Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eilish_Maura
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I e-mailed Dr. Sippo and copy and pasted SFD’s post. Here’s the response I got from Dr. Sippo.
Dr. Sippo wrote a few things that aren’t quite true:
In the case of the definition of the Immaculate Conception, the dominant Thomist theological view had opposed the doctrine but Pope Pius IX was compelled by the Holy Spirit to affirm that truth.
Pius IX was not “compelled” to do anything by the Holy Ghost. He had free will and was protected from error. He could have chosen to do nothing.
The point is that the Pope is not compelled either to follow public opinion nor is he restricted from opposing the opinions of mere theologians no matter how ancient or venerable those opinions might be.
But the Pope can’t contadict natural or divine law and invoke the magisterial authority at the same time. If he does contradict either or those his statements are his own as a fallible man.
The Holy Spirit is the ultimate arbiter of truth and when the Pope is so moved by the Spirit to define a doctrinal position, it is God himself who is guiding him.
Again, the Pope is reduced to puppet and the Holy Ghost is presented as “taking possession” of the Holy Father. This is an inversion of papal infallibility. A negative charism is being presented as a positive charism.
“When disputes arise in the Church over matters of faith, morals, or devotion, the living Magisterium of the reigning Pope is a sure guide to the believing Catholic.”
The perennial Magisterium is part of the Living Magisterium and the Pope is subject to it.
Anyone who proposes to contradict the teaching of the reigning Pope on the basis of their own interpretation of ‘tradition’ or based on the opinions of some theologian – living or dead-- is not a faithful Catholic.
Again, this is false. John 22nd’s teaching on the beatific vision was contradictory to the Catholic Church. Pope John was called on it, and didn’t recant until his deathbed.
The reigning Pope is to be obeyed **in all things **and his teaching is to receive a religious submission of mind and will from all the faithful (Lumen Gentium 25).
Again, “in all things” is too broad since the Pope can as a fallible person order someone to sin and that order can be disobeyed.

“Religious submission” is also a term that needs to be explored. Is that the same as intellectual submission? Practical submission? Moral submission?
 
How about providing it then. You gave partial quotes with no context. Until we see the context we pretty much have hearsay.
Bear06,

The exchange took place at Envoy Forums which is now closed and I have no access to that forum. Both Sippo and Pete Vere are contributers to The Catholic Legate group…here is Catholic Legate’s creed and position on Baptism. They appear to be holding the “Feeneyite” error.
Catholic Legate's website:
Creed

We firmly believe and boldly profess all defined dogmas of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

We hold to and abide by all Catholic moral teaching with no exception.

We support the propagation of only the Catholic Faith and the conversion of all people to this Faith.

We respect permissible differing views in theological or moral areas. Permissibility is determined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

We are loyal and obedient to the bishop of Rome in all things. Should there be a difficulty in trying to reconcile a current Magisterial teaching with a previous one, we propose to look positively on the current teaching, and do our best as amateur Catholic laymen to reconcile both views.

IX. Baptism

1.Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.

2.The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.

3.Baptism confers the grace of justification.

4.Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.

5.Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.

6.Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.

7.Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.

8.Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.

9.The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
SFD
 
Catholic Legate Creed:
We firmly believe and boldly profess all defined dogmas of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
List of dogmas is linked to this site:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

This is a list of de fide doctrines as listed by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Theologically certain doctrines are ignored. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are listed as (Sent. fidei prox.) by Ott. This is ignored by Catholic Legate.

SFD
 
Bear06,

The exchange took place at Envoy Forums which is now closed and I have no access to that forum. Both Sippo and Pete Vere are contributers to The Catholic Legate group…here is Catholic Legate’s creed and position on Baptism. They appear to be holding the “Feeneyite” error.

SFD
It would be helpful if you’d put a link when you quote. I have not way to verify.

Next, I actually sent you a PM because I didn’t know this part of a thread but you might want to do some more research on Sippo and Vere’s position before you post. I googled a little and found this from Dr. Sippo which contradicts what you think their beliefs are:

catholic-legate.com/qa/nosalv.html
The Holy Office sent a letter to the Bishop of Boston in 1949 (with Pope Pius XII’s concurrence) to criticize the Feeneyite position. It is in the Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum and its various translations (including Neuner & Depuis and Deferrari). It clearly states that invincible ignorance is possible and that it is not necessary for salvation to have an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church (as among catechumens). A merely implicit desire may also suffice
.
 
