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

[artsippo]

SFD sez:

The Vatican I definition of the infallibility of the Pope does not say the Holy Ghost compels the pope to do anything.

How sad it is when Catholics forget that God is the sovereign master of all Creation and that he ordains all things by his providence. It is he who changes hearts of stone to hearts of flesh and grants us the actual grace to perform good works in his name.

Scripture says this:

Eph 2:10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It isnot only the Pope who is compelled to act by God. It is all of creation. He sends the sunshine, and the rains, and the floods, the famines and the bountiful harvest. Nothing is beyond his control. In like fashion, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart while softening that of Cyrus the Persian.

With regard specifically to the ministries of the Church we must remember that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and acts on his behalf. If the Church is in need of sure guidance on a particular matter we can be certain that God will compel Christ’s Vicar to act on the Church’s behalf. This involves us in the mystery of efficacious grace: the grace that infallibly brings about God’s desired end.

The online Catholic Encyclopedia notes this about the Tomist theory of grace:But God, respecting the nature of things, moves necessary agents to necessary, and free agents to free, activity – including sin, except that God is the originator only of its physical entity, not of its formal malice. Inasmuch as the Divine influence precedes all acts of the creature, not in the order of time, but in that of causality, the motion emanating from God and seconded by free intelligent agents takes on the character of a physical premotion (proemotio physica) of the free acts, which may also be called a physical predetermination (proedeterminatio physica), because the free determination of the will is accomplished only by virtue of the divine predetermination.

For although it be true that a man who is freely sitting cannot at the same time be standing (sensus compositus), nevertheless his freedom in sitting is maintained by the fact that he might be standing instead of sitting (sensus divisus). So it remains true that grace is not efficacious because free will consents, but conversely the free will consents because grace efficaciously premoves it to the willing and performance of a good act. Here gratia efficax is intrinsically and by its nature (ab intrinseco s. per se) efficacious, and consequently intrinsically and extrinsically different from sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens), which imparts only the posse, not the agere. To make merely sufficient grace efficacious a new supplementary grace must needs be supplied. How then is such a grace really sufficient (gratia vere sufficiens)? To this most of the Thomists reply: If the free will did not resist the grace offered, God would not hesitate to supply the efficacious grace so that the failure of the grace is to be referred to the sinful resistance of the free will.

newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

The Bottom line is that God ordains all things: ALL THINGS. That includes most especially what his Church says and does. The Scriptures bear witness to this:

2Pe 1:19**And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. **
2Pe 1:20**First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, **
2Pe 1:21because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Mat 10:18**and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. **
Mat 10:19**When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; **
Mat 10:20for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

The opinions of mere theologians can never be used to contradict the revealed word of God.

Art

Omnes, Semper- Ad Jesum, Per Mariam, cum Petro!

 

[artsippo]

While I respect your desire, SFD, to preserve the freedom of the Popes to exercise their free will, if they were not granted the divine assistance in making momentous decisions such as the IC and not compelled to do so by the movement of the Holy Spirit, it would certainly lessen their authority.

As to you question vis a vis the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, I have always championed the infallible nature of it and insisted that irreformable doctrine can be taught in this manner. This was the position taken by Pope Pius XII (of happy memory) in Humani Generis:

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[Luke 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
   I hope these help to clarify the matter.

Art

Omnes Semper- Ad Jesum, Per Mariam, cum Petro!

 

[latinmass]

I don’t wants to provoke you to anger, maybe I was wrong when I thought you were angry or impatient in past post, I apologize if I was. I humbly ask if you can give me just a few sentences of what as Catholics we need to do differently since V2, What do we need to believe or do or not do differently since V2. Thank you for your patience in this matter. This question come up often and it would be great if I could just respond with a few short ideas of what has changed. Or is it too complex for a short answer. Thank you in advance. You seem to have a great knowledge of Church teachings. I appreciate your posts.

