|
Post by EricH on Aug 23, 2016 11:18:22 GMT -5
Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II: The True Church, nn. 19-22 (bold emphasis added)
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 27, 2016 8:55:25 GMT -5
In my opinion, the real elephant in the room is not that the V-2 popes were illegitimate, but that the whole hierarchy seems to have accepted them as true popes. According to Franzelin and Manning, this is impossible. Quotations & discussion in this thread: The Body of Bishops vs. Individual BishopsBy the whole hierarchy, I mean a supermajority that constitutes the morally unanimous opinion of the bishops as a body. Absolute unanimity is not necessary for this, as, for one thing, it would be impractical. I will look for citations on this if it needs to be proved. I don't see how one can skirt around this problem by saying that a handful of pre-V2 bishops (whom we cannot identify) never acknowledged the false popes, or that many of the bishops have just been mistaken, not malicious, in acknowledging the false popes. You are reading things that do not pertain to a scenario of doctrinal errors against faith. Bishops who normally should be included would be excluded from consideration by suspicion of heresy. There is predicted from Holy Scriptures to be a Great Apostasy in which the majority of Catholics would fall away, which means the majority of bishops. The question is, how did the bishops who adhered to the false popes and embraced the Vatican II revolution get themselves excluded without the Episcopal body defecting? If the whole body of bishops (morally speaking) were to adhere to a false pope or to teach a false doctrine, even by mistake, then the church would have defected -- or at least, that's what I understand from Franzelin, Manning and others. Were the vast majority of bishops who recognized Paul VI as pope indeed Catholic bishops? If so, we have a problem. If not, why not? Were the vast majority of bishops who came to Rome for the council indeed Catholic bishops? If so, then the body of bishops was present at the council. Didn't this body approve the council documents? If so, we have a problem, unless we can explain why the group of bishops who approved the documents was already not the Catholic episcopate. I agree about the Great Apostasy, and I think this is it. It is no problem for the majority of bishops to fall away as individuals. But the body of bishops cannot do so.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 9:41:37 GMT -5
You are reading things that do not pertain to a scenario of doctrinal errors against faith. Bishops who normally should be included would be excluded from consideration by suspicion of heresy. There is predicted from Holy Scriptures to be a Great Apostasy in which the majority of Catholics would fall away, which means the majority of bishops. The question is, how did the bishops who adhered to the false popes and embraced the Vatican II revolution get themselves excluded without the Episcopal body defecting? If the whole body of bishops (morally speaking) were to adhere to a false pope or to teach a false doctrine, even by mistake, then the church would have defected -- or at least, that's what I understand from Franzelin, Manning and others. Were the vast majority of bishops who recognized Paul VI as pope indeed Catholic bishops? If so, we have a problem. If not, why not? Were the vast majority of bishops who came to Rome for the council indeed Catholic bishops? If so, then the body of bishops was present at the council. Didn't this body approve the council documents? If so, we have a problem, unless we can explain why the group of bishops who approved the documents was already not the Catholic episcopate. I agree about the Great Apostasy, and I think this is it. It is no problem for the majority of bishops to fall away as individuals. But the body of bishops cannot do so. You already have your answer, really, when you agree that the majority of bishops can fall away. Since some didn't, then the whole body did not. The Church was very small on Pentecost day and it was the body of the Church. Many prelates refused to sign many documents of Vatican II, and these I would certainly include as possible ones who held back. Many of the clergy sought early retirement to get away from it all. Those were very trying years. Most people had to grapple with the situation for many years before eventually understanding what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 12:10:06 GMT -5
