Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

[santodomingo]

Hello Julia,

I´m glad you had a look at the books I recommended. You can make up your own mind about the Archbishop.

Thanks. I just looked at the Davies book, it isn’t useful as it doesn’t outline the direct issues, purposely.

It´s true that it´s more of a step by step history of the SSPX and the crisis up to about 1982 I think (before the excommunications). The fact is that when you follow the events outlined in the book things come into perspective.

If you want more of a theoretical discussion of the crisis, the is an appendix about the disobedience of the great English bishop, Robert Grosseteste. sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_II_Part_I.htm

That really blew me away. It starts like this:

Among the details given in Christian Encounter is the fact that as well as being a great scholar and a great reformer, Robert Grosseteste "might have been canonized if he hadn’t opposed the papacy in matter of Church practice.” This, then, is the explanation of his neglect among English Catholics - he did not simply oppose the Pope but refused to obey a papal command. "I disobey, I contradict, I rebel,” was his answer to an order from the Pope which had been phrased carefully to exclude any legal loophole which might provide an excuse not to comply. As every theologian is aware, it is possible for a pope to fall into error and it is a matter of free debate among theologians as to what, if any, action could be taken in such case. What is interesting in the case of Robert Grosseteste is that heresy was not involved. He was not claiming to defend Catholic doctrine, but refusing to implement a practical directive from the Pope which he considered harmful to the Church. The first and natural reaction of the Catholic reader will be to say: “Then he must have been wrong.” When the facts have been presented it would be surprising to find even one who would not say without any hesitation: “He was certainly right.”

GREAT STUFF!!

 

[Julia_Mae]

I don’t know of specific SSPX writings. But Pope Pius IX’s syllabus of errors lists a few teachings on religious liberty which they feel are contradicted by Vatican II. Here’s a link to “syllabus of errors”, a list of condemned statements. #77 - #79 deal with religious liberty.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Thank you, I hadn’t read this before. I’ll be disagreeing with him on 77-78:

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

1. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

I think the scary part is here:

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. – Ibid.
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. – Ibid.
4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. – Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. – Ibid.
6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. – Ibid.
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

How did anyone ordained ever come to believe this nonsense, that’s what I want to know.

 

[pnewton]

Left wing modernists call them heretics.

I have not seen that, but then I have never been into rhetorical labeling, whether it be “heretic” or “left wing modernists”.

 

[pnewton]

To be fair we have seen a lot of bad changes after VII, not official changes by the Church, but just losing a lot of our traditions. It’s like some people used the Council to further their own agenda.

I think this will be the crux of the issue that will allow them to return or increase the divide. There has been a year of talks to allow the Church to make an informed proposal, defining that which must be accepted and that which can reserved for further discussion.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you, I hadn’t read this before. I’ll be disagreeing with him on 77-78:

I think the scary part is here:

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. – Ibid.
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. – Ibid.
4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. – Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. – Ibid.
6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. – Ibid.
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

How did anyone ordained ever come to believe this nonsense, that’s what I want to know.

Just in case clarification is needed, those are condemned statements. The church was condemning statements that had appeared here and there in various writings. So the church is(was) opposed to those points.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Just in case clarification is needed, those are condemned statements. The church was condemning statements that had appeared here and there in various writings. So the church is(was) opposed to those points.

I understand that perfectly, but thanks. What I meant was, this was written before Vat 2. Long before. Yet, after Vat 2, this is what priests and theologians were promoting, sometimes in seminaries. I know of a Brother who lost his entire vocation after doing “Historical/Critical” Scripture study.

It’s completely obvious that apostasy entered the Church, just as was predicted - but how - what happened at Vat 2?

 

[JReducation]

Mgr. Lefebvre was a holy man of God who loved the Church a great deal more than most bishops, all too happy to turn a blind eye to abhorrent abuses and heresies in their dioceses.

The question is not whether the Archbishop loved the Church or whether he was a holy man.

This is the usual response to the SSPX; calumny and outright horror. I try to bear it with patience for the love of Christ, but it´s hard sometimes.

I think that you will get this response when one present the Archbishop as a hero and everyone else as a villain. Personally, when I’m asked my answer is the same.

