Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[BobP123]

First, a heretical bishop being true pope is impossible according to one theological opinion.

Second, I do not believe that you, a member of the Taught Church, are in a position to judge the heresy and therefore the jurisdiction of a heretical bishop.

I did admit there are bishops very probably heretics. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the Taught Church isn’t in a position to deny the jurisdiction of bishops who have not been acknowledged as heretics by their authorities. Such defies the reason for a Taught Church.

Maria

I’m curious as this is the first time I’ve heard the expression Taught Church. What or who exactly is that?

Maybe it’s a semantical thing with me, but aren’t we all part of the Learning Church? (not to be confused with Militant Church.) There are many things we don’t know and will never know until after we die.

 

[MTD]

I’m curious as this is the first time I’ve heard the expression Taught Church. What or who exactly is that?

Maybe it’s a semantical thing with me, but aren’t we all part of the Learning Church? (not to be confused with Militant Church.) There are many things we don’t know and will never know until after we die.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught), in contrast with the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church), which consists of the pope and the bishops.

In another place it refers to the distinction between the Teaching Church and the Learning Church:

Moreover, it [the term *Church] may designate specially those who exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia Docens (Matthew 18:17), or again the governed as distinguished from their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens (Acts 20:28).

It would seem from the first quote that all, including the members of the Teaching Church, are members of the Taught Church. Learning Church may be a sort of synonym for Taught Church, but I’m not sure.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

but how my position has a heretical bishop united to the pope.

Maria:

I believe that you have admitted there are heretical “bishops”…you hold that they retain their offices until a formal declaration (I disagree)…they are not occult heretics (as no one can ever know of an occult heretic)…so they are heretics…and outside the Church by the fact of their heresy.

So, someone outside the Church by divine law is united to the head of the Church. A member cut off (not a dead member) is united to the body and its head. This is impossible.

From Mystici Corporis Christi, encyclical of Pope Pius XII “On the Mystical Body of Christ” on June 29, 1943:

1. 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. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

1. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

Gorman

 

[MTD]

I believe that you have admitted there are heretical “bishops”…you hold that they retain their offices until a formal declaration (I disagree)

No, I do not hold that they retain their office; that is your interpretation, based on your sedevacantist views, of my position. I hold that they do lose their office, but I don’t hold that the Taught Church has the authority to judge that they are not are under the jurisdiction of a bishop based on their own private judgment of the orthodoxy of that bishop, however accurate that judgment might be. There’s no reason for a Teaching Church vs. a Taught Church if the Taught Church is in a position to definitively judge the orthodoxy and therefore the jurisdiction of a member of the Teaching Church.

…they are not occult heretics (as no one can ever know of an occult heretic)

If Bellarmine’s opinion that a heretic is outside the Church by the very fact of heresy is true, then an occult heretic is also outside the Church. So what do you do about a bishop who is an occult heretic?

…so they are heretics…and outside the Church by the fact of their heresy.

Yes. And by the logic of Bellarmine’s argument, a bishop who is an occult heretic does not have jurisdiction. However, that’s beside the point…

Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I was once having a conversation with gorman64, then I heard nothing but crickets. So I thought I’d come here and interject my opinion, whether it is wanted or not.

 

[bear06]

Good luck to you, Dave. I’m still waiting to here back on how the sedevacantist deal with the fact that they deny the Visible Church in lew of some invisible church that only a few keen people can see. One can’t really say that they believe in the Visible Church when they say that most of the Visible Church are heretics. They can’t really claim that it’s recognizable since apparently in there mind, very few actually recognize it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well I just would like to reiterate that St. Robert Bellarmine held that the “most common and probable” opinion was that the Roman Pontiff could never pertinaciously teach heresy. This is the traditional Catholic view, reiterated by the official relatio prior to the vote regarding papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council. Gorman64 has affirmed that he too holds this view.

It would be rather UNtraditional for Catholics to reject such a traditional, most common and probable view. Thus, the clerics who might lose ecclesial jurisdiction by pertinacious heresy are limited, in practice, to those not holding the office of the Roman Pontiff.

