|
Post by EricH on Jul 24, 2016 18:28:59 GMT -5
I am perplexed at the status of the bishops who went along with the Vatican II revolution. Taking an individual bishop, it seems possible that he could have gone along with the changes without being personally guilty of heresy or schism, and thus without losing his office. But the Catholic episcopate, taken as a body, could not have done so without defecting. It is said that the non-papacy of Paul VI and his successors saves the indefectibility of the teaching Church because the bishops are only infallible when joined with their head, the pope. I don't think this is really adequate. During a papal vacancy, the Catholic episcopate is without its head, but it is still the teaching Church and must retain all the necessary properties of the Church. As a body, it cannot corrupt the faith, corrupt the sacraments, or attach itself to a revolutionary heretic as pope, or else the teaching Church would defect. Some quotations: 295. Episcopal Government. -- We have seen that by the Divine constitution of the Church, there is in it a distinction of Teachers and Taught, Governors and Governed; and that the teaching and governing body is constituted by the Episcopate, under the primacy of the Pope. Catholic Bishops, therefore, who are known by their communion with the Holy See, have authority to teach, and from the assured perennity of the Church, we know that this teaching body will never wholly fail; individual Bishops may lapse into heresy, as we know to have happened from time to time, but the body at large will never lapse. Should such a lapse of the whole occur, the whole Church, which is bound to obey the teaching authority, would be led into error and ruined, which is impossible. This is the same theological argument as was employed to show how the infallibility of the Pope followed from his right to teach… Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 454-55 (emphasis added, citations omitted) 1. It is de fide, or matter of faith, that the head of the Church, as such, can never be separated, either from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecclesia discens; that is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful. To suppose this, would be to deny the perpetual indwelling office of the Holy Ghost in the Church, by which the mystical body is knit together; the head to the Body, the Body to the head, the members to each other; and to "dissolve Jesus," (St. John iv. 3) that is, to destroy the perfect symmetry and organization which the Apostle describes as the body of Christ; and St. Augustine speaks of as "one man, head and body, Christ and the Church a perfect man." On this unity all the properties and endowments of the Church depend; indefectibility, unity, infallibility. As the Church can never be separated from its invisible Head, so never from its visible head. 2. Secondly, it is matter of faith that the Ecclesia docens or the Episcopate, to which, together with Peter, and as it were, in one person with him, the assistance of the Holy Ghost was promised, can never be dissolved; but it would be dissolved if it were separated from its head. Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed. 3. Thirdly, it is also matter of faith that not only no separation of communion, but even no disunion of doctrine and faith between the Head and the Body, that is, between the Ecclesia docens and discens, can ever exist. Both are infallible; the one actively, in teaching, the other passively, in believing; and both are therefore inseparably, because necessarily, united in one faith. Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away. It would always remain united, by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, to its head; and the reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infallibility of its head. Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err. How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain, and therefore never be disunited from its head in teaching or believing. Even a minority of the Bishops united to the head, would be the Episcopate of the Universal Church. They, therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such a separation, who assert that the Pontiff may fall into error. The Vatican Council and its Definitions, New York: P. J. Kenedy, 1896, pp. 112-13If we say that the body of Catholic bishops has attached itself to the Vatican II revolutionary popes and their destructive novelties, even if this body consists only of those bishops who do so mistakenly rather than maliciously, still it's undeniable that (1) the whole Church has been led into error and ruined, and (2) the Episcopate has been disunited from its head (by uniting itself to an anti-Catholic head) in teaching and believing. But that is impossible, so one can only conclude that the body of bishops must be elsewhere. Where else it could be is a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 24, 2016 18:34:07 GMT -5
4. I will say, though, that even if the remaining bishops remain intermixed with the Conciliar sect, that does not mean that the Church has failed or has lost its visibility. Every one of these bishops must be presumed innocent of heresy or schism, so that must be our starting point, that they remain members of the lawful hierarchy until the contrary is proven in each and every case. 5. It seems to me that all of our shepherds are in physical proximity to the wolves, therefore, if we want to find our shepherds, we must look there. Physical proximity does not equal willful complicity with the sect. I think the Church would indeed have failed if all her bishops with jurisdiction were intermixed with the Conciliar sect. This would necessarily mean that the organization to which these bishops belong is the Catholic Church. People try to get around this conclusion by saying there are two organizations, the Conciliar Sect and the Catholic Church, in what appears to the world as one organization. What is the basis for this assertion? It calls itself one organization; it is governed as one organization; the world regards it as one organization. Even the traditionalists who claim that there are two churches intermingled are unable to tell who belongs to one and who