"Archbishop Lefebvre loved the Church. He saw many abuses that were committed in the Church and tried to correct them. Unfortunately, he made on mistake. He ordained four bishops without a papal mandate. When he went to appeal, Bl. John Paul would not contemplate his appeal on the grounds that he (John Paul) considered that the canons being cited by the Archbishop did not apply to him.

There will be arguments about this until the end of time. However, when the rubber meets the road, the Church is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy. Therefore, pope can interpret laws as their discretion. That being said, the excommunication is not a reflection on the state of his soul. It only speaks to the break withe the primacy of Bl. John Paul, which is an objective fact."

I leave it at that.

All I did was suggest some reading to a person who expressed interest.

When there is a controversy, as is the case here, it is a good idea to suggest books from the other side too. One book that I would suggest is Pope Benedict’s Light of the World where he explains the Holy See’s position toward Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, also his letters on the SSPX. This way the reader has the SSPX’s view and the Vatican’s view.

Suggesting that the person ask 99% of Catholics is not a good idea. Most people have no clue what the issues are or what the legal rammifications mean.

I pray for a reconciliation. Maybe then some of the well-meaning but ignorant catholics who view Mgr. Lefebvre as a kind of bogey-man will come to know the truth about him.

We should all pray for reconciliation and for those who are going to walk from both sides of the aisle.

Joan of Arc died a heretic, that was her place in the history of the Church.

Times change.

Joan of Arc was not a heretic. In another post, in the thread on excommunicated saints, I explained that her order intervened for her. The local bishop excommunicated her for heresy. The Franciscans went to Rome to appeal her case. The pope ruled that there was no case against her. Unfortunately, by the time that the Franciscans arrived with the ruling, she was dead.

Her place is that of a martyr, not a heretic.

Msgr. Lefebvre’s place is not that of a heretic either. It is that of an excommunicated bishop for breaking with the Primacy. Pope Benedict makes this very clear in his statement on this question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Mike30]

I have never heard them called anything but in schism. I would hope that all would agree with me that healing is always good.

Then I would suggest that you re read a few of the threads concerning them here and you will find that they are indeed called heretics, sedevacantists and schismatics. You will see it written that the entire Society has been excomunicated and is a threat to the Church.

Now it is certainly true that none of these labels fit, yet they and others are constantly thrown around by those who have an axe to grind with the Society for whatever reason…

 

[louis91766]

Joan of Arc was not a heretic. In another post, in the thread on excommunicated saints, I explained that her order intervened for her. The local bishop excommunicated her for heresy. The Franciscans went to Rome to appeal her case. The pope ruled that there was no case against her. Unfortunately, by the time that the Franciscans arrived with the ruling, she was dead.

Her place is that of a martyr, not a heretic.

Generally speaking, did the Catholic Church apporve or disapprove of burning heretics at the stake at that point in time?

 

[pnewton]

In light of the current situation, I think now is not the time to either promote or castigate the SSPX. It would be far better to wait and see the what happens in the next few months, lest one find them working against the way the Holy Spirit is leading.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Msgr. Lefebvre’s place is not that of a heretic either. It is that of an excommunicated bishop for breaking with the Primacy. Pope Benedict makes this very clear in his statement on this question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Here’s my question and probably you are the only one here who knows the answer. The general accusation from many quarters, without getting specific, is that Vatican 2 introduced apostasy into the Church. That is, the Council promulgated that which was clearly against the doctrines and dogma. I was hoping the SSPX issue would provide at least a clear guide as to what, exactly, the Council did or said that is heresy. According to who ever is saying it was.

But I have the Vat 2 docs in hard copy and always have and haven’t found the heresy referred to as coming from the Council. Can you tell me what it is?

 

[JReducation]

Generally speaking, did the Catholic Church apporve or disapprove of burning heretics at the stake at that point in time?

Not consistently. It was never a doctrine of the Church. It was done more in certain countries than in others too. Not everyone in the Church agreed with it.

What we do agree on today is that the people who did the burning were a product of their time. Objectively, they committed murder. Subjectively, most are not morally culpable, because the lacked sufficient knowledge on how to deal appropriately with heresy. We leave the judgment to God. The conscience is a corridor through which only the individual and his master should travel.