For those suspected of heresy (suspectus de haeresi), pertinacity is not to be assumed. Instead, “If a person is suspected of heresy, he is to be warned. If the warning is neglected he is to be debarred from legal acts. If he remain recalcitrant for six months longer, he is to be deemed a heretic and incurs the penalty imposed on heretics” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1918 edition, supplemental volume, containing revisions of the articles in canon law according to the Code).

I suppose the question remains, who has the authority to “warn” and to “debar” from legal acts…those who are not vested with ecclesial authority or even those given inferior authority (ie. the Taught Church), or those with superior authority?

 

[MTD]

Good luck to you, Dave. I’m still waiting to here back on how the sedevacantist deal with the fact that they deny the Visible Church in lew of some invisible church that only a few keen people can see. One can’t really say that they believe in the Visible Church when they say that most of the Visible Church are heretics. They can’t really claim that it’s recognizable since apparently in there mind, very few actually recognize it.

Well, sedevacantists are human beings with material bodies in addition to their spiritual souls; thus you can’t exactly say they aren’t visible!

It would be rather UNtraditional for Catholics to reject such a traditional, most common and probable view. Thus, the clerics who might lose ecclesial jurisdiction by pertinacious heresy are limited, in practice, to those not holding the office of the Roman Pontiff.

That solves the pope-becoming-heretic problem but it doesn’t solve the heretic-becoming-pope problem. I’m quite sure that sedevacantists believe Pope Paul VI was a heretic at the time he was elected pope. Thus Bellarmine’s opinion wouldn’t apply to that case.

I suppose the question remains, who has the authority to “warn” and to “debar” from legal acts…those who are not vested with ecclesial authority or even those given inferior authority (ie. the Taught Church), or those with superior authority?

All I know is that’s illogical and absurd for an inferior to have the authority to debar a superior from legal acts because that would contradict the very essence of a superior-inferior relationship. And I would think that although the official warning must come from superiors, a fraternal warning from an inferior never hurts!

Maria

 

[bear06]

Well, sedevacantists are human beings with material bodies in addition to their spiritual souls; thus you can’t exactly say they aren’t visible!

Hmmm…actually, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one. Got a picture, gorman? That said, I’m pretty sure that’s not what’s meant by the “Visible Church” but I’m equally sure that you probably know that.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…That solves the pope-becoming-heretic problem but it doesn’t solve the heretic-becoming-pope problem.

Yes, and my last question to gorman64 was to establish at least some common agreement. I think that it is a dogmatic fact, and therefore theologically certain that Pius XII was duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church as the Roman Pontiff. If this is the case, how do we know that he was “duly elected” and does the recognition of the electorate and the acceptance of the new pope-elect have anything to do with establishing as historic fact who the duly elected pope is?

For instance, I’ve read that Robert F. Kennedy had votes from dead people. Was Kennedy duly elected? That may be dubious. However, no matter how dubious (after the fact) one might consider his election, he was indeed recognized by the executive, judicial, and legislative branches as the duly elected president. The other presidential candidates conceded that he was duly elected, and he was also accepted by the U.S. population as the duly elected president of the U.S., so too did heads of state from around the world. Thus, such post electoral acceptance establishes he held the office validly as historic fact despite any evidence that he may have been elected illicitly.

There have been countless Roman Pontiffs of the centuries who, after historic research after the fact, may have indeed purchased or influenced the election in some unjust way, or maybe others did this for him without his knowledge, thereby making the licitness of the papal election dubious. Nonetheless, licitness and validity are two different things. When the electors, the curia, the Roman Congregation, all the diocesan bishops, the Catholic faithful, the heads of state, etc. accept a person as the Roman Pontiff, such acceptance establishes that he held the office as historic fact. Thus, the conditions of a dogmatic fact are met, and it is therefore “theologically certain” that the person in question was “duly elected” and “Universally accepted” as Roman Pontiff.

Catholics are bound to assent to that which is “theologically certain,” according to even the pre-Vatican II theology manuals which Gorman64 cites.