You are reading things that do not pertain to a scenario of doctrinal errors against faith. Bishops who normally should be included would be excluded from consideration by suspicion of heresy. There is predicted from Holy Scriptures to be a Great Apostasy in which the majority of Catholics would fall away, which means the majority of bishops. The question is, how did the bishops who adhered to the false popes and embraced the Vatican II revolution get themselves excluded without the Episcopal body defecting? If the whole body of bishops (morally speaking) were to adhere to a false pope or to teach a false doctrine, even by mistake, then the church would have defected -- or at least, that's what I understand from Franzelin, Manning and others. Were the vast majority of bishops who recognized Paul VI as pope indeed Catholic bishops? If so, we have a problem. If not, why not? Were the vast majority of bishops who came to Rome for the council indeed Catholic bishops? If so, then the body of bishops was present at the council. Didn't this body approve the council documents? If so, we have a problem, unless we can explain why the group of bishops who approved the documents was already not the Catholic episcopate. I agree about the Great Apostasy, and I think this is it. It is no problem for the majority of bishops to fall away as individuals. But the body of bishops cannot do so. I thought we covered this ground already. The body of bishops not united to their head is an incomplete body, and this incomplete body is fallible. This incomplete corporate body is not protected from anything. They can defect, fall into error, allow evil rites to he used in their dioceses, etc. Franzelin and Manning did not say if the whole body of bishops adhered to an antipope the Church would have failed. They said that if the whole Church defected it would have failed. Here, I believe they are using the term in his complete sense, meaning truly the whole Church, not a majority.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 27, 2016 12:16:28 GMT -5
The question is, how did the bishops who adhered to the false popes and embraced the Vatican II revolution get themselves excluded without the Episcopal body defecting? If the whole body of bishops (morally speaking) were to adhere to a false pope or to teach a false doctrine, even by mistake, then the church would have defected -- or at least, that's what I understand from Franzelin, Manning and others. Were the vast majority of bishops who recognized Paul VI as pope indeed Catholic bishops? If so, we have a problem. If not, why not? Were the vast majority of bishops who came to Rome for the council indeed Catholic bishops? If so, then the body of bishops was present at the council. Didn't this body approve the council documents? If so, we have a problem, unless we can explain why the group of bishops who approved the documents was already not the Catholic episcopate. I agree about the Great Apostasy, and I think this is it. It is no problem for the majority of bishops to fall away as individuals. But the body of bishops cannot do so. I thought we covered this ground already. The body of bishops not united to their head is an incomplete body, and this incomplete body is fallible. This incomplete corporate body is not protected from anything. They can defect, fall into error, allow evil rites to he used in their dioceses, etc. Franzelin and Manning did not say if the whole body of bishops adhered to an antipope the Church would have failed. They said that if the whole Church defected it would have failed. Here, I believe they are using the term in his complete sense, meaning truly the whole Church, not a majority. Well, I think you are mistaken. Do you really mean to say that during a papal interregnum, the corporate body of the Church is not protected from anything? That is definitely not true. I believe the Franzelin and Manning quotes should be understood as I've understood them. If we disagree about that, then we're at a standstill.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 12:32:15 GMT -5
I thought we covered this ground already. The body of bishops not united to their head is an incomplete body, and this incomplete body is fallible. This incomplete corporate body is not protected from anything. They can defect, fall into error, allow evil rites to he used in their dioceses, etc. Franzelin and Manning did not say if the whole body of bishops adhered to an antipope the Church would have failed. They said that if the whole Church defected it would have failed. Here, I believe they are using the term in his complete sense, meaning truly the whole Church, not a majority. Well, I think you are mistaken. Do you really mean to say that during a papal interregnum, the corporate body of the Church is not protected from anything? That is definitely not true. I believe the Franzelin and Manning quotes should be understood as I've understood them. If we disagree about that, then we're at a standstill. As a body, yes, but it would be impossible for all bishops as individuals to lose their offices. Apostolic succession will continue until the end, and it is impossible for all of them to cease to exist through death, loss of office, etc. If your interpretation of the quotes were correct then this conclusion would follow: The corporate body of bishops could exist without its head. You will not find any source to support this, I can save you the time. All of the books I have are clear on this, the corporate body must be united to its head. By the way, so there is no misunderstanding, I am speaking only of the incomplete corporate body of bishops, not the Church, which is protected as a corporate body.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 27, 2016 14:04:19 GMT -5
