alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 9, 2024 19:12:56 GMT -5
Salve Maria.
First let me say that I am not advocating for this thesis, I just want to present it to my friends here on the forum to evaluate its theological possibility.
It seems to me at first that this Thesis would allow a justification of R&R actions, although I have not found any member of the resistance who has defended it. In fact, this thesis was not systematically formulated by anyone. I saw the possibility of this thesis by reading a book by Father Júlio Meinvielle called “De la cabala al progressismo”, where he lays the seeds of this idea, which here I seek to formulate into a theological possibility that would explain the current crisis of the Church.
As this is just a draft, I apologize for the lack of a formal structure. Basically it goes like this:
The church is infallible when it teaches dogmas of faith, the primary objects of infallibility.
However, as the dogmas of faith have a direct impact on moral truths and philosophical conclusions, the church is consequently infallible in moral declarations, the secondary objects of infallibility. Let us simply call the set of these objects “doctrine”.
The Church's doctrine is not just theoretical knowledge, but it has practical applicability in the lives of the faithful. Due to this, the Church has the power to establish disciplines that serve to assist the faith of the Catholics, in addition to manifesting and safeguarding the deposit of faith. It is a unanimous understanding of theologians that Church discipline enjoys negative infallibility (it cannot be evil).
However (here comes the thesis) this infallibility is an indirect effect of the doctrine. Discipline enjoys infallibility because it is “informed” by doctrine (which enjoys positive infallibility). However, if discipline were “informed” by another objective, this infallibility would disappear, because discipline does not enjoy direct and positive infallibility, only as a “reflection” of the positive infallibility of the doctrine.
Now, the Second Vatican Council creates, for the first time in the history of the church, a split between the discipline and the doctrine of the Church. According to the council itself, the practice of the Church would no longer be informed by the doctrine, but rather by the “dialogue with the modern world”, which is simply put modernism. There are multiple quotes from John XXIII and Paul VI that corroborate this, in addition to passages in the council documents themselves. Allow me the courtesy of not trying to prove this statement at least for now.
The conclusion would be that, in the same way that Church discipline traditionally receives infallibility as an indirect effect of the doctrine that informs it, now that it would be informed by modernism, it would indirectly receive the effects of modernism, which is evil. Therefore, the proscribed discipline would be evil.
That is the thesis, in clumsy words. I would like to know your opinion about its plausibility and theological orthodoxy. Do you think it could “solve” the current crisis?
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Jan 11, 2024 15:55:31 GMT -5
Basically you're saying these men couldn't be Popes because they promulgated false doctrine and none of the Vatican II nonsense could've come from the Church. I think we can agree on that.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 11, 2024 16:37:23 GMT -5
No, I didn’t mean that at all. I don’t even know how could you come up with that conclusion. In fact, the objective of the thesis is to explain how can the current church teach error without resorting to sedevacantism.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 11, 2024 18:26:57 GMT -5
Whats wrong with resorting to sedvacantism?