OK, again, I’m not sure of the context of the quote from Catholic Legate but I did receive a reply from Pete and he referred me to his position found in a public letter.
It is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want note up-front that I personally accept the teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf
 
I understand that someone here is misrepresenting my views. I would be happy to answer any questions on EENS. It is a dogma of the Church and has been clearly taught since the bull Unam Sanctam. But i is one to which caveats and exceptions must be appended. The most comprehensive treatment of this question is in CCC and Lumen Gentium 14.

Art
 
I understand that someone here is misrepresenting my views. I would be happy to answer any questions on EENS. It is a dogma of the Church and has been clearly taught since the bull Unam Sanctam. But i is one to which caveats and exceptions must be appended. The most comprehensive treatment of this question is in CCC and Lumen Gentium 14.

Art
Why don’t you start by just answering the post?

I provided the entire section called “creed” and the entire section titled “baptism”. It’s in it’s complete context.

catholic-legate.com/top_menu/apostolate.html

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
Catholic Legate's website:
Creed

We firmly believe and boldly profess all defined dogmas of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

We hold to and abide by all Catholic moral teaching with no exception.

We support the propagation of only the Catholic Faith and the conversion of all people to this Faith.

We respect permissible differing views in theological or moral areas. Permissibility is determined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

We are loyal and obedient to the bishop of Rome in all things. Should there be a difficulty in trying to reconcile a current Magisterial teaching with a previous one, we propose to look positively on the current teaching, and do our best as amateur Catholic laymen to reconcile both views.

IX. Baptism

1.Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.

2.The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.

3.Baptism confers the grace of justification.

4.Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.

5.Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.

6.Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.

7.Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.

8.Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.

9.The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
Note that the “Dogmas” link above ONLY lists and provides the de fide doctrine from Ott.

SFD
 
There’s no question for him to answer - just your statments of his beliefs. So let me actually ask a question to Dr. Sippo.

Do you reject Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire?

Also, SFD, please provide a link to the quotes from Catholic Legate which you believe embrace Feeneyism.
 
There’s no question for him to answer - just your statments of his beliefs.
I gave you the links. It contains the entire CREED of Catholic Legate. I quoted the ENTIRE SECTION of the section on Baptism.
40.png
bear06:
Also, SFD, please provide a link to the quotes from Catholic Legate.
I did.

SFD
 
Let me get this straight. You are quoting directly from Catholic Legate in the Creed section and then you are quoting from something linked to in at www.theworkofgod.com in the Baptism Section in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott? Then you are stating that this shows that the Catholic Legate (and apparently Ott since he wrote the book) ascribe to Feeneyism!!!:whacky: If you’ve going to buy into this theory than the SSPX definitely are Feeneyites since they suggest, quote, etc. the same book. In fact, I can’t count the number of Feeneyites running around these forums. :eek:
 
Let me get this straight. You are quoting directly from Catholic Legate in the Creed section and then you are quoting from something linked to in at www.theworkofgod.com in the Baptism Section in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott? Then you are stating that this shows that the Catholic Legate (and apparently Ott since he wrote the book) ascribe to Feeneyism!!!:whacky: If you’ve going to buy into this theory than the SSPX definitely are Feeneyites since they suggest, quote, etc. the same book. In fact, I can’t count the number of Feeneyites running around these forums. :eek:
Are you serious? You need to follow you own admonitions and VERIFY. It is apparent that you do not trust at all.

This link theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
is found in this statement on Catholic Legate’s website. SEE THE WORD DOGMAS THAT I BOLDED? **IT IS THE LINK!!! **

Maybe it doesn’t copy as a link…but go to the website that you keep saying you can’t find because I “didn’t give you a link” and you’ll see the link!
We firmly believe and boldly profess all defined dogmas of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
We hold to and abide by all Catholic moral teaching with no exception.
We support the propagation of only the Catholic Faith and the conversion of all people to this Faith.
We respect permissible differing views in theological or moral areas. Permissibility is determined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
We are loyal and obedient to the bishop of Rome in all things. Should there be a difficulty in trying to reconcile a current Magisterial teaching with a previous one, we propose to look positively on the current teaching, and do our best as amateur Catholic laymen to reconcile both views.
SFD
 
Are you serious? You need to follow you own admonitions and VERIFY. It is apparent that you do not trust at all.