 

[artsippo]

There were several theological disputes that were settled and teachings defined at VCII:

1. The Catholic Church is not a monarchy with the Pope as its all powerful ruler. It is ruled by the college of Bishops in union with the Pope. The ideal way for the Papacy to exercise its authority within the Church is collegially in conjunction with the whole episcopate. This settled some practical questions on how the Church should be governed that arose after Vatican I and its declaration that the Pope can act on his own to define dogmas infallibly in an Extraordinary act of the Magisterium.
2. Sacred Tradition is not a separate source of revelation from Sacred Scripture. The two are parts of the the same source: the revelation of Jesus Christ. This settled a dispute in which some Catholic prelates argued that the Catholic faith could be derived from Tradition alone.
3. Religious liberty in secular states is to be guaranteed within the limits of public order and the objective moral law. This was a recognition that religious liberty within due limits contributes both to public order and the public good.
4. “{A} religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” This clarifies the question of whether the Pope needs to be obeyed in his Magisterium to the whole Church even when he is not teaching in an extraordinary manner.
5. The minor orders are not considered to be celebrations of the sacrament of orders. The only ministries that are sacraments are: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. This eventually led to the suppression of some minor orders and the reform of others.
6. The different level on ordained ministry (Bishop, Priest, and Deacon) are each not new sacraments but rather a deepening of participation in the one sacrament of Holy Orders. This was a long standing debate among theologians going back to the Middle Ages.

Art

 

[bear06]

I don’t wants to provoke you to anger, maybe I was wrong when I thought you were angry or impatient in past post, I apologize if I was. I humbly ask if you can give me just a few sentences of what as Catholics we need to do differently since V2, What do we need to believe or do or not do differently since V2. Thank you for your patience in this matter. This question come up often and it would be great if I could just respond with a few short ideas of what has changed. Or is it too complex for a short answer. Thank you in advance. You seem to have a great knowledge of Church teachings. I appreciate your posts.

Thanks Art for throwing these out and saving me the typing. LM, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Please read Art’s list. He’s got even more than I previously communicated. There’s a good chance he’s probably listed them in a much clearer way. I’m sure I’m not always know for doing that although I try!

 

[SFD]

SFD:

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.

How sad it is when Catholics forget that God is the sovereign master of all Creation and that he ordains all things by his providence. It is he who changes hearts of stone to hearts of flesh and grants us the actual grace to perform good works in his name.

What is sad is that Art dismisses the fact that he is contradicted by Scheeben and by Vatican I’s own definition. He dismisses what “mere theologians” have said in weighty theology manuals approved by the Church (The preface was by Cardinal Manning). He then quotes scripture and does his own theology…like a protestant does. Does Art think that Scheeben didn’t know scripture? Or Cardinal Manning? Did the Fathers at Vatican I not know scripture?
Sippo:

Scripture says this:

Eph 2:10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It isnot only the Pope who is compelled to act by God. It is all of creation. He sends the sunshine, and the rains, and the floods, the famines and the bountiful harvest. Nothing is beyond his control. In like fashion, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart while softening that of Cyrus the Persian.

Yes, and how is this relevant? When a man commits a murder…does God compel him to do it?
Sippo:

With regard specifically to the ministries of the Church we must remember that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and acts on his behalf. If the Church is in need of sure guidance on a particular matter we can be certain that God will compel Christ’s Vicar to act on the Church’s behalf. This involves us in the mystery of efficacious grace: the grace that infallibly brings about God’s desired end.

Who’s theology is this? Art Sippo’s? Where did he learn this?
Sippo:

The online Catholic Encyclopedia notes this about the Tomist theory of grace:But God, respecting the nature of things, moves necessary agents to necessary, and free agents to free, activity – including sin, except that God is the originator only of its physical entity, not of its formal malice. Inasmuch as the Divine influence precedes all acts of the creature, not in the order of time, but in that of causality, the motion emanating from God and seconded by free intelligent agents takes on the character of a physical premotion (proemotio physica) of the free acts, which may also be called a physical predetermination (proedeterminatio physica), because the free determination of the will is accomplished only by virtue of the divine predetermination.

For although it be true that a man who is freely sitting cannot at the same time be standing (sensus compositus), nevertheless his freedom in sitting is maintained by the fact that he might be standing instead of sitting (sensus divisus). So it remains true that grace is not efficacious because free will consents, but conversely the free will consents because grace efficaciously premoves it to the willing and performance of a good act. Here gratia efficax is intrinsically and by its nature (ab intrinseco s. per se) efficacious, and consequently intrinsically and extrinsically different from sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens), which imparts only the posse, not the agere. To make merely sufficient grace efficacious a new supplementary grace must needs be supplied. How then is such a grace really sufficient (gratia vere sufficiens)? To this most of the Thomists reply: If the free will did not resist the grace offered, God would not hesitate to supply the efficacious grace so that the failure of the grace is to be referred to the sinful resistance of the free will.

newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

The Bottom line is that God ordains all things: ALL THINGS. That includes most especially what his Church says and does.