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 11, 2024 20:15:30 GMT -5
Nothing wrong vox, it’s just a different theological conclusion. It may be better or worse, that’s why I asked for your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 12, 2024 7:52:51 GMT -5
Hello alyosha , Good to see you again on here! I will answer your points. Alyosha wrote:I think the thesis you are presenting is built on an idea that is ambiguous in its foundation. This term, "R & R" is not a Catholic term, and in my opinion leads to serious misunderstandings with fellow Catholics who fall under this label. This entire post will focus on that, as we must deal with that before diving in deeper, as it's all related to this term "R&R". Catholics are always duty bound to reject evil, not to accept it or participate in it. The dispute among Catholics over what happened in the 1960's under Paul VI has led to several responses by Catholics: 1. Paul VI wasn't pope as he taught heresy, or at a minimum grave doctrinal error to the universal Church, and did things that a pope would be protected by doing. I therefore reject Paul VI's claim snd therefore reject his novel sacramental rites as not being from the Church and possibly invalid. 2. Paul VI was pope, but didn't bind the Church to his teaching or acts. Therefore, Catholics can continue on believing and acting as they did before him, as there was no binding the flock. All of his laws and teachings were worded in such as way that they did not certainly bind, therefore, I am not bound to obey. 3. Paul VI was Pope, and did bind the Church, but his teachings are ambiguous enough that I can accept them completely and totally while believing everything the Church taught prior to him at the same time. Any conflict between the two, is only due to ambiguity, and therefore, I can receive his teaching in light of the previous teaching, and there is no contradiction. Regarding the Novus Ordo and new sacraments, I prefer the old rites, but I don't see them as invalid, as the Pope approved them, which makes that impossible. The problem is with innovations and translations, not the rite itself in the original Latin. 4. I am totally clueless about all of this, but I will still keep the Faith anyway. I accept what the Church says, and don't really have the mind to go beyond that or solve all of this. In this context, the so so called R&R, made up of group #2 and #3 above, justify their acts by seeing these acts as non-binding or somehow reconcilable with the previous pre-V2 magisterium. I think it's very important here to mention that all four groups above are Catholic. One does not leave the Church automatically by misunderstanding complex principles, or failing to identify a law that is objectively evil, that one is not certain is evil, or applying principles logically, etc. No one in these four groups is leaving the Church, and all wish to remain within Her. That doesn't mean that all positions are equal, only one can be the correct Catholic response, but charity and presumed good will must be shown to all. Now, let's leave Paul VI behind and flash forward to John Paul II, then Francis. John Paul II and Francis, unlike Paul VI, both promulgated evil laws that cannot be argued as being ambiguous or that were not binding due to a defect in how it was promulgated. In both cases the law is evil, and in regards to Francis the law deals with matters that all Catholics are knowledgeable enough to recognize, and is unambiguously heretical. John Paul II approved an evil law in his 1983 Code allowing Catholics to receive Holy Communion from schismatic sects with valid rites, and allowing the schismatics to receive by Catholic priests. On this point, in my opinion, due to widespread ignorance on this matter of communicatio in sacris, many failed to identify clearly that this was an evil law, most likely concluding that since the Church is the guardian of the sacraments and this being permitted by the Church, by a law promulgated by the pope, it must be lawful. With Francis, however, things have changed a lot. He has now made it law that Catholic priests may bless sinful unions. There is no ambiguity here, or a problem with the manner that he approved this, or ignorance on the subject that Catholics are not sure about. Every prior justification that existed since the 60's in explaining this, or excusing Catholics is gone now, except number four above. There will always be some that just can't process all of this, or need time to put this all together in their mind, or are too cowardly to face the problem, but keep the Faith anyway. Weak, dumb, or confused Catholics are still Catholic. The African and some other bishops are clearly going through this right now. They see this new law as evil, are rejecting it, but have not put all the pieces together yet. Their reaction is very much the same as Catholics living in the 60's. This cycle has been going on since then, as evil laws or heretical or erroneous teachings have been introduced leading Catholics to respond in accordance with the four scenarios above. The undefined term, "R&R" oversimplifies the matter, and is commonly used by polemical sedevacantists seeking to paint their opponents (fellow Catholics) with a broad brush. more later....
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 12, 2024 16:03:52 GMT -5
Thank you for your answer Pacelli.
Again, we disagree very little. Your layout of the timeline and the general positions of the crisis is very accurate. But allow me to disagree on some points.
1- I don't think the situation is much more different now than it was in the time of Paul VI. Now we actually have more magisterial material written, but Paul VI undeniably directed the Church towards evil and heretical paths. I don't see how a justification could work for Paul VI but not for Francis, because in my opinion both attack the infallibility of the Church.
2- I completely agree that the current situation demands a theological solution. I also agree that the so-called “resistance” needs a justification for its actions. I also agree that no one, not even Archbishop Lefebvre, provided an explanation that justified his attitude, which is why the SSPX fragmented into dozens of pieces. But for me it is still not clear that sedevacantism is the only plausible alternative. Ignoring all the possible objections one might have to the sedevacantist position, perhaps it is possible to explain the harm caused by the post-conciliar popes without resorting to it. This brings me to the third point.