I’m quite sure that sedevacantists believe Pope Paul VI was a heretic at the time he was elected pope. Thus Bellarmine’s opinion wouldn’t apply to that case.

Perhaps, but “pertinacity” required a warning, then debarrment, then 6 months of recalcitrance, before he was deemed a heretic according to the 1918 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia. I’d like to see the historical evidence that this occurred for Paul VI (or John XXIII) prior to the election. I’ve seen nothing but speculation well after the fact, which lacks any moral certainty.

Furthermore, that the crime of pertinacious heresy did not occur is more probable because after their papal election, the electors, the Roman congregations, the curia, the diocesan bishops, the Eastern patriarchs, the heads of state, the Catholic faithful all recognized and accepted Paul VI (and John XXIII) as the duly elected Roman Pontiff, which establishes it as historic fact, and therefore dogmatic fact, which has the theological note of “theologically certain.”

The reasons which pre-Vatican II theology manuals insist that Pius XII was the duly elected Roman Pontiff is “dogmatic fact” which is “theologically certain” also apply to John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

The subsequent peaceful acceptance of the election by the Cardinals, the Roman clergy, and the Catholic faithful suffices to validate a papal election. That is the teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians. According to Cardinal Billot:

“God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election." Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (1927-1929), Vol. I, pp. 612-613].

 

[MTD]

Hmmm…actually, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one. Got a picture, gorman? That said, I’m pretty sure that’s not what’s meant by the “Visible Church” but I’m equally sure that you probably know that.

Well, actually I was pointing out that the term Visible Church may mean a little more than what you’re indicating it means.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively “material” and “formal” visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God.

The material aspect is definitely met; the formal aspect is very probably not met since the sedevacantist Church is not easily recognized as the Divine society of God because it lacks the rock of Peter promised by Christ.

For instance, I’ve read that Robert F. Kennedy had votes from dead people.

Um, you mean John F. Kennedy?

The subsequent peaceful acceptance of the election by the Cardinals, the Roman clergy, and the Catholic faithful suffices to validate a papal election.

I think Gorman and other sedevacantists regard those “Cardinals, the Roman clergy, and the Catholic faithful” as a heretical sect, so their universal acknowledgment of the pope is not acceptable.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Well, actually I was pointing out that the term Visible Church

may mean a little more than what you’re indicating it means.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively “material” and “formal” visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God.

The material aspect is definitely met; the formal aspect is very probably not met since the sedevacantist Church is not easily recognized as the Divine society of God because it lacks the rock of Peter promised by Christ.

We’re using the same readings. That said, I don’t think that they’d even be able to say that the material aspect is met since what we see as the Church they see as a fraud. Hardly anyone in the heirarchy has been validly elected to them. It’s hard to say it’s public when only a few private individuals see it.

Anyways, I think that Gorman has a problem with the Visiblity of the Church argument because he hasn’t resonded to it at all to it.

 

[gorman64]

Dave:

You know I often refer to Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.

So here is a relevant passage:

Corollary: The Church does not usually pass judgment directly on the dogmatic fact itself; but on the proposition which, through the medium of a dogmatic fact, is deduced from a revealed premise (either through a true reasoning process or through a merely explanatory syllogism). Of course, whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the word of God; that Pius XII is head of the Church; that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore, … Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore, … Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore, … Since then, the Church’s decision is concerned more directly with the conclusion deduced from revelation with the help of a dogmatic fact, rather than with the dogmatic fact itself (which is assumed in the decision rather than directly affirmed), dogmatic facts can rightly be called not only secondary but also indirect objects of infallibility.

It may help to mention that several theologians treat this question a bit differently. For they understand by the term “dogmatic fact” not a premise drawn from history, on which the conclusion would depend, as in the examples above, but the conclusion itself, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the word of God or that such and such a book is heretical. If one prefers this view of the matter, he will then define a dogmatic fact, in the words of the illustrious de Groot, as “a fact in which a doctrine is expressed.” (14) One may wonder what name is to be given the conclusion, following the view proposed above. To answer that, a distinction is necessary. If the conclusion is the result of a real reasoning process, it is to be called a theological conclusion. But if the syllogism is merely explanatory, then it expresses a truth formally but implicitly revealed. The precise meaning of this distinction will be explained in the treatise on Faith (no. 200).

