Rorate Caeli

Tectonic shifts: For the Roman Curia, the end of the "super-Council"

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

In 1988, addressing the Chilean bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed, "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma' which takes away the importance of all the rest."

While affirming his remaining attachment to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, on this September 14, 2011, brought down the taboo of the Council. For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II. In 2007, the helmsman of the Church had already undermined the monopoly held by the Novus Ordo. Four years later, he removes from the Conciliar doctrine its non-negotiable character and its exclusivity. It is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith.

It is true that, in small steps, the Catholic world, and the Curia in particular, faced with what John Paul II called the "silent apostasy", have allowed themselves to be interested in the Traditional world, once exiled and condemned, now increasingly esteemed. A French bishop said a while ago that he felt forced to bow to this movement, because the youth was present in it. In Rome, the major master of ceremonies lifts from the dust the traditional ornaments of which the Supreme Pontiffs, from Pius IX to Pius XII, made use. In the doctrinal domain, some parallelism is to be found, even though it is less evident. After Benedict XVI accepted to discuss the Vatican II texts with the Society of Saint Pius X, some prelates, especially the younger ones, decided to find out in the archives what was unanimously believed before the Council. Very slowly, the phenomenon begins and widens, to the detriment of the aggiornamento... And voices rise up in Italy denouncing the spirit of the Council, which has not let fresh air in, but rather a freezing gust. These voices are those of a Monsignor Gherardini and of the author of his preface, Bishop Oliveri. Those of a Roberto de Mattei or of a Bishop Schneider. All take up their pens and do not hesitate to openly demand that the taboo of the Council be finally shattered.

Is this a sign of the times? Recently, a prelate of the Curia, after having read the book "On priestly holiness" ("La sainteté sacerdotale"), by Archbishop Lefebvre, confided, "I cried after a while because I went through seminary and I had never had the priesthood explained to me as he does there. It is a whole world that opens up for us, for no one had explained to us what the priest was." It is a whole world that opens up...

123 comments:

Gratias said...

We are making steady progress. Long live Benedict XVI.

Anonymous said...

"The mind-forged manacles" of the "spirit of Vatican II" are finally losing their grip, it would seem -thanks be to God and our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!

R.I.P.Vatican II.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

Here's an example of how minds are changing also.

Within two months, Catholics in the USA will have a new Mass...one with more reverent, more traditional words and a more traditional "feel" to it. It will no longer sound and feel as Protestant as it does now. There is still a ways to go.
The Pope should ban altar girls, Communion in the Hand, and Mass facing the people....but we are on our way in that direction.

But a sign of the times is how some Catholics across the country are reacting to the soon to be forgotten Novus Ordo Mass of the 1970 ICEL version...what we have had for 40+ years. And all the thousands of paperback Missalettes in the pews which people used to follow that version of the Mass.

While there was a laughable, pathetic story come out of Canada about some liberal parish planning a Mass of Thanksgiving and Remembrance for the soon to be gone 1970 version of the Mass, complete with an elaborate "burial" service for the old Missals, another more hopeful story comes from the USA:

When a parish council of a mainstream (not liberal or conservative) parish asked their priest-pastor what to do with the soon to be extinct 1970 ICEL Novus Ordo Mass books, the priest a man in his very early 40's) said without blinking an eye "THrow them in the trash".

How times are changing...for the better.

Roger Buck said...

I am enthused!

This is GREAT writing.

Succinct, very to the point ...

I virtually never quote other blog material at my blog.

But I hope I will not offend if I do this once - with obviously a direct (and laudatory) link to Rorate Caeli.

Really this needs to spread very widely I think.

Great, great, great, great, great ...

Anonymous said...

Ok.

Now, look to the post just below this post.

There is still a very long way to go.

JDF said...

"For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II. In 2007, the helmsman of the Church had already undermined the monopoly held by the Novus Ordo. Four years later, he removes from the Conciliar doctrine its non-negotiable character and its exclusivity. It is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith."

How does the author know? Has he actually read the Preamble? Nothing in the SSPX-Vatican communique actually says that Vatican II can be questioned, only that there can be "legitimate discussion (of) the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it."

Jordanes551 said...

"It is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church;"

And of course it never, ever was, even though so many treated it as if it were.

S. Petersen said...

Is Bishop Lefebvre's Saintete Sacerdotale published? I can find no trace of it through a search except for your reference here and a 2008 quotation on another blog. If you know who's selling the book (if published) in either language, please post the information.

Anonymous said...

Another blog also examined this phenomenon, focusing more on the pope's words to the Chilean bishop and concludes that the SSPX is as Catholic as they need to be.

http://exposeapostasy.blogspot.com/2011/09/have-we-gone-too-far.html

Anonymous said...

"How does the author know? Has he actually read the Preamble? "Nothing in the SSPX-Vatican communique actually says that Vatican II can be questioned, only that there can be "legitimate discussion (of) the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it."

It is the same thing. The document said that Vatican II can be legitimately criticized and discussed. It is no longer the superdogma of the Church. Watch for Vatican II to start weakening it's hold on the Church....and that is a great blessing.

There are at present two "grassroots" movements in the Catholic Church.

One, filled with great hope, energy, enthusiasm, youthfulness, and Grace is that of millions of traditional Catholics, especially the young and young religious priests, monks, friars and nuns....as well as young Bishops, who are openly siding with Catholic Tradition, fostering it, celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass, and fostering it's rapid spred across the globe.They are increasingly questioning (not repudiating), Vatican II....and openly wondering what went wrong...and if it was a mistake. Which it was. This is the Church of the furture. And the next Pope might very well come from their ranks!

Then, there is a very much smaller, extremely aged, embittered movement of Catholics who know that their Church they established for 40 years is crumbling rapidly, and that everything they built is now being questioned and repudiated....especially the Novus Ordo Missae, and other elements of Catholic life. They are the dinosaurs of the Church, who unfortunatly have had great influence and control of many Church offices across the globe. The near schism of radical liberal (and mostly aged priests and laity in Austria) is a good example. They are Protestants in all but name. But they are dying out.

These are the two movements in the Church. The Church of Vatican II is dying, and has been for a very long time. But it will not go quietly. The other, the traditionalist movement, is one of restoration and renewal. It is filled with great momentum and youth. The SSPX represents one of it's best elements.

Let us pray that the leadership of the SSPX agrees to this document, and then turns around and leads the movement against the illegitimate destruction of the Catholic Faith triggered by (if not actually caused by) Vatican II and the aged army of dissidents who are still its champions.

Malta said...

I had never had the priesthood explained to me as he does there. It is a whole world that opens up for us, for no one had explained to us what the priest was.

That's no surprise since the aggiornamento of Vatican II didn't demand a deepening of the Catholic faith, but, rather, an inculturation of the world into the Church. Instead of giving to the world what Christ demanded His Church to give (Himself), the Council taught to give to the Church what is of the world:

"[W]hatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification." [Vatican II, Ecumenism, 5]

"Instruction in sacred theology...must also be presented from an ecumenical point of view..." [Vatican II, Ecumenism, 10]

I have read through most of the documents of Vatican II several times, and nowhere do I find the basic edifying statement for Priests that they act in Persona Cristi; wouldn't that have been nice? But no, in nearly 700 pages of, in my opinion, largely gibberish, you find almost nothing to edify a Priest, but almost everything to edify the world.

New Catholic said...

S. Petersen,

The book is an anthology of excerpts spread through several of the author's works on the specific matter of priestly life. It was published by Clovis in 2008.

Mornac said...

JDF said:

How does the author know? Has he actually read the Preamble? Nothing in the SSPX-Vatican communique actually says that Vatican II can be questioned, only that there can be "legitimate discussion (of) the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it."

If nothing else, that at least amounts to permission to officially doubt what has heretofore been presented as un-doubtable. I’ll be content to doubt it for the rest of my life if necessary. We can leave it to a future Council to do the official scrubbing.

ATW said...

Anon 13:06 said:

"...the SSPX is as Catholic as they need to be."


I can only hope and pray as much for myself and my family.

Tim said...

S. Petersen:

Mgr Lefebvre: La sainteté sacerdotale

Anonymous said...

I hope that, once accepted, the Preamble will be made public.

I cannot conceive the possibility of the reconciliation happening by the acceptance of a secret document that is to remain secret.

And I too hope that the Preamble will formally cast light on the question of what exactly one needs to believe, and on the lack of necessity of believing in the dubious points of the teaching of Vatican II, a pastoral ecumenical council that chose to define no dogma.

Stephen said...

How is it that a prelate of the Curia could not know of the priesthood as explained by Arp Lefebreve? When you don't know that you don't know.

How long have others in the Curia don't known things? Could this be the only thing?

Anonymous said...

Is "La sainteté sacerdotale" available anywhere in English translation? English preferred but even a copy in French in any library in the United States? I haven't been able to find it anywhere in any form.

I am extremely interested in getting my hands on this text!

MCITL said...

The reactions to Vatican II exposed the latent heresies in the Church which now are being excised like a festering tumor.

Benedicamus Domino.

I am not Spartacus said...

Recently, a prelate of the Curia, after having read the book "On priestly holiness" ("La sainteté sacerdotale"), by Archbishop Lefebvre, confided, "I cried after a while because I went through seminary and I had never had the priesthood explained to me as he does there.


Isn't that tragically remarkable? A Prelate yet.

I wonder what that Prelate thinks of the upcoming Assisi mtg.

How can The Catholic Church dialogue with the world, say nothing about praying with it, when even one Prelate confesses he really was never taught what it meant to be a Priest.

Who thinks that even one SSPX Priest has similar ignorance?

Lord have Mercy on us all

Anonymous said...

I too will pray the Preamble to be released and perhaps some commentary from the Vatican afterwards. If we have been believing things incorrectly for decades then it needs to be cleared not only for the SSPX but for the almost billion souls who are members of the Holy Catholic Church.

Ogard said...

The Cardinal Ratzinger’s address was not an authoritative document of the Church, but the private opinion. Nevertheless, I agree l with him. Not, however with what Côme Prévigny has made of it.

The fact that Vatican II did not “define” any dogma doesn’t mean that it did not PROPOSE any. For a proposition to be a dogma it doesn’t have to be defined.

Vatican I said:
Fide divina et catholica omnia ea credenda sunt que in verbo scripto vel tradito continnentur, et ab ecclesia sive solemni iudicio sive ORDINARIO ET UNIVERSALI MAGISTERIO tanquam divinitus revelata credanda proponuntur. – By divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the Word of God, whether scriptural or in traditional, and it is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of faith either in a solemn decree or in her ORDINARY UNIVERSAL TEACHING.

So, a proposition is to be believed by a divine and Catholic faith, i.e. it is a dogma, even if it is not defined, provided that the "universality" criteria are applicable to it; and Ratzinger has only said that the Vatican II “defined no dogma”. In other words, we cannot rule out the presence in its documents of a dogma proposed by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It is the matter of theological analysis of its propositions in the entire historical context of the Magisterial teaching.

In addition, there are many propositions in the Council’s documents which are a mere paraphrasing of previously defined propositions; i.e. LG 18, where it “once again sets out for the strong belief of all…” the four dogmas on papacy defined by the Vatican I.

Furthermore, there is lot of dogmatic content in all documents, particularly in the LG and DV which are explicitly referred to as ”dogmatic constitutions”; and only one document is referred to as “pastoral” . The terms “pastoral” and “dogmatic” are not mutually exclusive, because the dogmatic teaching itself can have pastoral purpose. “Dogmatic” refers to what the things are, while “pastoral” refers to what ought to be. The social and moral teachings are pastoral, and yet a dogmatic definition is possible in these subjects (see definition of Infallibility), although I don’t know of any thus far. The “pastoral” constitution GS contains the wealth of moral doctrine.

Even if a proposed doctrine is not defined, and even if one can rule out the possibility of definition, it is still morally binding, demanding “religious assent”. This is a classical moral doctrine, and a dissent is morally evil.

Vatican II is not indeed a “super council”; but it not an under-council either. Its decrees have the same status as the non- defined sections of the so called dogmatic counils, which is ca. 95% of the latter, and 100% of the councils which defined no dogmas at all. If the Catholics were supposed to believe only defined dogmas, the whole content of what we belive could be put on two A4 sheets.

And times of martyrdom would have been the times when the martyrs were suffering for nothing because no dogma had been defined before A.D.325.

Anonymous said...

Is "La sainteté sacerdotale" available anywhere in English translation? English preferred but even a copy in French in any library in the United States? I haven't been able to find it anywhere in any form.

I am extremely interested in getting my hands on this text!


I would contact an SSPX priest or bishop and ask them if they have and can provide the document to you.

PEH

Michael Ortiz said...

This is a great post; thank you, the author, for writing it, and Rorate, for posting it.

I am a "Vatican II baby", and as with many much younger people, love the TLM not out of nostalgia, but for its beauty and truth.

As we pray for more holy sanity in the Church, let us also strive for charity in all our dealings with others who see things differently.

They are mistaken; if we truly love them, with supernatural charity, however, they will be more disposed to listen to the truth.

Anonymous said...

Michael Ortiz wrote:

"I am a 'Vatican II baby', and as with many much younger people, love the TLM not out of nostalgia, but for its beauty and truth."

Michael, just so you know, that's a lie you've been told. "Nostalgia" had and has nothing to do with our love for the TLM. We knew its beauty, truth and reverence too when it was so rudely and brutally taken from us. Imagine what we suffered all those years knowing what we had lost and the poor substitute we were stuck with.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Here is another interesting article along the same lines published in DICI today:

Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place, by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini


http://www.dici.org/en/news/vatican-council-ii-a-debate-that-has-not-taken-place-by-msgr-brunero-gherardini/

Michael Ortiz said...

Delphina,

Point well taken. The nostalgia thing is, I agree, often a stick with which to beat those who aren't "with it".

I just meant that nostalgia is in fact impossible for me, since the only Mass I remember as a child is the NO.

Tradical said...

w/r to Orgard 16:32,

Just for clarification.

In my understanding:

Archbishop Lefebvre and consequently the SSPX have the following approach to the documents of the Second Vatican Council:

1.That which is found in the past infallible Magisterium (Universal) is to be accepted.

2. That which is ambiguous needs to be clarified.

3. That which cannot be reconciled (contradicts) with pre-council Magisterium needs to be rewritten.

Joe B said...

Not to get too far ahead, but there is another "current" which will have to be dealt with soon, and that's the gap-filling cult orders that have sprung up with the decline of the traditional orders. They do not identify with old school Jesuit or Dominican or Franciscan methods, nor do they seek FSSP or other TLM-based objectives.

These have operated with little serious scrutiny (who was there to do it?) while the great conflict between modernism and traditionalism took center stage. I suspect many of them will be found to have poor priestly formation processes which will eventually have to be undone - not an easy task. Can we say 'inquisitor'?