Well, I think you are mistaken. Do you really mean to say that during a papal interregnum, the corporate body of the Church is not protected from anything? That is definitely not true. I believe the Franzelin and Manning quotes should be understood as I've understood them. If we disagree about that, then we're at a standstill. As a body, yes, but it would be impossible for all bishops as individuals to lose their offices. Apostolic succession will continue until the end, and it is impossible for all of them to cease to exist through death, loss of office, etc. If your interpretation of the quotes were correct then this conclusion would follow: The corporate body of bishops could exist without its head. You will not find any source to support this, I can save you the time. All of the books I have are clear on this, the corporate body must be united to its head. By the way, so there is no misunderstanding, I am speaking only of the incomplete corporate body of bishops, not the Church, which is protected as a corporate body. Thank you for the reply. I have not done enough research yet to have a firm grasp of the topic. Here's something I just found in Van Noort that surprised me: Taking this literally, one would have to say that the "body of bishops" does not exist during a papal interregnum. That strikes me as a proposition male sonans -- would you agree? Certainly the teaching Church must continue to exist, and I had thought that the body of bishops was the same thing as the teaching Church. The functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing must continue during a papal interregnum, and according to Van Noort, the assistance of Christ guarantees that they will be done properly (but not without individual bad apples, of course). Here is the key part from Franzelin, which in my mind excludes the possibility that the vast majority of the Catholic bishops could recognize a false pope or fall into the same doctrinal error, even during a papal interregnum (bold added):
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 15:20:22 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Thank you as well for digging up the quote. I appreciate (and enjoy) discussing theology with people also willing to do the spade work.
Eric wrote: Yes, I believe your statement accurately describes the teaching. It think it may have an impression of male sonans to you only because the concept is new to you. When you think about it, though, the concept shows just how important the papacy is to the Church, that highlights just how serious of a problem it is during interregnums.
During an interregnum, the teaching Church continues through the individual bishops teaching their own flocks, using their episcopal magisterium.
Cardinal Franzelin taught:
Points to note:
1. Franzelin taught that the whole Church cannot defect, and in this case he is clearly talking about the entire body. If he were only talking about a great majority, then he would be establishing a new principle, that the size of the Church is essential, not accidental. But, we know that he would not teach something contrary to the teaching of the Church.
2. The same can be said regarding a universal schism. In order for there to be a universal schism, the entire Church would have to reject a true Pontiff, which is impossible. The mistaken acceptance of a false Pontiff is not schism, as it is not a rejection of a true Pope.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on May 26, 2022 2:43:07 GMT -5
Pacelli"5. The proof of this matter can easily be found in Church history. When sects were formed, adherents to those sects were not presumed to be outside of the Church until the authority had settled the matter by condemning the doctrines and excommunicating the leader(s) of the group. When sects are formed, Catholics are sometimes innocently deceived as to whether the sect is the Church, and until that point is resolved by authority, good will must be presumed unless the opposite is certain. " Can you point me to some sources concerning this statement? I am keen to read more about this so I have a better grasp of the principles.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 29, 2022 9:47:01 GMT -5
Pacelli"5. The proof of this matter can easily be found in Church history. When sects were formed, adherents to those sects were not presumed to be outside of the Church until the authority had settled the matter by condemning the doctrines and excommunicating the leader(s) of the group. When sects are formed, Catholics are sometimes innocently deceived as to whether the sect is the Church, and until that point is resolved by authority, good will must be presumed unless the opposite is certain. " Can you point me to some sources concerning this statement? I am keen to read more about this so I have a better grasp of the principles. Hi Samuel, I am happy to provide you sources on this. I assembled numerous documents and put them in the resource section years ago, linked here: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/666/non-catholics-sects