Oh…so now Gods ordains all things…not compels all things.
Sippo:

The opinions of mere theologians can never be used to contradict the revealed word of God.

Scheeben's Dogmatik:

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.

Art’s own theology based on his intrepretation of scripture. You’ve read it here…he can’t help himself. Art has done his own theology and it is superior to that of the Church’s own approved theologians.

He, a simple layman, is superior to them in theology. He knows scripture better than they do. It’s the height of arrogance.

SFD

 

[japhy]

1. The Catholic Church is not a monarchy with the Pope as its all powerful ruler. It is ruled by the college of Bishops in union with the Pope. The ideal way for the Papacy to exercise its authority within the Church is collegially in conjunction with the whole episcopate. This settled some practical questions on how the Church should be governed that arose after Vatican I and its declaration that the Pope can act on his own to define dogmas infallibly in an Extraordinary act of the Magisterium.

Here is how Lumen Gentium “Preliminary Note of Explanation” (which many editions of the document relegate to the end of the document) explains it:

1. The word College is not taken in the strictly juridical sense, that is as a group of equals who transfer their powers to their chairman, but as a permanent body whose form and authority is to be ascertained from revelation. For this reason it is explicitly said about the twelve apostles in the reply to modus 12 that Our Lord constituted them “as a college or permanent group” (cf. modus 53, c). In the same way the words Order or Body are used at other times for the college of bishops. The parallel between Peter and the apostles on the one hand and the Pope and the bishops on the other does not imply the transmission of the extraordinary power of the apostles to their successors, nor obviously does it imply equality between the head and members of the college, but only a proportion between the two relationships: Peter–apostles and pope–bishops. And therefore the commission decided to write in Art. 22 not “in the same manner” (eadem ratione) but “in like manner” (pari ratione).
2. … it is expressly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members is required. The idea of communion was highly valued in the early Church, as indeed it is today especially in the East. It is not to be understood as some vague sort of goodwill, but as something organic which calls for a juridical structure as well as being enkindled by charity. The commission, therefore, agreed, almost unanimously, on the wording “in hierarchical communion” (cf. modus 40 and the statements about canonical mission in art.24).

The documents of recent Popes dealing with episcopal jurisdiction are to be interpreted as referring to this necessary determination of powers.

1. There is no such thing as the college without its head: it is “The subject of supreme and entire power over the whole Church.” This much must be acknowledged lest the fullness of the Pope’s power be jeopardized. The idea of college necessarily and at all times involves a head and in the college the head preserves intact his function as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church. In other words it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops. The Pope alone, in fact, being head of the college, is qualified to perform certain actions in which the bishops have no competence whatsoever, for example, the convocation and direction of the college, approval of the norms of its activity, and so on (cf. modus 18). It is for the Pope, to whom the care of the whole flock of Christ has been entrusted, to decide the best manner of implementing this care, either personal or collegiate, in order to meet the changing needs of the Church in the course of time. The Roman Pontiff undertakes the regulation, encouragement, and approval of the exercise of collegiality as he sees fit.
2. The Pope, as supreme pastor of the Church, may exercise his power at any time, as he sees fit, by reason of the demands of his office. But as the Church’s tradition attests, the college, although it is always in existence, is not for that reason continually engaged in strictly collegiate activity. In other words it is not always “in full activity” (in actu pleno); in fact it is only occasionally that it engages in strictly collegiate activity and that only with the consent of the head (nonnisi consentiente capite). The phrase with the consent of the head is used in order to exclude the impression of dependence on something eternal: but the word “consent” entails communion between head and members and calls for this action which is exclusive to the head. The point is expressly stated in art. 22, par. 2 and it is explained at the end of the same article. The negative formulation “only with” (nonnisi) covers all cases: consequently it is evident that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed (cf. modus 84).

