|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 29, 2023 14:25:18 GMT -5
(I meant to post this earlier this week, so any waiting, my apologies, I've been very busy lately, and just have not had much time.) ------------------------------------------------------ SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of ChristSOURCE
(All Emphasis added) Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] , in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] . So then , just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] , even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] . And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the sacred council, and for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the institution, permanence and nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.37 1 Pt 2,25 38 Jn 17, 20-21 39 Jn 15, 19 40 Jn 20, 21 41 Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 4 (elsewhere 3), ch. 2 for the day of his birth (PL 54, 150).
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Jul 31, 2023 21:15:31 GMT -5
It’s an interesting thing to see this. He is asking you for magisterial teaching, yet provides absolutely no magisterial teaching or any Catholic source of any weight to support his opinion. All he has presented are unsupported ideas, nothing more. He in many ways argues like a Feeneyite, refusing to learn from the theologians and only relying on himself and his personal understanding and interpretation of Catholic teaching. Every theologian that has written on this matter contradicts him. Sacred Scripture contradicts him, and it’s not me privately interpreting scripture, read the citations of the theologians, they rely on scriptural arguments. Read the Catholic commentaries on those verses. As far as Magisterial teaching, the Vatican Council taught this and Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum taught very explicitly on this. I have shared these resources with him. It took him a long time to respond with the following:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 1, 2023 8:52:03 GMT -5
It’s an interesting thing to see this. He is asking you for magisterial teaching, yet provides absolutely no magisterial teaching or any Catholic source of any weight to support his opinion. All he has presented are unsupported ideas, nothing more. He in many ways argues like a Feeneyite, refusing to learn from the theologians and only relying on himself and his personal understanding and interpretation of Catholic teaching. Every theologian that has written on this matter contradicts him. Sacred Scripture contradicts him, and it’s not me privately interpreting scripture, read the citations of the theologians, they rely on scriptural arguments. Read the Catholic commentaries on those verses. As far as Magisterial teaching, the Vatican Council taught this and Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum taught very explicitly on this. I have shared these resources with him. It took him a long time to respond with the following: The Church never had to infallibly declare that the the entire hierarchy could go extinct, and later be brought back, as this point was never denied by heretics of the past. Pope Leo's teaching, the Vatican Council, and all dogmatic theologians that spoke on this make this clear. No one ever asserted his idea, it is his own, along with some others in our times, but that's it. Has he ever wondered why is so alone on this, and has absolutely no support from even a single theologian? Pope Leo's teaching above makes it clear that: 1. The Divine mission would continue to the end of time. 2. Our Lord accomplished this by training and sending men who would be partakers of his own authority. 3. He commanded His Apostles and their successors until the end of time to teach and rule. How would this be accomplished if at any time all were absent from the world? 4. The Apostolic succession was not to end with any generation, but would go to the end of time. 5. The Pope teaches how it is accomplished when one successor dies, that another would immediately come forth, that it would come hand to hand, as the Pope says. We know that some diocesan sees may remain vacant for a time, for various reasons, but for all to be vacant throughout the world would be an interruption in the manner of how our Lord is with His Church, (see number 2 above) meaning that He would not be with His Church for a period of time in Church history, as those commissioned and acting with his authority would be universally absent from the world. This is an essential defect to the Church founded by Our Lord. The universal agreement of Catholic theologians on this matter is clear, which is why we know the correct way of reading and understanding the teaching of the Vatican Council and also the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. This teaching was that the successors of the Apostles would continue until the end of time. It is obvious that if this meant that it could continue, but be interrupted at times, it would not truly be an unbroken and permanent succession until the end of time, but would be a breakable succession, that may come and go according to the times, such as our times. The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church made up of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. Pope Leo teaches that this magisterium is permanent, authoritative and living. How can the magisterium be living, when all members of the teaching body are dead or have fallen away, and there none at all in the world? The Pope did not teach that the magisterium can be either alive or dead, he specifically taught that it was a living magisterium. He taught that it must be authoritative, thereby excluding those with episcopal orders who are not successors of the Apostles. According to this new heretical theory, the authority given to the Apostles by Lord and passed on to the successors of the Apostles is now, and has been absent from the world for