The SSPX and True Catholicism

[gorman64]

Dear Andreas Hofer,

May I ask what dogmatic theology manuals you have read or are familiar with?

Gorman

 

[GerardP]

In the conflict we had earlier in the thread over disciplinary infallibility I’m afraid I may have given you the impression that I thought the pope’s execution of his laws is infallible, which I do not believe.

I think you are onto something here. This seems to be the meat of the earlier conflict. Whenever someone states that JPII was wrong in his judgment against LeFebvre. The standard reply is that he applied a certain canon law and because disciplinary laws are infallible, his application of that law is therefore infallible. So, because of this erroneous conclusion many people seem unwilling to entertain the thought that JPII could be wrong in this.

I’ll try and find it, but a friend of mine did an extraordinary job exploring exactly what the document Ecclesia Dei says and how words like “imply” and “points of doctrine that are new” exculpate LeFebvre based on the very document that JPII used to rule against him.

But you are right, the great misunderstanding it seems is the “application” of the law is being treated as infallible.

One question though, how would you explain the various “loosenings” that have had a negative effect on the Church organization? You mentioned Friday penance as an example.

There are so many similar instances and the modernists have been such proponents that it’s very difficult to imagine this kind of blindness in the Holy See. Especially in light of the numerous warnings both before during and after the loosenings.

It’s akin to watching children play near a precipice and instead of putting a fence up to protect them, taking it down and telling them to do what they like.

 

[GerardP]

You seem to be saying that, while excommunicated, and thus lacking any jurisdiction within the Church, his probable lack of intent means he is not in schism.

That is a possibility when you consider the Vatican’s reaction to his alleged “episcopal consecrations.”

If I have read correctly, though, it raises some questions for me.

First, if the Abp. Milingo were not acting freely, wouldn’t this mean he could not be subject to any canonical penalty, and thus would not even be excommunicated?

Theologically yes. Canonically it is what the books say it is.

On the other hand, if his internal dispositions don’t affect the excommunication while still preventing schism, how would that transfer to Abp. Lefebvre’s case?
Wouldn’t he then be truly excommunicated, and thus really lack the jurisdiction the SSPX purports to be supplied?

LeFebvre’s internal disposition was not contradictory in the way Milingo’s is. In both cases the excommunications are canonical. It’s a matter of a correct application of the law vs an incorrect one. B16 may just be better at understanding this since the excommunication of Milingo was under his watch and the overturning of the excommunications of the famous “Hawaii 6” was also his doing.

I just wonder how you can uphold the excommunication of Abp. Milingo while denying the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre.

We can compare any number of excommunications and try and discern the just, the unjust and the invalid. The truth is not all excommunications are valid, just as they aren’t all invalid.

I’m pointing out that due to the novelty and liberalism of Milingo’s position, it’s at variance with both his previous position and the tradition of the Church.
They are both canonically listed as excommunicated. Milingo’s may be unjust because of various unknown circumstances. In cases like that, the excommunicatee is to behave as if excommunicated and try and reconcile his situation canonically. And the Vatican would have been correct on this excommunication in order to avoid scandal.

LeFebvre’s excommunication is intrinsically invalid simply because he reacted to the pastoral needs of the faithful during what the Popes have admitted is a “time of clouds and storms” a “Silent Apostasy” a “liturgical ruin” etc. In the case of invalid excommunications they are to be ignored. LeFebvre was not scandalous in simply refusing to engage in the political correctness and “spirit of Vatican II” that made a scandal of the majority of the Church. He’d retired quietly and then was pulled out of retirement by the populace of faithful that felt abandoned by the heirarchy. A request was made of him to save souls that he couldn’t morally refuse.

Both disobeyed because they perceived a problem in the Church large enough to warrant their actions.

Married clergy is not a necessity for the salvation of souls. LeFebvre simply supplied sacraments and instruction to the faithful that requested it from him in the manner the Church has always done.

A particular observer might disagree with them over the existence of an emergency, but it seems the argument for Abp. Lefebvre has always been that even if John Paul II said there wasn’t an emergency that would excuse illicit consecrations, the mere perception of an emergency rendered Abp. Lefebvre immune from penalty. Well, if Abp. Milingo also perceived an emergency, even if it turns out to actually not exist, wouldn’t he be similarly immune?

