8:12:13 GMT -5
semperfidelis, wenceslav, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Oct 31, 2023 8:12:13 GMT -5
John Lewis wrote:
I am moving this thread here dealing with the universal ordinary magisterium, hereafter in this thread the UOM, as it is deserves its own thread separate from the discussion of the ideas of the man in the videos found HERE.
This is a very important and very misunderstood matter, and I commend the W.M. Review for finding this gem by Fr. Vacant and translating it.
A distinction needs to be made between identifying heresy, and labeling one a heretic. When Trent did not want to label the Greeks as heretics by choosing to not define the indissolubility of marriage, that does not mean that denying the indissolubility of marriage is not a heresy, it is a heresy, but one cannot be presumed a heretic if one holds the contrary until the Church defines it.
Prior to the definition on the Immaculate Conception, it was the same thing in principle. If a Catholic denied it, he would be professing heresy, but would not be a heretic under the law. After the definition, he would be a heretic under the law.
There are many examples through Church history where heresy has been detected by Catholics on matters not yet defined, as some novel teacher comes along and twists the meaning of the scriptures, the fathers, and in some cases Church teaching itself into a new meaning at odds with the sense of these teachings held by all Catholics universally throughout the world. Catholics who know their Faith rightly say, "that's heresy," and denounce the novelty, and report the doctrinal criminals to the Church.
Let's move this now into the matter at hand, which is the status of those denying the two aspects of the Apostolic Succession being denied, and secondly the status of the novel doctrine they are asserting.
First, I will name again the teachings of the Church being denied, (1) That the Apostolic Succession is uninterrupted and there can never be in the world a universal absence of the successors of the Apostles, and (2) that a successor of the Apostles must be lawfully appointed either directly or indirectly by the Pope, and must be a jurisdictional bishop, i.e. a ruler in the Church over his flock, in the territory assigned to him.
These teachings are clearly taught in Sacred Scripture. Our Lord commissioned Apostles, and it is through that succession of the Apostles that He is with us always.
The Gospel of St. Matthew 28: 18-20
We can see from this passage that Our Lord immediately prior to saying, "I am with you always," had just commissioned the Apostles with His power. We can see from this, that the successors of the Apostles, those with the power to teach and rule will be with us always until the end of time, and that is how Our Lord remains with us, by those who have His commission and therefore His authority in the Church. I am unimportant, so let's see what the approved Catholic commentators say:
This is Catholic commentary of the highly regarded Scriptural theologian, Fr. Cornelius Lapide, published in 1890, (emphasis added):
This is from Catholic commentary from Fr. George Haydock, another well known and highly regarded commentator and expert on Sacred Scripture, 1859, (emphasis added):
Those professing these heretical novelties are saying things (verbally or in writing) directly opposed to the Catholic understanding of Scripture, that is clear.
To the next point, those saying these are professing novelties directly against what was published in Catechisms, the seminary training manuals for the training of Catholic priests and in the writings of countless theologians throughout the universal Church clearly indicating that this was the doctrine believed, accepted, and taught by the Church and believed by the Faithful. It was never a disputed point, all believed this implicitly or explicitly, and Rome and all bishops in their respective sees allowed this teaching to be taught throughout the universal Church in catechisms, seminary manuals, and approved works of theologians. I will not quote more here, as I have already put many of these up in the resource section, but I will give links later.
To conclude, those who deny these teachings cannot rightly be called heretics, from a canonical perspective, just as the Greeks at the time of Trent could not be called heretics in that sense, but that does not free these folks from the fact that they are professing heresy against the infallible teaching of the UOM of the Catholic Church, and as far as they are culpable, they sin, possibly mortally, for their arrogance in denying the teaching of the Church.
They retain their membership in the Church until they are judged by the Church, as they are not directly teaching against a canon of a Council or against the solemn definition of a pope, but their teaching is heresy, that is clear. The UOM is infallible and one denying it is professing heresy.
The novel heresy of denying the uninterruption of the Apostolic Succession came to light and was detected beginning in 2012 by John Lane and Fr. Roberts who correctly reacted to this and called out this new heretical novelty in a public forum in which this teaching was being denied. (See link to this HERE). This was shocking for me to read at the time, as it was a novelty, and I thought that this couldn't be where sedevacantism was heading, but it did not end in 2012. This heretical novelty has spread and is now being professed and believed by many, particularly among those who hold the sedevacantist position.