3- The purpose of the thesis I presented is to explain that it is possible in extraordinary circumstances for the Church to prescribe evil discipline to the faithful. If I am correct, the R&R position and similar ones could use this thesis to justify denying obedience to any discipline imposed by the post-conciliar Church. All the examples you cited could be explained as being disciplinary orders from the pope, not teachings of doctrine.
Now, of course someone could object and say that the conciliar church not only imposed evil discipline, but officially taught heresy. If this were the case, the thesis would be useless. but that is a discussion beyond the purposes of this conversation. At the moment I would just like to know if the thesis is theologically correct.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Jan 12, 2024 22:27:34 GMT -5
No, I didn’t mean that at all. I don’t even know how could you come up with that conclusion. In fact, the objective of the thesis is to explain how can the current church teach error without resorting to sedevacantism. I'll let Pacelli manage this one, suffice to say you're going to have to accept the counter thesis at some point. Also sede vacante isn't a religion so we really need to stop putting an -ism on the end of it, even if it is common parlance. You should really check out Maurice Pinay's blogspot. You will probably find it enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 13, 2024 10:23:44 GMT -5
alyosha wrote: Thank you as well for a polite and good discussion on this. Alyosha wrote:In its essentials, I agree there is no difference between Vatican II's teaching and Francis as far as not being compatible with the Faith. The essential differences are that the prior teaching, Vatican II/Paul VI was written in a very ambiguous manner, allowing an escape valve for Catholics to accept it with a Catholic interpretation and reject the heresy or error being taught, and secondly, in regards to teaching and law, there was a serious doubt about whether things were promulgated in such a way as to bind. Regarding Francis, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue these any longer, he is clear and crisp on his teaching, and he is clearly binding the flock on these matters. Alyosha wrote:I think +Lefebvre was working on a justification of his actions, but had not yet formed moral certainty so as to act. If you read his 1986 Address to Seminarians in Ridgefield, linked HERE, he was clearly aware of the problems, and understood that a pure rejection of evil argument while ignoring the pope question was not a sustainable position. The problem with all of this is there are many factors to all of this, and it is extremely complex and not easy to be morally certain so as to act. He certainly didn't want to start a new schism, so there was extreme pressure on him on that regard to be very careful. He may have been very afraid of the SSPX becoming a schismatic sect, and I think his that if these were his fears, they were legitimate. I think a key component to grasping the Catholic response since the 60's can be found in the answer to this question: if one does not have moral certainty that the claimants to the papacy were not popes, and is not certain that the doctrines of V2 and after are certainly heretical, and that the laws are evil, or that the teachings or laws were not binding due to a defect in the manner of their promulgation, or some other reasons for any of this, sound or not, then who can bind anyone's conscience to accept these conclusions based on the use of authority alone, in the absence of a pope? Alyosha wrote:As this is your main purpose of this post, I will get to that next in my next post. Alyosha wrote:I contend that the Conciliar sect did both: taught heresy along with doctrine proximate to heresy, and imposed evil disciplines.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 13, 2024 13:25:57 GMT -5
alyosha , I have compiled numerous sources on Secondary Infallibility and put them together for you below which explain the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Church's universal disciplinary laws. These theologians, all of them or any of them explain this far better than me, so I thought I would present these, give you time to read them, and then we can discuss. Does that sound good? Secondary Infallibility (Fr. Knox, 1870)In particular, skip to part D, p. 65 tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1332/secondary-infallibility-fr-knox-1870Infallibility of Church Discipline (Goupil, 1941)tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1289/infallibility-church-discipline-goupil-1941Disciplinary Infallibility (De Zulueta, 1921)tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1662/disciplinary-infallibility-de-zulueta-1921Secondary Infallibility (Berry, 1955)tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1324/secondary-infallibility-berry-1955Secondary Infallibility (Van Noort, 1957)tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1317/secondary-infallibility-van-noort-1957Fr. Cekada in his tract, Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope also translated many more sources on disciplinary infallibility, scroll down to Appendix 3, beginning at the bottom of page 11: traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 13, 2024 16:13:32 GMT -5
Thank you kindly for these resources Pacelli. These are very valuable, and I haven’t seen them before.