Yes he would. And in his case, it may be proven that he isn’t responsible for his actions and in that case his excommunication should be lifted. Still, his marriage, his position on celibacy (a position the Vatican has not embraced before or after the council ) is a complete novelty, not to mention a scandal for breaking his vow of celibacy and being married by a cult leader. The refusal of the Vatican to acknowledge the validity of his episcopal consecrations is the key though. Why do they acknowledge the validity of the four SSPX bishops and not the Milingo kooks?

It could be the Vatican does believe Milingo to be possessed and is excommunicating him because he is incapable of fulfilling his duties. They may plan on reversing the situation if they can get him back under control long enough to free him if possible.

Another (and I believe implausible) hypothesis has been put forward that JPII declared LeFebvre excommunicated in order to protect LeFebvre from the modernist hounding he was getting in the early 70’s. By putting him outside the regular diocesan structure, he would be immune and free to continue.
This would be supported by the number of supporters the SSPX has among the bishops that encourage them to “stay where they are and not reconcile.”

 

[marci]

Marci,

Thank you for your post. I absolutely understand and share your situation-- to some extent (luckily we have a good FSSP priest in my city who says a daily Latin Mass)…

God bless.

UK, thank you so much for the link. I’m going to do some more searching on this. You are right, mass should not be something that we grit our teeth through, and walk away from with anger and resentment.

Thanks again

Marci

 

[bear06]

Are we talking about these ordinations? Seems to be an excommunication decree here.

msnbc.msn.com/id/12627627/

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited Article 1382 of the Roman Catholic Church’s canon law. That article states that “both the bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a ’latae sententiae excommunication,”’ which means they are automatically excommunicated.

 

[bear06]

The Lefebvre excommunication issue is really fascinating in light of recent events in China.

Either consecrating bishops without papal mandates is an excommunicable offense or not.

If it is, then quite a few Chinese bishops are excommunicated. Yet, interestingly, not a single Decree of Excommunication has appeared from the Congregation of Bishops or any other Vatican office to condemn the recent illicit Chinese consecrations.

Or, perhaps, French traditionalists aren’t quite as tolerated as Chinese communists.

Are we talking about these consecrations?

Are we talking about these ordinations? Seems to be an excommunication decree here.

msnbc.msn.com/id/12627627/

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited Article 1382 of the Roman Catholic Church’s canon law. That article states that “both the bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a ’latae sententiae excommunication,”’ which means they are automatically excommunicated.

---

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I’m pointing out that due to the novelty and liberalism of Milingo’s position, it’s at variance with both his previous position and the tradition of the Church.
They are both canonically listed as excommunicated. Milingo’s may be unjust because of various unknown circumstances. In cases like that, the excommunicatee is to behave as if excommunicated and try and reconcile his situation canonically. And the Vatican would have been correct on this excommunication in order to avoid scandal.

LeFebvre’s excommunication is intrinsically invalid simply because he reacted to the pastoral needs of the faithful during what the Popes have admitted is a “time of clouds and storms” a “Silent Apostasy” a “liturgical ruin” etc. In the case of invalid excommunications they are to be ignored. LeFebvre was not scandalous in simply refusing to engage in the political correctness and “spirit of Vatican II” that made a scandal of the majority of the Church. He’d retired quietly and then was pulled out of retirement by the populace of faithful that felt abandoned by the heirarchy. A request was made of him to save souls that he couldn’t morally refuse.

I’m just not sure you’ve demonstrated a qualitative difference in the cases. We’re clear about the Milingo case. If the excommunication were in fact wrong due to “various unknown circumstances” the correct course of action would be to obey the excommunication while seeking to have it removed through proper channels.

In Lefebvre’s case, though, you say he was “simply” responding to the “pastoral needs” of the faithful, rendering the excommunication intrinsically (and it seems there is a note of “obviously”) invalid. But for starters you’ve far from proven that the Abp.'s actions were “simply” anything. When I think of simply fulfilling pastoral needs I think of providing the faithful with sound catechesis (which could include an interpretation of Vatican II responsible to Tradition, something that you’ve admitted can be done, though laboriously in some respects) and celebrating the Mass in as reverent a manner as legally possible. That’s simple. No disobedience required.