Regarding the second heresy, that the meaning of what a successor of the Apostle is has evolved into something new and directly at odds with the teaching of the Church (that the episcopal orders makes one a successor of the Apostles, that the commission of the Church from the Pope is not necessary, and jurisdiction is not essential) had also been detected and needs to be firmly opposed by Catholics. This heretical novelty has been developing, in my opinion, for a while, but to best of my knowledge had only been publicly professed by some after 2012 as well.
Prior to 2012, I am not aware of anyone professing either of these heretical ideas. It seems to me that what is leading to this is that those who are perplexed by the crisis and cannot figure it out using the Catholic teaching are substituting their novel (and heretical) opinions for the teaching of the Church to make it all fit. They are like a child frustrated by not figuring out a puzzle who smashes the incorrect pieces together to make it fit. Yes, it makes it fit, but they don't make the nice picture that the puzzle pieces form, they create a disfigured mess.
I will be posting more resources on the UOM in the library today or soon to shed more light on this complex topic.
This seems to be the sticking point with many: where is the Church that has the four marks. My friend who recently abandoned the sedevacantist position is also defending Francis now. It is a very strange thing to watch.
I recently read an article by Fr Vacant (appropriate name to be sure) on the WM Review talking about whether the Ordinary Magisterium can define new dogmas or obligations of belief. I understand from reading it that no doctrine can be declared of Catholic faith unless it is revealed and found in tradition.
This makes me wonder whether a lot of the commentary on Apostolic Succession can be defined as being de fide through declaration of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium alone or whether it needs to have been solemnly defined. I'm not sure whether we need to re-look at this matter, but as it is proving a stumbling block for many it would be worth considering whether we are pushing too far in this interpretation or not. Pacelli , I'd be interested in your thoughts on the article and whether it applies to the issues raised in regards to the thesis/totalism/etc.
I recently read an article by Fr Vacant (appropriate name to be sure) on the WM Review talking about whether the Ordinary Magisterium can define new dogmas or obligations of belief. I understand from reading it that no doctrine can be declared of Catholic faith unless it is revealed and found in tradition.
This makes me wonder whether a lot of the commentary on Apostolic Succession can be defined as being de fide through declaration of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium alone or whether it needs to have been solemnly defined. I'm not sure whether we need to re-look at this matter, but as it is proving a stumbling block for many it would be worth considering whether we are pushing too far in this interpretation or not. Pacelli , I'd be interested in your thoughts on the article and whether it applies to the issues raised in regards to the thesis/totalism/etc.
I am moving this thread here dealing with the universal ordinary magisterium, hereafter in this thread the UOM, as it is deserves its own thread separate from the discussion of the ideas of the man in the videos found HERE.
This is a very important and very misunderstood matter, and I commend the W.M. Review for finding this gem by Fr. Vacant and translating it.
A distinction needs to be made between identifying heresy, and labeling one a heretic. When Trent did not want to label the Greeks as heretics by choosing to not define the indissolubility of marriage, that does not mean that denying the indissolubility of marriage is not a heresy, it is a heresy, but one cannot be presumed a heretic if one holds the contrary until the Church defines it.
Prior to the definition on the Immaculate Conception, it was the same thing in principle. If a Catholic denied it, he would be professing heresy, but would not be a heretic under the law. After the definition, he would be a heretic under the law.
There are many examples through Church history where heresy has been detected by Catholics on matters not yet defined, as some novel teacher comes along and twists the meaning of the scriptures, the fathers, and in some cases Church teaching itself into a new meaning at odds with the sense of these teachings held by all Catholics universally throughout the world. Catholics who know their Faith rightly say, "that's heresy," and denounce the novelty, and report the doctrinal criminals to the Church.
Let's move this now into the matter at hand, which is the status of those denying the two aspects of the Apostolic Succession being denied, and secondly the status of the novel doctrine they are asserting.
First, I will name again the teachings of the Church being denied, (1) That the Apostolic Succession is uninterrupted and there can never be in the world a universal absence of the successors of the Apostles, and (2) that a successor of the Apostles must be lawfully appointed either directly or indirectly by the Pope, and must be a jurisdictional bishop, i.e. a ruler in the Church over his flock, in the territory assigned to him.
These teachings are clearly taught in Sacred Scripture. Our Lord commissioned Apostles, and it is through that succession of the Apostles that He is with us always.
