Sad Day For Catholic Apologetics

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 13 2004, 09:21 PM'] I wouldn't put Sungenis in the same catergory as Matatics, and still less would I put him in the same catergory as Mario Derksen.  He believes that John Paul II is a legitimate Pope, that the SSPX is in schism, and that the documents of Vatican II are without error.  I model my position on such issues after his. [/quote]
Hi Hananiah,

I wasn't trying to put them all into the same category. I acknowledge that there are different degrees in which one can be a Traditionalist. Perhaps I used the word schismatic too loosely, and I apologize for that. What I was implying, however, was that all three aren't exactly 100% orthodox.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 14 2004, 03:29 AM'] Hey now...there we go using Tradionalism as a dirty word again.

I, for one, am sick of this.


I'm traditional. I like the traditional mass. I'm fine with the Novus Ordo too, and I love JPII. I think some things in VII have been over interrupreted, but that doesn't make me schismatic.


I would appreciate it if we could remove the negative connotations from the words traditional and tradionalism. And please don't go flinging the word "Trad" around either in a non-positive way.

Seems only fair if the word heretic is off limits.

Call it political correctness gone amuck, but fair is fair. [/quote]
Hi Kilroy,

From what I've gathered, when Traditionalist is used in a negative manner to denote those who aren't 100% faithful to Catholicism, the "t" in the word is usually capitalized. I have nothing against traditional Catholics with a small "t," i.e., those faithful Catholics who love the Latin Mass (but don't have beef with the Novus Ordo), Gregorian chant, etc., but are completely faithful to the Holy Father and the current Magisterium.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey, I just have a general question with regards to Sedevacantism, and, really, all people who are not obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium. I'll go through my question step by step:


[b]Proposition 1.)[/b] The Magisterium, in communion with the Holy Father, teaches the True word of Christ, and is the sole legitimate interpreter of those Teachings.

[b]Proposition 2.)[/b] Obedience to the wisdom of the Magisterium is necessary for the faithful.

[b]Proposition 3.)[/b] We are all called to use our intellects to the best of our ability to understand the teachings of the Magisterium and to come to defend the Church.

[b]Conclusion/Question[/b] Assuming these things are true, doesn't it, then, logically follow that we are all called to understand and defend the Church and the Magisterium to the best of our abilities, and when those abilities fail (as they inevitably will, because we are all human) we are called to submit to the authority of the Magisterium.


Basically, in the case of these schismatic theologians, isn't their argument inherently flawed, due to the fact that they are relying on [i]their own[/i] interpretation of the Magisterial Teachings, rather than the [i]Magisterium's[/i] interpretation?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Dave' date='Jun 13 2004, 08:05 PM'] I'm told there are individual SSPXers who don't consider our Holy Father to be legit. [/quote]
That would be hearsay. The SSPX has a very strict policy against sedevecantism. It results in expulsion from the order, which has happened a number of times over the years since the Society was founded in 1971. Now, there may be indidividual priests that have secretly expressed such beliefs, but that can in no way be held against the SSPX. They can only correct what they know.

Let me agains say for the recored (as I have done multiple times on this site) that I am in no way shape or form affiliated with the SSPX. I attend an indult Mass every Sunday. Just want that to be clear.

Edited June 15, 2004 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

Jeff,

It seems to me that the flaw is not so much the misinterpretation of Magisterial teachings but rather, the misunderstanding of the theological/jurisdictional weight of a given statement.

It is dangerous to approach the truth with the idea that it can constantly be reinterpreted by whoever the reigning Pontiff is. The Holy Father does not have the authority to change the meaning of a given teaching, nor re-interpret it to mean something different from what it meant when it was promulgated.

However, what I just said would not necessarily apply to everything that has ever been said by a Pope. This is where it becomes important to understand the distinctions between the various levels of teaching authority. In this way theologians, or whoever, can see very clearly what teachings are binding upon the Holy Father (or unalterable) and which teachings were of some lower level and therefore may be expounded upon or whatever.

So for instance, the Holy Father (as he himself said) has no authority to permit the ordination of women. Why? Because the institution of the all male priesthood is Fides Divina (or at the very least, Fides catholica / fides ecclesiastica). It is of Divine foundation and cannot be changed, altered, re-interpreted etc. If the Holy Father released a document saying that it was ok, we could safely say "The hell it is" (with all due respect of course.) He would clearly be at odds with every magisterial teaching on the subject, as well as divine revelation and there would be no problem pointing that out.

Would that be private interpretation on our part were we to question it? No. Because if he actually said that (which this Pope would certainly not) he would only be saying it as a personal opinion, not teaching it in his capacity as Pope. The charism of papal infallibility would prevent him, somehow, from declaring such a thing as being de fide.

In a like manner it would be impossible for the Holy Father to Solemnly define a new teaching (or a re-interpretation) of the Lateran IV's declaration on Transubstantiation if that new definition meant something different, which it would presumably and even if it meant the same thing but only in more "modern terminology", to alter such a precise definition would be extremely imprudent, as it would give the impression of the Church changing it's teaching and would most likely be easily interpreted in erroneous ways.

Where was I going with all of this? Oh yes, levels of teaching authority. There are also lower levels that may be clarified, changed, altered or even abolished (depending on their level of certitude and the authority with which they have been taught) such as Sententia theologice certa (statements which do not fall into any of the first two categories, but which can be derived from infallible truths by short chains of argument), Sententia communis (a judgment broadly held by the vast majority of theologians) and then even lower grades such as sententia probabilis, sententia bene fundata, sententia pia, and opinio tolerata. (These distinctions and their descriptons are taken from a theological manual as quoted by the thelogian/ blogmaster [url="http://www.old-oligarch.blogspot.com/"]Old Oligarch[/url]).