That being said, my very limited knowledge on this subject majorly comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, where a lot of authoritative sources are cited. I must say, the sources you provided, if I read them correctly, corroborated my point. It seems clear that discipline, understood as a second subject of infallibility, receives this negative infallibility indirectly, namely from the primary subject which is the doctrine itself, and only when this connection is understood as such.
Many passages from the sources you provided states or implies this, for instance:
“The close connection that discipline has with dogma, and how it influences in maintaining the purity of dogma”
“A law, in itself, strictly speaking, is neither true nor false; it does not expressly affirm or deny anything; it orders or prohibits us from doing something. Therefore, it does not fall under a definition of the Magisterium; rather it belongs to the Church’s power of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a disciplinary decree includes a dogmatic decree. For when the Church issues a law, She affirms that the law is just, which implies two conditions: a) That this law is in conformity with faith and morals of the Divine Law; consequently any doctrine touching faith or morals is included in that Ecclesiastical law, this law is infallibly true.”
“The whole end and purpose for which He founded the Church was to forward the spiritual interests of souls in this world, and so to guide them to Heaven hereafter. Such, then, being the duty assigned to the Church by Christ, she must also have received from Him the corresponding right and power to make such laws as she sees to be necessary for securing those interests.”
“Such laws and precepts are necessarily subject to the infallible authority of the Church, because of their intimate connection with doctrines of faith and morals.”
“disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.”
These are quotes from every single source you provided, and in my opinion, they all further justifies my case.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 13, 2024 17:45:16 GMT -5
If the purpose of the Church is to save souls...it cannot possibly make evil laws or disciplines that if followed lead any soul to hell. Blessing Sodcouples does just that. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. It is Gods will that the Church lead to salvation...God cannot decieve nor be decieved. Your argument seems like a stretch to me. An Isogesis
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 14, 2024 12:07:04 GMT -5
Thank you kindly for these resources Pacelli. These are very valuable, and I haven’t seen them before. That being said, my very limited knowledge on this subject majorly comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, where a lot of authoritative sources are cited. I must say, the sources you provided, if I read them correctly, corroborated my point. It seems clear that discipline, understood as a second subject of infallibility, receives this negative infallibility indirectly, namely from the primary subject which is the doctrine itself, and only when this connection is understood as such. Many passages from the sources you provided states or implies this, for instance: “The close connection that discipline has with dogma, and how it influences in maintaining the purity of dogma” “A law, in itself, strictly speaking, is neither true nor false; it does not expressly affirm or deny anything; it orders or prohibits us from doing something. Therefore, it does not fall under a definition of the Magisterium; rather it belongs to the Church’s power of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a disciplinary decree includes a dogmatic decree. For when the Church issues a law, She affirms that the law is just, which implies two conditions: a) That this law is in conformity with faith and morals of the Divine Law; consequently any doctrine touching faith or morals is included in that Ecclesiastical law, this law is infallibly true.” “The whole end and purpose for which He founded the Church was to forward the spiritual interests of souls in this world, and so to guide them to Heaven hereafter. Such, then, being the duty assigned to the Church by Christ, she must also have received from Him the corresponding right and power to make such laws as she sees to be necessary for securing those interests.” “Such laws and precepts are necessarily subject to the infallible authority of the Church, because of their intimate connection with doctrines of faith and morals.” “disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.” These are quotes from every single source you provided, and in my opinion, they all further justifies my case. alyosha , With respect, I believe you have misunderstood the texts, as they say the opposite to what you have concluded from them. It is forbidden to believe that the Church's general discipline can be evil. Let's start with Van Noort. He explains in the text that the general discipline of the Church falls under secondary infallibility. He explains secondary infallibility as: Specifically, in regards to the general discipline Van Noort explains: (All emphasis added) Let's go over the key points: 1. The Church's infallibility of its general discipline is due to the fact that there are doctrinal decisions implicit in it. 2. The law squares with the Church's doctrine on Faith and morals. 