You also claim his actions were not scandalous. But I think you need to admit that at a very minimum many Catholics could have been led to believe from his actions that an ecumenical council had taught error/could teach error or that if disobedience was justified to provide what he thought was a pastorally more effective Mass, the same excuse should be available to those who wished to implement their own pastoral solutions. Both are real possibilities. I don’t think the second was realized but I do think the first one was.

I think your claim of simple pastoral needs begins to move dangerously close to the exact position refuted by the Catholic Encyclopedia earlier in our discussion, namely that disciplinary infallibility generates some sort of ideal discipline in the Church. You don’t make the full claim, but by classing the Pian missal as a simple pastoral need you seem close to claiming an inalienable right to the best missal possible.

I’m picking up on this from your earlier question as to my take on the disciplinary changes that many would agree have been to the detriment of the Church’s overall spiritual life. More pointedly, the two of us agree that many if not all of the disciplinary relaxations were ill-advised and have indirectly been harmful. But what do we do with this? You, in your defense of Abp. Lefebvre, seem to claim that an inferior discipline constitutes an emergency situation because souls are not as well served. But think of the full consequences of that claim. It would mean that at every moment other than the one in which the Church’s law established ideal guidelines (of which we never have a guarantee) the Church would be in an emergency. Even if you tightened your case to where only *relaxations *of better disciplines constituted emergencies, you would still be hard-pressed to apply the principle consistently because the centuries have led to the loosening or even disappearance of many practices that one could see as beneficial to souls. I, for one, actually think Pope Pius XII’s mitigation of the communion fast could very well lead to a lower level of preparation for reception of the Eucharist - a real danger - yet no one has (to my knowledge) ever lumped this in with the changes in discipline that needed to be resisted.

cont…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

cont…

At any rate, I hope the above paragraph starts to show why I don’t think the situation in the Church constituted circumstances warranting grave disobedience, and I hope it can serve as a springboard for future discussion, since this seems to be a crux of the argumentation. I think the mitigated modern disciplines are unfortunate and, by removing the goad, *indirectly *harmful to souls who would comply with stronger obligations, but I still don’t think we have any historic justification for disobeying other laws because we think these are inferior. What should be done is to explain the current discipline to those who inquire, strongly recommend what we consider better disciplines, and seek to bring about a better ecclesiastical state of affairs through proper channels.

On a final note, as to your metaphor of inferior disciplines being akin to letting children play near a precipice, I would propose the counter-example of a pope failing to exercise his extraordinary magisterium. We have no promise that he will teach, simply a negative protection, somewhat like how our disciplines are not bound to be ideal, simply not immoral. By refusing to exert his special charism to settle an issue, a pope can be allowing many souls to remain in error by denying an element of Tradition as established by the ordinary magisterium (we can presume they would realize the futility of dissent from a clearly ex cathedra pronouncement).

Despite the similarities, though (and I know you’ll come up with the crucial difference that makes them moot ), can we really say that a pope’s refusal to call upon his extraordinary authority would justify breaking the bonds of obedience? More generally, knowing that there have been bad popes, regardless of speaking about infallibility, are we willing to say that a pope’s being a bad pastor releases us from his discipline? Poor Alexander VI is the punching bag for bad papacies, but simply to use an example that many would consider an overall negative for Church life, could I disobey him because I thought his policies and/or actions could lead souls to harm themselves? I’m really curious, because I think our attention to individual cases has to be clear about what general rules or precedent cases it is invoking in its analysis.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Dear Andreas Hofer,

May I ask what dogmatic theology manuals you have read or are familiar with?

Gorman

I am actually not familiar with any manuals. I’m poor, but have always wanted to get a copy of Ott (I nearly did once but ran across an article about how the English translation can be misleading sometimes). I have to settle for picking up bits and pieces here and there (for which the forums, to a discerning reader, can be a big help). Having no source in particular, I try to stick to argument from generally accepted principles or encyclicals available online (for instance, I think Mediator Dei is indispensible in discussing a theology of the Mass in the conflict between missals and their pieties).

 

[gorman64]

Papal infallibility has been pushed to ridiculous levels on the parts of some people and the disciplinary infallibility has, I fear driven a lot of people into sedevacantism.