In light of the current situation, I think now is not the time to either promote or castigate the SSPX. It would be far better to wait and see the what happens in the next few months, lest one find them working against the way the Holy Spirit is leading.

I agree. Too many cooks in the kitchen is not a good thing. The Traditionalists and others need to be quiet already. Stop telling the Church what to do. Stop passing judgment on the Vatican, the bishops, the SSPX and the barber down the street.

There comes a time when we (clerics, laity, religious and even bishops) must accept the truth. As much as we would like this to be a Church of equal participation, it’s not. It has never been and never will be. We can sit here until the sun freezes over saying that this was wrong and that is right and at the end of the day, the man in the white cassock calls the shots. The only opinion that the world accepts as the official Catholic position is his opinion and that of his bishops.

The man in the white cassock is not very interested in what we think. He has too many people giving him advice as it is. There is a cute story about Pope Paul VI. One of our Ministers General asked him “What do you believe people will think about Humanae Vitae?” Pope Paul VI rarely answered very quickly. He became pensive, smiled and said, “I have no idea; but that’s a good thing. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to sleep.”

On another occasion there was some issue and someone said to Pope John Paul, “Stop and consider what the faithful will think.” He quckly responded, “Good grief, if the pope did that, he’d never get anything done.”

These were men who really loved the Church; but they were realists. They knew that there were as many opinions out there as there were people. At some point, you just do what you have to do and commend the rest to God.

 

[JReducation]

Here’s my question and probably you are the only one here who knows the answer. The general accusation from many quarters, without getting specific, is that Vatican 2 introduced apostasy into the Church. That is, the Council promulgated that which was clearly against the doctrines and dogma. I was hoping the SSPX issue would provide at least a clear guide as to what, exactly, the Council did or said that is heresy. According to who ever is saying it was.

But I have the Vat 2 docs in hard copy and always have and haven’t found the heresy referred to as coming from the Council. Can you tell me what it is?

There were several key areas of concern to the SSPX. None of these have to do with the excommunication.

The changes in the liturgy – many believed that these changes opened the door for heresy. Others were no so dramatic, but they believed that the liturgy was very close to a Protestant service and that it could lean in that direction too much.

Religious liberty and Ecumenism–the Council proposes that no one may be coerced to accept the faith. It also condemns imposing the faith on anyone. It accepts that Jews and Muslims are children of Abraham and that they do worship the same God as we do. It adopted a position that was actually driven home by the Franciscan bishops at the Council that the role of the Church is not to proselytize, but to invite others into full communion with the Church. It proposed that Christ does use non-Catholic religions to save through those truths that can be found there. In other words, Christ will always find a way to save those who are seeking salvation, even those who are outside of the physical boundaries of the Church.

This drew a lot of criticism by the SSPX, because it sounded as if the Church had abandoned the dogma, “no salvation outside the Church.” Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict disagree with this. Their point of view is that the fulness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church and that those truths that save persons who are outside of the Church are Catholic truths. They are not being saved by their adherence to falsehood, but by there adherence to truths, even if they have only some of the truth. However, the ideal remains that everyone come to the fullness of truth.

Modernism–this is one of the most misunderstood notions in history. Modernsim is very broad. There was a part of the Modernist School that took God, Church and morality out of the equation and replaced it with humanism. Pope Pius X condemned it. But there were other things in the Modernist School on which the Church remained silent and still does so. What happened at Vatican II was that the Council spoke about the Church’s place in the modern world and said that the Church had to adjust to the modern world. The intent of this statement was actually taken from the Jesuit bishops who took it from the writings of St. Francis Xavier. Francis Xavier had taught that Catholicism had to be taken out of Europe if it was ever going to thrive in Japan. That the thing that blocked the acceptance of Catholicism in Japan was that the Japanese had an aversion for anything European. He actually received permission to translate the mass into Japanese. I don’t know if he finished the project or died before that. The Jesuits would know.

However, the point of the Council seems to be the same point as that of Francis Xavier, the Franciscan, Dominican and Jesuit missionaries to the Americas and other missionaries to other cultures. That is that the Church has to present itself as Catholic, but it should not impose European customs on people of other cultures. It should also make use of whatever the world has to offer than can help her work, just as we’re making use of the internet right now. The Church had to acknowledge that she no longer had the place of political authority that she had in Catholic Europe. The world was moving away from that. This was problematic for the SSPX.