Yes, I know I'm cheaping out by not naming the orders I suspect, but in this age, I suspect all who aren't openly and vocally on the side of the TLM, and that just for starters.

Bernonensis said...

I have to disagree on one point with this otherwise excellent article. It is not just "from now on" that we who dissent from Vatican II's innovations can call ourselves Catholic; we have been all along. Saint Athanasius didn't suddenly become orthodox by papal or conciliar decree.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

That is quite all right. It is just that when I hear that "nostalgia" line, it makes my blood boil because nostalgia had/has nothing to do with it at all.

By the way, I am glad that you found the TLM. It must have been a culture shock for someone as yourself who was raised with the NO.

Delphina

Fr Paul McDonald said...

Ogard :

1. Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988 addressing a group of *BISHOPS*, precisely because he was prefect of the CDF, was not issuing a private opinion of Joseph Ratzinger, theologian. In effect, he was not wearing a white shirt and a black tie, but was in the scarlet robes of Prince of the Church. When a delegate of the Holy See addresses a group of bishops, it is hardly private!

2. None of the "new insights" of Vatican II have been either defined or proposed as "a divinely revealed object of faith". Dignitatis humanae, for example, does not teach that the social right to religious liberty is a revealed truth.

3. One of the conditions for infallibility is that the teaching be *imposed* definitively. As was the case when John Paul II infallibly excluded women's ordination forever: "And this judgment is definitively to be hold by all the faithful." As was NOT the case in all of Vatican II.

Kitchener Waterloo Traditional Catholic said...

The 'spirit of V2' crowd may be aging and dying, yet they still hold power and influence. The next five years will be vicious as they fade away. We will rebuild the Church but it won't be quick nor easy. This is however, an opportunity for any one of us to rise to the challenge and follow the example of saints.

New Catholic said...

OK, re-posting my comment, as I was distracted at that moment:


Yes, Monsignor Gherardini's follow-up booklet is very interesting. But of all his recent publications, the most compelling is "Quaecumque dixero vobis", on Sacred Tradition - I thoroughly and wholeheartedly recommend it, though I believe it is available only in Italian at the moment; maybe I should write a review of it, but only after my next recess...

NC

Michael Ortiz said...

Something of a culture shock, yes, but in some ways, no.

I reverted when I came into contact with Benedictines who said the NO reverently...then I remember going to the Latin NO the National Shrine in DC used to hold in the 90s...beautiful chant...then I discovered the real thing...I still attend a NO parish, but get to a TLM when possible.

My personal experience, it seems, gives credence to the "gradualist" approach...many, many folks need total re-catechesis on the Faith and the Mass...

Sure, the Pope could sign edicts tomorrow. Would the great mass of Catholics even understand what he was doing?

Hence, the new translation of the NO is another sign of a sea-change.

Large, lasting changes drill deeper roots.

Who wants 1970 in reverse? The change--for the better--might only last as long!

Gratias said...

We will find that the opposition to the SSPX reconciliation has just begun. German parliament and Abraham Fox have chimed in already. Charges of antisemitism are thrown around with impunity by the machinery of the enemies of the Catholic Faith. Keep praying that the SSPX accepts this agreement. The Holy Father has been aiming for this since the start of his papacy. Pray reconciliation takes place. Tradition would emerge much stronger, at a time when the ecumenism really needs the risorggimento of Faith and Reason. Stand with the Holy Father as the battle is to be joined soon.

Hans Coessens said...

In all my ignorance. Isn't it the case that the Council itself cannot be revoked because such things at an ecumenical level are de facto infallible, no?

I am well aware of the ability to criticise the clarity of the documents and the ambiguity and what they lead to, but the council itself cannot be revoked because it is ecumenical. Or am I simply wrong?

Also another question I have is as to whether or not the SSPX have a problem with the clarity of the council or with the message itself of the council.

Cordially

John McFarland said...

Dear Tradical,

Following your numbers:

1. What is infallible has always been embraced by the SSPX and its founder.

2.-3. The SSPX has no interest in "clarifying" much less "rewriting" Vatican II. It was intended to make a revolution, and ambiguity was one of its chief tools. To abandon the revolution is to abandon Vatican II. All that is necessary is to stop talking about it except it scholarly post mortems, and to frighten those who are inclinded to further ad vomitem.

John McFarland said...

Dear Gratias,

I will pray only that there be no agreement until there is something to have an agreement about.

At the moment, there is nothing to have an agreement about.

The faith of the Holy Father is not the faith of the SSPX. The Society has made that abundantly clear. So has the Holy Father.

It is, however, certainly true that the attack on the SSPX has just begun. The more attention and support the SSPX obtains, the more the pressure to abandon the true theology of the Jews -- which is to abandon the Faith -- will build and build and build. The Holocaust narrative and the desire of the Society to stay in Germany will be the chief weapons.

So there are two things to pray for: that Rome will turn away from the errors of Vatican II, and towards the faith delivered once for all to the saints; and that when it turns, the SSPX is still turned in the same direction.

Anonymous said...

"The 'spirit of V2' crowd may be aging and dying, yet they still hold power and influence. The next five years will be vicious as they fade away. We will rebuild the Church but it won't be quick nor easy. This is however, an opportunity for any one of us to rise to the challenge and follow the example of saints."

This is a great post. So true.

Let us pray for the appearance of another holy priest in the mold of an Ignatius of Loyola or an Alphonsus de Ligouri, or a St. Paul of the Cross...or a St. Teresa of Avila...all great founders of the Jesuits, Redemptorists, Passionists, and Discalced Carmelites respectively.
None were radical dissenters who tried to destroy the Church like a Luther or a Calvin, but rather tried to build the Church according to Catholic tradition.

Let us pray for the disappearance ( by that I don't mean death-I mean disappearance...fading into obscurity and silence), of people like Hans Kung, the retired bishop in Ireland who just advocated married priests, the rad femminist nun Joan Chittister, Bishop Donald Trautman, Archbishop Piero Marini, Cardinals Sodano, Re,Schonborn ,Kasper and Mahoney, and hundereds of others.

At the same time, let us pray for many Graces, health, and strength to our Holy Father, Benedict XVI that he preserves in restoring Catholic tradition, and that if he feels compelled to continue with some outward hangovers of Vatican II times ( the Assisi meeting this October, and the meeting with Lutherans in Germany next week), that it is all done in the spirit of Catholic Truth, without compromise.

Knight of Malta said...

Gratias--indeed! Let' just pray. Interestingly +Williamson said nothing of 09/14 in his most recent Dino address. I think Benedict has given FSSPX an agreement they can't resist.

But Benedict has long been a friend of Tradition. He we friends with Michael Davies before it became fashionable to be a Traditionalist. Davies, in turn, said that then Cardinal Ratzinger is on the side of Tradition.

Well, I think Davies is quite right! Us Traddies may complain about the pace of things, but not the direction things are going!

Michael Ortiz said...

I once was on a workshop sponsored by the Archdiocese of Washington DC, and the ADL on anti-Semitism.

The ecumenism that went on was total sell-out of Christianity, the Pope, and Tradition.

Out of 16 Catholic High School teachers, I was the only one to object.

If the ADL is attacking SSPX, the charges are garbage.

Tradical said...

Hi John,

Sorry dude, grabbed those statements out of a letter to Rome from Archbishop Lefebvre. (sorry read it last weekend but can't remember the book)

This approach still corresponds to my understanding of talks given by Bishop Fellay.

Tradical said...

@John MacFarland,

a question just occured to me.

What are you going to do if the SSPX does get regularized?

thomist said...

The SSPX has no interest in "clarifying" much less "rewriting" Vatican II.

Then the SSPX should stop taking about the Council altogether.

But, the reality of the siutation is that the SSPX does have some very opinionated views on the council. And how could it be otherwise when --like it or not-- Vatican II will forever be part of the Church's history? What remains, I think, is clarifying how Vatican II should be properly in future centuries. The SSPX will either be helping with the "clarifying" or it won't. I'm of the opinion that it (indirectly) will.

Anonymous said...

Attn. to Anmonymous 23:27:

We had 2 holy men in the post Vatican II Church that rose up against the tide in the persons of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio DeCastro Myer. Bishop Fellay seems to be doing an excellant job of continuing their legacy. What else are you hoping for?

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how true solidly Catholics are slowly but surely being vindicated. The Holy Father over the few years has affirmed what has been believed but practically forbidden to be mentioned, and treated like we were behind a "Vatican II iron curtain" as it were.

It was moving but quite unsettling to have a prelate describe how he wept when learning what his priesthood was all about from an incidental source and NOT from the seminary. It's mind-boggling to think how many disaffected priests there are out there--usually in our local parishes--feeding us their own ignorance and odd ideas.

Prayerfully,

Matt

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

....Cardinal Ratzinger is on the side of Tradition.

Oh, yes. Assisi III shows just how much on the side of Tradition he is.

Michael Ortiz said...

If only being Pope were as easy as commenting in a blog combox.

Tradical said...

@Brother Anthony

Can't determine what Assisi III will be like. I'm pretty certain that it won't be another Assisi I.

Interesting the shift that occurred at World Youth Day. An emphasis on Catechism, confession, etc. Conservative Bishops giving the lessons. Not to mention 1500 non-SSPX traditionalists being given a church and having a Bishop say Mass. Pretty impressive.

At this point, some groups have objected to aspects of Assisi III and are threatening to boycott.

Of course to a man dying of thirst a thimble of water is worth a fortune.

ToS said...

If only being Pope were as easy as commenting in a blog combox.

Never mind the fact that dozens of other Popes act and teach better then these modern ones; even until the point of death.

mcgod in aus said...

I have said something similar in another combox: I was astonished at the time with the speed withwhich the NO was instoduced/imposed in the first place. I remember remarking at the time that if the TLM was available then no one would be interested in this bland cheerless banal liturgy. Now I am astonished at the slow speed with which the TLM is being reintroduced. The same technique at the 1970's would seeem to be a good template.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate what the Holy Father is doing. Should he be doing more? Of course. Could he doing more? Of course. One just has to look at how quickly and definitively he changed the Good Friday intercessory prayer for the Jews when the Tridentine Missal was freed up again. How interesting there were no committees, no endless Curial meetings, no world-wide Episcopal consultations and voting spanning decades... it was just changed. Why then such agony when it comes to changing anything about the Novus Ordo?

The Holy Father still is doing a great deal of good nonetheless, and his gestures toward the SSPX is wonderful, not to mention the clause of being able to disagree with the non-De Fide stuff. I think this was a way to open the back door for all of us contending the "pastoral" side of the Council.

God bless the Pope.

Matt

Ogard said...

Ad “just for clarification” (Tradical 17 September at 18,58) clarifies nothing. What is, for example, “the past infallible Magisterium (Universal)”? Do the Quanta cura with Syllabus, or Mortalium animos, come under this category, and if there is a disagreement as to what is the case who is to have a final word?

What is so “ambiguous” that it has to be “clarified”? What is it that “cannot be reconciled (contradicts) with pre-council Magisterium” and has to be “rewritten”? And in the case of disagreement, who is to have the final word?
---------------
Ad (A)Ratzinger, (B)Vatican II, (C)Infallibility (Fr. McDonald 17 September).

A)RATZINGER. What he was or wasn’t wearing, and the fact that he is the “prince” of the Church is all irrelevant for the status of what he said. I don’t know of any indication of the doctrinal status of his statement, and no Papal approval was part of the text. What is in his address that shows that he was a papal “delegate”?
In any case he said nothing new: the status of the documents of Vatican II had been dealt with in the Nota Praevia, which was attached to the two dogmatic constitutions. He, on the other hand, was addressing the Chilean bishops, and his concern were dissenting Liberation theologians who were using Vatican II as if it were a super council that had allegedly overruled the received doctrine (he would call it now Hermeneutic of Rupture). So, he was at pains to make clear that the Council DEFINED no dogma, which doesn’t mean that no dogma was MATERIALLY present in its texts as I had explained earlier. The dogmas present or not, the doctrine contained in the Council’s texts is nevertheless binding - according to the classical Moral Theology, also explained last time.

B)VATICAN II has provided a set of conditions which have to be fulfilled for the Ordinary magisterial teaching to be infallible (LG 25/2):
(1)Bishops scattered throughout the world but (2) in communion with each other and with the Pope (3)teach authentically (i.e. officially, not privately) (4)the doctrine of faith and morals (5)agree on a single opinion (6)to be held definitely ((“held”, includes not only what is in Revelation which has to be “believed”, but also what is intrinsically connected with the Revelation and is not strictly believed (so called, Catholic Truths; other terms used: Ecclesiastical Teachings, Secondary Object of Infallibility)).

It is the matter of theological research to establish whether or not these conditions obtain in any particular case. As the theologians cannot always reach a consensus about it, the infallible teachings of this kind are rarely mentioned in manuals; however, THEY CAN NEVER BE RULED OUT. The implication is: if one dissents from a particular Vatican II proposition, he might reject what is MATERIALLY a dogma. This is one of the reasons why it is sinful to dissent from teaching when one should at least give to it a “religious assent”.
But, if it is certain that the above conditions do not obtain, the Ordinary teaching is not infallible. Nevertheless, it still comands a “religious assent”. By the way, some “traditionalists” conveniently omit from their reference to the Nota Praevia the latter point. They are very keen to quote the first paragraph of the Declaration of 6 March 1964, which suits them to justify dissent, but omit the second which reads thus: see next comment.

Ogard said...

“All the other statements that it (i.e. the Council) proposes are the teaching of the supreme magisterium. They must therefore be welcomed and accepted by each and every one of Christ’s faithful in the way in which the Sacred Council intended. This intention is conveyed either by the subject matter or by the manner of utterance, according to the norms of theological interpretation.”

Similarly the LG 25/1, also with reference to the “non-infallible” teaching:
“When Bishops engage in teaching, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they deserve respect from all as the witnesses of divine, catholic faith; the faithful must agree with the judgement of their Bishop on faith and morals, which he delivers in the name of Christ; they must give it their adherence with religious assent of the mind. The offering of this religious assent of mind and will is singularly owed to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; it must be offered in such a way, that his supreme magisterium receives respectful acknowledgment. The result should be a sincere adherence to the judgments which he has delivered that complies with his manifest meaning and intention, and this is conveyed chiefly by the character of the documents, by the frequency with which the same teaching is put forward, or by the style of utterance.”

As I said before, were we supposed to believe only what is “either defined or proposed as ‘a divinely revealed object of faith’ “ (as Father McDonald would have it) nothing would remain binding for Catholics except a two A4 sheets of such definitions, and nothing would had been believed at all by the Christians who had undergone martyrdom during the first three centuries. The characteristic of the infallible teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is precisely in that it is NOT explicitly defined or proposed as such (i.e. as the Father would have it), but it is a result of theological consensus with regard to a particular point of teaching in the light of the six points listed above (LG 25/2).