Dear GerardP,

Exactly how do you know how far off the mark the common intrepretation of Infallibility (general or Papal) actually is?

Do you trust your personal intrepretation of papal encyclicals and other Church documents over the teaching of the Pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manuals?

Here’s a quote from Monsignor Joseph Fenton, editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review:

From The Teaching of the Theological Manuals, The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963:

Actually Modernism was a heresy, or, to put it more accurately, a cluster of heresies. If one wants to know what the condemned teachings of the Modernists really were, he has only to read the propositions condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu 71 and see the content of the Oath against the Errors of Modernism.72 If he makes this study, he will find that the Catholic dogmas denied by the Modernists are the fundamental teachings that God has revealed to us about His Church and about His message. Since there was a campaign aimed at bringing Catholics to reject these teachings, it was and it remains necessary for any accurate and competent treatise in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology to state, or, if Father Baum prefers the word, to emphasize, these teachings which were denied by the Modernists, and which were proclaimed as authentic and basic Catholic doctrine by the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic priest knows perfectly well that there is never going to be, and that there never could be, any “return” to a more authentic Catholic doctrinal tradition through the abandonment of the common teaching of all the twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. The living and infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church never abandons the most authentic Catholic tradition. That tradition is manifest in the common teaching of the twentieth-century manuals, and in the condemnations of the various Modernistic propositions.

 

[GerardP]

I’m just not sure you’ve demonstrated a qualitative difference in the cases.

I don’t know what else would convince you. If you don’t think that tradition undermined, pre-conciliar Popes warning us. The heresy of modernism running rampant, the illegal suppression of the TLM, the raising of heretics to the level of Cardinals, the post-conciliar Popes describing (without doing anything about it) the crisis in the Church (notwithstanding B16 and JP the first)

Compare that with:

A bishop who gets married in a moonie ceremony. Is known prior to that to be very orthodox and traditionally minded. Who suddenly turns on every position he’s ever held and promotes his own scandal as a liberal remedy to the destruction caused by rampant liberalism.

We’re clear about the Milingo case. If the excommunication were in fact wrong due to “various unknown circumstances” the correct course of action would be to obey the excommunication while seeking to have it removed through proper channels.

In Lefebvre’s case, though, you say he was “simply” responding to the “pastoral needs” of the faithful, rendering the excommunication intrinsically (and it seems there is a note of “obviously”) invalid.
But for starters you’ve far from proven that the Abp.'s actions were “simply” anything.

Let’s not leave the context out of this. All of LeFebvre’s actions were reactions from the modernists from Rome and throughout the world that have been objectively destroying the Church. Don’t you think the archbishop was scandalized when the Apostolic Visitors from Rome came to Econe and denied the historicity of the Resurrection? When the Popes have consistently supported the liberals in the Church at the very least by not disciplining them, it becomes quite simple that the Church is being dismantled and the Popes have been contributing to it. Paul VI was obsessed with the idea of “Kenosis” and his policies and lack of discipline reflected that.

When I think of simply fulfilling pastoral needs I think of providing the faithful with sound catechesis (which could include an interpretation of Vatican II responsible to Tradition, something that you’ve admitted can be done, though laboriously in
some respects) and celebrating the Mass in as reverent a manner as legally possible. That’s simple. No disobedience required.

Obviously to understand Vatican II in an orthodox manner you, must have a solid grounding in the Catholic Faith. That was deliberatly denied to seminarians, students and the faithful.

On the matter of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass you run into a situation where the “Alphonse and Gaston” method of the modernists comes into play. The TLM was never legally suppressed. It just “happened” through back channel manipulation. LeFebvre was at the council. No new rite was suggested, discussed, authorized or promulgated and certainly not to supplant the TLM. Yet the disobedience to the council was tolerated by the Popes and LeFebvre’s obedience to his formation, the Catholic faith and the laws of the Church were used against him.

You seem to want to exonerate Rome of any all responsibility for it’s actions and act as if LeFebvre woke up one morning bored and decided to go into schism.

You also claim his actions were not scandalous.

Doing what was the norm in 1960 and exactly the same in 1860 and before is not scandalous. What Malcolm Muggeridge called the “Church having a reformation of it’s own just as Luther’s was hitting the sand.” is scandalous.

