Only an Ecumenical Council

  • Thread starter Thread starter deogratias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deacon Ed:
SSPX and its followers will frequently refer to St. Catherine whom they claim corrected the pope. She didn’t – she simply told him to return to Rome where he belonged.
Click to expand...
As the Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Sienna († 1380) put it this way: “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)
Click to expand...
– Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Albert,

Interesting, but spurious. St. Catherine wrote six letters to Pope Gregory XI. Not once did she use the word “damnation” in those letters. In fact, she referred to the pope as “Oh me, oh me, sweetest “Babbo” mine!” – somehow I fail to see a connection between such terms of endearment and saying that obedience to him leads to damnation. Now, I have seen the exact same citation you mention, but it does not appear to be in any of her letters. If you care to do some research, you’ll find her letters are online at:

op.org/DomCentral/trad/cathletters.htm

Deacon Ed
 
Albert,

It seems that I timed out before I could add this:

The comment you cite is so inconsistent with comments such as this:
For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.

(Letter to Brother Antonio)
Click to expand...
and which seems to reflect most fully her understanding.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Now, I have seen the exact same citation you mention, but it does not appear to be in any of her letters. If you care to do some research, you’ll find her letters are online at:
op.org/DomCentral/trad/cathletters.htm
Click to expand...
I couldn’t find the quote in your link either. Yet the quote is everywhere on the Web. I hate things like that. Clarity is hard enough to come by without the muck of spurious quotes floating around. I’ll drop the issue.
 
albert cipriani:
I couldn’t find the quote in your link either. Yet the quote is everywhere on the Web. I hate things like that. Clarity is hard enough to come by without the muck of spurious quotes floating around. I’ll drop the issue.
Click to expand...
Albert,

Thank you. Several years ago I tried to find the origin of that citation since it had been raised by an young man who was considering the priesthood in the SSPX. He first decided against it, but is now in their seminary. In any event, I searched three different collections of her writings (the online edition and two much older print editions) and could not find it.

Back when I was studying journalism in high school (I was the photo editor for the school paper) I was taught to be very careful with secondary sources – they tended to be far less reliable than first glance might make them seem.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Back when I was studying journalism in high school
Click to expand...
E tu? I was a journalist for a few years.

I’m locked out, but maybe a mod might want to pull the suspicious quote. No sense us doing our part to spread what’s suspect across the Web.
 
Albert,

My desire for journalism ended after high school. I never pursued it, although I certainly did not give up writing. A quick search through Amazon.com will reveal some of my books. I have a new book in the works that is currently in negotiation. The publisher wants the book, but the money people are taking their own sweet time coming up with the P&L information that is the final step prior to issuing a contract.

Rather than pull the post, I’d leave it there since both your reply and mine do a sufficiently good job of debunking that particular citation.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
The First Vatican Council rejects your claim when it says that you *must *accept not only the teachings on doctrine and dogma, but also on discipline:

Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, *but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church *[which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one hightest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.(Denziger 1827)
Click to expand...
Once again, I thank you Deacon Ed for another good citation.

It’s context is Chapter 3, entitled “The power and Manner of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.” If you read it carefully, you’ll see that the subject of your citation’s complex sentence is the Roman Pontiff. It is he, not our bishops, whom, according to your citation, we “are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience.”

Our Pope, in Ecclesia Dei, has clearly stated that he wants his bishops to “generously” make the Tridentine Mass available to the Faithful. Unarguably, they have disobeyed him on this count. So why must I be complicit with the bishops in their disobedience?

The pope says that the discipline of the Tridentine Mass must be made available to us. The bishops balk. Yet you think that “true obedience” equals obediently complying with our bishop’s disobedient wishes in contradistinction to our Pope’s expressed wishes? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
albert cipriani:
Once again, I thank you Deacon Ed for another good citation.

It’s context is Chapter 3, entitled “The power and Manner of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.” If you read it carefully, you’ll see that the subject of your citation’s complex sentence is the Roman Pontiff. It is he, not our bishops, whom, according to your citation, we “are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience.”