belongs to the other. The claim of two organizations is a fantasy. It's likely that the Church has often had some outwardly Catholic bishops who were illegitimate on account of simony, and perhaps now and then for heresy or schism. Such bad apples would not have been regarded as a second organization intermingled with the Church, but rather as individual pretenders whose presence does not hinder the Church from being one visible organization. The resort to the two organizations theory in the present crisis seems to be motivated by the impossibility of calling the thing we see today one organization and at the same time calling it the Catholic Church, because the so-called pope and the vast majority of bishops are revolutionists. Of course, the other alternative is to call it one organization and not call it the Catholic Church, and to just deal with the resulting theological difficulties as best we can. They can't be much worse than those of the two-churches theory, which hides the teaching Church within the great harlot. Also, as a practical matter, I think it's impossible for informed Catholics to view the Conciliar bishops as lawful Catholic pastors until the contrary is proved. Pacelli, could you say what concrete steps one would have to take in order to do this? One cannot attend the new Mass (Roman rite) or rely on the new rites of Holy Orders, and the catechetical instruction in Conciliar churches is not trustworthy, so one cannot be taught or sanctified there. Is there a duty to be governed? If so, how? Should traditionalists ask their local Conciliar bishops for permission to attend (and to establish in the first place) Mass centers where traditional rites and real Catholic doctrine are preserved? Is any Conciliar bishop going to say yes? Perhaps he will give permission for an Indult / Motu Mass. Supposing that he doesn't impose any conditions that cannot be agreed to in good conscience, are Catholics strictly obliged to attend such an Indult / Motu Mass before seeking any unapproved traditionalist chapel? I think the only practical thing is to avoid the Conciliar clergy (Roman rite at least) like the plague. Most traditionalists, including those who argue that the remaining Catholic bishops are in the Conciliar sect, seem to agree. But this implies that one may reasonably presume that each and every Conciliar bishop is not a legitimate authority, presumably on account of heresy or schism. I think that is a fair presumption as a practical matter, just as one may presume that every politician in the Democratic party supports abortion. Just as there is no moral duty to regard such politicians as not supporting abortion until the case against them is proved, there is no moral duty to regard bishops in the Conciliar sect as not supporting its public teachings and practices that contradict the Catholic religion until the contrary is proved. 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? Traditionalists do not submit to those people's pastors, attend their services, or receive their “Communion”. It's like saying we have a duty to be in communion with baptized infants at Protestant churches – it's all well and good but it's not visible, and in the case of adults ecclesiastical communion is supposed to be visible. If you asked anyone but traditionalists to say whether traditionalists are in communion with the laity who attend Conciliar churches, the answer would be “obviously they are not”.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 24, 2016 20:42:27 GMT -5
The visibility of the Church in these modern media ages is not the same as theological visability. The czarist monarchys still existed even when the czar was unknown and the subjects were unaware. Just because CNN calls the Vatican the Catholic Church doesnt mean it visably is to the world. Take your premis back to a hundred years ago before the electronic media age...what made the Church "visable" then? Hypothetically posit the crisis in the days before the electronic media...how would the Church be visable then? The true Church is alive and has not defected...regardless of its seeming "invisibility"
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 26, 2016 7:22:45 GMT -5
The visibility of the Church in these modern media ages is not the same as theological visability. The czarist monarchys still existed even when the czar was unknown and the subjects were unaware. Just because CNN calls the Vatican the Catholic Church doesnt mean it visably is to the world. Take your premis back to a hundred years ago before the electronic media age...what made the Church "visable" then? Hypothetically posit the crisis in the days before the electronic media...how would the Church be visable then? The true Church is alive and has not defected...regardless of its seeming "invisibility" I agree that the visibility of the teaching church need not be obvious. A bishop in prison would be visible even if he is quite hidden from the world. John Daly suggested the example of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost: the whole teaching church was privately gathered in one room, and yet the Church was visible. In my opinion, the theory that the Catholic bishops are in the Conciliar sect (or the Novus Ordo Church, or whatever name one prefers) cannot be defended with the same arguments one would use to explain why all the Catholic bishops could be imprisoned or otherwise physically hidden without the Church defecting. If the Catholic bishops are in the Conciliar sect, then the Episcopal Body has attached itself to a false anti-Catholic head and adopted his revolutionary changes in matters of doctrine, law, and liturgy. It may be possible to excuse individual bishops from heresy or schism because they are mistaken rather than malicious, but this excuse is not available for the Episcopal Body itself. At least that's how it seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 26, 2016 13:56:49 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
A few points:
1. The term "intermixed" is a useful term to describe the hierarchy in relation to sect, but it is not a canonical or theological term. In order to make an assertion in regards to them, one must only use approved terms, and then defend the charge.