 

[GerardP]

But I think you need to admit that at a very minimum many Catholics could have been led to believe from his actions that an ecumenical council had taught error/could teach error or that if disobedience was justified to provide what he thought was a pastorally more effective Mass,

Only if someone was decieved in the first place into believing that all of the abuses and changes were in good faith, legal and taught by that same Council. And if no one was punished by the superiors in charge of implementing the Council, how was one to know otherwise?

the same excuse should be available to those who wished to implement their own pastoral solutions.

You mean the “Spirit of Vatican II” pastoral solutions that the Holy See has not only tolerated but encouraged and eventually legalized for 4 decades now?
The only crime worth punishing in the post-conciliar era is the desire to retain the traditions of the Church.

Both are real possibilities. I don’t think the second was realized but I do think the first one was.
I think your claim of simple pastoral needs begins to move dangerously close to the exact position refuted by the Catholic Encyclopedia earlier in our discussion, namely that disciplinary infallibility generates some sort of ideal discipline in the Church.

You are equating simple pastoral needs as being somehow irreconcilable with a crisis in the Church. A simple cure for a deadly problem is not a false argument.
As it is, it’s not a simple cure, it’s only a palliative. The simple cure has to come from Rome. But no medicine has been sent for decades.

You don’t make the full claim, but by classing the Pian missal as a simple pastoral need you seem close to claiming an inalienable right to the best missal possible.

First, since every priest legally has the right to say the TLM (I reject the term “Pian” missal because it engenders a comparison in origin to the “Pauline” missal which has a totally unique genesis in the history of the Church) it is the suppression of the mass that is illegal and unjust. Second JPII himself said that every Catholic has a right to “true liturgy”, he never spells that out as the Novus Ordo and He quotes Paul VI "“Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense.”

Vague as it is, this was and still is happening everywhere. LeFebvre gave people the true Liturgy, he did not experiment, and it was given where the faithful had no recourse to the traditions of the Church and requested it directly of him.

I’m picking up on this from your earlier question as to my take on the disciplinary changes that many would agree have been to the detriment of the Church’s overall spiritual life. More pointedly, the two of us agree that many if not all of the disciplinary relaxations were ill-advised and have indirectly been harmful. But what do we do with this?

You, in your defense of Abp. Lefebvre, seem to claim that an inferior discipline constitutes an emergency situation because souls are not as well served. But think of the full consequences of that claim.

It would depend on the fruit of the discipline. We have papal statements from then-Card. Ratzinger about “filth in the Church…the boat sinking…collapse of the liturgy…sorrowing in the liturgical ruins” We had JPII talking about the “silent apostasy” in his later years. They all agreed with LeFebvre in the end. They just haven’t admitted it or yet done anything about it. (B16 excluded for now…)

A simpler discipline such as has been done in the past, (the giving of much lighter penances) has resulted in more frequent confessions and consequently more frequent communions, ie. more sanctifying grace. The Church’s rule of communion and penance once a year was imposed because people were so upset by the harsh penances that they stopped going to Communion because they had enough reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

----continued…

 

[GerardP]

It would mean that at every moment other than the one in which the Church’s law established ideal guidelines (of which we never have a guarantee) the Church would be in an emergency.

The argument isn’t that relaxed disciplines cause emergencies. The argument is that “these” relaxed disciplines caused “this” emergency. LeFebvre did not decide to find an excuse (ie. relaxed disciplines) for disobedience. The disciplines were relaxed, the crisis developed in full, the Popes didn’t stop it, and LeFebvre then sprang into action.

Even if you tightened your case to where only relaxations of better disciplines constituted emergencies, you would still be hard-pressed to apply the principle consistently because the centuries have led to the loosening or even disappearance of many practices that one could see as beneficial to souls.

You are putting the cart before the horse again. LeFebvre didn’t act until the emergency manifested itself. As it became worse he reacted to it more. He warned about what could happen. He was right in that and then when no one heeded the warning and no one responded to the emergency, He responded to the pleas of the faithful. “I will not leave you orphaned. He told his seminarians.” That holds for all of us.

I

, for one, actually think Pope Pius XII’s mitigation of the communion fast could very well lead to a lower level of preparation for reception of the Eucharist - a real danger - yet no one has (to my knowledge) ever lumped this in with the changes in discipline that needed to be resisted.