“Dignitatis humanae, for example, does not teach that the social right to religious liberty is a revealed truth” (Fr. MacDonald). True, but the same applies to the social teaching of Pius IX. And in principle, the teaching of an ecumenical council (i.e. a pope with bishops) can overrule the teaching of an individual pope, unless he speaks ex cathedra, although the overruling doesn’t seem to be the case here. The Council says in the DH 1/1 that it “studies the sacred tradition and teaching of the Church – the treasury from which she (the Church, my note) brings forth new things ever in harmony with the old” (DH 1/1). It also adds that it “leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duties of man and society towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ” (DH 1/3). The aim of the Council was not to teach the doctrine on religious liberty as a “revealed truth”. Nevertheless, its teaching is binding as all the other non-infallible teachings (see above Declaration of 6 May 1964). In fact, the DH 9/1 explicitly says that the teaching “has its roots in divine Revelation” (DH 9/1).

Furthermore, an infallible doctrine doesn’t have to be a revealed truth. Infallible propositions are possible about truths that, although not revealed, are intrinsically connected with Revelation (technically: the Secondary Object of Infallibility). For example, that Vatican I was an ecumenical council, or that Pius XII was the Pope. If these matters, although not revealed, were not infallibly true, no teachings of Vatican I and Pius XII could be dogmas. See the next comment.

Ogard said...

After all, Pius IX did not propose his teaching against religious liberty as a revealed truth, has he?

(C)INFALLIBILITY. (By the way, an infallible teaching is not “imposed”, but proposed.) While it is true that “(o)ne of the conditions for infallibility is that the teaching be” proposed (not *imposed*) “definitively”, the difficulty is that the definite nature of the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is not easy to establish, as I explained above.

The example of JPII’s judgment is merely a declarative, and would have a limited value had it not behind it the constant sacramental practice of the Church from the very beginning. In fact, the statement had provoked many doubts to which the CDF issued on 28 October 1995 “A reply to the dubium…..” in which it responded “in the affirmative” to the question as to whether the JPII’s statement “is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of the faith”.

In further explanation the CDF in no way puts the emphasis on the JPII’s statement in which he, allegedly “infallibly excluded women's ordination forever”, but merely says that the Pope “confirming the brethren…has handed on this same teaching by formal declaration.” The phrase “this same teaching” refers to the “teaching…founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.” I.e. it is not the JPII’s statement that is decisive, but the constant tradition that makes this teaching infallible. The response of the CDF would have been impossible, had it not behind itself the LG 25/2. And it is not difficult to see that all condition laid down in the LG 25/2 were met.

Ordination comes under Sacramental doctrine, and the fact is that the Bishops scattered throughout the world (1), and in communion with one another and with the Popes (2) have consistently ordained the men only ( “A few heretical sects in the first centuries” departed from this practice, but it was “immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers” – CDF: Inter Insigniores 15 October 1976.) which implies that they taught authentically (3) the (sacramental) doctrine regarding the faith (4), and were in agreement (5) that this practice was to be held definitely (6), because until very recently nobody was so silly to come to another ideas about it. The definite nature of this agreement was also evident in the manuals of sacramental theology, which until recently were meticulously supervised by the hierarchies.

So, it wasn’t difficult for the JPII to confirm this by his declaration, which was necessary because of the currently unfortunate situation in theological community, not that it was necessary in itself.

Why this “was NOT the case in all of Vatican II” ? The same question can be raised with regard to all the Councils in those matters which are not constitutive of the definitions in the strictest sense (see my earlier comment 16 September). Vatican II has proposed its teaching, which is now constitutive of the Tradition, and it is now up to theologians to assess its value in the context of the entire Tradition, not as something imposed on it (super- council), nor something that has to find its place in it (under-council) – both would constitute the Hermeneutic of Rupture, but as something that is an integral part of it – Hermeneutic of Continuity. END

Tradical said...

my dear ... we appear to have struck a nerve with Ogard.

Universal Ordinary Magisterium: Teaching authority of the Bishops (including the Pope) in the conditions that you basically describe with one addition. The Universal is in continuity for prior Magisterium.

For example Paul VI in Humanum Vitae simply repeats and reinforces past Magisterial declaration on a matter of faith and morals. This is a perfect example of Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

The same basic concepts applies to the infallibility of the Bishops when not in a Council.

I'll go a peruse the remainder of ogard posts ...

Tradical said...

@ogard 12:17

Yes I read that portion of the nota. So what are we to do when you have Pius XI condemning Ecumenism as it is practiced today?

Sit back and watch the show?

Tradical said...

@ Ogard 12:17

Fr. MacDonald ... no revealed truth. (I think I've read this a reference would help)

Interesting point, however you miss on crucial aspect. Pius IX condemned the thesis that are being foisted upon the laity now (and have been for the last 40years).

As Pius XII said in Humani Generis - once the Pope has made a definitive statement it is considered closed for discussion. For a subsequent Pope (or council) to reverse this is an issue.

To sum up:
Yes there are levels of assent required for Doctrine. Dogma - complete since they are de Fide.

Ordinary Magisterium is Universal because is it Universal in Time and Space. Meaning that the Bishop's can't teach or novelties and be infallible. For example. Catechisms are normally considered part of the Ordinary Magisterium. However, when the Dutch Catechism deviated from the continuous teaching of the Church - it is NOT infallible.

Tradical said...

@ogard
C)INFALLIBILITY. (By the way, an infallible teaching is not “imposed”, but proposed.)

If this is semantics - I'm not certain.

However the words "Are to be held to be true" seem to ring a bell in one of the Dogmatic Definitions (Immaculate Conception or Assumption ... perhaps)

Seems to be more that a mere proposition.

... off to work now ... I'll check this evening.

Joe B said...

Ogard, if there be truth in everything VII declared, there is still the question of whether each statement is universally true or limited in application, and that is the issue for the controversial documents. For example, if Ecumenism only applies to religions which still have valid holy orders and sacraments and has pretty much run its course and failed (as the Holy Father has said), then critics of the documents are justified in demanding those limiting conditions be stated as definitively as the original documents, which stand flawed, objectionable, and unbinding until then.

That appears to me to have been the basis of Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns. He did not accuse the documents of formally containing heresy. He said they were lacking in explanation of how they are to be interpreted consistent with tradition. If universal in truth, so state. If pastoral as claimed by the council fathers (limited application), define the limits. In fact, I don't see how the place of VII in Catholicism can ever be established (and respectfully dispensed with) until the limiting factors of the controversial documents are spelled out, and it would be helpful if this were done before those who were present died off.

I fail to see anything erroneous in SSPX's conclusions - the documents are being implemented heretically, scandalously, and universally, when no such application is justified. The documents as written are flawed, if only in their incompleteness, and since they are at least incomplete, there is the possibility that they are heretical as written, although that is not currently the accusation.

Do you see why it is so important to stand back and let SSPX pursue this to its end, distasteful as it may seem? In the end, the correct legacy of VII depends on a precision missing in its documents, and the reputation of the church demands not just truth, but clarity.

Ogard said...

Joe B,
I see nothing essentially wrong in the Vatican II documents, although I have read all of them, some: LG, DV, UR, DH, NE and SC, thoroughly and in two languages, including one to three competent theological commentaries. I strongly dislike sweeping condemnations, particularly if they are not personal conclusions after conscious study, but adopted from secondary sources.

True, the documents could have been written in a better way, but this applies even to the dogmatic definitions in the past.

Specifically, the UR is a good document, and definitely not a failure. The progress in our relation with the separated Eastern Churches is promising, and would be even better if we were able to put our own house in order, because the development of the life in the Catholic Church makes the Eastern Churches cautious, and understandably so.

I can’t get involved in a debate about the SSPX. The post is about Cardinal Ratzinger’s address to the Chilean hierarchy, while the case of the SSPX in now in progress on a higher level, and there is no point in getting involved in speculation. I, of course, stand on the side of the living Magisterium, because I am trying to be a Catholic.

Tradical said...

Note To Self: Don't read posts early in the morning.

@ ogard

... Pius IX did not propose his teaching against religious liberty as a revealed truth ...

In it he did condemn as error a number of ideas. Are you saying these are no longer errors?

Tradical said...

@Ogard:

.. Quanta cura with Syllabus, or Mortalium animos ...

Yes they are part of the Magisterium as are catechisms, etc. They are either Ordinary or Authentic depending on the 'Universality' that you referred to.

A much used example of an ambiguity is use of the word 'subsist' in describing the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. Up to that point the word used was 'is', indicating an identity.

The word 'subsist' was used to push the concept that the Church of Christ exists outside the structural boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church. Meaning in the schismatic and heretic groups.

This viewpoint is used to support the concept that a Protestant is saved by his/her religion.

Examples of this concept in practice would be non-Catholic Christians being told they don't need to convert by priests and Bishops.

Since you are 'up' on the theology. Would you care to provide context on Pope Benedict XVI's statement that Gaudium et Spes is a counter-syllabus.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Infallibility does not necessarily mean that a proposition is a truth of Revelation. There are metaphysical truths that are infallible but one is not a heretic for contravening them. Therefore, it may very well be that several of the opposing propositions to the condemned errors in the Syllabus, for example, may be infallible without necessarily making one a heretic in denying them. The infallibility of the proposition may be able to be reasoned out with theological certainty.

Tradical said...

Br. Anthony,

Is this the difference between de fide, senta certa etc statements?

Joe B said...

"Specifically, the UR is a good document, and definitely not a failure. The progress in our relation with the separated Eastern Churches is promising, and would be even better if we were able to put our own house in order, because the development of the life in the Catholic Church makes the Eastern Churches cautious, and understandably so."

As I said, the Holy Father disagrees with your first part, and the second is exactly SSPX's point.

"True, the documents could have been written in a better way, but this applies even to the dogmatic definitions in the past."

I see this is hopeless. "Could have been written better" is an incompetent review of documents that are being widely interpreted heretically and implemented so scandalously.

Where were you when I was trying to justify hard drinking?

Ogard said...

Joe B, I will respond only briefly, because there is no point in continuing unless I see evidence that you have read and digested Vatican II documents, or the UR at least.

Ad “As I said, the Holy Father disagrees with your first part, and the second is exactly SSPX's point.”
I deny the first part, and with regard to the second the “traditionalists” are equally the problem as are the modernists. The latter are a menace to both Churches, while the former’s ideas of reunion are a non-starter from the Eastern viewpoint, and obsolete from the Catholic viewpoint.

Ad “I see this is hopeless. ‘Could have been written better’ is an incompetent review of documents that are being widely interpreted heretically and implemented so scandalously.”
A more polite language would have been better. See also the introducing sentence above.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Tradical,

Yes. However, please note that it is not wise to reject a certain truth obtained through a categorical syllogism. I have read that the effect of denial is a mortal sin against Faith.

Tradical said...

@Br. Anthony,

Thanks. That was my understanding from reading "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ott.

Tradical said...

@Ogard,

On the off chance that you deign to write a response. I wanted to ensure that I understand your situation / position:
You:
A. have read all the documents of the Second Vatican Council, some thoroughly and in two languages (hmm was one Latin?)
B. dislike sweeping condemnations, particularly if they are not personal conclusions after conscious study, but adopted from secondary sources.
C. can’t get involved in a debate about the SSPX … and stand on the side of the living Magisterium, because you are trying to be a Catholic.
D. concluded that there is no point in continuing (some discussions) unless you see evidence that your opponent has read and digested Vatican II documents
E. appear to not agree with the assertion that the documents of V2 are being widely interpreted heretically and implemented scandalously.
F. concluded that the “traditionalists” are equally the problem as are the modernists and the Traditionalists concept of reunion with the Eastern schismatics represents an obsolete Catholic viewpoint
G. believe Unitatis Redintegratio to be a good document.
H. appear to believe Ecumenism as practiced since Vatican II, particularly under Cardinal Kasper does not contradict Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos
I. Appear to have a limited interpretation of Ordinary Magisterium due to the question of whether or not encyclicals etc are part of the Magisterium.
J. appear to believe that Vatican II is an act of the Ordinary Magisterium in a blanket manner rejecting that if the teachings are not Universal in time then they are only 'Authentic'.
K. believe that religious assent should be given to all the documents of the Second Vatican Council and (I assume) by extension the liturgical and ecumenical practices promulgated since the Council.
L. appear to not believe in the need of past Magisterium to agree with present. As in the case of Pius IX - Quanta Cura, Pius X - Pascendi etc
M. believe in evolution of doctrine, ie Living Magisterium, that can change basic meaning over time to suit the age in which the Church finds Herself.
N. believe that the response provided by the CDF re JPII's declaration on priestesses, could not have happened were it not for LG 25/2 (I must read that one day).


To sum up:
1. Traditional Catholics are not justified in their angst with respect to the Second Vatican Council and the 'reforms' that have been taking place since the close of the Council.
2. There is no merit in their assertions that the Liturgy has taken on a continually evolving protestant form, which is in accord with the Spirit of the Council, that is endangering their Faith.
3. Traditional Catholics should not involve themselves in discussions on the Council if they have 'only' read commentaries provided by other 'Traditionalists'.

Did I capture the salient points?

Ogard said...

Tradical
Ad 19 September, 2011 12:48
“…in the conditions that you basically describe with one addition.” - If you wish me to comment on the whole text, kindly bring to my attention the place where I said what you attribute to me. See also under 12.59. Would it be possible in the future to locate more precisely those parts of my comments which you refer to?

Ad 19 September, 2011 12:52
“Yes I read that portion of the nota.” - Great, I suggest: accept it, and bring it to attention of others. It is nothing new. Ref. Grisez: The Way of the Lord Jesus (Moral Theology in 3x900 pages), vol.II. Ch. 1, Q i, and Ch. 3, Q D, no’s 1,2,4. The whole work is on the author’s website: www.twolj, or Google the title. St. Pal’s – Alba House, NY, sell it for ca. $40 per vol, I think that Harmony Media have it, with the wealth of other material, on a CD, for $50. Although the L.Ott’s book is about dogma, not about Moral Theology, he nevertheless has something on assent on p.10, no.6, 2nd paragraph. Even the decrees of Roma dicasteries demand assent, he says, unless somebody is a “competent expert” who “after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error”.

“So what are we to do when you have Pius XI condemning Ecumenism as it is practiced today?” – It all depends on whether what is practiced is in accord with the UR and subsequent documents (which should be studied, rather than learned from secondary sources), and in accord with the practice of the Holy Father and the Bishops in accord with him, OR it is in accord with what is happening in an unauthorized way contrary to both. To claim the former, i.e. that Pius XI condemned the practice of the present Magisterium is, of course, untenable; while the latter is an abuse, based on misconception of the Ecumenism and doesn’t need Pius XI’s condemnation.

A comparative study of the Mortalium Animos and the UR clearly shows that they have different objectives, which do not contradict one another. It is significant that the Pius XI encyclical nowhere appears in the text of the UR as a reference, it is – I think - because it is irrelevant.