In truth, all the above are problematic when they are not correctly understood or they are incorrectly applied or executed. But that’s not a problem of Vatican II. This was a problem with every council in history. There was always a problem with interpretation and execution. It took years to resolve many of these problems.

Some people felt that these positions were heresy. Others felt that they were risky, not quite heresy and others felt that they were a license to reinvent Catholicism. There are many of us who know where this came from and what the original thinkers had in mind. Unfortunately, there are not too many of us around and we don’t often get to be heard.

There are a few little things here and there. But those seem to be the big issues. I don’t think that any are insurmountable if there is good will, patience, trust, faith, and a structure for dialogue. Nothing will be solved in a mud-slinging contest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

Not consistently. It was never a doctrine of the Church. It was done more in certain countries than in others too. Not everyone in the Church agreed with it.

What we do agree on today is that the people who did the burning were a product of their time. Objectively, they committed murder. .

How do you explain:

1. The papal bull Exsurge Domine
2. The excommunication of Catholics who publicly disagreed with burning heretics at the stake?

 

[catharina]

Brother JR, your posts,
#39 and #40, many thanks.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[louis91766]

Religious liberty and Ecumenism–the Council proposes that no one may be coerced to accept the faith. It also condemns imposing the faith on anyone. It accepts that Jews and Muslims are children of Abraham and that they do worship the same God as we do. It adopted a position that was actually driven home by the Franciscan bishops at the Council that the role of the Church is not to proselytize, but to invite others into full communion with the Church. It proposed that Christ does use non-Catholic religions to save through those truths that can be found there. In other words, Christ will always find a way to save those who are seeking salvation, even those who are outside of the physical boundaries of the Church.

Is this a change in previous Catholic teaching that a Jew could not be saved? (Council of Florence)

 

[JReducation]

How do you explain:

1. The papal bull Exsurge Domine
2. The excommunication of Catholics who publicly disagreed with burning heretics at the stake?

A papal bull is not binding on the successors of the pope who issues it. Popes issue many bulls and other popes issue bulls that undo the previous one.

As to the excommunication, the pope can excommunicate you if he does not like the color of your toothbrush.

Neither of these actions indicate that the burning of heretics was ever a Catholic doctrine.

Is this a change in previous Catholic teaching that a Jew could not be saved? (Council of Florence)

That was never taught as a dogma. That was a belief held by those attending the Council of Florence who voted on it.

That’s why the pope is free to set it aside.

We must always be very careful not to sin by presumption. I find it very frightening that many lay people who have read a few books and documents seem to think that they know theology, Church law and the rights and obligations of popes better than the popes do.

When men like John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI take positions, they know what their predecessors said. They also know what binds them and what does not bind them. These are neither dumb men or evil men.

They may not share with the rest of us what they kow, which then leads people to make assumptions, speculate and jump to all kinds of conclusions. But we have to understand two things.

First, popes are human beings with their particular styles of doing things. This does not mean that they are ignorant of the past. It simply means that they are not their predecessors.

Second, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict come from societies where authority does not have to explain itself to anyone. This is their cultural background. So questions such as, “Why do you say this when the Council of Florence said that?” are viewed by them as impertinent. Pope Benedict more than Pope John Paul hates being questioned.

I remember him when I was a student in Rome. He was a professor and later the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. He would become very quiet in the face of all this questioning. He’s very polite and has always been very shy and of course a genius. But he is very Bavarian. When those beneath him grill him, his body language says it all. He is quiet, breaks eye contact and gently changes the conversation. This is who he is and we have to accept him as he is. This is the man whom the Holy Spirit chose for the Chair of Peter.

Bl. John Paul loved Q & A, but he had little tolerance for being questioned. In other words, you ask the question and I give you the answer and move on. Don’t come back and ask him why he thinks that way. From his point of view, his vocation was to be the peace maker. He had no time to spare for debates.