2. It is easy to assume that jurisdictional bishops are now or have been teaching heresy in their individual dioceses, but it is another matter entirely to substantiate the charge with evidence. This assumption about the bishops has been a long time staple of "traditional" Catholic thinking, but one that is short on proof. The assertion that some bishops are notorious heretics does not mean that all bishops are notorious heretics.
We could for the sake of argument name at least 100 bishops with legitimate claims to diocesan sees, and I would say, that out of all of them, I have yet to see a case made against any of them. Every allegation that I have seen giving a blanket judgment against them is based on rash assumptions. In logic, this is called the "fallacy of composition," in our case, "many members of the hierachy have defected, therefore, they have all defected."
3. There is certainly two corporate bodies, one is the Catholic Church, which posesses the four identifying marks, the other which lacks the four marks. This is the classic way of identifying the Church.
4. Each individual person can only be a member of one body, the sect or the Church. In our present dilemma, the sect is masquerading itself as the Catholic Church. The sect, nor its leaders or doctrines have been condemned since its formation by the authorities of the Church. With that fact in mind, the resemblance that the sect has with the Church, and the double meanings, ambiguity, and questions about the level of authority of its teachings, can easily lead to the conclusion that Catholics can be in good faith while remaining in the physical structure of the sect.
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.
6. We can still be certain as to who is a member of the Church: the members of the Church believe the one true Faith, remain in communion with each other, and subject themselves to the lawful hierachy. If a baptized soul is meeting those three criterion, then he is a certainly a member. If anyone is not publicly meeting those criteria, and bad will appears evident, then we may have a legitimate suspicion that such a person may have defected, even prior to the judgment of the Church.
In each of these criteria, the subjective dispositions of the baptized person must be taken into account. Guilt cannot be presumed if bad will is not clear. In addition to that, Catholics must refrain from making judgments on anyone unless it is neceesary, and if such judgments must be made, every excusing argument must be made of the accused, prior to judging the person guilty of heresy, schism, or apostasy. Lastly, we must always remember our own lowly state, we are not the authority, we are the subjects, we must avoid judging, as we are not judges, and must only do it out of necessity on a case by case basis.
I do not believe that we need to make any judgment against other Catholic in most situations, unless they are posing a danger to us or others. Regarding those who claim authority over us, we must make a judgment as to whether they are a legitimate authority or not, as they are directly claiming authority over us. If we are trying to find the remaining members of the hierachy, we must also make a judgment as to whether they have kept the faith or not, but in every case, we must apply the principles enunciated above.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 28, 2016 16:28:47 GMT -5
Eric H wrote:
I think some distinguishing points should be made. It might be that we are talking about different things despite using the same terms.
When I am speaking of the lawful members of the hierachy, I would start from those who I believe have certain claims, and then deal with separately those who have doubtful claims. I will try to untangle this web, and then perhaps you can let me know if what I am saying is useful.
1. The Pius XII and John XXIII appointees, have in my view, indisputable claims to apostolic succession. These appointees were appointed by the habitual jurisdiction of the Roamn Pontiff. Some may argue that they are retired, but I would counter-argue that such retirements are not valid. Their subjective mistake on their status does not make them retired.