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 29, 2022 11:36:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on May 29, 2022 17:32:57 GMT -5
Pacelli "5. The proof of this matter can easily be found in Church history. When sects were formed, adherents to those sects were not presumed to be outside of the Church until the authority had settled the matter by condemning the doctrines and excommunicating the leader(s) of the group. When sects are formed, Catholics are sometimes innocently deceived as to whether the sect is the Church, and until that point is resolved by authority, good will must be presumed unless the opposite is certain. " Can you point me to some sources concerning this statement? I am keen to read more about this so I have a better grasp of the principles. Hi Samuel, I am happy to provide you sources on this. I assembled numerous documents and put them in the resource section years ago, linked here: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/666/non-catholics-sectsThanks Pacelli, I will read the Titus resource you linked in the comment below. I have read the non-catholic-sects thread before, but I found myself wanting some historical examples to ground the application of those principles. For example, a sect according to Kearney is, "... a group of Christians who, banded together, refuse to accept the supreme authority or teaching of the Catholic Church. They constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership, or a sect. Hence, the term sect connotes a group of individual heretics or schismatics morally united by a common bond of belief or purpose. And it is only when one becomes affiliated with such,and not merely by the crime of heresy and schism, that he is considered as a member of a heretical or schismatical sect." (Kearney, Richard, Sponsors at Baptism According to the Code of Canon Law, Washington D.C., 1925, pp. 83-84) We can apply this definition to the 'Novus Ordo,' or 'Conciliar' church, or whatever you want to call it, and say that it is definitively a non-catholic sect; yet, without further elaboration, such a quote would seem to provide a basis for assuming all those who attend the NO Mass, partake of the new sacraments, etc., -- even if in good faith -- are 'affliated' with the sect and are thereby considered members of it. At this point you would insist on a second crucial distinction, that of a condemned sect vs. an uncondemned sect, and point out that the NO has not been authoritatively condemend by the Church, and therefore we are not at liberty to apply a universal presumption of guilt/ membership in the sect in the external forum; rather, it is the opposite -- we cannot deem someone a member of this sect until we have sufficient evidence in their case of pertinancity. It is this principle which I wish to understand better, preferably with historical examples, for I know many sedes would say there is no need for additional authoritative intervention; afterall, do we need a new authoritative intervention/ declaration by the church before treating the newest Protestant sect down the street as a condemend sect? Of course not.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 29, 2022 19:00:23 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli , I will read the Titus resource you linked in the comment below. I have read the non-catholic-sects thread before, but I found myself wanting some historical examples to ground the application of those principles. For example, a sect according to Kearney is, "... a group of Christians who, banded together, refuse to accept the supreme authority or teaching of the Catholic Church. They constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership, or a sect. Hence, the term sect connotes a group of individual heretics or schismatics morally united by a common bond of belief or purpose. And it is only when one becomes affiliated with such,and not merely by the crime of heresy and schism, that he is considered as a member of a heretical or schismatical sect." (Kearney, Richard, Sponsors at Baptism According to the Code of Canon Law, Washington D.C., 1925, pp. 83-84) We can apply this definition to the 'Novus Ordo,' or 'Conciliar' church, or whatever you want to call it, and say that it is definitively a non-catholic sect; yet, without further elaboration, such a quote would seem to provide a basis for assuming all those who attend the NO Mass, partake of the new sacraments, etc., -- even if in good faith -- are 'affliated' with the sect and are thereby considered members of it. At this point you would insist on a second crucial distinction, that of a condemned sect vs. an uncondemned sect, and point out that the NO has not been authoritatively condemend by the Church, and therefore we are not at liberty to apply a universal presumption of guilt/ membership in the sect in the external forum; rather, it is the opposite -- we cannot deem someone a member of this sect until we have sufficient evidence in their case of pertinancity. It is this principle which I wish to understand better, preferably with historical examples, for