Mortalium Animos is not an ecumenical encyclical.It condemns not ecumenism as conceived by the UR, but the Pan-Christian movement of his time, which was initiated by the Protestants with the aim of setting up a sort of federation of Christian communities in which each community would retain its own creed. This idea is, of course, incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and stands implicitly, albeit not explicitly, condemned by the UR too. Implicitly only, because it was abandoned before the Council by the very Protestants who have initiated it, and at the time of Vatican II nobody thought of such a nonsense.

Furthermore, the concept of ecumenism as taught by the UR did not exist in Pius XI’s time, so he couldn’t have possibly condemned it. He had no clue what it would be all about. The very word “ecumenism” is of later date too – again, Pius XI had never heard of it. It was introduced by the Protestants, and adopted by the Church, but the sense given to it is different.

So, to say that Pius XI condemned the UR notion of ecumenism makes no sense.

The introduction and the basic doctrinal principles are given in nos. 1-3, while the practical guidelines as to how to overcome the tragedy of division are given in 4-11.

There can be no question of playing down Catholic doctrine for the sake of “unity”: 11/1 and 24/1, and, of course, the fullness of the means of salvation is present only in the Catholic Church 3/5, 4/6; the fullness of unity already subsists in the Catholic Church, and it cannot be lost 4/3.

A conversion of individuals is legitimate, but has nothing to do with ecumenism 4/4.

Ogard said...

Tradical
The aim of ecumenism is not to achieve a reunion overnight, but to take steps in that direction and leave the rest to God. To put our own houses in order, to study our own doctrine, and that of those who are separated from us not by imputing to them our own understanding of it but by learning it from them in a fair dialogue, to work together in all matters in which our respective consciences are not compromised etc. – all that with a full awareness that the present state of affairs is not acceptable to God. A huge field of study and work, in humility, with the sense of responsibility to Christ who died that we all be one... all that is awaiting to be accomplished.

Ad 19 September, 2011 12:59
Ad “Fr. MacDonald ... no revealed truth. (I think I've read this a reference would help)” - If you wish me to comment, kindly bring to my attention more precisely the place – again insufficient identification - where I said what you attribute to me. The “reference” to what?

“Interesting point, however you miss on crucial aspect. Pius IX condemned the thesis that are being foisted upon the laity now (and have been for the last 40years).” – Which “point” ? Which “thesis”?

“As Pius XII said in Humani Generis - once the Pope has made a definitive statement it is considered closed for discussion. For a subsequent Pope (or council) to reverse this is an issue.” – In fact, the text accurately reads as follows (CTS rendering, DO 265):
“And when the Roman Pontiffs go out of their way to pronounce on some subject which has hitherto been controverted, it must be clear to everybody that in the mind and intention of the Pontiffs concerned, this subject can no longer be regarded as a matter of free debate among theologians.”

Comparing the text with what is made out of it: (a)”to pronounce on some subject” is turned into the “definitive statement”; (b)“in the mind and intention of the Pontiffs concerned” is omitted; in my understanding it means: as far as that particular Pope is concerned, i.e. it doesn’t apply absolutely; (c)the “free debate among theologians” is turned into “an issue”, not for the theologians, but “for the subsequent Pope (or council) should they “reverse” it.

My view is that it was a disciplinary measure binding theologians of his time; in no way binding his successors. They are entirely free to take the view that the ban is counterproductive, that it should be lifted, and the position, if false, challenged directly and in public. Everybody knows that it was removed from the original schema at the Council.

“Yes there are levels of assent required for Doctrine.” - Correct, but with three observations: (a)assent should be in the sense intended by the authority, not in the sense concocted by an individual, (b)there is no room for dissent, (c)the whole attitude must be positive, ruling out excuses.

“Ordinary Magisterium is Universal because is it Universal in Time and Space….” I better respond to this after your response to 12.48. , because both deal with the Ordinary Magisterium, and it would seem that you are confusing the Magisterium with its teaching.

I am not sure that the things are quite clear to me either, because I have never come across with an explanation of the status of the non-infallible teachings of ecumenical councils. Do they come under the Ordinary Magisterium – which makes no sense, because a council is an extraordinary event, in which the Bishops are not dispersed throughout the world, involved in the day-to-day teaching; or Extraordinary Magisterium, which seems unusual, because the “Extraordinary” seems reserved to the definitions. However, I have seen it in one place but failed to take down the reference. If anyone knows a reference that would give us a clue it would be great.

Ogard said...

Tradical
Ad 19 September, 2011 13:02
“If this (Re: imposed v. proposed) is semantics - I'm not certain”. – It was only my comment in passing, and I did not intend to make too much of it. But once questioned, the term ”proposed” is a standard term in documents (see for example the “proponuntur” in “fide divina et Catholica” of 17 September, 2011 16:31); while the former sounds a DIY creature of one who thinks that the faith can or may be imposed as the law is imposed. It struck me because I have never seen it before. "Are to be held to be true" is not the same (if in the text at all – I have three texts of the definition, but no introducing texts where the phrase might be).
I have never read an account telling us that Pius IX “imposed” the dogma. He merely articulated what was believed by the Church anyway, and proposed it as truth.

“Seems to be more that (than ?) a mere proposition” (referring to “"Are to be held to be true" ). It doesn’t: it is exactly what the proposition of the truth is all about. – The “proposition” conventionally means what is suggested for acceptance or like. But in technical language the proposition is “a complex object of thought which can be true or false; hence, which is believed, asserted, doubted, denied etc.” In this case, it is proposed as true to be assented to or believed. The quote is from Grisez, vol. I, Key Words – but he might not yet have managed to put the Key Words on the website – I have the book. He is a philosopher, with PhD in logic.

He also says that the proposition is “not a linguistic entity”, and must be distinguished from the “statement” (the two are confused in ordinary parlance, and by Fr. Kung in his book: Infallible. Grisez exposed him in the essay in app. 2, Ch. 35), which he defines as “the expression of the proposition in written and spoken language”; and adds that the “propositions, not statements, are taught infallibly.” There are two fascinating essays appended to Ch. 20, which every traditionalist who is capable of coping with more difficult texts should read.

Ad 19 September, 2011 21:03
“In it (i.e. in the teaching against religious liberty) he (Pius IX) did condemn as error a number of ideas. Are you saying these are no longer errors?” – This is not a proper response to the comment. All the same, to put your mind at rest, my answer to your question is: No, because I do not know what specifically you have in mind. I can only put it in general terms. His infallible propositions are only the definitions (Immaculate Conception, definitions of Vatican I). The rest is not infallible, i.e. it is potentially erroneous, albeit unlikely in the majority of instances. Perhaps by analysing each “erroneous” idea from the viewpoint of whether it was confirmed by the subsequent Pontiffs, and whether it had been proposed by others before his time, one might possibly establish that it was proposed infallibly by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, but I don’t believe that anybody has ventured to make such a claim. Also one might find something in that direction in the manuals of the authores probati.

On the other hand, the ideas he condemned as erroneous might have been really erroneous ideas of his time, but if, subsequently, the terms remained in use, but the underlying ideas have changed, these new ideas wouldn’t come under condemnation merely because the same name is used for both.

Furthermore, each proposition by the Magisterium has to be consistent with other truths of Faith. But it does seem to me that his doctrine against religious liberty cannot be reconciled with the Church’s Teaching on human dignity, conscience and justice. The pope seems to have overlooked this aspect of his propositions.

Ogard said...

Tradical
Ad 19 September, 2011 21:05
“.. Quanta cura with Syllabus, or Mortalium animos ... Yes they are part of the Magisterium as are catechisms, etc. They are either Ordinary or Authentic depending on the 'Universality' that you referred to.”

In order to find out what you mean by the “the past infallible Magisterium (Universal)”, I asked (a)whether in your understanding of it, the Quanta cura with Syllabus, or Mortalium animos, come under this category, and (b)if there is a disagreement as to what is the case who is to have a final word? But the above response doesn’t answer these questions.

One cannot dispute that the above documents are the teaching of the Magisterium of that time, i.e. of the teaching of the two Pius-es, and that those subject to them at the time owed religious assent to these teachings (as we now owe religious assent to the Teaching of the present Magisterium). But this was not my question.

Furthermore, I find your terminology confusing again. What is a difference between “Ordinary” and “Authentic”? Where the “Universality” comes in in this context?

And to come back to what I said on 19 September at 12.48 and 12.59, here again comes the confusion of the Magisterium as such with the Magisterial teaching; then Ordinary, Universal etc. Could you clarify what these terms are supposed to mean in your view?

“A much used example of an ambiguity is use of the word 'subsist' in describing the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.” - Could you explain what is ambiguous in the word “subsists” in the context of “the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church”, and do you consider as “Roman” the Eastern Catholic Churches which have a sui iuris status? What about the Orthodox Church, which apart from few dogmas, and some aspects of moral teaching share all the rest with the Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches. Is the Orthodox Church completely “out” as if she were an atheistic community?

“Up to that point the word used was 'is' ”. - No. The word was a novelty, introduced in Mystici Corporis, challenged by theologians (see complaint in Humani Generis), and never used again in papal documents. It was dropped from the draft at Vatican II, the word “subsists” was adopted by the overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers, promulgated, and ever since used in all documents – notably: both Canon Laws, and the CCC, under three Pontiffs.

“…indicating an identity.” - Very clumsy way of putting things. Peter, 12 Apostles, small early community from one side, and Benedict, 3000 Bishops, and over a billion faithful from another, are in no way identical twins. The word “subsists” means “stands under”, includes the “is” – it is actually used in OE 2 - but indicates more than the original “is”, in accord with the command to spread the Gospel (Mt 28, 19-20).

Furthermore, the separation of various groups in the cause of history was never a complete separation: in various degrees they all retained some or nearly all elements of the Christ’s Church which fully subsists in the Catholic Church. In other words, they all retained in various degree the elements which belong to the Catholic Church, and IN THIS SENSE, they are materially Catholic. For the future hoped for reunion, they have to build on these Catholic elements, not to abandon them and start from scratch. The living example: Ordinariate for the former Anglicans. The past examples: all Eastern Rite, now sui iuris, Catholic (not Roman, but in communion with Rome) Churches. For this reason, the new “convert” from non-Catholic Christian denomination is said to be received into the full communion from what has been an incomplete one; the term “conversion” which suggests that he had been in no-relation with the Catholic Church is omitted.

Ogard said...

“The word 'subsist' was used to push the concept that the Church of Christ exists outside the structural boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church.” - One can “push the concept” as one wants, be he a modernist, or “traditionalist” – the characteristic of many of the latter is that they push it not for good reason but to rationalize their dissent from Vatican II generally - but the authentic interpretation is that of the Magisterium. Nowhere in the documents can you find that the Church of Christ subsists in other Christian bodies, as these “traditionalists” would have it. See Dominus Jesus Ch.IV, no. 16 and 17.

“This viewpoint is used to support the concept that a Protestant is saved by his/her religion.” – The same applies as in the paragraph above. There is no difference whatsoever between a baby baptized in Catholic Church and the baby baptized in Protestant community. If the “Protestant” baby dies it will be saved, wouldn’t it? And it wouldn’t be saved “outside” the Church, because the Baptism is one of the Catholic elements the Protestants have retained, not in so far as they are Protestants, but in so far as they have never completely ceased to be Catholic, in spite of many non-Catholic elements they have adopted. See UR no. 3, particularly the 4th paragraph, but the whole number is enlightening for Catholics of non-dissenting mentality.

A “Protestant is” NOT “saved by his/her religion” in so far as it is Protestant, but by the Catholic elements which he inherited from his ancestors who have never abandoned them. The true Protestant elements he adopted are an obstacle for him to receive the means of salvation in their fullness, but if he is in good faith the Catholic elements, which his ancestors have never abandoned, are sufficient for his salvation. His position is materially the same as that of a Catholic who in invincible ignorance doesn’t differ from a Protestant in what he believes or rejects.

“Examples of this concept in practice would be non-Catholic Christians being told they don't need to convert by priests and Bishops.” – Could you give an elaborate account of one “example”? I haven’t observed any. On the contrary, I know of several “conversions”, including the pre-Vatican ones, encouraged by those whose main objective was to make the non-Catholics join the club, regardless of whether any genuine conversion was involved.

I also noted on the Internet many “converts”, who instead of keeping their heads covered in penance out of gratitude to God and be silent, immediately start playing a role, and become vociferously “better Catholics than the Pope”.

“Pope Benedict XVI's statement that Gaudium et Spes is a counter-syllabus.” – I haven’t read it, but know of something similar being said by Ratzinger during his conversation with the late Abp. L, and have his book Principles of Catholic Theology, 1989 (original Theologische Prinzipienlehre 1982), pp 381 and 391. I can’t go into details, but it is evident that Ratzinger did not consider the Syllabus as a document binding for ever, but as an obsolete document, which responded – unsuccessfully for that matter – to the situation in Pius IX times. The attitude was adopted by Pius X, but revised by Pius XI.
I think that Ratzinger wants to say that the Syllabus was a condemnation of the world, from the Pontiff who chose to imprison himself in Vatican – the policy which proved to be a complete failure because the world choose to ignore him; while the GS was document, not of condemnation, but of welcome to everything that is good in the world, accompanied with the offer of assistance by showing what the Church can contribute to the wellbeing of all - thus the counter-syllabus.

Tradical said...

@Ogard

I've downloaded your posts and should have time to respond later this weekend.

Cheers!

Ogard said...

Tradical
Good luck; looking forward to see your response. Here is mine to your version of “salient” points on 20. September at 18.52.

A - not Latin; B – conscientious, not conscious; C – can’t, because the Church is now looking into the case, and a Catholic cannot but accept the judgment of the Church; D – those documents that are relevant for the discussion, in this case the UR and LG; E – of course: “interpreted heretically” means misinterpreted, not interpreted, “and implemented scandalously” means abused, not implemented; F – correct, subject to the word “traditionalists” being in inv. commas in both sentences (Traditionalists - capital and no inv. commas - are the Holy Father and those who share his position), and the word “schismatic” avoided because it is offensive and doesn’t reflect the present reality; G – not merely “believe”, but assert; H, I, J – dismissed: they are beyond repair because of such a foreign input, and a mistaken for that matter, that can’t recognize my views; K – first part: not merely “believe” but assert that it is a moral norm, second part (“I assume”): doesn’t come under doctrine but under discipline, so it is not the religious assent, but obedience that is due to the lawful authority, doesn’t apply to the unlawful practices (see my comment of 22 at 11,54, ad yours of 19 at 12.52); L, M – dismissed as H,I, J; N – it could have happened, but it would have been much weaker document (the relevant passage of LG 25/2 takes only one min. to read, and the salient points are in my comment of 19 at 12,12 (B), applied at 12,21 (C)/4; elaborate presentation is in Ford and Grisez: Contraception and Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium – PDF file on www.twolj. Note, please, that B and C in this context have nothing to do with your B and C).