2. The Paul VI Roman Rite appointees until the changes in rites (episcopal/ordination/mass), in my view would have been valid, through the supplied jurisdiction of the antipope. as jurisdiction is supplied even outside the Church when the conditions are met. The underlying principle behind supplied jurisdiction is that it must be for the common good, and the common good was served in having bishops to rule vacant dioceses. This obviously only operates under the assumption that such bishops met the criteria, i.e. were not heretics or schismatics.
3. The Eastern rite bishops appointed by the antipopes: I believe all of these appointments would be valid, so long as they, like those discussed in #2, were eligible for their offices.
4. Regarding Roman rite appointees after the Paul VI changes: I do not think such appointments can be defended as to validity through supplied jurisdiction for many reasons as they do not serve the common good. First, as the episcopal rite was changed by one outside the Church, it is no longer a safe rite, meaning that it might be invalid. Secondly, as the rite of ordination of priests was also changed by one outside of the Church, it is also no longer safe. The rite of mass used by these priests was also changed by one outside the Church, and is also no longer safe as to validity, long with the fact that the doctrine being taught by almost all, if not all of these bishops is not orthodox. With all of these considerations in mind, I think it is not a hard thing to conclude that such appointments do not serve the common good.
5. In addition to the supplied justification being applied to the antipope of the conditions are met other factors are at play here:
a. In the case of the eastern bishops, they are elected according to their own laws by their synods.
b. Also, in regards to the eastern bishops, they are approved by their Patriarch according to their laws.
c. For all bishops mentioned in #2 and #3 above, their claims are accepted by the lawful bishops of the neighboring sees and all other bishops for that matter.
d. The clergy and the laity of the diocese submit to these bishops and by that demonstrate acceptance of their claims.
e. There is historical precedent for bishops assuming sees during long term vacancies or by appointment of antipopes during the western schism. These appointments were never condemned by future popes, and by that tacit approval was given for these appointments, despite the fact that the process to how these appointments were valid was never explained.
f. In the ancient Church, bishops were often elected by the neighboring bishops or the diocesan clergy, with the tacit approval of the Pope. In our situation, for the benefit of the common good, and the fact that the current law is harmful, it could also be reasonably argued that a reversion to the former approved discipline would be lawful.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 30, 2016 17:24:56 GMT -5
1. The term "intermixed" is a useful term to describe the hierarchy in relation to sect, but it is not a canonical or theological term. In order to make an assertion in regards to them, one must only use approved terms, and then defend the charge. 2. It is easy to assume that jurisdictional bishops are now or have been teaching heresy in their individual dioceses, but it is another matter entirely to substantiate the charge with evidence. This assumption about the bishops has been a long time staple of "traditional" Catholic thinking, but one that is short on proof. The assertion that some bishops are notorious heretics does not mean that all bishops are notorious heretics. We could for the sake of argument name at least 100 bishops with legitimate claims to diocesan sees, and I would say, that out of all of them, I have yet to see a case made against any of them. Every allegation that I have seen giving a blanket judgment against them is based on rash assumptions. In logic, this is called the "fallacy of composition," in our case, "many members of the hierarchy have defected, therefore, they have all defected." The canonical or theological terms I have in mind are the body of bishops, the Catholic episcopate, and the teaching Church. I understand these to mean pretty much the same thing. I am willing to entertain the idea that a bishop could have gone along with the Vatican II revolution without being personally guilty of heresy or schism. I think there are good arguments for the contrary view, but for the purposes of this thread they may be left aside. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that one cannot assume that each individual bishop is guilty of public heresy or schism and has thereby placed himself outside the Church. The problem is that the soundness of the episcopal body (another equivalent to the three terms listed above) is not preserved if the vast majority of bishops actually depart from Catholic faith, morals, liturgy, and law in their public profession and practice. The question of their individual guilt is beside the point. In this case, the body would be a corrupt organization -- a false church -- and the proof is in the impossibility of treating its authorities as actual authorities without grave risk of eternal damnation. The impossibility of a corrupt body of bishops is evident from the passages I quoted from Fr. Hunter and Cardinal Manning, and more such passages are available if needed. This one is relevant too: I would say that the Vatican II revolution has corrupted the Catholic faith, the Mass, and the sacraments, and has made unholy laws. I don't think we