This link theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
is found in this statement on Catholic Legate’s website. SEE THE WORD DOGMAS THAT I BOLDED? **IT IS THE LINK!!! **

Maybe it doesn’t copy as a link…but go to the website that you keep saying you can’t find because I “didn’t give you a link” and you’ll see the link!

SFD
I already got that and traced my steps to Ott. Didn’t you read my post you quoted? The “dogmas” aren’t listed on the Catholic Legate site but the www.theworkofgod.org site Catholic Legate listed. Got it.

If you’ll notice at the top of that page, it has two categories. The Catechims and the Fundamentals of Catholic dogma. The part you are having difficulty with, the Baptism section, is from the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

So, to recap, the below, comes straight out of the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Do you really have a problem with it? Obviously they couldn’t put the entire book so they just listed the subsections and left out the explanations. If you look in the book (which they gave info on at the beginning of the section) you will see the part on BOD and BOB. Again, to say this shows Feeneyism, is silly.:whacky: And to continue to claim that Pete Vere and Art Sippo ascribe to Feeneyism is crazy since they both have stated their beliefs.
.Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
2.The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
3.Baptism confers the grace of justification.
4.Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
5.Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.
6.Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
7.Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
8.Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
9.The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
Again, the above is straight out of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
 
I already got that and traced my steps to Ott. Didn’t you read my post you quoted? The “dogmas” aren’t listed on the Catholic Legate site but the www.theworkofgod.org site Catholic Legate listed. Got it.

If you’ll notice at the top of that page, it has two categories. The Catechims and the Fundamentals of Catholic dogma. The part you are having difficulty with, the Baptism section, is from the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

So, to recap, the below, comes straight out of the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Do you really have a problem with it? Obviously they couldn’t put the entire book so they just listed the subsections and left out the explanations. If you look in the book (which they gave info on at the beginning of the section) you will see the part on BOD and BOB. Again, to say this shows Feeneyism, is silly.:whacky: And to continue to claim that Pete Vere and Art Sippo ascribe to Feeneyism is crazy since they both have stated their beliefs.

Again, the above is straight out of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Of course I had already told bear06 via PM that I had no problem with Ott and that was not my point. He still posted the above in spite of that fact. Bear06 does not understand what I am taking issue with and he has actually misrepresented what I said (because of his misunderstanding) to Dr. Sippo.

The “feeneyite error” is that they deny that they must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accept that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. This has nothing to do with a direct denial of the doctrines Baptism of Desire and of Blood.

I am not accusing Sippo and Vere of denying these doctrines. Bear06 posted a response from Vere stating as follows, "It is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want note up-front that I personally accept the teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.”

Vere accepts the CCC because it came from the Church (in his mind it did). He would not necessarily accept it because it is a “theological truth and conclusion deserving of some censure” as described by Pius IX in Tuas Libenter.

Bear06 is confused and thus, confusing others. But it could be that’s just his function here.

SFD
 
The “feeneyite error” is that they deny that they must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accept that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. This has nothing to do with a direct denial of the doctrines Baptism of Desire and of Blood.
I wish Dr. Sippo would come back to answer but I think he’s already forgotten about us or actually has a life. 😉

I’ve asked you repeatedly to prove this statement.

In your last PM you asked me what a creed was (this is the section on the Catholic Legate site that you take issue with). You, again, actually make my point with this question. Look at the Credo we say every weekend. I’m just guessing that’s what they were shooting for on the website. It was short and to the point and was meant to show that they believe what the Church teaches. You’re taking a “who we are” page on a website and saying that if they miss listing one thing that we must believe that they hold a Feeneyite position. It’s goofy. You yourself said that there would be mountains of “proximate to the faith” teachings. Right? The Catholic Legate folks never said that they onlyheld to de fide teaching.
 
Gerard complains that Pope pius IX was not “compelled” to do anything. Actually that is not true. He was compelled to close VCI early because of the advancing armies of the italian Revolution. He was compelled to remain a prisoner of the Vatican after taht becasue if he left, the revolutionary government would not have let him return.