He’ll probably be a Doctor of the Church some day. I had an assignment recenlty, given to me by my superior for a class with our novices. I had to gather a copy of all of Pope John Paul’s writings. The novices are going to have to read them between now and Christmas. My God, I did not realize how many there are. They range from three page messages to whole tomes. Of course, these do not include letters to Church officials or other people. We’re talking about the things that he published during his papacy.

My point is that when thinking about the past and the present popes, it’s important to know these things about them, so as not to misjudge them. They are a product of their culture. However, they are also very holy men and very knowledgeable. We should never sin by underestimating their knowledge and presuming that we know something about the faith that they don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

A papal bull is not binding on the successors of the pope who issues it. Popes issue many bulls and other popes issue bulls that undo the previous one.

As to the excommunication, the pope can excommunicate you if he does not like the color of your toothbrush.

Neither of these actions indicate that the burning of heretics was ever a Catholic doctrine.

That was never taught as a dogma. That was a belief held by those attending the Council of Florence who voted on it.

That’s why the pope is free to set it aside.

We must always be very careful not to sin by presumption. I find it very frightening that many lay people who have read a few books and documents seem to think that they know theology, Church law and the rights and obligations of popes better than the popes do.

When men like John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI take positions, they know what their predecessors said. They also know what binds them and what does not bind them. These are neither dumb men or evil men.

They may not share with the rest of us what they kow, which then leads people to make assumptions, speculate and jump to all kinds of conclusions. But we have to understand two things.

First, popes are human beings with their particular styles of doing things. This does not mean that they are ignorant of the past. It simply means that they are not their predecessors.

Second, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict come from societies where authority does not have to explain itself to anyone. This is their cultural background. So questions such as, “Why do you say this when the Council of Florence said that?” are viewed by them as impertinent. Pope Benedict more than Pope John Paul hates being questioned.

I remember him when I was a student in Rome. He was a professor and later the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. He would become very quiet in the face of all this questioning. He’s very polite and has always been very shy and of course a genius. But he is very Bavarian. When those beneath him grill him, his body language says it all. He is quiet, breaks eye contact and gently changes the conversation. This is who he is and we have to accept him as he is. This is the man whom the Holy Spirit chose for the Chair of Peter.

Bl. John Paul loved Q & A, but he had little tolerance for being questioned. In other words, you ask the question and I give you the answer and move on. Don’t come back and ask him why he thinks that way. From his point of view, his vocation was to be the peace maker. He had no time to spare for debates.

He’ll probably be a Doctor of the Church some day. I had an assignment recenlty, given to me by my superior for a class with our novices. I had to gather a copy of all of Pope John Paul’s writings. The novices are going to have to read them between now and Christmas. My God, I did not realize how many there are. They range from three page messages to whole tomes. Of course, these do not include letters to Church officials or other people. We’re talking about the things that he published during his papacy.

My point is that when thinking about the past and the present popes, it’s important to know these things about them, so as not to misjudge them. They are a product of their culture. However, they are also very holy men and very knowledgeable. We should never sin by underestimating their knowledge and presuming that we know something about the faith that they don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I thought that a papal bull represented authoritative Catholic teaching. And I thought that Catholics were bound by decisions of ecumenical Councils.

 

[JReducation]

I thought that a papal bull represented authoritative Catholic teaching. And I thought that Catholics were bound by decisions of ecumenical Councils.

There are different kinds of binding actions.

There is moral law which is always binding and cannot be changed.

There is revealed truth, which is dogma and cannot be changed

There are disciplines or rules, if you will. They are binding until they are changed. For example, no meat on Friday. That was binding on Latin Catholics, until it was modified. Another example, the 40-day fast, this is binding on Eastern Catholics, until the Patriarch changes it. One Patriarch can change it for his Church and the other Patriarchs can continue it in their Churches.

There are decrees. These are statements that are issued with a papal bull, making them law and binding, until another one is issued. A good example is the installation of a bishop. If you watched the installation of Archbishop Chaput on TV you would have heard the papal delegate read the Pope’s Bull. The bull decrees, by the apostolic authority of Peter, that Charles J. Chaput is the Archbishop of Philadelphia and the Metropolitan of PA.