disagree on the fact of the corruptions. The next step, where we may disagree, is that I think if the vast majority of the Catholic episcopate has accepted the revolutionary novelties, then the teaching Church has defected regardless of individual culpability or lack thereof.I do not admit that the teaching Church has defected, of course, so I am forced to hold that it must be elsewhere than in the revolutionized "Vatican II church". Some people would say this is absurd because there is nowhere else for it to be. But I think it's less absurd than the theory that all or practically all of the remaining bishops in the Catholic episcopate have failed to publicly resist and reject the Vatican II revolution. The argument is parallel to the argument about sedevacantism. People say, if Bergoglio is not pope, then the Church has failed. Sedevacantists reply, no, if Bergoglio IS pope then the Church has failed. Better to insist on something Catholic that we can't find than to settle for something anti-Catholic that we can find. I think the same should be said about the body of bishops.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 30, 2016 17:54:38 GMT -5
3. There are certainly two corporate bodies, one is the Catholic Church, which possesses the four identifying marks, the other which lacks the four marks. This is the classic way of identifying the Church. 4. Each individual person can only be a member of one body, the sect or the Church. In our present dilemma, the sect is masquerading itself as the Catholic Church. The sect, nor its leaders or doctrines have been condemned since its formation by the authorities of the Church. With that fact in mind, the resemblance that the sect has with the Church, and the double meanings, ambiguity, and questions about the level of authority of its teachings, can easily lead to the conclusion that Catholics can be in good faith while remaining in the physical structure of the sect. 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. I'm not able to follow you here. What is the evidence of two corporate bodies? Let me propose two analogies to our situation. 1. The principal of a large private school resigns his position. The new principal decides to implement sweeping changes to the curriculum and pedagogical methods. Let's say they change from phonics to look-say reading instruction and they implement an indecent thing they call "health class". Some teachers are displeased with these changes, and a few of them leave, but the majority are pleased. One exception is granted to the new program: separate classes for Spanish-speaking students will retain the old curriculum and pedagogy. 2. The Episcopal Church in the USA has a national synod and decides that it will allow women to become priestesses. Some priests and laymen are displeased with the change, and a few of them leave, but the majority are pleased. In each of these situations, are there two separate organizations -- one composed of the innovators, the other of the dissidents who didn't leave? No. There is only one organization. If the Vatican II revolution is analogous, then how can it be argued that there are two organizations? We see an organization that calls itself and is called the "Roman Catholic Church," and it has visible unity of government by virtue of its subjection to the Vatican II false popes. This is not merely lip service; the doctrine, liturgy, and laws set forth by Rome are actually implemented by the bishops all over the world. New bishops are actually appointed by Rome. It seems to me that to say there are two organizations is to twist the facts to fit them to theology. There is no factual basis at all for saying that there are two organizations in the thing that's headquartered in Rome and is governed by Bergoglio, and nobody would say such a thing if they didn't think that Catholic doctrine required it. Of course there cannot be any contradiction between Catholic doctrine and evident facts, but when we are faced with an apparent contradiction, it is no solution to deny or to twist the facts. If we face what seems to be an unsolvable problem, we just have to say it's a mystery and that we are missing some necessary piece of the puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 30, 2016 23:03:35 GMT -5
Id like to make a very simplistic comment Jesus said (paraphrase) Yes you have seen and belived in me...but greater is the faith of those who have not seen me and still belive. I know the Church cant defect as a matter of faith...I believe it so strongly that even when faced with an apparent contradiction I am not disturbed. There is 2 differing Churchs...One Christ and one antichrist...They both are real bodies...one mystical...one materialist. They can assuredly exist side by side like volcanic fire spewing into the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 31, 2016 13:02:05 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
We are in agreement that these are legitimate Catholic terms. There are other terms, however, that must be part of of this conversation to get to the truth. The terms I have in mind are heresy, schism and apostasy. In regards to these terms I am specifically concerned with how these terms apply to Catholics, including bishops, who have not yet been judged by the lawful authority as guilty of these crimes.
Eric wrote:
It is not just for the sake of argument, it is central to the case. We cannot assume such a thing, in order to make a judgment against any other Catholic prior to the judgment of the Church, such a judgment must be substantiated or it is rash.