At the chapel I attend we are encouraged to continue with the full fast from midnight prior. Pope Pius XII’s changes have been under great criticism especially involving the lent and easter rites. (putting the palms down vs. keeping them in hand for one) anything that had Bugnini’s influence on it is treated with skepticism and deserved cynicism.

 

[GerardP]

Dear GerardP,

Exactly how do you know how far off the mark the common intrepretation of Infallibility (general or Papal) actually is?

 

[GerardP]

I try to stick to argument from generally accepted principles or encyclicals available online (for instance, I think Mediator Dei is indispensible in discussing a theology of the Mass in the conflict between missals and their pieties).

Andreas,

Don’t you find it odd that 20 years after Mediator Dei was written, the very things Pius XII said were errors were suddenly the right thing to do? I’ve always found it interesting how “the tableform” of the altar is omnipresent and often it’s said how Mediator Dei was one of the sources for the Novus Ordo. It always seems like a big white elephant in the room that everyone who thinks we’re in a Springtime ignores.

What do you think?

 

[GerardP]

Here’s a quote from Monsignor Joseph Fenton, editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review:

From The Teaching of the Theological Manuals, The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963:

Actually Modernism was a heresy, or, to put it more accurately, a cluster of heresies.

To be more clear it is a “synthesis of all heresies” a cluster is a collection of disparate things a synthesis is a whole that works by cooperation with it’s parts.

If one wants to know what the condemned teachings of the Modernists really were, he has only to read the propositions condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu 71 and see the content of the Oath against the Errors of Modernism.

What if one wants to understand the principals of modernism along with the specific teachings that were promoted by the modernists? Why no mention of “Pascendi”? That’s the landmark encyclical for the root of Modernism.

If he makes this study, he will find that the Catholic dogmas denied by the Modernists are the fundamental teachings that God has revealed to us about His Church and about His message.
Since there was a campaign aimed at bringing Catholics to reject these teachings, it was and it remains necessary for any accurate and competent treatise in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology to state, or, if Father Baum prefers the word, to emphasize, these teachings which were denied by the Modernists, and which were proclaimed as authentic and basic Catholic doctrine by the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

It was the very “indefinition” of modernism that seems to have made the manuals a bit of a blunt instrument for direct attacks on modernism. Rahner’s and Kung’s ideas were considered “new forms” and “new categories” that the scholastic approach didn’t address as formulated. As I pointed out Romano Amerio in Iota Unum categorized these “new forms” and contrasted them with Catholic teaching.

The Catholic priest knows perfectly well that there is never going to be, and that there never could be, any “return” to a more authentic Catholic doctrinal tradition through the abandonment of the common teaching of all the twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. The living and infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church never abandons the most authentic Catholic tradition.

Here we have an unclear use of the word “magisterium.” Another big problem among the clergy and laiety. He’s using it as a synonym for the Curia, the Heirarchy or perhaps some amalgam. It’s very ambiguous.

That tradition is manifest in the common teaching of the twentieth-century manuals, and in the condemnations of the various Modernistic propositions.

That doesn’t mean that the teaching can’t be used to address the new forms of the modern heresies as part of their explanations.

 

[gorman64]

The fact that there is no longer any common (interpretation?) ie. understanding of infallibility is an indicator to me that there is a problem.

GerardP,

I don’t disagree. There is no unity in belief…one of the four marks of the Church.

What do you mean by “personal interpretation”? Don’t you think an objective analysis is possible? Don’t the encyclicals have words and sentences to form ideas that are communicated and understood? Does everything have to be filtered at least one degree for understanding? Or is certitude impossible? How does anyone know that their personal interpretation of the Pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manuals is trustworthy?

How do you get to certitude? The theologians determine what doctrine is theologically certain…at least temarious to refuse assent to these teachings…disciplinary infallibility is given the theological note of “certain”.

I mean that the theologians who were given their position by the teaching authority of the Church are the official interpreters of the Papal documents, encyclicals, etc. They are the men trained in the science of theology and approved by the Church. You and I are not.

From Scheeben’s Dogmatik:

SECT. 27.— The Writings of Theologians.