Clearly it is the connection of bishops with their head that is in question throughout and not the activity of bishops independently of the Pope. In a case like that, in default of the Pope’s action, the bishops cannot act as a college, for this is obvious from the idea of “college” itself. This hierarchical communion of all bishops with the Pope is unmistakably hallowed by tradition.

 

[SFD]

While I respect your desire, SFD, to preserve the freedom of the Popes to exercise their free will, if they were not granted the divine assistance in making momentous decisions such as the IC and not compelled to do so by the movement of the Holy Spirit, it would certainly lessen their authority.

Notice how Art adds the “compelled to do so” to the “granted divine assistance”? He has added this “compelled to do so” and has no source for it…surely he could find some authority who teaches this…if there is one.

Also, my desire was to present the Catholic teaching on this issue…not to “preserve the freedom of the Popes to exercise their free will”. I’m quite certain everyone here believes the Popes (along with everybody else) have free will. That hardly needs my “defense”.
Sippo:

As to you question vis a vis the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, I have always championed the infallible nature of it and insisted that irreformable doctrine can be taught in this manner. This was the position taken by Pope Pius XII (of happy memory) in Humani Generis:

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[Luke 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
   I hope these help to clarify the matter.

Yes, of course…but it would actually be nice if you’d address the real issue here…the teaching of Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

And what was Vatican I saying here:

From the Relatio of Bp. Gasser, the relator of the Faith at Vatican I, explaining to the Fathers what they were about to vote on…what the definition of Papal infallibility meant:

Therefore not only must it be said that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he defines doctrines about faith and morals, but that this infallibility is that infallibility which the Church enjoys. Therefore, someone who would simply assert that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something about faith or morals has by no means comprehended the meaning of our definition. Nor is the meaning of our formula comprehended by someone who simply asserts that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something which simply must be held by the Church. The two things must always be joined so that the meaning of our formula be correct and true. Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: “The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals.”

Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;

1. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;

1. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

SFD

 

[GerardP]

There were several theological disputes that were settled and teachings defined at VCII:

Most of those “theological disputes” were not settled at all. As Japhy’s post points out Paul VI had to provide the Preliminary Note that cleared up the ambiguity in Lumen Gentium that tends towards Gallicanism.

The very fact that Paul VI took this rather insufficient action preserved the integrity of the Church’s teaching theologically, but it didn’t do much in terms of affecting what was actually believed after Vatican II by it’s strongest supporters.

Another point is that those theological disputes were not the reason that Vatican II was called. As John XXIII clearly expressed in his opening statement. (Probably the last clear statement to come out of the Council.)

"The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

From the criteria established by His Holiness Blessed John XXIII on that rainy day in October of 1962, it’s self-evident that Vatican II failed miserably in its stated mission.

It was called to present the clear teaching of the Catholic Church in terms that modern man would understand, not bickering theologians.

Vatican II simply did not do that.

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

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.

Yes. But he could not have chosen to teach that there was no immaculate conception…that it was false. He defined this already certain doctrine…and was protected from error in making the definition.

Here is Cardinal Manning:

…but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied. The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition.

GerardP:

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.

Gerard, how can this be? Either he is protected from teaching error as Pope or he is not? We are speaking of the Pope teaching with his authority as Pope…not as a private theologian.

As a private teacher can he fall into heresy? Bellarmine says no…but he says that opinion is merely probable. It is not certain…therefore Bellarmine went on to examine the pope-heretic question.

GerardP:

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.

Where do you get this “negative charism”? It is a Charism…granted to the Pope as teacher of Christians…to be infallible as the Vatican I council defined.
Scheeben's Dogmatik:

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).

 

[artsippo]

SFD, I am very sorry that you do not understand that the Church is God’s own people and that his providence watches over her in a special way. Your comment about the murderer shows that you are out of touch with St. Thomas who made it clear that God provides the material situation whereas the free will of the agent assumes moral responsibility. Granted, this is a mystery beyond human understanding, but the moment that God is not in charge of everything that happens in his creation he ceases to be God.

The Church is not the world. it is special place where the Holy Spirit is active. As such there is a special providence within her that is not present elsewhere. I know that you want to see this in Tanquery or Schebeen and if I had the time or the inclination, I would point out where you can see it. But frankly, I don’t understand how a Catholic can have as Pelagian an understanding of race as you do. Call me all the names you like, but if God is not in control of the universe, he ain’t God.