Eric wrote:
If bishops depart from the episcopal body, by embracing heresy or schism, they who have left that body exist outside of it, and the Church itself for that matter. I would also argue that many who claim to be part of the episcopal body do not have legitimate claims to be part of that body, in particular Roman Rite appointees post 1968 or so. *(see my post above).
(*the date is not fixed as the changes in the rites imposed by Paul VI and the Roman Rite bishops did not practically take effect at the same time throughout the world.)
Eric wrote:
I can assure you that I am in agreement with the sources you are citing, and the sources are not in contradiction to what I am saying. If you think what I am writing here contradicts those sources, I would ask you to demonstrate it.
Who are these bishops then who make up the hierarchy? They are all bishops with legitimate claims to sees who have kept the Faith. The corporate body of bishops is now very small, but it exists in those who have not defected. It is certain that many bishops have embraced the sect. We can be certain of this by their public statements and acts. But, at the same time, we cannot be certain about all of them, or any of them, as we lack evidence.
For a starting point, and for the sake of argument, I would ask you or anyone to present a case demonstrating heresy, schism or apostasy against any of the Pius XII or John XXIII appointees. There are 21 known bishops still alive in this category alone. I would be interested in looking at any evidence that you wish to present.
Eric wrote:
It seems to me that you are conflating two separate matters: adherence to the antipopes and the loss of Faith, which generally if not always means adherence to the Conciliar sect.
I do deny point 1. The whole Church has not been led into error and ruined. There are still many Catholics who have not adopted heresy or errors against the Faith. They may accept Francis' claim to the papacy in error, but that is an error as to a fact, not a doctrinal error.
Regarding point 2: I concede that many bishops have defected, and therefore the corporate body of bishops is now tiny, perhaps less than a couple hundred, but it is with them that the hierarchy continues, not with those with illegitimate claims or those who tacitly resigned their offices.
As I said before, I think in order to see this point clearly, one must clear ones mind of the fallacy of composition in regards to the hierarchy. To say that many bishops do not have lawful claims and many have defected does not mean all do not have lawful claims or all have defected.
The tiny remaining Catholic hierarchy is composed of those with legitimate claims and who have kept the Faith. In my post above, I described the categories in which the successors of the Apostles can be found, as those bishops have legitimate claims, and as far as we know, they have kept the Faith. If anyone doubts that they have kept the Faith, the accuser is bound to make his case against them individually by name with specific evidence.
It may be that some of the bishops in those categories have indeed lost their offices by falling into heresy, but some is not all. I have pointed to where the hierarchy is to be found, it is among those with the legitimate claims, and we can take it as a matter of Faith that there are some or at least one among that number that still has kept the Faith.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 4, 2016 21:02:28 GMT -5
I hope it won't seem rude if I try to explain again the question I am raising. This is as much to clarify my own thoughts as to reply to what has been said so far – I am still puzzling over this whole question and I don't think I've understood it adequately yet. The problem in my mind is with the bishops considered as a body, not as individuals. A corporate body is made of individual parts – in this case, of individual bishops – but it has a corporate identity and characteristics. From Augustine's Commentary on Canon Law, vol. VIII, p. 165: A clear difference between individual bishops and the body of bishops is that individual bishops are mortal men and will surely die, whereas the body of bishops can and indeed must endure until the end of the world. The death of an individual bishop, whatever its cause, separates him from the body and leaves the body intact. But if all the bishops were to die at the same time, then the body itself would fail. Of course we have a divine guarantee that this will never happen. The body of bishops can fail in other ways besides dying out. It would fail if it taught heresy, adopted a false or impious form of worship, corrupted the sacraments, or adopted evil laws. It is possible that an individual bishop could do such things by mistake and not lose his office, but if the vast majority of bishops made such a mistake, then it seems that the body itself would fail. If the vast majority of the body of bishops approved the Vatican II documents, accepted the revolutionary changes to the Mass and the Sacraments, accepted the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the John Paul II catechism, etc., then it seems that the Church would have been ruined even if they did so by mistake – that is, without incurring the guilty of public heresy or schism. This holds true even if one supposes that thousands of would-be Catholic bishops had already lost their offices on account of public heresy, as long as the vast majority of the truly Catholic bishops accepted the revolutionary changes also. In that case the body of bishops would have been much smaller, but it would still have defected as a body. To deny this would be tantamount