But I digress.

The real issue is that he was compelled BY THE HOLY SPIRIT to declare teh IC as a dogma in 1854. He did not do so on a whim or by and act of his own will. As Pope he was moved to make the definition.

Art
 
In reply to the question, both myself and the folks at the Catholic Legate accept the concepts of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. But these are not formal celebrations of the sacrament and are clearly extraordinary means of salvation that God MAY grant under certain circumstances.

The ordinary means of salvation is water baptism. It was Jesus himself who said that it was necessary for salvation (John 3:5).

Sadly some people apply the term “Baptism of Desire” (BOD) to all men of ‘good will’. That is not only dangerous but it is also not that to which the term truly refers. Baptism of Desire is when a person DIES while desiring to receive water baptism. Baptism of Blood (BOB) is when a person DIES a martyrs death for Christ while desiring to receive water baptism. As you can see, they are very similar in that a person needs to die seeking water baptism in order for them to apply.

This does not mean that God cannot save people by other extraordinary means. VCII speaks of this possibility. But STRICTLY speaking, BOD and BOB only refer to persons who are have died seeking baptism, not to those who have merely died outside the Church in invincible ignorance.

For the record, I personally believe that Fr. Feeney was right. American Catholics are too complacent about their non-Catholic neighbors. Those outside the Church are at a distinct disadvantage and are far more likely to fall into serious sin than is a practicing Catholic. And we also have the means of grace to assist us which is not available to them.

But Fr. Feeney was wrong in his solution to the problem. He ignored what Trent and the Popes since Pius IX have taught about this issue. His overly strict position did not reflect Catholic teaching. I fully support the teaching of VCII in Lumen Gentium 14 which deals with this.

But the indifferentism that infects the modern Church is also IMHO far too optimistic. We should not be led to the false conclusion that invincible ignorance is a sure way into Heaven. It is at best a concession to human frailty and is inferior to Catholic profession and practice.

I hope that clarifies the matter. Any other questions?

Art
 
Gerard complains that Pope pius IX was not “compelled” to do anything. Actually that is not true. He was compelled to close VCI early because of the advancing armies of the italian Revolution. He was compelled to remain a prisoner of the Vatican after taht becasue if he left, the revolutionary government would not have let him return.

But I digress.

The real issue is that he was compelled BY THE HOLY SPIRIT to declare teh IC as a dogma in 1854. He did not do so on a whim or by and act of his own will. As Pope he was moved to make the definition.

Art
No, that is incorrect. I think GerardP is correct here. The Vatican I definition of the infallibility of the Pope does not say the Holy Ghost compels the pope to do anything. The Holy Ghost protects the Pope from teaching to the Church any errors in Faith and Morals.

The idea that Papal infallibility involves a movement of the Holy Ghost to define a doctrine is unfounded. Did you come up with this on your own? Or did you learn it somewhere? If you learned it somewhere…please give us a source. And you’d better put a “link” in there for bear06…I guess she thinks everything is “on the internet” somewhere.
A Manual Of Catholic Theology:
Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906 [Pp. 85-110]

SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Concil. Vat., sess. iv., cap. 4).

II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.** The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it.** The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide. From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.
SFD
 
40.png
SFD:
The “feeneyite error” is that they deny that they must
believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accept that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. This has nothing to do with a direct denial of the doctrines Baptism of Desire and of Blood.
I wish Dr. Sippo would come back to answer but I think he’s already forgotten about us or actually has a life. 😉

I’ve asked you repeatedly to prove this statement.
Prove what statement? That I didn’t question either Sippo’s nor Vere’s belief or disbelief of BOD/BOB? The “feeneyite error” I defined for you can exist entirely independent of BOD/BOB. You seem to be incapable of understanding that distinction.

SFD
 
Prove what statement? That I didn’t question either Sippo’s nor Vere’s belief or disbelief of BOD/BOB? The “feeneyite error” I defined for you can exist entirely independent of BOD/BOB. You seem to be incapable of understanding that distinction.

SFD
Since Art is here now, I’ll let him answer for himself. That said, the statement I was referring to was given in the quote box. You haven’t proved it yet. I’ll leave it to Dr. Sippo to prove or disprove your theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top