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are we agreed then that it is theologically certain that Pius XII was duly elected and universally recognized as the Roman Pontiff? If so, how can we know he was duly elected and recognized as such?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Um, you mean John F. Kennedy?

Robert, John…I can’t even keep my kid’s names straight.

 

[Creary]

With regard to the “ the Taught Church [having] the authority to judge that they are not under the jurisdiction of a bishop based on their own private judgement of the orthodoxy of that bishop” (post #202 above), I ask what Maria, Gorman and Dave think of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians 1.6-9 (and everyone else of course)?

It seems to me that St. Paul is correcting the Galatians for not judging the orthodoxy of some who were preaching among them. Now I don’t know if those preaching to the Galatians “a different Gospel” were prelates or just ordinary laymen, but St. Paul in his next sentence seems to imply that it matters not if it be a prelate or layman because he says “though we, or an angel from heaven….If any one preach…” St. Paul has included just about any level of authority, barring God himself, in the statement of who the Galatians can and should judge for orthodoxy. For why would St. Paul “wonder that [the Galatians] are so soon removed…unto another gospel.” if he didn’t expect them to judge the orthodoxy of such gospels being preached and those who preached them?

St. Paul then goes on to pronounce a definitive judgement upon all unorthodox preachers; he says “let [them] be anathema”. I don’t know what the original Greek is but in the American Heritage Dictionary the number one definition for “anathema” is: “A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication”. But, as I understand it, St. Paul, being inspired by the Holy Ghost was not speaking/writing for himself, but was writing the word of God, as St. Paul plainly states in another one of his epistles: “if any seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14.37) So, if I understand this correctly, this means that God, not St. Paul though he wrote the epistle, as a matter of divine law pronounces anathema upon all unorthodox preachers.

Now if a prelate is anathema/excommunicated, I understand him to lose his jurisdiction? As this is a matter of divine law given to us through St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians there is no need for the Taught Church to definitively judge, that has already been done by God, and certainly we in the Taught Church don’t have that authority. However, the Taught Church is expected to recognize unorthodoxy because we have received the Gospel and therefore are expected to keep to the Gospel which we have received and not be “removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ” (Gal 1.6) even if it is our own prelate preaching such a departure from the Gospel.

Then, it seems (again to me) a logical connection that if we in the Taught Church can and are expected to recognized unorthodox preaching, even if it comes from our prelates, and we know that those who preach things contrary to the Gospel are by divine law anathema, then the Taught Church can draw the conclusion that the one preaching unorthodoxy has lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had.

Given all that above, I agree with Dave; that “pertinacity is not to be assumed” (post #205 above), and as the Catholic Encyclopedia says “If a person is suspected…he is to be warned…” (taken from post #205). However, according to St. Thomas Aquinas “if the faith were endanger, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.” (Pt. II-II Q.33 Art 4). As matters involving a prelate suspected of heresy certainly would involve the endangerment of the faith, I would imagine that if things are being said and taught by Catholic prelates contrary to the faith then they would be swamped by the faithful publicly rebuking those prelates. If the prelates did not correct themselves in the manner of St. Peter when he “gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (Pt. II-II Q. 33 Art 4), then after “six months [or] longer, he is to be deemed a heretic and incurs the penalty imposed on heretics” (Catholic Encyclopedia as quoted in post #205). Again it seems to me that given Galatians 1.6-9, this would happen automatically by the authority of divine law.

Thoughts?

Respectfully,
Brian

 

[MTD]

It seems to me that St. Paul is correcting the Galatians for not judging the orthodoxy of some who were preaching among them.

To me, it seems he was reprimanding them for believing those preachers.