One way you may understand this is that God gives men just enough rope to hang themselves but not enough to escape his wrath.

As to the comment from Pope Pius IX, I am afraid that you are not reading that with the mind of the Church. Of course we cannot just ignore theological principles that have persisted in the Church and been included in her catechesis even if they have not been declared in a definitive manner by Popes or Councils. There is one organ of the Magisterium that everyone forgets about: When the entire Church in union with the Pope believes a doctrine to be true it can be considered as taught infallibly. Likewise the consensus of the Fathers too can be an organ of infallible teaching.

But we must be cautious. As Pius XII warns us in Humani Generis, theologians are permitted quite a bit of leeway in their speculations. Not everything that they propose – even if it dominates Catholic thought for centuries – is necessarily beyond question or contradiction. The error of Cajetan with regard to nature and grace is an excellent example of this as is the theory that the sacrifice of the Mass requires the symbolic destruction of the victim. Both of these ideas were very popular among Catholics for centuries but were eventually rejected,

When we are dealing with the mysteries of our faith we need to stand humbly before God and give our religious submission of mind and will to Christ’s vicar. He is the ultimate judge of what is or is not Catholic teaching. Our meager theological opinion count for nothing before the Magisterium of the Holy Father guided as he is by the Holy Spirit.

Ar

Art

 

[SFD]

SFD, I am very sorry that you do not understand that the Church is God’s own people and that his providence watches over her in a special way. Your comment about the murderer shows that you are out of touch with St. Thomas who made it clear that God provides the material situation whereas the free will of the agent assumes moral responsibility. Granted, this is a mystery beyond human understanding, but the moment that God is not in charge of everything that happens in his creation he ceases to be God.

The Church is not the world. it is special place where the Holy Spirit is active. As such there is a special providence within her that is not present elsewhere. I know that you want to see this in Tanquery or Schebeen and if I had the time or the inclination, I would point out where you can see it. But frankly, I don’t understand how a Catholic can have as Pelagian an understanding of race as you do. Call me all the names you like, but if God is not in control of the universe, he ain’t God.

One way you may understand this is that God gives men just enough rope to hang themselves but not enough to escape his wrath.

As to the comment from Pope Pius IX, I am afraid that you are not reading that with the mind of the Church. Of course we cannot just ignore theological principles that have persisted in the Church and been included in her catechesis even if they have not been declared in a definitive manner by Popes or Councils. There is one organ of the Magisterium that everyone forgets about: When the entire Church in union with the Pope believes a doctrine to be true it can be considered as taught infallibly. Likewise the consensus of the Fathers too can be an organ of infallible teaching.

But we must be cautious. As Pius XII warns us in Humani Generis, theologians are permitted quite a bit of leeway in their speculations. Not everything that they propose – even if it dominates Catholic thought for centuries – is necessarily beyond question or contradiction. The error of Cajetan with regard to nature and grace is an excellent example of this as is the theory that the sacrifice of the Mass requires the symbolic destruction of the victim. Both of these ideas were very popular among Catholics for centuries but were eventually rejected,

When we are dealing with the mysteries of our faith we need to stand humbly before God and give our religious submission of mind and will to Christ’s vicar. He is the ultimate judge of what is or is not Catholic teaching. Our meager theological opinion count for nothing before the Magisterium of the Holy Father guided as he is by the Holy Spirit.

Art

You are doing your own theology. You can’t answer me.

Where did you learn the things you’ve written? You can’t tell us because they are your own thoughts and your own theology.

We are speaking of a morally unanimous theological opinion…one that is theologically certain. You keep bringing up the “one meager theological opinion” as if that’s what we were discussing here. Why don’t you specifically address Tuas Libenter? Was Cardinal Manning wrong as well? Did Vatican I “get it wrong”?

You can’t answer any of these things. Why?

If Scheeben or Herve or Tanquery are just a “mere theological opinions”…then what are you? You aren’t authorised by anyone to teach anything…and you quote no source except your own interpretation of Scripture.