to saying that no observable event other than its dying out could ever constitute the defection of the body of bishops, because any failure can be explained away by saying that the malicious bishops expel themselves from the body, and the remaining bishops only err by mistake and should be considered only as individuals. But Catholic authors commonly hold that the teaching Church could conceivably be ruined in other ways than just by dying out, as shown by the quotes I posted from Fr. Hunter and Cardinal Manning. I don't have any satisfactory explanation for how the Catholic episcopate has not defected. I agree with Voxx that this must be believed as a matter of faith, even in the face of an apparent contradiction. That is one of the main conclusions of the view I am proposing: that there really is an apparent contradiction between the situation we see and the indefectibility of the teaching Church, even from a sedevacantist point of view, if the bishops are considered as a corporate body and not merely as individuals. The speculative question may never be solved before this crisis is over, but I think it has important practical implications even now. The question arises: should Catholics reject the “Novus Ordo Church” wholesale, or should they regard each of its bishops and priests as a lawful pastor unless he is evidently guilty of public heresy or schism? It seems to me that the latter view leads to contradictory duties in the practical order. Informed Catholics must avoid the Vatican II corruptions of doctrine and morals, the New Mass, the new rites of Holy Orders, yet they must also treat as lawful pastors the bishops who have adopted or at least have passively accepted these novelties until it is clear that they are pertinacious heretics or schismatics. Is there any practical way to do this, especially for the vast majority of the faithful who are not religious scholars?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 4, 2016 22:09:12 GMT -5
Eric, on your very last point:
I don't think we are under any obligation to convert or convince anyone of our position in the crisis. I don't think it is negligent or a sin of omission not to attempt to do so.
We are in a situation where the status quo can change quickly, that is to say different factors can change each situation. Dealing in absolutes with every person about every situation, as it is unstable, just won't work. There could be general advice given but if given it should be given under certain circumstances.
I am of the general opinion that with the complex matters, God will give people the grace to understand and follow through with the best actions for their salvation. If they do not, it is because God has given them an intellect that cannot grasp the situation for a reason.
When we attempt to educate others or change them we are asking them for a great deal of trust. Some of that is good but in some ways, it replaces the trust they should have in the Church, our pastors, etc; and they are placing their soul in our hands.
I do not try to convert people to traditionalism, if you would call it that. I have a set of answers for each type of person who might ask me a question but first and foremost they are to keep others from sinning, if they are moral questions, or they are meant to direct people to valid sacraments, and in some cases the heirarchy. I've often thought to myself, "What am I inviting people to do?" I could potentially be inviting them to a place that will scandalize them so badly that they leave the Church or a place that will feed on their pride and they will fit in too well. As result, I believe what I should do is answer questions and direct towards the best, most attainable option. I say "towards" because the closest step is usually the best step and leaps require a lot from people.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2016 13:47:54 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
You do not seem rude, we are dealing with a very complex matter. I think the problem we are having in communicating on this is clearly grasping who the body or bishops are. If you take a sheet of paper, and draw a very large circle completely around the paper, that would be the body of bishops in 1962. After Vatican II, I would say, draw a circle that is half that size within the other circle, and with each passing year, draw another circle within the smaller circles each showing the complete hierarchy. Today, the circle might be one tenth of what it was in 1962.
Each circle represents the entire body of bishops otherwise known as the hierarchy. The hierachy can be very large or it can be very small, even tiny, but it is within this body and only within this body that the successors of the Apostle can be found.
The corporate body is infallible when they teach in their individual dioceses the same doctrine in tacit union with the Pope. The corporate body has not defected as many or even most of them have not taught error in their dioceses. In my opinion, most of the legitimate Roman rite bishops in the 1970's and 80's bishops failed to even grasp their own status as ruling ordinaries and were under the impression they were retired, so they were not teaching anything to their local diocese. In the eastern rites, they remained relatively insulated from the goings on in the Conciliar sect, and many of their bishops at least from my observations kept the Faith, and were not teaching their flocks any heresy or doctrinal error. Keep in mind that the eastern Catholics do not use Roman catechisms, they teach their flocks in their own way, usually not with catechisms, but with sermons and the use of icons.