Our Pope, in Ecclesia Dei, has clearly stated that he wants his bishops to “generously” make the Tridentine Mass available to the Faithful. Unarguably, they have disobeyed him on this count. So why must I be complicit with the bishops in their disobedience?

The pope says that the discipline of the Tridentine Mass must be made available to us. The bishops balk.
Click to expand...
While it is certainly true that this chapter refers to the pope, your conclusion seems to be a little off target. Let’s back up a little.

You have contended that you can dissent from Catholic praxis while remaining a Catholic. This the Church has said you cannot do. You have apparently taken my citation out of context, so let me add chapter 5:
This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”
Click to expand...
Note that the authority of the bishops is not at all abbridged by this obedience to the pope. In fact, one must accept the bishop just as one accepts the pope.

continued in next post…
 
… continued from my previous post.

As for Ecclesia Dei the “wide and generous” application also has some constraints to its use. Those constraints are contained in the letter Quattuor abhinc annos:
Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:
Click to expand...
a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.
Click to expand...
b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.
Click to expand...
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.
Click to expand...
d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.
Click to expand...
e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.
Click to expand...
This concession, indicative of the common Father’s solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.

You have made it clear that you do not qualify under these provisions. No bishop is mandated to make the Tridentine Mass available since they are to assure themselves that these conditions are met.

Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion because you seem to have omitted this salient piece of data from your calculations.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
One must accept the bishop just as one accepts the pope.
Click to expand...
If this were true, centuries of English martyers were actually fools. They should have obeyed their bishops and morphed into Anglicans under Henry the VIII. Only one out of 22 bishop remained orthodox to Catholicism. And he promptly lost his head.

Trouble is, most English Catholics did exactly as you said we should do; they obeyed their apostate bishops. Ergo, Anglicanism/Presbyterinaism was born. Thanks to servile obedience, what’s worse may be in store for us. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Albert,

Most English priests did obey their bishops. There were only a handful that did not. However, this argument seems out of place in the discussion at hand since I see no king ordering the allegiance of the bishops and priests switched to him. Are you attempting to form some sort of linkage here?

Since the bishops and the pope are attempting to get people to follow the teachings of the Church, and since no Ecumenical Council can teach error, your argument seems disingenuous at best.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Are you attempting to form some sort of linkage here?
Click to expand...
Dear Deacon Ed,
Sure I’m attempting to form a linkage between Anglicanism and the post-conciliar liturgical/pastoral morphing of Catholicism. But I will not argue it any further. I’m letting you have the last word on this count.

Thank you for an honest, rational, and well supported dialogue. My conversations with you have been the best, most civil and informative I’ve had here and I look forward to more of the same with you. It’s hard for most people to be as rational and focused as you have shown yourself to be and I want you to know that I really appreciate that. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani
 
albert cipriani:
– Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Click to expand...
I have all of St. Catherine’s letters on computer. I’ve search them all for that quote. Not one has the quote you provided. It’s simply a fabrication shared among many SSPXers in an attempt to hijack St. Catherine as though she supported their disobedience. I’ve challenged other SSPXers to find me a source for that quote and all of them have failed miserably.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I’ve challenged other SSPXers to find me a source for that quote and all of them have failed miserably.
Click to expand...
I trust you do not consider my use of that bogus quote as one more example of an SSPXr who “failed miserably.”

I consider my use of that quote to be a resounding success. I’ve learned that it’s bogus and in the process have helped, in a small way, to publicize that fact in a public forum. Plus, I’ll never make the mistake of using it again, and I’ll be even more diligent than I already am in accepting quotes from secondary sources.

Seems to me there’s nothing miserable about any of that. In any case, thank you, Dave, for your due diligence in the matter. Sincerely, Albert
 
Albert,

I suspect that Dave hadn’t see the fact that we had alread discussed that citation and mutually arrived at the conclusion that it was spurious.

However, it makes one question the validity of a group’s position when one must lie and invent material such as this to support it. I’m not accusing you of lying, but whoever posted that initially did – and that makes me wonder.

Deacon Ed
 
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top