decades. The teaching body that remains during interregnum would be completely gone, and all commissioned to teach and rule in Christ's Church would not be part of the Church, as they do not exist. The entire Church on earth according to this new theory could simply be the sheep, as the Shepherds would be gone from the earth, and by that are not essential to the Church, since if the Church can exist without any of them, they are not essential to it. Since Our Lord rules his Church through those commissioned by Him to govern in His Name and with His Authority, and their lawful successors, then this new church that is being created by man, not Our Lord, is lacking this essential element, a mark of how we identify the Church, namely Apostolicity, and is not the Catholic Church, but is a heretical and schismatic sect. This new Church's Creed will, if it is being consistent, drop "Apostolic" from its creed, otherwise its members are professing a lie.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 3, 2023 15:35:48 GMT -5
Here is another approved translation of the text under discussion of the Vatican Council's Constitution Pastor Aeternus: Excerpt taken from The Vatican, A Weekly Record of the Council, No. 34, Vol. I, July 29, 1870, p. 389. The text is scanned and available for free, linked HEREFor everyone's reference, the Latin text is:
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 23, 2023 17:14:07 GMT -5
I've given up on Mr Speray. He is now insisting that the SSPX and the sede groups have a mission from the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 23, 2023 19:05:14 GMT -5
John Lewis wrote: You did well in trying to help him. I will pray for him, as I hope others on here will as well.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 24, 2023 6:50:41 GMT -5
It seems to me that in most cases on these complex discussions, it is because there is a misinterpretation of the terms about what theologians say and what we understand. For example, when it is said that priests do not have a "Mission" within the Church, probably the common thought would be that priests have a "Mission" within the Church in this crisis due to extraordinary events.
The same can happen when it is said that they cannot preach in the name of the Church in the canonical rigor of the word, many will perhaps understand this as a reference to the fact that they literally cannot preach anything.
Is my perception correct? I think that in these debates or controversial issues it is necessary to make very clear -NO- say is being said and to later explain what -YES- is being said. It has happened to me with people who tend to confuse all this a lot.
So it is with the word - a manifest heretic - with the correct idea as conceived by the theologians.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2023 9:55:44 GMT -5
It seems to me that in most cases on these complex discussions, it is because there is a misinterpretation of the terms about what theologians say and what we understand. For example, when it is said that priests do not have a "Mission" within the Church, probably the common thought would be that priests have a "Mission" within the Church in this crisis due to extraordinary events. The same can happen when it is said that they cannot preach in the name of the Church in the canonical rigor of the word, many will perhaps understand this as a reference to the fact that they literally cannot preach anything. Is my perception correct? I think that in these debates or controversial issues it is necessary to make very clear -NO- say is being said and to later explain what -YES- is being said. It has happened to me with people who tend to confuse all this a lot. So it is with the word - a manifest heretic - with the correct idea as conceived by the theologians. It is very important to make sure all agree on the definition of the terms in a discussion, and further that terms are defined in the manner in which the Church itself understands them. Regarding a mission, there are only two ways in which it can happen, either ordinarily or extraordinarily. An ordinary mission is given when one is sent by a successor of the apostles. An extraordinary mission is given directly by God and must be demonstrated through miracles to prove its authenticity. There is no third way and anyone asserting as much is an innovator promoting a novelty, that is not found in Church teaching or Tradition.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Oct 24, 2023 16:48:30 GMT -5
I understand that Fr Jenkins has spoken on the topic of Apostolic Succession after reading this discussion. You can find more information in this recording here circa 48:27 Pacelli
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 25, 2023 8:53:36 GMT -5
I understand that Fr Jenkins has spoken on the topic of Apostolic Succession after reading this discussion. You can find more information in this recording here circa 48:27 Pacelli I watched it, and I don't have any issue with anything he said, although, he is dealing mostly with the Petrine succession in his answers not strictly speaking with the necessity of the bishops as successors of the Apostles. So, his answers are good, but not really relevant to this thread. He does mention something of interest that I did not know. When Bishop Mendez consecrated bishop Kelly, according to Fr. Jenkins, he was consecrated for the express purpose of providing the sacraments for Catholics, i.e. a sacramental bishop. This is another case, as with +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer's consecrations of bishops that it was understood that the only role these bishops would have would be sacramental providers and nothing more. The idea that these bishops by their episcopal consecration become successors of the Apostles is a novelty, and rooted in heresy, it seems from this that Bp. Mendez grasped this and clearly expressed that the reason for the consecration was the sacramental powers of the bishop, not jurisdictional.
|
|