3. The law, according to Van Noort " imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals." 4. The Church according to Van Noort "can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls." 5. Any proposition that "the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism," according to "official statement of the Church" is to be stigmatized with the note of at least "erroneous." This official statement that he is referring to is the teaching of Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libentur. To sum up, the Church cannot impose laws that are odds with the Faith or good morals. Therefore, the Church cannot impose evil laws, as evil laws would be against the Faith or good morals. Even though the thesis that the Church could impose evil laws is not heretical, it is labeled as erroneous, and therefore Catholics are forbidden from professing it or believing it. To deny something that is theologically certain is the matter for the mortal sin of temerity. (See Fr. Cartechini's explanation of the theological notes HERE )
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 14, 2024 12:43:31 GMT -5
Pacelli , If I understand you correctly, you are basically reaffirming the premise I conceded in my initial post, namely the secondary infallibility of Church discipline. What you seem to ignore is the justification that the authorities give for this infallibility. It is demonstrably clear, and you have not responded satisfactorily to my examples, that this infallibility is not direct and positive, but rather indirect and negative. In other words, it is an ifalability that exists if and only if discipline is informed by doctrine. Otherwise, there is nothing that guarantees that the proposed discipline will be good. Try to see what I'm trying to say from this angle: What the church proposes after Vatican II is not discipline in the strict sense, because it lacks its connection with revealed doctrine. Think carefully about this ridiculous but illustrative example, if the Church tomorrow decides to propose to the entire universal Church strategies on how to win in a game of Poker, would this discipline enjoy infallibility? Obviously not, as it has no connection with the revealed truth. I grant that no theologian of the past has said that Church discipline can err, but that is because they have always understood "discipline" in its strict definition of participating in doctrine. But I deny that there are no precedents for the thesis I propose because, according to my understanding, the explanation of the origin of the infallibility of the discipline perfectly matches the thesis.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 14, 2024 13:52:08 GMT -5
Pacelli , If I understand you correctly, you are basically reaffirming the premise I conceded in my initial post, namely the secondary infallibility of Church discipline. What you seem to ignore is the justification that the authorities give for this infallibility. It is demonstrably clear, and you have not responded satisfactorily to my examples, that this infallibility is not direct and positive, but rather indirect and negative. In other words, it is an ifalability that exists if and only if discipline is informed by doctrine. Otherwise, there is nothing that guarantees that the proposed discipline will be good. Try to see what I'm trying to say from this angle: What the church proposes after Vatican II is not discipline in the strict sense, because it lacks its connection with revealed doctrine. Think carefully about this ridiculous but illustrative example, if the Church tomorrow decides to propose to the entire universal Church strategies on how to win in a game of Poker, would this discipline enjoy infallibility? Obviously not, as it has no connection with the revealed truth. I grant that no theologian of the past has said that Church discipline can err, but that is because they have always understood "discipline" in its strict definition of participating in doctrine. But I deny that there are no precedents for the thesis I propose because, according to my understanding, the explanation of the origin of the infallibility of the discipline perfectly matches the thesis. What I was trying, hopefully successfully, to do in my last post was to get the matter of this doctrine clear. I agree with you that the doctrine doesn't work with the laws of Paul VI forward, but that is not because the doctrine is wrong, it's because the doctrine cannot be applied to a sect, and this includes undeclared sects, as it only makes sense with reference to the Church. The title of your post is "Thesis: The Church can prescribe evil discipline." In one post above, I gave you many sources which say this cannot happen, followed by a subsequent post that examined in detail the teaching of Van Noort in which he explains this clearly and specifically. I think the problem we are having communicating on this is that we are not using the term "Church" in the same manner. I do not believe that Paul VI and those who came after were popes, therefore the laws promulgated by them did not become the discipline of the Church. Once that point is digested, it's easy to see how Van Noort and the other theologians explanations make perfect sense. To make this clear, I think the thread should read "Thesis: can an undeclared sect which falsely calls itself the Catholic Church prescribe evil discipline?" To this question, my answer is yes, a sect masquerading as the Church is not protected at all and may say or do anything in its official teachings and laws.
|
|