Regarding the “summing up”: 1 Traditional Catholics, not to be confused with the “traditionalists”, have no “angst” with the Vatican II; which “reforms”?; 2 and 3 Dismissed as H, I, J, L, M.

Note that all these comments must not be read without reference to what I have really said during the debate on the matter that constitutes the subject of the comments.

Addendum. I think that the crucial is to sort out the concepts of the Magisterium (ordinary, extraordinary, universal, authentic, living), Revelation, its transmission and interpretation, and moral obligation related to the authority. The greatest error of “traditionalists” I have come across with is their reluctance to get interested in Moral Theology in spite of the fact that it is for every individual more important than details of the doctrines of faith.

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

I believe it would be useful to focus on a single thread at a time:

Thread 1: Subsist
Ogard wrote: “Up to that point the word used was 'is' ”. - No. The word was a novelty, introduced in Mystici Corporis, challenged by theologians ... and never used again in papal documents. ..."

Mystici Corporis was reaffirmed by Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam.

Are you saying that the Church that Christ founded is not the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church? ie all Catholics who recognize the Primacy of Peter.

Ogard said...

Ad Tradical 26 September, 2011 04:0

“Mystici Corporis was reaffirmed by Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam.” - I have to trust you, because I have mislaid the Encyclical which I had read 1972 or so; and also correct myself as follows: (1)the “is” was already present in the Vatican I draft on the Church, but the document was never discussed; (2)In his Credo 1968, i.e. four years after Ecclesiam Suam, Paul VI has in substance repeated what Pius XII said, but he had in 1968 also signed LG 8, OE (has “is” in 2, which I mentioned earlier), and UR which has ”subsists” in 4. In fact in LG 8, first paragraph says of the Church that it IS the Mystical Body of Christ, and in the second that it SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church. So, it would seem that Paul VI did not see the difference. Official explanation of “subsits” was that “this expression accords better with our recognition of ecclesiastical elements in others Churches”.

“Are you saying that the Church that Christ founded is not the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church? i.e. all Catholics who recognize the Primacy of Peter.” – No, nor does VII say it. But it is a very clumsy way of putting the matter. It suggests that the separated Christian bodies have nothing to do with the Church founded by Christ. The pre-Vatican II term for the ecclesiastical elements the separated bodies retained was “vestigia” which was offensive, and the real nonsense if applied to the Eastern Churches which are 95% materially Catholic.

Also, the term “Roman” is an awqward atavism from the time of the Orthodox separation, when the Roman Patriarchate was all that was left of the Catholic Church. In the meantime, several groups of Eastern Christians reunited with the Church and the label “Roman” turned out to be offensive. In fact, only at Vatican II they were recognized as the Churches; previously they were “rites” and the use of their own liturgies was a “privilege”. They were exposed to a humiliating latinization, and forbidden to set up their own parishes and dioceses in diaspora…Great many lost their faith or returned to the Orthodox or other Oriental mother Churches. A book can be written about that tragedy. Even now the majority of the Latin Catholics know nothing about them, let alone would be willing to fulfil their Sunday Obligation and/or receive sacraments from them.

Now, you can imagine what a shock for a Latin Catholic, even if he were a bishop, would be if the Orthodox reunited with us: a huge number of dioceses and parishes of Eastern Catholic Churches on “canonical territories” of the Latin hierarchs.

Roman apparatchiks have managed to divide the whole world into Latin dioceses and other territories, including the “missionary” territories in the areas in which the Eastern Christians are a majority; so that they are not free even in their own places, not to mention setting up communities in diaspora.

Our Latin mentality is the great obstacle to reunion, for which Our Lord prayed.

Before the sepatation of the East, the Catholic Church was far from exluclusively Latin/Roman, and the Pope had only a nominal Primacy over the East.

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

What is your interpretation of the sins of schism and heresy?

Ogard said...

"What is your interpretation of the sins of schism and heresy?” – The schism and heresy are defined in Can. 751 (CCEO 1436, 1437). Can. 1325 of the code 1917 speaks, instead, of schismatics and heretics; the substance of definitions is essentially the same but by providing objective definition the Canon 751 avoids a statement of any particular personal situation (The Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by the University of Navarre, vol. III/1, p. 37, section (a)).

The sin in true sense, i.e. the formal sin, is a violation of a moral norm (which is a material sin), if one knows that it is the violation of the moral norm, and commits it with consent.

So, the heresy would be a formal sin only if one, who falls into it, knows that it is a heresy, and consents to it. Otherwise, he sins only materially, and is not guilty if his lack of consent is due to ignorance, and if that ignorance is invincible. If the ignorance is vincible, he sins for the failure to keep himself properly informed. That is the reason why the heresy is defined as an obstinate denial or doubt of a dogma, because the obstinacy involves, evidently, a full consent.

One is always bound to follow his conscience, even if the conscience is in error. So, if the heresy is in accord with such conscience one would sin by abjuring the heresy. If the error of conscience is invincible one would not be guilty for obstinacy. If the error is vincible one would be guilty for the vincible error, but he would still be bound to follow the conscience. In other words, by a failure to form the concience properly one makes his own trap, because he is guilty if he doesn’t follow the conscience, and he is guilty for the vincible ignorance even if he does follow the conscience.

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

Here's a quotation from Cardinal Kasper explaining 'subsist':
The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church; it is there that it is found.[12] It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church.

Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est”. But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present (UUS, 11), but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities.[13]The Decree on Ecumenism –
Read Anew After Forty Years

What Cardinal Kasper said is not quite what I believe you said earlier. Cardinal Kasper is saying that the one Church is effectively present in the separated communities.

First the contradiction of this interpretation with Pius XII, Leo XIII is stunning.

In the light of this interpretation. Who falls under the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation"?

Tradical said...

Second, since it has already been established that Paul VI did not repudiate the teaching of Pius XII, and signed LG a mere 4 months afterwards - we have a conflict.

One teaching (based on at least two Popes, affirmed by a third) referenced to scripture and explicitly described as binding (Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church).

The other 'pastoral' and not in keeping with past teaching. Stating that organizations that promulgate the teaching of their Heresiarchs are still part of the Church.

Not to mention that it is at odds with arguments from Tradition about who is outside the Church as explained by Pius XII. Since, effectively, this says that Outside the Church doesn't apply since they are part of the Church (ie partial Communion - which I would say is a novelty)

Faced with this conflict... if I understand your reasoning,you would choose Cardinal Kasper's interpretation.

And choose you must because Cardinal Kasper's statement how subsist includes est, is definitely at odds with the previously cited references.

Ogard said...

Tradical, ad your comment of 29 September at 03.08
It isn’t clear (a)where Kasper’s quote ends and your observations begin, (b)what nos. 12 and 13 refer to, and, (c)the phrase “effectively present” is taken out of context of what in UUS 11 is said in the paragraph that precedes, which in its turn has to be read in the context of LG 8/2 and UR 3/2-4, and, if you wish more in UR 14-23. All these had to be digested to understand the paragraph in which the phrase “effectively present” appears.

I find it difficult to trace back what I “said earlier”. Could you identify it please, and let’s take this as a matter to be followed: date, time, paragraph.

My guess is that you have in mind two comments of 22 at 13.46 (last paragraph) and 13.55 (first paragraph). If so, do digest Dominus Jesus, particularly that part I indicated. In fact, I do not understand why you make so much of a semi-official statement of the Head of the Council for unity, who is no doctrinal authority, and ignore the official explanation of the CDF approved by the Pope.

Essentially, Kasper confirms what I said, but puts is clumsily, and you have misunderstood it. Was it a lecture, interview, document approved by the Pope?

Vatican II is a higher authority than the papal encyclicals. Forget Leo XIII and Pius XII. The former, like Pius XI, had no clue of the ecumenism, and the latter had just begun to understand it (Compare, for instance, the Holy Office Instruction Ecclesia Catholica, 1949). To avoid misunderstanding, “forget” in this context doesn’t mean “deny”, but that there is no need of it because any new document that deals with a particular subject takes the past statements on the same issue into account. It is unreasonable to suppose that an ecumenical council would ignore these encyclicals, or did not know about them. They are, of course, taken into account but it is up to the author of any new document to pass judgment about the relevancy of the past documents in the context of what he wants to say in the new one.

Incidentally, the dogma No Salvation outside the Church, doesn’t mean “no salvation outside the registries of Catholic parishes”.

Ogard said...

Tradical,I will skip a reply to your comment of 29 at 11.58, because, in the meantime I completed mine about heretics and schismatics, to which you haven't responded thus far.

The end sections of it with reference to the "traditionalists", will actually respond in part to both of your Kasper comments on "subsists".

Ogard said...

Tradical. This is the end, in tree parts, of my comment of 28 at 21.32.
The same applies to the schism, the mention of which I forgot last time.

(A)There follows information about details of the Canon 751 interpretation by the canonists.

HERESY is about an obstinate denial or doubt of a dogma after baptism.

“The experts who “drafted this canon set out to correct the subjective approach taken in c.1325 of the CIC/1917”, stated “that ‘only those who commit heresy, apostasy and schism in bad faith are heretics, apostates and schismatics’ …Vatican II instituted a rule for individuals that is of the greatest importance in the canonical determination of situations we find today: ‘persons who are born now into such communities (i.e. separated non-Catholics, my note) and are taught faith in Christ cannot be found guilty of the sin of separation (UR3)’. This is in line with what St.Thomas wrote: ‘Persons who separate themselves from the unity of the Church by their own decision and understanding are schismatics’ “ (The Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by the University of Navarre, vol. III/1, p. 36).

The “obstinate” is explained as “persistent and tenacious, i.e. held after long consideration” (American Canon Law Society, 1985, p. 548), “even after warnings have been given…conscious and wilful” (Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1995, p.418).

SCHISM is defined in the same Canon; it is about withdrawal of submission to the Pope and from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. No mention is made of obstinacy; no reference is made of the baptized persons either; the latter “is textually applied only to heresy”, but “it applies also to other two offence (apostasy, schism, my note): without this qualification, these would be meaningless as offences” (Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1995, p.418).

To be continued.

Ogard said...

(B)Now my understanding of it and its implications.

I would think that, in theory, those non-Catholic communities which have a Baptism and obstinately deny any dogma would be in HERESY, but the problem is in establishing what is actually the case in all those instances in which such communities are without an individual or a body acceptable to all members as authentic representatives of the communities concerned.

Another problem is in establishing whether the initial denial that happened long time ago is still in existence and very much alive IN THE SAME SENSE, if at all. The Holy Ghost guides them in what is good; He doesn’t sustain them in the denial. So, they are certainly evolving, and any assessment of what they believe now should take this into account.

Yet another problem is in establishing whether a denial of the dogma is real, or verbal based on misunderstanding of the dogma.

Furthermore, as the faith is about what one believes, not about what one denies, those who are born in these communities experience it predominantly in positive terms, and with rare exceptions, are not motivated to question it, let alone study the denials of Catholic dogmas. So there can be no question of obstinacy in denying the dogmas.

Therefore, strictly according to Can. 751, they are not heretics; at the most, they might be material heretics – the term not used in the Canon. Generally, we can say that, with rare exception known to God alone, they are in good faith.

Are they sinners. See my comment of 28 at 21.32. Materially yes, formally God knows but probably not. To be a formal sinner it is not enough to do evil (i.e. deny a dogma), but one has to know that it evil, a do in freely (practically impossible in a community which is so organized that new generation “freely” follow their predecessors).

Can they be saved, and if yes, how to reconcile this thesis with the “no salvation outside the Church”? The “outside” does not mean outside the visible boundaries. Inside these boundaries the means of salvation are available in fullness, but they are stretching like tentacles, and make Christ and His Mystical Body present, beyond the visible boundaries. The salvation doesn’t come through the denials and errors of the heretical bodies, but through the Church in so far as it is present in them. See also last paragraph of 22 at 13.45, and the third one of 13.55.

Canon 751, as it stands, does not deal with a denial of the Catholic Truths (for these see Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmas, pp 8-9; also my comment of 19 at 12.17) which are taught infallibly but nor revealed. The point is that only dogmas are accepted “fide divina et Catholica” (see my comment of 17 at 16,31), while the Catholic Truths, although infallible, are not accepted “fide divina” but only “fide Catholica”, on the authority of the Catholic Church alone. And Canon 751 refers to the former only.

So, according to my understanding of the Canon, those who deny that Vatican I was an ecumenical council or that Pius XII was a pope etc., would be in error (error in fide ecclesiastica), but not heretics.

To be ended next time.

Tradical said...

Encyclicals:
Just because they don't define a dogma (ex cathedra) doesn't mean they don't contain dogma.

They are part of the ordinary magisterium and to use your phrasing could propose dogmas.

Hence the reason why I return to them. It would be an error to say that the Pope's Encyclicals can't form part of the Infallible Ordinary Magisterium. Just as it would be an error to state that an encyclical can't contain an ex cathedra statement.

Ordinary Magisterium would support the assertion that material heretics are outside the Church. This teaching has a long history in the Church. For reference I used Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott under the necessity of the Church for salvation.

Further, the catechisms are also part of the ordinary infallible magisterium - and repeated this same teaching - so what is the situation?

You have a council that withholds its power of infalliblity in the extraordinary sense and contrasts the infallible ordinary magisterium.

Finally, although you deny it - in reading Humani Generis we have the Pope making a strong statement. Did he make an ex cathedra declaration - probably not - did he have to ... no. He was referring to scripture and previous declarations by Popes and catechisms etc which when taken together as the constant teaching of the Church form the infallible ordinary magisterium.

In short the authority of the encyclicals can be much higher that you make it out to be. Particularly when you keep in mind that V2 did not invoke the extraordinary powers of infalliblity.

Therefore we have ordinary magisterium vs ordinary magisterium. Which one is right? Which one is infallible?

In order to prove that 'subsist' is part of the infallible ordinary magisterium it is necessary to provide a link continuously back in time.

Simply stating the V2 because it was an 'ecumenical' council doesn't cut it because as you mentioned it is difficult to ferret out the infallible ordinary magisterium.

So what is the situation: You have the magisterium contradicting itself in a variety of places. I'm certain you'll deny this but that is your perogative.

Bishops are interpreting this direction as I indicated that you can be saved without 'joining' the Church. I have confirmed that the individual who wanted to convert from Anglicanism to the Catholic Church was told by a Bishop that he didn't need to do that. Accordingly he (the Bishop) went into the standard modernist verbage etc.

This is the council (subsist and ecumenism) in action.

Have a look under moral theology about the obligation a protestant has when he doubts his religion is the true religion.

Have a look at the warning of Pius XII in Humani Generis and Mystici Corporis. They make membership in the Church meaningless.

Material Heretics are still outside the Church in actuality. They may be related to the soul of the Church and thereby saved. However this is by no means certain. What is certain is that they are in graver danger than someone inside the Church.

Tradical said...

Last point (For today) on Encyclicals a definition from Catholic Cultures dictionary.