Now if a prelate is anathema/excommunicated, I understand him to lose his jurisdiction? As this is a matter of divine law given to us through St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians there is no need for the Taught Church to definitively judge, that has already been done by God, and certainly we in the Taught Church don’t have that authority.

That is correct. The office of a member of the Taught Church is lost by reason of the heresy itself, not by a judgment from the Church.

However, the Taught Church is expected to recognize unorthodoxy because we have received the Gospel and therefore are expected to keep to the Gospel which we have received and not be “removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ” (Gal 1.6) even if it is our own prelate preaching such a departure from the Gospel.

That is correct. We ought to recognize heresy and not fall for it, even if it comes from a member of the Teaching Church.

Then, it seems (again to me) a logical connection that if we in the Taught Church can and are expected to recognized unorthodox preaching, even if it comes from our prelates, and we know that those who preach things contrary to the Gospel are by divine law anathema, then the Taught Church can draw the conclusion that the one preaching unorthodoxy has lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had.

I hold that you can’t act on that conclusion by denying obedience. For one, since you can’t see into the heart of another, you can’t know for sure that there is present in that bishop the consent of the will needed to make the heresy formal, which formal heresy causes him to lose office. Second, if it were permissible for a member of the Taught Church to take such action on the basis of that type of private judgment, the Church would get nowhere because the Taught Church is just as authoritative as the Teaching Church.

Just because you can’t make the practical conclusion that a seemingly heretical bishop does not have jurisdiction doesn’t mean that you have to blindly follow the bishop in all his teaching and jurisdiction. There is a higher authority: the pope and the whole college of bishops in union with him. If you suspect that a bishop is teaching heresy, you ought to look to the higher authorities to find the truth. If you suspect that a bishop is commanding something outside his jurisdiction, you can go the Holy See to find your rights.

Given all that above, I agree with Dave; that “pertinacity is not to be assumed” (post #205 above), and as the Catholic Encyclopedia says “If a person is suspected…he is to be warned…” (taken from post #205). However, according to St. Thomas Aquinas “if the faith were endanger, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.” (Pt. II-II Q.33 Art 4). As matters involving a prelate suspected of heresy certainly would involve the endangerment of the faith, I would imagine that if things are being said and taught by Catholic prelates contrary to the faith then they would be swamped by the faithful publicly rebuking those prelates. If the prelates did not correct themselves in the manner of St. Peter when he “gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (Pt. II-II Q. 33 Art 4), then after “six months [or] longer, he is to be deemed a heretic and incurs the penalty imposed on heretics” (Catholic Encyclopedia as quoted in post #205). Again it seems to me that given Galatians 1.6-9, this would happen automatically by the authority of divine law.

All very reasonable to me, Brian. However, I would note that heretical prelates would not necessarily by rebuked publicly by the faithful, especially if those faithful agree with his heretical tenets. On the other hand, someone usually notices it and informs the Holy See. That’s what happened with an apparently heretical bishop I know.

Maria

 

[MTD]

That said, I don’t think that they’d even be able to say that the material aspect is met since what we see as the Church they see as a fraud. Hardly anyone in the heirarchy has been validly elected to them. It’s hard to say it’s public when only a few private individuals see it.

Well, the public nature (material aspect) is not determined by how many people see it but by the nature of profession. It must be a public profession rather than a secret society, such as the Freemasons. According to this, the Catholic Church of the sedevacantists fulfills the material aspect of visibility, in my opinion. I admit I can’t really see how you can hold that the material aspect of visibility isn’t present.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I hold that you can’t act on that conclusion by denying obedience.

Maria:

Obedience is a moral virtue and as such it is of a lesser value than the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Obedience is always subordinate to the theological virtue of Faith. That’s why if you have the one Faith it can be “Teresa and God constitute a majority,” or “Athanasius against the world.”

Yours,

Gorman

 

[MTD]

Obedience is a moral virtue and as such it is of a lesser value than the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Obedience is always subordinate to the theological virtue of Faith.

Sure. But obedience by the Taught Church to the Teaching Church is a fruit of faith and love.

Maria