I. By Theologians we mean men learned in Theology, who as members or masters of the theological schools which came into existence after the patristic era, taught and handed down Catholic doctrine on strictly scientific lines, in obedience to and under the supervision of the bishops. The title belongs primarily to the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages — the Scholastic Theologians strictly so-called; then to all who followed the methods of the School during the last three centuries; and, generally, to all distinguished and approved writers on Theology whether they have adhered to the Scholastic methods or not. It is only in exceptional cases that the Church gives a public approbation to an individual Theologian, and this is done by canonization or by the still further honour of conferring on him the title of Doctor of the Church. When we speak of an Approved Author, we mean one who is held in general esteem on account of his learning and the Catholic spirit of his teaching. Some approved authors are of acknowledged weight, while others are of only minor importance. What we are about to state concerning the authority of Theologians must not be applied indiscriminately to every Catholic writer, but only to such as are weighty and approved (auctores probati et graves).

II. The authority of Theologians, like that of the Fathers, may be considered either individually and partially, or of the whole body collectively. As a rule, the authority of a single Theologian (with the exception of canonized Saints, and perhaps some authors of the greatest weight) does not create the presumption that no point of his doctrine was opposed to the common teaching of the Church in his day; much less that, independently of his reasons, the whole of his doctrine is positively probable merely on account of his authority. When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. Moreover, if their doctrines are based upon sound arguments propounded without any prejudice and not contradicted very decidedly, the positive probability of the doctrines must be presumed. No more than this probability can be produced by the consent of many or even of all Theologians when they state a doctrine as a common opinion (opinio communis) and not as a common conviction (sententia conmunis). These questions have been discussed at great length by Moral Theologians in the controversy on Probabilism. See Lacroix, Theol. Mor., lib. I., tr. i., c. 2.

The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.

continued

 

[gorman64]

continued…

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical AEterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).

[Editor: We have additionally, since this work was published, the evidence of the Code of Canon Law (1917) concerning St. Thomas, which confirms and even strengthens the point made by Scheeben in this place. “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” CIC 1366, 2.]

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Andreas,

Don’t you find it odd that 20 years after Mediator Dei was written, the very things Pius XII said were errors were suddenly the right thing to do? I’ve always found it interesting how “the tableform” of the altar is omnipresent and often it’s said how Mediator Dei was one of the sources for the Novus Ordo. It always seems like a big white elephant in the room that everyone who thinks we’re in a Springtime ignores.

What do you think?

I think Mediator Dei is the landmark text for how we should understand full, active, and conscious participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. And because of that, I think it’s obvious that most popular approaches to the Mass are wrong. For instance, and contrary to modern characterizations, Pope Pius XII reminded us of the qualitatively different participation of priest and people, offerred several forms of full participation, none of which is so shallows as to be reducible to saying responses (as if, in other words, vocalized response were the sine qua non of participation), and that sacramental reception of Holy Communion has no bearing on whether one has fully participated in the Mass. Granted that the structure of the Novus Ordo does not necessarily require the converse misunderstandings or other discrepancies with the Pope’s explanation, I still do not see the Novus Ordo in that encyclical.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I don’t know what else would convince you. If you don’t think that tradition undermined, pre-conciliar Popes warning us. The heresy of modernism running rampant, the illegal suppression of the TLM, the raising of heretics to the level of Cardinals, the post-conciliar Popes describing (without doing anything about it) the crisis in the Church…

You seem to want to exonerate Rome of any all responsibility for it’s actions and act as if LeFebvre woke up one morning bored and decided to go into schism.

Doing what was the norm in 1960 and exactly the same in 1860 and before is not scandalous.

That last sentence is a great emotional manipulator, but don’t we all know there are cases where it is simply not the case? Disciplines change, and pointing out that you’re only holding fast to the older practice is not a catch-all justification. Now, as to trying to exonerate every action of Rome’s, let me state very plainly that ordering a group of experts to invent a new liturgy is the height of asinity. If there such a thing as an impeachable papal offense, that would certainly be near the top of the list. Rome’s hands are thoroughly dirtied, and while that is in large part through refusing to stop the damage rather than actively promoting it this cannot vindicate her actions. Don’t develop some tunnel vision that warps any suspicion or condemnation of Abp. Lefebvre’s actions into unquestioning approval of Rome’s every move.