ENCYCLICAL

A papal document treating of matters related to the general welfare of the Church, sent by the Pope to the bishops. Used especially in modern times to express the mind of the Pope to the people. Although of themselves not infallible documents, encyclicals may (and generally do) contain pronouncements on faith and morals that are de facto infallible because they express the ordinary teaching of the Church. In any case, the faithful are to give the papal encyclicals their interior assent and external respect as statements of the Vicar of Christ. (Etym. Latin encyclicus; Greek enkyklios, circular, general.)

Ogard said...

Furthermore all teachings that are not proposed infallibly and to which a “religious assent” is due, and those who deny them would be in errora and sin, but not be heretics. This would be all the cases which L. Ott doesn’t assess as “de fide”, for example Monogenism (p.96), Guardian Angel for each individual (120), Latria due to the Heart of Jesus (159), Christ’s human nature was free from ignorance and error (165), Christ could not sin (169), Christ’s Kingly office (180), Christ supreme prophet promised in the OT (180), Mary is entitled to the cult of hyperdulia (215), Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (270), The Church is perfect society (275), Bishops receive the pastoral power immediately from the Pope (290), Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church (294), The Church is indefectible (296), Saints in Heaven can help the souls in Purgatory (322), Christ fixed the substance of sacraments and the Church can’t change it (328), The form of the Eucharist are the word of institution (392), etc, etc.

Furthermore, as moral and social doctrine has been infallibly DEFINED, it would be necessary to establish how much of it has been proposed by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. So, it would be difficult to qualify any dissent from moral and social doctrine as heresy.

Jews, Moslems and those who belong to pagan or Asian religion are not heretics.

To end next time

Ogard said...

(C)Some general observations. The “traditionalists” would be better off by using the labels “heretic” or “schismatic” more sparely, and ask themselves whether they do not come under these categories.

I have particularly in mind their treatment of the Dogma of Primacy, which many do not know about or confuse it with Infallibility.
As this dogma deals with the Pope’s “supreme power” in matters of “faith and morals…discipline and government”(D 1831) it is clear that the Pope's supreme power is not restricted to the infallible definitions .

In the authoritative, and in this case, infallible explanation by which the definition of Primacy is introduced we read that “the shepherds…and the faithful…are bound by duty of hierarchical subjection and sincere obedience”. The paragraph ends: “This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, and no one can deviate from this without losing his faith and his salvation” (D 1827). See my earlier comments on the infallibility of the Catholic truths, on 19 at 12.17, and the sixth paragraph above this one starting with “Canon 751”.

It is also explained in the same document that the Pope is “the supreme judge of the faithful, and that no one can have recourse to his judgment in all cases pertaining ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See…is not subject to review by anyone, nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision” (D1830).

One can find more by going through past documents, but nowhere the usual “traditionalists’” rationalization of their dissent: “yes, but only if what the Pope says is in agreement with tradition”, not to mention their false concept of tradition.

DV 10/1: “The office of interpreting authentically the word of God whether scriptural or traditional (i.e. doctrine, life and worship, plus documents of the Magisterium, my note) has been entrusted exclusively to the LIVING (my emphasis) voice of the Church’s Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

The reference to the living Magisterium is resented by the “traditionalists” in spite of the fact that it is nothing new. You have it, for example, in Humani Generis 21: “For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a LIVING (my emphasis) teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful (except to "traditionalists", my note), not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church”. A review of past conciliar documents shows that each time when the new Council (i.e. the living Magisterium of that time) deals with the topic proposed by a previous one, it rearticulates it and gives new aspects of its sense, which remains essentially but not strictly.

Not so the “traditionalist”: they usurp the teaching office by (a)interpreting the past documents, (b)interpreting the new one, (c)comparing the two from the view point of what they conceive as “tradition” and (d)pass a judgment (infallible, of course) as to whether the new one is in accord with the “tradition” (thus conceived). Briefly: the Minipopes who “accept” the Pope’s Primacy when he teaches what they approve of, and thus “differ” from the Orthodox “heresiarchs”.
End

Ogard said...

Correction of the comment of 29 September, 2011 20:37.
"Furthermore, as moral and social doctrine has been infallibly DEFINED," should read "Furthermore, as NO moral and social doctrine has been infallibly DEFINED,"

Ogard said...

Ad Tradical of 29 at 11.58
RE: “Second, since it has already been established that Paul VI did not repudiate the teaching of Pius XII, and signed LG a mere 4 months afterwards - we have a conflict.” – We don’t, all that the LG, UR and numerous subsequent documents, including the CCC and the Canon Laws for both Western (CIC) and Eastern (CCEO) Churches, have done is that they have put the meaning of the “is” in the wider context, in which the ecclesiastical elements which, now separated, Christian bodies have inherited from their ancestors while the latter had been fully integrated into the Church, are now fully recognized as undeniable facts. It is a classic example of the development of doctrine, in conformity with the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

As I observed on 22, at 13.45: “Nowhere in the documents can you find that the Church of Christ subsists in other Christian bodies, as these “traditionalists” would have it.”

The updated authentic explanation reads: “With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57 (Dominus Jesus 16. The foot-note numbers all refer to the UR 3, which you have to learn by heart, dear friend).

One simply cannot put all the separated Christian bodies in one basket, nor can one ignore that they are Christians – by baptism they are incorporated into the Church - and put them in one basket with Moslems, Jews etc. So, where to put them? They are not fully in the Church nor are they fully out, nor can you possibly put the Orthodox together with the Born Again Christians.

Surely, if one takes into account their Liturgy, an Orthodox in good faith stands better chance of salvation than he would have by “conversion” to some brands of quasi Catholic Masses. Or if one takes into account their doctrine, he stands better chance of salvation than he would have in some brands of “traditionalism”.

What does it mean to admit that they have valid sacraments? It means that during the Divine Liturgy the Christ’s self-sacrifice is present on their altar and is, ipso facto, of an infinite value; that He is really present and doesn’t differ from “our” Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It is all one Christ – He is not a schismatic, or heretic.

Ogard said...

Continuation of the previous comment on Tradical
RE: “One teaching (based on at least two Popes, affirmed by a third) referenced to scripture and explicitly described as binding (Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church).” - NO. It is not “one teaching” but one formulation of the teaching, binding those under Pius XII, but not “described as binding”. When studying any document one must never confuse the doctrine that is asserted (proposition) with the linguistic formulation by which it is articulated (statement) – see Grisez (my comment of 22 at 12.16 para 2 and 3). The same proposition formulated by Pius XII (“is”) is present in Paul VI’s formulation “subsists in”, i.e. there is no change in what is MEANT about the Church, but in FORMULATION. Formulation of Pius XII was not suitable for addressing the ecclesiastical situation of the separated Christians – his priority was the doctrine on the Mystical Body and, in HG, the theological dissent, for which the “is” was sufficient; not the status of our separated brethren which Paul VI could not possibly fail to address, because that was on the Council’s agenda – for that the “is” would have been inadequate.
The formulation of Pius XII was, of course, binding for his subjects, albeit not “explicitly”.

RE - “The other 'pastoral' and not in keeping with past teaching.” – This “pastoral” cliché has been repeated by the “traditionalists” ad nauseam, while only one document (i.e.GS) is referred to as pastoral, and even that one contains a substantial body of moral and social doctrine. There are two documents explicitly called dogmatic. The, in-passing mention, in the Nota Praevia of the “pastoral purpose” of the Council, makes it explicitly clear that that “the teaching… must… be welcomed and accepted by each and every one of the Christ’s faithful” – no such note is attached to Pius XII’s “is”. See also my comments of 17 at 16.31, para 4 and 5; also on 19 at 12.17 para 1,2,3.

RE: “not in keeping with past teaching” – untenable, because the “is” and the “subsists in” both articulate the same self-consciousness of the Church, while the latter provides, in addition, for explicit recognition of ecclesiastical elements in separate bodies which have been always admitted implicitly in the Church’s life.
Examples. Those individuals who joined the Church have never been baptized, confirmed, ordained, or married again. The two Union Councils took for granted that the “Greeks” were the Church, and the debate was limited to the disputable points; nobody questioned the basic Catholic nature of the doctrine which they possessed. The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches were not expected to reject all they believed and possessed, but only to accept a few dogmas. Ask the Ukrainians (5 million, over 50 bishops) or Melchites (2 million) what they are and they will tell you that they are Orthodox in communion with the Pope.
To be continued

Ogard said...

Continuation of the previous comment on Tradical
RE: “Not to mention that it is at odds with arguments from Tradition about who is outside the Church as explained by Pius XII.” - Let’s see what he actually says – and not infallibly for that matter (see Ott, p 309). “Only those are to be accounted REALLY members.. who have been” baptized, “profess the TRUE FAITH, have NOT CUT themselves off from the structure of the body by their own …act, or SEVERED therefrom ….by the …authority”.

The word “really” implies that one can nevertheless be a member, albeit not “really”. The explanation was given in the Holy Office Letter 1949 in the case of Fr. Feeney. The HO says that the Pope “clearly distinguishes between those who are actually…members, and those who belong to the Church only in desire”; quoting the Encyclical: “who are ordained to the Mystical Body… by some kind of unconscious desire” who “cannot be secure about their salvation…since they lack many…helps from God which they can enjoy only in the Catholic Church.” For the salvation the HO says that “it is required that he belongs to” the Church “at least in desire”, and “it is not always necessary that this desire be explicit… When a man is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire….”

Are the latter somehow “in”, and what is the difference between these and the members of other Christian communities”? Or they are “out”, but what about “no salvation outside”?
And what is the “true faith”?
Is the “true faith” to believe that the separate Christian bodies are fully out? If so, how on earth can they be saved?
What does it mean “cannot be secure” of salvation? Salvation possible or ruled out completely?
What does it mean “lack many…helps”? Have some but not all, or have nothing?
What is the difference between this status and the “partial Communion - which I would say is a novelty”?

It is quite clear that the Pope and the HO are struggling with difficulties, but also that they have opened the door for a genuine development to the full, logical and consistent, meaning of what they want to say, as articulated in the LG and UR.

It goes beyond saying that nothing of this has been proposed infallibly, and yet Fr. Feeney was excommunicated.

Now about “traditionalists”. Have they a “true faith”, in view of what I commented on 29 at 20.44? By their de facto refusal to submit to the Pope and live in communion with the Church in matters of government and worship, what is their chance of salvation?
To be continued.

Ogard said...

Continuation of the previous comment on Tradical

RE: “Since, effectively, this says that Outside the Church doesn't apply since they are part of the Church (i.e. partial Communion - which I would say is a novelty)” –
Ad “part of the Church”. Yes but imperfect part, not in the way how a diocese is a part, but imperfectly, i.e. only to the extent that they do not differ from us, while they are materially schismatic or heretical not in everything but only in those matters that are incompatible with the Church. They definitely haven’t cut themselves off but have inherited their current status – let’s hope the heresy is not transmitted by propagation - and haven’t been severed from the communion by the present legitimate authority. As I have already explained on 22 at 13.45, and this is evident from UR 3/1, their ancestors, not the present generation, have cut themselves off, but not completely. This is an evident historical fact, impossible to deny; and has been many times confirmed by the way how the groups of all now still existing separated Eastern Churches have fully restored their previously partial communion. The same principle was recently applied to the group of Anglicans. They were not expected to abjure what was already Catholic in their respective communities, but to build on it.

RE: “this says that Outside the Church doesn't apply”… NO, it does apply because these communities are outside in all matters in which what they believe, how they worship and live, is incompatible with the way of the Church. On the other hand, if by “Outside the Church” you mean “No salvation outside the Church” – NO again, because to stay “outside” in this context means to stay so in spite of knowing that “it is impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Church unless they are unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made her a necessity” (LG 14). Only those who refuse to enter or remain with their full knowledge of the consequences are truly “out”, otherwise, in one way or another (see Pius XII above), they are “in”.

RE: “…which I would say is a novelty”. Earlier (see above) “past teaching”. The faith is not a tape containing a record of the past teaching, to be parroted to the young parrots, but a Message to be transmitted to each generation in a way that generation would understood it in the same sense. This involves a development of doctrine in Catholic sense, due to ever-deeper understanding of this Mystery. If it were a mere repetition, we would never have the terms “consubstantial”, “transubstantiation”, “nature” v. “person”. Arians were the third/fourth century “traditionalists”, Macedonians were the fourth cent. “traditionalists” who opposed the divinity of the Holy Ghost because it was a “novelty”, the present NC Creed was an expansion of the Creed of the Nicea – again novelty, “filioque” was the trouble because it was a “novelty” and was one of the causes of “traditionalist” Eastern separation, the papal dogmas were novelties in the 19th cent. and caused the “traditionalist” Old Catholic schism. Opponents of all these dogmatic teaching were “traditionalists” of which our present ones are copies.

RE: “... if I understand your reasoning, you would choose Cardinal Kasper's interpretation.” – No, I qualified it on 29 at 13.20, para 1 (c). The “effectively” would be ok provided it is understood in the context of these references; otherwise, it is “clumsy”, and could be misunderstood as you misunderstood it, see para 3. My impression is – forgive me if I am mistaken – that you keep constructing the views on the basis of the second-hand information. Have you, for example, read the sections of the documents I referred to on 29 at 13.20, para 1 (c)?

Subject to the above qualification I happened to agree with him, not because of him, but because I have read the documents concerned. And the most authoritative explanation is in Dominus Jesus which has to be read in preference to Kasper.
End

Tradical said...

Part 1 of 3
Dear Ogard,

I had prepared an extensive exposition on the Infallible Ordinary state of the encyclical Mystici Corporis.

However, when I read your words (below) I concluded that a clear statement expounding Church teaching would be more efficacious.

Your concept of the Mystical Body of Christ extending beyond the visible boundaries of the Church is incongruent with the perennial pre-counciliar teaching of the Church.

To be correct your last sentence would have to read:
"The salvation doesn’t come through the denials and errors of the heretical bodies, but through the implicit attachment of the individual to the soul of the Church..." Without this the graces provided by whatever valid sacraments they have will be blocked.

Ogard Wrote: Can they be saved, and if yes, how to reconcile this thesis with the “no salvation outside the Church”? The “outside” does not mean outside the visible boundaries. Inside these boundaries the means of salvation are available in fullness, but they are stretching like tentacles, and make Christ and His Mystical Body present, beyond the visible boundaries. The salvation doesn’t come through the denials and errors of the heretical bodies, but through the Church in so far as it is present in them.

Quick note by Tradical:
The perennial teaching concerning the salvation of those outside the Church (heretics - formal and material, infidels etc) simply repeated by Pius XII is that by the Baptism of Desire in re or in voto. In the sense as explained by the Church.

A complete and thorough explanation of this is found in the letter of the Holy Office sent to Archbishop Cushing in 1949. This was in reference to the issue of Fr. Feeney.

Letter to Archbishop Cushing from ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Tradical said...