The Gospel of St. Matthew 28: 18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
We can see from this passage that Our Lord immediately prior to saying, "I am with you always," had just commissioned the Apostles with His power. We can see from this, that the successors of the Apostles, those with the power to teach and rule will be with us always until the end of time, and that is how Our Lord remains with us, by those who have His commission and therefore His authority in the Church. I am unimportant, so let's see what the approved Catholic commentators say:
This is Catholic commentary of the highly regarded Scriptural theologian, Fr. Cornelius Lapide, published in 1890, (emphasis added):
And, behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Although I ascend into Heaven, I will not forsake you, whom I am sending abroad over the whole world. I am with you, both as God and as man, by present help, grace, consolation, guidance, deliverance, which I will always bestow upon you and your successors; by means of which I will make all difficult things easy to you, says S. Chrysostom, so that out of all nations ye may gather together for Me a Church, that is, a company of faithful and holy men. And I am with you unto the end of the world. This world shall come to an end sooner than My presence in the Church shall fail. “He who promises,” says S. Jerome, “that He will be with His disciples to the end of the world, shows both that they shall live for ever (in their successors), and that He will never depart from them that believe.” SOURCE
This is from Catholic commentary from Fr. George Haydock, another well known and highly regarded commentator and expert on Sacred Scripture, 1859, (emphasis added):
Ver. 18. All power is given to me. The Arians object that the power which Christ had, is said to be given him by another. The Catholics answer, that Christ, as man, received this power from God. 2ndly. It may also be said, that the eternal Son, though he be equal, and be the same God with the Father, yet he proceeds and receives all from the Father. (Witham) — See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s Church. He received from his Father, all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John xx. 21.) to teach and disciple, matheteuein, not one, but all nations, and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, (not for three or four hundred years only) but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church go astray? having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. (St. John xiv. 6.) (Challoner) — Some hence infer that Jesus Christ, according to his human nature, was sovereign Lord of the whole world; but more properly this may be taken of his spiritual power, such as regards the salvation of souls. For Jesus Christ says to Pilate, my kingdom is not of this world. This spiritual power, Jesus Christ communicated in part to his apostles and their successors in the ministry, as to his vicars: As my Father hath sent me, so I send you. Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven: behold here the power both in heaven and earth. (Estius) SOURCE
Those professing these heretical novelties are saying things (verbally or in writing) directly opposed to the Catholic understanding of Scripture, that is clear.
To the next point, those saying these are professing novelties directly against what was published in Catechisms, the seminary training manuals for the training of Catholic priests and in the writings of countless theologians throughout the universal Church clearly indicating that this was the doctrine believed, accepted, and taught by the Church and believed by the Faithful. It was never a disputed point, all believed this implicitly or explicitly, and Rome and all bishops in their respective sees allowed this teaching to be taught throughout the universal Church in catechisms, seminary manuals, and approved works of theologians. I will not quote more here, as I have already put many of these up in the resource section, but I will give links later.
To conclude, those who deny these teachings cannot rightly be called heretics, from a canonical perspective, just as the Greeks at the time of Trent could not be called heretics in that sense, but that does not free these folks from the fact that they are professing heresy against the infallible teaching of the UOM of the Catholic Church, and as far as they are culpable, they sin, possibly mortally, for their arrogance in denying the teaching of the Church.
They retain their membership in the Church until they are judged by the Church, as they are not directly teaching against a canon of a Council or against the solemn definition of a pope, but their teaching is heresy, that is clear. The UOM is infallible and one denying it is professing heresy.
The novel heresy of denying the uninterruption of the Apostolic Succession came to light and was detected beginning in 2012 by John Lane and Fr. Roberts who correctly reacted to this and called out this new heretical novelty in a public forum in which this teaching was being denied. (See link to this HERE). This was shocking for me to read at the time, as it was a novelty, and I thought that this couldn't be where sedevacantism was heading, but it did not end in 2012. This heretical novelty has spread and is now being professed and believed by many, particularly among those who hold the sedevacantist position.
Regarding the second heresy, that the meaning of what a successor of the Apostle is has evolved into something new and directly at odds with the teaching of the Church (that the episcopal orders makes one a successor of the Apostles, that the commission of the Church from the Pope is not necessary, and jurisdiction is not essential) had also been detected and needs to be firmly opposed by Catholics. This heretical novelty has been developing, in my opinion, for a while, but to best of my knowledge had only been publicly professed by some after 2012 as well.
Prior to 2012, I am not aware of anyone professing either of these heretical ideas. It seems to me that what is leading to this is that those who are perplexed by the crisis and cannot figure it out using the Catholic teaching are substituting their novel (and heretical) opinions for the teaching of the Church to make it all fit. They are like a child frustrated by not figuring out a puzzle who smashes the incorrect pieces together to make it fit. Yes, it makes it fit, but they don't make the nice picture that the puzzle pieces form, they create a disfigured mess.
I will be posting more resources on the UOM in the library today or soon to shed more light on this complex topic.