SFD

 

[GerardP]

Your comment about the murderer shows that you are out of touch with St. Thomas who made it clear that God provides the material situation whereas the free will of the agent assumes moral responsibility. Granted, this is a mystery beyond human understanding, but the moment that God is not in charge of everything that happens in his creation he ceases to be God.

Art,

You’re not taking into account Aquinas’ argument that God creates both necessity and contingency. (from Book 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles.)

The fact that God has ordained certain things as necessary does not interfere with free will. He knows all that is and all that is not. Every possible combination of actions is known to Him. However within necessities, there are contingencies that he allows.

The necessity is that he will protect His Church from defecting and He will protect the Pontiff from error when he exercises his free will to invoke the infallibility of the Church.

Whether the Pope as an individual decides to invoke (or attempts to invoke) the Magisterium on a ruling is a contingency.

 

[GerardP]

Yes. But he could not have chosen to teach that there was no immaculate conception…that it was false. He defined this already certain doctrine…and was protected from error in making the definition.

I think we’re close to being on the same page on this. We don’t know the mechanism that God uses in protecting the Pope. It could be he strikes them dead before they attempt to bind something that is heterodox.

As an individual bishop or theologian, Pope Pius IX could have held the opinion that there was no immaculate conception. If he’d tried to bind it, God would have stopped him. The fact that he did bind the Immaculate Conception as a dogma indicates that he was protected.

Gerard, how can this be? Either he is protected from teaching error as Pope or he is not? We are speaking of the Pope teaching with his authority as Pope…not as a private theologian.

The key is “as Pope” meaning basically doing what only the Pope can do.

If the Pope says, “Thou shalt not keep the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” is not one of the Ten Commandments and is not a divine law, you know that it’s not a magisterial statement but rather a statement by a Pope who has lost his marbles.

If the Pope tries to say, 'By my authority as successor of Peter in a matter…faith…moral…I declare…Catholic Church…declares, defines and professes…is not one of the Ten Commandments…"

God will stop him.

As a private teacher can he fall into heresy? Bellarmine says no…but he says that opinion is merely probable. It is not certain…therefore Bellarmine went on to examine the pope-heretic question.

Then that would a suspension of free will since the Pope is human. We aren’t talking about the Blessed Mother here who was preserved from all of the consequences of Original Sin.

Upon assuming office, the Pope doesn’t become “enlightened.”

Where do you get this “negative charism”? It is a Charism…granted to the Pope as teacher of Christians…to be infallible as the Vatican I council defined.

It’s a fairly common term, I’ll try and track down the origin. But essentially you have a charism (gift) and they can be positive (inspiration) like St. Peter and the Apostles were given Divine Revelation or they can be negative. (the Pope is prevented from binding an error on the faithful)

 

[GerardP]

When we are dealing with the mysteries of our faith we need to stand humbly before God and give our religious submission of mind and will to Christ’s vicar. He is the ultimate judge of what is or is not Catholic teaching. Our meager theological opinion count for nothing before the Magisterium of the Holy Father guided as he is by the Holy Spirit.

Couple of problems here.

The Magisterium is not the Holy Father’s, it is the Church’s Magisterium. There is one perennial Magisterium. The Holy Father can only invoke it and he is subject to it. This is why no Pope can ever “undo” The Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into Heaven as defined by Pius XII.

As far as being “guided” by the Holy Ghost. That sounds more like a romantic accretion than actual doctrine. Everyone is guided by the Holy Ghost. Whether one chooses to accept that guidance and grace is subject to the free will of the individual.

One of the reasons the dove is chosen specifically by God as a form of the Holy Ghost precisely because the dove is a peaceful bird that is easily “shewed” away. It doesn’t impose itself on others.

 

[japhy]

Granted, this is a mystery beyond human understanding, but the moment that God is not in charge of everything that happens in his creation he ceases to be God.

… Call me all the names you like, but if God is not in control of the universe, he ain’t God.

Are you saying that God wills (or ordains, or what-have-you) everything? That He exercises complete, total, and utter control?

If so, that necessarily leads to universal salvation, for that means whatever happens in this world is the will of God, and Jesus himself said that only those who do the will of his Father in heaven will enter the kingdom of heaven. (cf. Matthew 7:21) If someone is a murderer and adulterer, they’re just doing the will of God which He decreed for him (according to you), and Jesus said that such a one that does the will of God will enter the kingdom of heaven.