Part 2 of 3
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

Tradical said...

Part 3 of 3
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

Ogard said...

AD Tradical of 29 September at 16.28
Dear Tradical,

Ad your paragraphs 1-3. - I don’t understand from which assertion of mine you have concluded that I do not accept that “Encyclicals…just because they don't define a dogma (ex cathedra)… don't contain dogma”. They CAN contain a dogma, whether with a particular proposition they PARTICIPATE in the Universal consensus of the Magisterium (i.e. infallible teaching that is NOT DEFINED), or the particular proposition is DEFINED in the encyclical itself (which is a highly speculative and hasn’t been the case thus far); but it doesn’t follow that an encyclical, by the mere fact that it is encyclical DOES contains a dogma. Only those propositions in an encyclical, not the encyclical as such, that meet the conditions of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium as stipulated in LG 25/2, and summarized in my comment of 19 at 12.12 (B), and at 12.21 para's 3,4,5,6, OR that are defined (which is only speculative), are the dogmas. What is actually the case is for theologians to agree – see 19 at 12.12 para 6, and we do not come in this category.

So, the statement: “Hence the reason why I return to them” seems out of place since you don’t know whether they DO contain a dogma, and to insist, without further evidence, that any particular encyclical DOES contain it is unreasonable.

What I said about Vatican II (see 19 at 12.12 (B), and the same applies to non-defined teachings of all Councils, which is mostly the case, see 17 at 16.31 para 6; 19 at 12.21 para 7) applies to the encyclicals (and other documents for that matter) as well, except that thus far no encyclical was used as a framework for a definition of a dogma. A definition apart, the only way how an encyclical can possibly contain a dogma is if a particular proposition therein participates in the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (the same applies to the Councils) – and the latter has to be established by a complex research of experts.

In so far as the encyclicals are a “part of the” papal “ordinary magisterium” they cannot “PROPOSE dogmas” but ONLY PARTICIPATE IN PROPOSITION of a dogma by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which to be “universal” cannot be one-off event, but continuous for a considerable time.

So, it is not one-off event, but a complex set of events in which a moral unanimity has been achieve that makes the Ordinary Magisterium to be Universal. See my comment of 19 at 12.12 (B), at 12.17 para 3, and at 12.21 para's 3,4,5,6.

An elaborate 200 pages account of this is in Ford and Grisez' essay: Contraception and infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, which one can read on PDF file on Grisez' website WWW.twolj, or google: The Way of the Lord Jesus by Germain Grisez. For some, it would be easier to read pp. 27-64 of Professor Hans Kung’s book Infallible?, Collins 1971, with caution to those who are not competent enough to resist his other agenda along the way.
To be continued

Ogard said...

AD Tradical of 29 September at 16.28 (continuation)

Ad your paragraph 4. - Whether there is a long standing consensus of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium – to be distinguished from merely “Ordinary Magisterium” - about the “material heretics are outside the Church” is questionable. To start with, there should be such a consensus as to who are “heretics”, who are “material heretics”, not only in a precise definition of the concepts, but concretely with reference to individual communities, and what does it mean to be “outside” the Church if she is “mystical”, and what is the “Church”. Surely the Canon Law participates in the Ordinary Magisterium, and it includes the obstinacy in the very definition of a heretic – see my comment of 29 at 25.43 (A) and at 15.43 para’s 1,5,9.

So, if somebody is not obstinate he is not heretic, and I can’t see how somebody in good faith could be obstinate in rejecting a dogma. See my comments of 29 at 15.43, 15.59, 20.37, 20.44 and of 30 at 01.27.

Ott is not going into these details. All he says by way of definition of heresy is: “One is cut off from the Unity of Faith by heresy” (p. 303) but fails to explain what he means by the “unity if faith”. He is not canonist but a dogmatic theologian, and is not very precise in many things, although helpful in many others.

All the same, although he does say that what he calls “Public heretics…who err in good faith (material heretics) DO NOT BELONG ….to the legal commonwealth of the Church” - he (and here we come to the point) continues – “this does not prevent them from BELONGING spiritually to the Church by their desire to BELONG” and “through this” can achieve “salvation”. So although strictly they do not belong nevertheless do belong somehow, and that is enough for salvation. The awkward in this view is that it turns the “error in good faith” into the sacrament of salvation. Fortunately, he doesn’t claim, as you do, the “long history” of the teaching of the “Ordinary Magisterium” in his context. If you open the page 311 again, you can see that all he says is his opinion – compare his bold-print propositions throughout the book, which start with reference to the Documents. Nothing of it can you find among his “Inferences” on this page. They are only his own inferences.

Ad para 5. As for, “the catechisms” if they, allegedly “repeated this same teaching”, how many catechisms, which by name, and relevant references, have you consulted and can quote, and tell me whether they bear an official approval. If you can’t – scrap it.

Ad para 6 - “You have a council that withholds its power of infalliblity in the extraordinary sense” – each encyclical withholds it too; “and contrasts the infallible ordinary magisterium” – which “magisterium” and what the “contrast” is all about? Provide an example or scrap the idea.

Ad para 7 - Pius XII, re “is”, doesn’t make “strong statement” but the mourning one because theologians refused to accept his teaching; and provides as a reference only his own Mystici Corporis, which in its turn refers only to Col. 1:18. which says of Christ: “He is the head of the body, the Church”; and that is supposed to cover, to use your words, “scripture and previous declarations by Popes and catechisms etc. which when taken together as the constant teaching of the Church form the infallible ordinary magisterium”!!!

In point of fact, Humani Generis is very sparing with references, for the simple reason: the whole Encyclical is very poorly supported in Tradition. And this is of no surprise: modern errors did not exist in the past.
To be continued

Ogard said...

AD Tradical of 29 September at 16.28 (continuation)

Ad para 8 - On “the authority of the encyclicals” v. Vatican II, the things are clear: in principle, an ecumenical council is the higher authority even if it doesn’t propose a dogma, and I don’t want to discuss this anymore. If you don’t believe me you will have to consult somebody whom you trust. See on 29 at 13.20 para 5.

The solemn definitions apart, and apart the infallible teaching of the UOM if it has been established, everything else that is taught in documents of the Magisterium, including encyclical of course, demands “religious assent”. For details: 19 at 12.17 Para 1,2,3 ; for more: Grisez’ vol. II, Ch. 1, Q, i. (see 19 at 11.54 para 2). For the “levels of assent” see 22 at 12.07 para 7.

And as far as the encyclicals are concerned, the more recent ones are, in principle, of a higher authority on any specific subject, than those that preceded them and dealt with the same subject, because the popes take the previous encyclicals into consideration when they prepare their own. Thus the JP II’s encyclicals on ecumenism more than supersede anything that what was said on the subject before. In fact, prior to John XIII there were no encyclicals on ecumenism as I explained on 22 at 11.54 para's 3,4,5,6,7.

From the text of the Paul VI’s and JP2’s encyclicals it is evident that they consider the Vatican II as an authority that is above their encyclicals. It can’t be otherwise: an ecumenical council is the supreme teaching authority of the Church, because it includes the whole hierarchy.
To be continued

Ogard said...

AD Tradical of 29 September at 16.28 (continuation)

Ad para 9. - “Therefore we have ordinary magisterium vs. ordinary magisterium.” I presume you mean the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

“Which one is right?”. See above ad 8, para 3. Once a teaching is proposed it constitutes a part of Tradition, and for interpretation of Tradition see on 29 at 20.44 para’s 5,6,7,8. For us here and now the living magisterium is B16 and the bishops who are in communion with him, and he insists on interpretation according to the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

A distinction has to be made between the teaching as it is formulated, i.e. the statement, and what a reader makes out of it, i.e. his own interpretation. (See on 30 at 18.48, para 1.) The latter is Catholic interpretation only if it is in conformity with interpretation of his own Bishop and ultimately the Pope.

Otherwise, it is Neo-Protestant in the sense analogous to the Protestant “Sola Scriptura”, but applied to Tradition, a sort of “Sola Traditio”.

To avoid misunderstanding, I do not impute to these “traditionalists” whom I call Neo-Protestants, that they accept Tradition alone, but that they are taking liberty of INTERPRETING TRADITION ON THEIR OWN WAY REGARDLESS OF THE LIVING MAGISTERIUM, IN SIMILAR FASHION AS THE PROTESTANTS ARE TAKING LIBERTY OF INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURE ON THEIR OWN WAY REGARDLESS OF THE LIVING MAGISTERIUM.

Applied to the Pius XII’s “is”, they are taking liberty of interpreting it as if it ruled out the aspects of the Church Pius XII did not address when making his assertion. And applied to the Vatican II, they interpret the “subsists in” as if excluding, not as comprising (embracing, including), the Pius XII’s assertion. And then compare the two and establish "contradiction".

Now, both Pius XII’s “Is” and Vatican II’s “subsists in” are part of Tradition, and the authentic interpretation of both is subject to the present, i.e. Living Magisterium (DV 10/2), in accord with the Hermeneutic of Continuity. The updated authentic interpretation of this particular issue, binding Catholic in conscience, is in Dominus Jesus, quoted on 30 at 18.37.

Which is then right? ("is" or "subsists in") As the words, i.e. statements, both - in a way, but the "subsists in" is better because it better accounts for the fact that the Church is not an island with clear-cut line of demarcation from the see, but a sort of hill the slopes of which are engulfed in a mist here and there so that one can only definitely say where the hill is but not where it is not. See about pastoral practice related to reunion of Christians (Eastern, recently also Anglicans on 30 at 18.48 last paragraph.

“Which one is infallible?” – As the statements - none, because the infallibility does not refer to the statements but to the underlying propositions. See 30 at 18.48 para 1. The proposition formulated with the “subsists in” includes what Pius XII means by “is”, but expands it to allow for the ecclesiastical status of the separated Christian bodies, so it certainly better.
To end next time.

Ogard said...

AD Tradical of 29 September at 16.28 (continuation)

Ad para 10 -“In order to prove that 'subsist' is part of the infallible ordinary magisterium it is necessary to provide a link continuously back in time.” – If it were so, the same would apply to “is”. However, neither Pius XII’s “is” nor V2’s “subsists in” had a support in tradition. The statement must not be confused with the proposition articulated by the statement. See the paragraph above this one.

Ad para 11 – “Simply stating the V2 because it was an 'ecumenical' council doesn't cut it because as you mentioned it is difficult to ferret out the infallible ordinary magisterium.” – It is not the matter of infallibility (doesn’t refer to the articulation of a proposition – see both paragraphs that precede this one), but of authority. See above Ad para 8.

Ad para 12 – “So what is the situation: You have the magisterium contradicting itself” – It doesn’t, the contradiction is of your making, because you chose to ignore the solemn teaching on interpretation of Tradition. See above under Ad para 9, subheading: “Which one is right?”.

Ad para 13. – Allegedly, I said that one “can be saved without 'joining' the Church”. Even if I did say it I meant “fully joining”, and that was correct. I don’t know about what you say of the Anglicans. The fact is that they all had to (a)go through a catechesis, (b)accept the CCC, which wasn’t difficult because they had accepted it before even requesting the reception, (c)the clergy had to offer themselves for priesthood and be ordained, (d)those who functioned as bishops and were married had to accept the priesthood only and be ordained, (e)all the clergy had to give up their respective livelihood and embark on material uncertainty.

Ad para 14 – “Have a look under moral theology about the obligation a protestant has when he doubts his religion is the true religion.” – Kindly provide me with me with a reference, as I am providing you all the time, and I will be only too glad to have a look.

Ad para 16 (15 isn’t clear) – “Material heretics are …outside the Church in actuality” – Not so in documents of the Church. There is no concept of “material” heretics in the Canon Law.
“They may be related to the soul of the Church”. – Not in documents. What that “soul” is all about? If that is how they can be saved, however in “greaver danger”, they are inside; if they aren’t, the dogma of “no salvation outside” doesn’t stand. One can’t have it both ways. I will return to this later in a comment on Mystici Corporis and on the Letter of the HO to the archbishop of Boston.
END

Ogard said...

Ad Tradical (definition of encyclicals) on 29 at 16.32.

It is ok (see on 3 at 18.15 para’s 1,2,3,4, and at 18.51 para’s 1,2,4) as it stands, with the following remarks.

(1)They are not traditional, but recent-traditional papal documents. When introduced by Pius IX they were a ”novelty”.

(2)Those by John XIII, Paul VI, JP2, B16 command an "interior assent and external respect", which is impossible if one chooses to ignore them instead of studying them. I have already said that: on 17 at 16.31 para 7; on 19 at 12.12 (B) para 2 and at 12.17 para’s 1,2,4; on 24 at 11.32 under “K”. And provided you with reference to Grisez on 22 at 11.54 para 2.

(3)The more recent ones, in principle, supersede those that precede them if they deal with the same subject. See on 3 at 18.51 para 3.

(4)Once published they are incorporated into the body of the witnesses of faith, i.e. Tradition, the authentic interpretation of which is entrusted exclusively to the Living magisterium (DV 10/). For us here and now: B16 and the Bishops in communion with him, more specifically for each individual Catholic: his own Ordinary. See on 3 at 19.39 para 2, and at 20.43 para 32.

(5)An individual’s interpretation of an encyclical is not an authentic interpretation. A setting up one encyclical against another is an example of Hermeneutic of Rupture and displays a Neo-Protestant mentality. See on 3 at 19.39 para’s 4,5,6,7.

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

Will you be providing you comment on Mystici Corporis and on the Letter of the HO to the archbishop of Boston soon?

Tradical said...

Part 1 of 4

Dear Ogard,

I'm going to assume that you have completed your commentary or are awaiting some sort of response from me.

I'm assuming that you did read the following in the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

While I'm confident you will disagree, this statement that heads the letter to Archbishop, provides that what Pius XII stated in Mystici Corporis is part of the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church and that it is more than just authentic teaching (fallible) but is ranging higher – what follows in the letter regarding the doctrine is proposed to by the Church to be believe as divinely revealed.

Regarding the obligations of a protestant if he/she doubts his religion is the true religion. The following reference is from Moral Theology – Fr. Heribert Jone, Translated and adapted by Fr. Urban Adelman. pg67

123: III Heresy is an error of judgement in consequence of which a baptized person obstinately denies or doubts a truth orevealed by God and proposed by the Church for belief (oc 1325)

He obstinately, denies a truth who does so deliberately despite his knowing that the Church proposes it as divinely revealed. He sins against faith, gravely or venially according to the degree or negligence but is not a formal heretic who through sinful ignorance does not know that the Church proposes a given truth as divinely revealed. The same holds for the heretic who doubts the truth of his religion, but fails to make further inquiry through sinful carelessness or negligence. He becomes a formal heretic if he neglects this inquiry because he is determined not to become a Catholic, even though he would recognize the Catholic religion as the true one.

Now, in continuing the 'subsists' theme and the inter-related issue of who is outside the Church.