I know many sedes would say there is no need for additional authoritative intervention; afterall, do we need a new authoritative intervention/ declaration by the church before treating the newest Protestant sect down the street as a condemend sect? Of course not. Hello Samuel, There is no doubt that the Conciliar organization is a sect. It certainly meets the definition. The question is who is actually a member of the sect. Guilt cannot be presumed, as there is no condemnation of the group from the Church, therefore, each person affiliating with it must be taken on a case by case basis, and in some cases, I would argue, that even that doesn't fully settle it, as entire groups that affiliate with it are clearly not part of it, due to not believing in its doctrines or even acknowledging or in any way grasping that it is a separate organization from the Catholic Church. I would urge you to read the other sources quoted below Kearney. That gets into the specifics much more than just the definition of a sect, which I think all are agreed on, but who is actually a member of the sect, which seems more in dispute. It is clear that the censure does not apply to those who are innocent and do not realize that they are actually part of a sect. I can easily post historical parallels that demonstrate how the Church dealt with sects in the past, that may help here. I'll dig some up and post them. In the meanwhile, it would be useful to read Mr. Conlon's tract on the admonition of Titus which differentiates official warnings from the Church from private warnings or admonitions, which is very useful in grasping all of this. If you, me, or anyone other than the hierarchical bishop or the Pope warns someone of their heresy or schism, it's a private warning, and does not have any official or canonical effect. It doesn't mean such warnings in a private capacity are meaningless. It may affect their soul as to culpability, but it does not affect their membership in the Church as it is not an official warning, which if ignored leads to a canonical censure, which could eventually lead to the condemnation of such as individual, and by that those who follow that person, as a sect would be formed. We are right now dealing with uncondemned men who either formed or led an uncondemned sect. The men, antipopes Paul VI to Francis, were leaders of a new religious belief system that was not apostolic. Some, perhaps many, who have adhered to these men by accepting their papal claims, also do not believe their teachings and continue to believe the Catholic teachings, so by definition they are not truly adhering to the sect, as they don't believe it's tenets in the first place, and are only adhering to the leaders of the new sect due to a misunderstanding of the relevant principles, not because they wish to join a non-Catholic sect. The people in this situation, and I mean those who believe the Catholic Faith but accept Francis' claim to the papacy, would be revolted by the accusation that they were in a sect, as they would say "I am absolutely not in a sect, I am a member of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ." Clearly, we are not dealing with a classic and cookie cutter situation, such as, for example, John Smith, who was once a Catholic and leaves the Church to become a Lutheran. That is easy. The sect is known, and clearly John Smith is knowingly leaving the Catholic Church to join a religious association outside the Church, known as a sect. I'll start with Luther, but there are many others. Let's see how the Church dealt with them and those who followed them and at what point the Church made the judgment that those condemned and those who followed them were presumed guilty under the law, and therefore regarded as non-Catholics.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2022 19:34:20 GMT -5
It is said that we must remain in communion with the faithful who mistakenly attend the Conciliar sect, but what does this mean in practice? I think this is where the Holy Week Rites of Pius XII might play a role, as I understand this is the only time that all the traditional Catholics under the authority of the post-Conciliar Antipopes and those who reject their pseudo-authority are united in the Liturgy, at least it would be if groups hadn't started using the pre-pian rites during this sacred season.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Aug 4, 2022 6:07:20 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli and @erikh for this scintillating theological discussion. Truly top notch stuff; I hope you resume it one day. I think one conclusion we can draw from this is that the mystery of the crisis in the Church is deeper than most Catholics realize, touching as it does her very essence on multiple points. It underscores the importance of remaining patient and mild with those who disagree with our conclusion of sedevacante, which, although true, nevertheless appears balanced upon a tenuous theological tight rope. Satisfactorily threading the needle through all the relevant distinctions contained within the field of ecclesiology is no easy task.
|
|