However, there was a previous Bull issued by Pope John Paul which also decreed by the apostolic authority of Peter that Charles J. Chaput was the Archbishop of Denver and Metropolitan of CO.

OK, so which is it? It’s both. The last bull dispenses him from the first bull.

In my own community, the Rule of St. Francis was issued with a papal bull by Pope Honorius III in 1223. However, that bull replaced one issued in 1209 by Pope Innocent III. The Bull of Honorius, as it is known, has never been broken. This means that neither the Franciscans, the bishops, nor the laity have the right to question the rule of St. Francis or change anything in it, unless a pope issues another bull that says you can do so.

All of these things are binding on Catholics. Just because you’re not a friar does not mean that you’re not bound to uphold and believe the Rule of St. Francis. You’re not bound to live according to the rule, because it was not written for you. But you are bound to defend it, honor it, and show reverence for it, because it was decreed by a pope, not by St. Francis. St. Francis was its author, but a pope decreed it, as if it were an encyclical.

Again, we are bound by moral law, revealed dogma, disciplines, regulations and other decrees. They bind in different ways.

As far as an Ecumenical Council, the Church is always bound by a council, whether the council decrees dogma or other. However, the pope is never bound by anything other than dogm and morals. Anything else that comes out of an ecumenical council is subject to his authority. The pope can change it, dismiss it, suspend it for a period of time or restate it. It’s always his call.

Only revealed dogma and morals are not in his power to change. This was the whole issue with women’s ordination. The way that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is revealed to us is as a sacrament for males only and by selection, not every male. That’s why Bl. John Paul said that the Church did not have the authority to change this. The Church cannot change revelation. She can change anything that she creates.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

There are different kinds of binding actions.

There is moral law which is always binding and cannot be changed.

There is revealed truth, which is dogma and cannot be changed

There are disciplines or rules, if you will. They are binding until they are changed. For example, no meat on Friday. That was binding on Latin Catholics, until it was modified. Another example, the 40-day fast, this is binding on Eastern Catholics, until the Patriarch changes it. One Patriarch can change it for his Church and the other Patriarchs can continue it in their Churches.

There are decrees. These are statements that are issued with a papal bull, making them law and binding, until another one is issued. A good example is the installation of a bishop. If you watched the installation of Archbishop Chaput on TV you would have heard the papal delegate read the Pope’s Bull. The bull decrees, by the apostolic authority of Peter, that Charles J. Chaput is the Archbishop of Philadelphia and the Metropolitan of PA.

However, there was a previous Bull issued by Pope John Paul which also decreed by the apostolic authority of Peter that Charles J. Chaput was the Archbishop of Denver and Metropolitan of CO.

OK, so which is it? It’s both. The last bull dispenses him from the first bull.

In my own community, the Rule of St. Francis was issued with a papal bull by Pope Honorius III in 1223. However, that bull replaced one issued in 1209 by Pope Innocent III. The Bull of Honorius, as it is known, has never been broken. This means that neither the Franciscans, the bishops, nor the laity have the right to question the rule of St. Francis or change anything in it, unless a pope issues another bull that says you can do so.

All of these things are binding on Catholics. Just because you’re not a friar does not mean that you’re not bound to uphold and believe the Rule of St. Francis. You’re not bound to live according to the rule, because it was not written for you. But you are bound to defend it, honor it, and show reverence for it, because it was decreed by a pope, not by St. Francis. St. Francis was its author, but a pope decreed it, as if it were an encyclical.

Again, we are bound by moral law, revealed dogma, disciplines, regulations and other decrees. They bind in different ways.

As far as an Ecumenical Council, the Church is always bound by a council, whether the council decrees dogma or other. However, the pope is never bound by anything other than dogm and morals. Anything else that comes out of an ecumenical council is subject to his authority. The pope can change it, dismiss it, suspend it for a period of time or restate it. It’s always his call.

Only revealed dogma and morals are not in his power to change. This was the whole issue with women’s ordination. The way that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is revealed to us is as a sacrament for males only and by selection, not every male. That’s why Bl. John Paul said that the Church did not have the authority to change this. The Church cannot change revelation. She can change anything that she creates.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So it was only matter of discipline and not doctrine when the Catholic Church declared that Jews could not be saved?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”