In Ott  pg 311: I find not reference that state these are his private opinions.

In relation to Catechisms which according to Ott are part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. I present the following by way of explanation of the Church Teaching concerning the Body and Soul of the Church:

Catechism of St. Pius X(1911):
The following questions/answer are particularly relevant. 
8 Q. What is the Catholic Church? A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

Tradical said...

Part 2 of 4

12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
13 Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian? A. From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

14 Q. Why is the Church called One? A. The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.
15 Q. Can there not be several Churches? A. No, there cannot be more than one Church; for as there is but one God, one Faith and one Baptism, there is and can be but one true Church.
16 Q. But are not the faithful of a whole Nation or Diocese also called a Church? A. The faithful of a whole Nation or Diocese are also called a Church, but they ever remain mere parts of the Universal Church and form but one Church with her.
17 Q. Why is the true Church called Holy? A. The true church is called Holy because holy is her Invisible Head, Jesus Christ; holy are many of her members; holy are her faith, her laws, her Sacraments; and outside of her there is not and cannot be true holiness.
18 Q. Why is the Church called Catholic? A. The true Church is called Catholic, or Universal, because she embraces the faithful of all times, of all places, of all ages and conditions; and all peoples are called to belong to her.
19 Q. Why is the Church also called Apostolic? A. The true Church is also called Apostolic because she goes back without a break to the Apostles; because she believes and teaches all that the Apostles believed and taught; and because she is guided and governed by their lawful successors.
20 Q. And why is the true Church called Roman? A. The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ? A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist? A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist? A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church? A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
25 Q. Who are the living members of the Church? A. The living members of the Church are the just, and the just alone, that is, those who are actually in the grace of God.
26 Q. And who are the dead members? A. The dead members of the Church are the faithful in mortal sin.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

Tradical said...

Part 3 of 4

28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved? A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism,
or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does
Part 3 of 4
God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

The Catechism Explained 1899/1921:
p99
At the same time, he who lives in heresy through ignorance for which he is not himself to blame, is not a heretic in the sight of God.

Thus those who are brought up in Protestantism, and have no opportunity of obtaining a sufficient instruction in the Catholic religion, are not heretics in the sight of God, for in them there is no obstinate denial or doubt of the truth.

(Ogard, before you jump to the erroneous conclusion that this means they are in the Catholic Church).
p228
A Catholic is one who has been baptized and professes himself to be a member of the Catholic Church.
The Church is a community into which admittance is gained by Baptism. Moreover a man must make external profession of being a member of the Church, so that any one who breaks away, for instance, by heresy, no longer belongs to the Church in spite of his baptism, though he is not thereby freed from his obligations to the Church.  Neither heathens, Jews, heretics, nor schismatics are members of the Church (Council of Florence), though children baptized validly in other communions really belong to it. "For", as St. Augustine says, "Baptism is the privilege of the true Church, and so the benefits which flow from Baptism are necessarily fruits which belong only to the true Church. Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church only when after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, as for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic church".

pg 246
Whoever through his own fault remains outside the church will not be saved.
...
If, however, a man, thought no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life;  for such a one is to all intents and purposes a member of the Catholic Church.

The majority of men who have been brought up in heresy think that they belong to the true Church; there error is not due to hatred of God. A man who leads a good life and has the love of God in his heart, really belongs to the Church, and such a one is saved, not by his heresy, but by belonging to the Church. ... All who lived up to their lights were Christians .... They do not belong to the body of the Church, that is they are not externally in union with the Church, but they are of the soul of the Church, ie. they have the sentiments which members of the Church should have.

Thus the Catholic Church has members both visible and invisible.
The visible members are those who have been received into the Church by Baptism. The following are not members: The unbaptized (heathens, Jews, Mohammedans), formal heretics (Protestants), and schismatics (the Greeks), those who are excommunicated. The invisible members are those who without fault of their own are outside the Church leading God-fearing lives.

Tradical said...

Part 4 of 4
The Baltimore Catechism No.4 1891:
* 121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and re
mains out of it, cannot be saved.

Any one who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into heaven.
If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never even in the past had the slightest doubt of that fact, what will become of him ?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience.
But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven ? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister not being a true priest has no power to forgive Sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of truly perfect contrition to blot out sin, and can he easily make such an act ? What we call contrition is generally only imperfect contrition that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in hell or dread the loss of heaven.
If a Catholic, with all the graces he has received in the sacraments, finds it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition that is, sorrow for sin out of pure love for God, Who is so good in Himself, how much more difficulty will the Protestant, who does not receive such graces, experience in making it?
It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to hell. Such a person belongs to what we call the soul of the Church. Ho would belong to the body of the Church that is, he would attend Mass and receive the sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found,
except in the case of infan s or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by any one are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

Tradical said...

Part 4 of 4 - cont'd
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a single mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are
not members of the body of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its sacrament:-, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church

Tradical said...

And now for something completely different:
Some answers to some of your recent objections

Ogard said... 04 October, 2011 10:04
(3)The more recent ones, in principle, supersede those that precede them if they deal with the same subject. See on 3 at 18.51 para 3.
Tradical says:
1. You are referencing yourself. Do you have a higher authority that confirms your assertion?
2. Given the ordinary and universal teaching (I read that as infallible and irreformable) as well as the cited (and extensively – should I say painfully – quoted Catechisms that predate Mystici Corporis by a number of decades) demonstrating that the doctrine of the Body and Soul of the Church exists well before Pius XII. I found references in 'The Church Teaches” but there's no way that I”m going to type out more pages of text at this point in time.
3. These same references support the assertions of who is inside and outside the Church and how a protestant can be saved.
Ogard Said ...
(4)Once published they are incorporated into the body of the witnesses of faith, i.e. Tradition, the authentic interpretation of which is entrusted exclusively to the Living magisterium (DV 10/). For us here and now: B16 and the Bishops in communion with him, more specifically for each individual Catholic: his own Ordinary. See on 3 at 19.39 para 2, and at 20.43 para 32.
Tradical says:
When the interpretation of the current Pope and Bishops contradicts past interpretation the following words come to mind: “Houston we have a problem”. Not to deviate to far from the 'subsists' topic and how it applies to the Protestants etc think about supersessionism. The interpretation put forward by Pope John Paul II and his selected leader for Ecumenism is that the old covenant is still active. This is in direct contradiction to the Council of Florence and a whole list of papal documents up to and including Mystici Corporis.
Your comments that past papal documents can't condemn current actions is fallacious. If X is condemned as error in a previous year and someone does X now they are performing a condemned action. Ergo it is possible that prior Pontiffs have condemned actions that are now being 'allowed' For example taking part in false worship is no longer forbidden in Canon Law whereas it previously was. ... before you object: taking part in false worship is against natural law. The Church can't change that one ... sorry.
Ogard said:
(5)An individual’s interpretation of an encyclical is not an authentic interpretation. A setting up one encyclical against another is an example of Hermeneutic of Rupture and displays a Neo-Protestant mentality. See on 3 at 19.39 para’s 4,5,6,7.
Tradical says: I was wondering when you would resort the labels and name calling. As a 'trad' what I am doing is pointing out a clear problem with the way you are interpreting some of the documents. To back up my assertions I have quoted extensively pre-counciliar documents outlining how a protestant can be saved. Referring to Ott we have it that these Catechisms form part of the Ordinary Infallible Teaching of the Church. What is infallible then is infallible now.
Please note that my focus at this point is on Mystici Corporis and subsequently the condemnations of Humani Generis. The syllabus of errors will be reserved for the ecumenism thread.

Now do you agree that:
1. The Apostolic Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and His Mystical Body?
2. That Protestant in 'Good Faith' are not part of the Body of the Church but part of the Soul of the Church?
3. That Protestants who commit a mortal sin are in grave danger since they need to make a perfect act of contrition?
Looking forward to your thoughts.

Ogard said...

Ad Tradical of Oct 4 at 14.39
Dear Tradical

“I'm going to assume that you have completed your commentary or are awaiting some sort of response from me.” – No. I have just started a commentary on MC and HO, but then, having realized that it will take me a few days; and in view of the fact that you owe me responses to much of what I had written – for which you would need two weeks, I was about to tell you that I had to stop for a month (private obligations), and to suggest you to go, in the meantime, through previous correspondence, and reply to all that you hadn’t reply thus far, so that upon my return to the country we could both have a clear situation.

For this, it is the Must, to work out the system of precise referencing, because my memory is not so good to be able to find out what was exactly said before and where (I have several times asked you to indicate the place where I had said what you claimed that I did, and you passed over it in silence). You must have noted that I have developed the system for myself, providing the date of a comment and a paragraph/s if necessary. If it isn’t clear to you, I can modify it to make it clear, but unless you develop something similar for your comments, the whole debate is bound to collapse, and turn into two monologues.

The immediate occasion for these thoughts was your presentation of the MC/HO, which I found surprising because I had commented it earlier already, see 30 at 18.55, before your presentation was published. I did not go into details but the crucial point is there: those who are invincible ignorant and have an implicit desire for the Church can somehow be saved. So, the question arises which both documents, particularly the MC, failed to answer with undisputable clarity; in other words, they chose to sit on a fence (as Pius IX chose too), is: are those with an implicit desire/ invincible ignorance "in" or "out". Because, if those with implicit desire/invincible ignorance are “out” and yet can be saved (the “uncertainty” is another sitting on a fence) – there IS a salvation outside the Church; so, the only way of "saving" the dogma is to admit that those in invincible ignorance are “in”, however imperfectly, and this opens the door for further development of doctrine as the V2 has done it.

I essentially repeated the same point when commenting the Ott’s Inferences; see Oct3 at 18.33 para’s 3,4. And also on Oct.3 at 20.43 last paragraph.

Another issue which would help is if we agreed to support with references any assertion that we attribute to the Magisterium. This implies that if one claims that a particular teaching is “parennial” he provides historical evidence that it is parennial. If we only articulate our views, or secondary sources, we have to make it clear in order to avoid a feedback.

For much of what I do not want to repeat I provide reference to what I said earlier, which constitutes an integral part of the comment in dispute. If you don’t open it, it is bound to be counterproductive in one way or another. I have all correspondence printed on A4 sheets which makes life substantially easier.
To continue

Ogard said...

Ad Tradical of Oct 4 at 14.39 - continuation

Whether you read what I say, or what a particular Document says, do try, please, to establish its “literal” meaning (see Divino Aafflante Spiritu), the meaning in the author’s mind, not to impose on the text your own mind, i.e. get rid of your preconceived ideas, even those you consider “orthodox”. You can still return to them once you have fully grasped the author’s thought.

See, for example, that supposed list of my views that you submitted to me for approval, and I had to correct some, dismiss others as beyond hope, and leave intact – none. Vatican II documents are a product that was drafted and redrafted by experts, in some occasions endlessly, all the comments, written or oral, were considered, and the final text was approved overwhelmingly. Whether you agree with it or not, don’t start with assumption that it the product of 2000 idiots, or subversive elements, or ignorants of Tradition, and that your “defence of faith” consists in finding “contradictions”. One of the main principles of any interpretation is that one must assume that the text is written without contradictions, and for the Magisterial texts, that they are a development of Tradition, and try to find the way of reconciling those parts which seem contradictory. Otherwise, one can learn nothing from it.

I am glad that we have at least two books we are both using: Ott and The Church Teaches. I have in fact some 500 items in my theological library and we might probably find more that we both use.

I always approach a debate like ours, as an opportunity to learn, and if I discover my own error I don’t consider it a defeat, but triumph. It is not important to win the argument. Many barristers have won it and sent innocent persons on gallows.

You will better grasp my position it you venture to consult Grisez vol.1 essays on pp. 495 and 499. Likewise the concept of infallibility of the OM, in his PDF file on Contraception, see 24 at 11.31 para 2. On our obligation to religious assent, Vol II, see on 22 at 11.54 para 2. On infallibility generally vol I, Ch 35 and on Dissent Ch. 36. On his contribution to the writing Humanae Vitae, click on his website the key with pink letters about Fr. Ford who was one of the “minority” which killed the “majority”.
God bless
END

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

Just a quick note as I am on coffee break.

In my reading of your posts I have attempted to synthesize into themes what I can due to the length and nature of your writing style.

Hence I selected the theme of subsist and the ancillary focus on Mystici Corporis and documenting the explanations of this found in Catechisms and their relation to Protestants.

To try and maintain anymore than one thread with such a 'low bandwidth' is impractical.

Also, I believe we are experiencing a cultural dissonance in that we have fundamental different underlying cultural assumptions about the material that we are discussing.

It is only by continual discussion that we will be able to make the underlying assumptions visible.

For example, I can't see why you have confusion about the state of Protestants who are objectively outside the Church but subjectively may be in a state of 'desire' or 'Good Faith' in the light of what is clear in the various Catechisms and that was simply restated, perhaps in clearer words, by Pius XII MC and HG.

That this teaching concerning outside the Church etc is clearly laid out in the letter to Archbishop Cushing, and is based upon at numerous pre MC HG Church documents (I don't have any Catechisms older than the ones quoted) can't be clearer.

Hence the cultural dissonance.

Last quick thought (time to go): Hence I won't be necessarily answering many of your various points if I don't see a clear relation to the focal point until we move on to the funner topics such as UR etc.

Tradical said...

PS.
With regards to referencing - I will attempt to include exact quotes from now on to make context easier to follow.
Cheers!

Tradical said...

PPS. Have a good vacation!
God Bless and keep you!

Ogard said...

Dear Tradical, thanks for the well-wishes, to which I reciprocate.

Please, do consider all my points, because they are all interrelated in the way you might not see at the moment. I am always replying to all yours, and if I miss it is inadvertently. That is the main reason of the length.

If you can afford time, do read Grisez: he is beyond doubt the greatest really Catholic moral theologian today. He is one of the few, others are May, Finnis, Boyle - all laymen and philosophers who stood up for the teaching of the Church at the time when it was under greatest attack by dissidents.
God bless

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

Where on his website will I find:
t Grisez vol.1 essays on pp. 495 and 499.

It seems to be organized by section.

Cheers!

Tradical said...

Dear Ogard,

In thinking / reviewing your posts it has occurred to me that you have not written a succinct thesis statement.

If I have missed it please let me know in which post you wrote it.

In order to proceed I need you to provide this because at this time it appears that you are advocating the 'anonymous christian' thesis of Rahner.


There will be no point to further discussion until your thesis is clear.

(I hope you haven't left for vacation yet ...)
Cheers!

Ogard said...

Dear Tradical,
Sorry,I was looking at the book, having forgotten that there are no pagination on the website. Click VOl. 1, contents, Ch 20, App 1 and 2. (In fact, in an earlier comment I referred in this way).
Good luck

Tradical said...

I'm assuming from Ogard protracted absence either:
a. he is unable to find this link
b. he is unable to continue the discussion.

I will keep checking this link periodically until November 30th. After which I will consider the thread dead.