Anyway, back to the matter, even if most bishops defect, even if 98% of them defect, the corporate body will not have failed, it will just have become smaller. If some bishops are teaching doctrinal error, but not heresy to their flocks, they will retain their offices, but even in this case, the corporate body will not have failed, as the local teaching across the world must be in tacit union with the Pope.
More later
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 9, 2016 10:28:03 GMT -5
Eric wrote: A few points on what you wrote:
1. The Bishops collectively without their head, are not infallibly protected in anything. If Paul VI and his succesors were not Popes, as we assert, then the bishops were not united with a Pope, meaning that they enjoyed no collective infallibility
2. Hypothetically, every bishop on earth except one could defect.
3. Even if a rite was used throughout the Church, if it was not at least implicitly approved by the Pope, then it is not protected.
4. The 1983 Code, the John Paul II Catechism, the Novus Ordo Missae, etc., are all exclusive to the Roman Rite. The laws and catechism did not affect, bind or teach the eastern rites.
5. It is clear that many Roman Rite bishops openly embraced the sect, and by all appearances defected. But it is also not clear that many others did not defect, especially in the early stages of the crisis.
6. I believe that all new Roman Rite appointments, post 1968 (or so) would not have been legitimate through supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is rooted in the common good as its underlying principle. These appointees, even if they had not personally defected, would have implemented novel and possibly invalid sacramental rites, and the possibly invalid and horrible Novus Ordo Missae. I believe that the cut off date for any argument in favor of the common good ended with the new episcopal and sacerdotal orders, and the imposing of the Novus Ordo Missae upon their dioceses.
7. So then, who are the body of collective bishops: they are made up of all Roman Rite appointees prior to 1968, and eastern rite bishops who have not lost their Faith by publicly defecting, and by that losing their offices and claim to apostolic succession.
8. Most Roman Rite diocesan sees, in my view, would have been vacant by the 1970's. Many others would have been ruled by bishops who were unaware of their status, and erroneously thought themselves retired. In those cases, they would have been practically ruled by usurpers, while the legitimate bishop lived in "retirement."
9. You wrote, There is no contradiction here. The "retired" Roman rite bishops were not imposing anything on anyone. The eastern Catholic bishops were not imposing the tampered ordination/consecration rites, the Novus Ordo, the John Paul II Code or the Catechism on their flocks.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 13, 2016 10:54:44 GMT -5
I've found several quotations that shed light on the topic of this thread. Here's the first one. I added the bold for emphasis.
Points of interest:
1. Even during a papal interregnum, the whole Church cannot fall into even material schism or heresy. That is to say, there must be a sizable portion of the Church that continues to teach true doctrine and to maintain actual communion with the papacy. To recognize a series of antipopes, to adopt their revolutionary new liturgical and sacramental rites, new laws, and to fail to object to their official teaching of a false faith and morality, would be material schism and heresy in the sense in which Franzelin is using these terms.
If the few remaining bishops who did not fall into even material schism or heresy cannot be pointed out, but must be presumed to exist somewhere among the bishops who acknowledge the antipopes etc., it would appear that the whole Church fell into material schism and heresy. But this is impossible.
When theologians speak of the whole Church, they generally speak of moral unanimity rather than absolute or numerical unanimity. It seems that moral unanimity is the proper standard to apply here.
2. Franzelin mentions that infallibility in defining does not exist during a papal interregnum. This shows that he does not mix up indefectibility with infallibility. It is indefectibility to which he attributes the guarantee that certain things can't happen even during an interregnum. Thus one cannot put his argument (or my questions) to rest by saying that there's no infallibility during an interregnum. That is true but it's beside the point.
3. It's not clear to me, but perhaps Franzelin implies that one can lose membership in the Church by material schism, i.e. by inculpably separating from the Roman Pontiff although one still intends to be subject to the true pope.
4. The last paragraph says that if a part of the Church becomes inculpably separated from the Roman Pontiff, some of its jurisdictional acts are valid on account of a colored title. If he were writing after the 1917 Code of Canon Law, presumably he would have said common error instead of a colored title. I wonder how he would decide which jurisdictional acts would be valid? Also, if no laws established by a true Roman Pontiff could be abrogated in this situation, then there's no possibility of reverting to the old law or custom by which bishops elected by the local clergy were tacitly approved by the Roman Pontiff.
|
|