The point of this tangent is that the sedevecantists do not seem to understand the different levels of teaching authority. They tend to shift some of the teachings around to support what are at times, preconceived notions of theological certainty and then do the same with the last four popes in order to turn them into formal heretics.

One more small tangent, it is not unheard of for a reigning pontiff to teach heresy. He just can't bind the faithful in it. Pope John XXII was engaged in a great theological battle over the beatific vision. His opinion on it was heretical (that no one will experience the beatific vision until after the last judgment) and no small number of people told him as much, including several saints. On his deathbed he renounced his heretical teaching. The thing is, to my knowledge the sedevecantists do not maintain that he was excommunicated, but this is inconsistent with their present position on the vacant seat of Rome (and how it became vacant).

Also, they have not come up with a viable solution to the problem. If there has not been a Pope since Pius XII, then are no Cardinals left to elect one and therefore, no future Pope is possible (unless, as some of them hold, Pius XII appointed his successor, which he could have done and which would then have made John XXIII an Anti-Pope. This story, though it certainly could have been done, is rather far fetched.)

In any case, I apologize for the length of this tangent. Hope it makes some sense.

Edited June 15, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Guest JeffCR07]

No need to apologize whatsoever, I love long answers: they tend to show that the question was taken seriously, and that much thought was involved in the answering. It definately made sense, and helped a lot. As a testament to that fact, I would like to ask a further question regarding the issue of ultraliberal/ultraconservative (read un-orthodox) groups as it relates to these levels of authority.

It seems to me that, while there are certainly levels of authority as you described them, there is also a certain degree of communion that backs them as well. An ecumenical council bears the full authority of the Magisterium, but only insofar as the ecumenical council has the blessing (read "is in communion with) the Holy Father. (This one of the reasons for why the Greek Orthodox Church, while they are legitimately ordained priests & bishops, do not have authority over Catholics). In the same way, however, the Holy Father can only be infallible when the teaching is backed by (again read "in communion with") the Magisterium.

Thus the infallible teaching, and authority, seems (at least to me) to be witnessed in the communion of the Holy Father with the Magisterium.

If this is the case, then any individual theologian, whether laity, priest, or Bishop, in a situation such as that of the sedevecantists, seems to me to be in a [i]strikingly[/i] bad situation.

This is beacause the Magisterium is in alignment and support of the Holy Father. As such, any theologian is, basically, making the argument that the Magisterium AND the Holy Father are "misinterpreting" the teachings that he/she knows better.

Is their claim that both the Magisterium at present, as well as Pope John Paul II are in error, and that, in fact, the sedevecantist interpretation of the situation is the only interpretation in line with the "true" teaching of the Church. And, if so, doesn't this contradict the idea of the Magisterium being the Mystical Body of Christ, that exists, not merely in the present, but rather spans across time, uniting the teaching of christ throughout the ages?

[DojoGrant]

Doesn't he defeat himself?

He quotes:

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832):
“Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Then he writes:

The 1983 “Code of Canon Law,” published by John Paul II with all the force of his supposed authority, contains universal disciplinary laws that are in and of themselves evil and harmful to souls.

Doesn't his statement do exactly what his quoted statement from Pope Gregory says not to do?

[DojoGrant]

I think it is also important to understand what is meant by being "reconciled to the Church." Can't reconcilliation to the Church take place through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and a statement of faith? Is that not what occurs if one submits to the authority of the Catholic Church, trusting that her sacraments are trueand that she has the authority to administer them? I fail to see how the examples given in the 1983 CCL break with the 1917 exception of, "unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 15 2004, 03:42 AM'] Hi Kilroy,

From what I've gathered, when Traditionalist is used in a negative manner to denote those who aren't 100% faithful to Catholicism, the "t" in the word is usually capitalized. I have nothing against traditional Catholics with a small "t," i.e., those faithful Catholics who love the Latin Mass (but don't have beef with the Novus Ordo), Gregorian chant, etc., but are completely faithful to the Holy Father and the current Magisterium.

God bless,

Jennifer [/quote]
See, I'm for not using the word Traditionalist in ANY negative connation - little t or big T.

Why not call people who aren't 100% faithful heretical? Wait, I know why, because it would offend protestants. Well, there's a cliche about shoes just waiting to be written here, but that too would be uncharitable.


My larger point is that the political correctness has gone WAY TOO far and now we cannot call an orange an orange... we have to have grades of orange with little o's and big O's.

Just me ramblin'... just happy to have my computer back....


Carry on.

[Donna]

Hey, Jeff.

The Mystical Body of Christ is not the Magisterium but rather all the baptized faithful in the state of grace ("without spot or wrinkle").

I hope to coment more on your post, later, if time allows me.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 15 2004, 04:30 PM'] See, I'm for not using the word Traditionalist in ANY negative connation - little t or big T. 

Why not call people who aren't 100% faithful heretical?  Wait, I know why, because it would offend protestants.  Well, there's a cliche about shoes just waiting to be written here, but that too would be uncharitable. [/quote]
Hi Kilroy,

I can understand why you'd be upset. Catholics who are 100% faithful to the Pope and the current Magisterium but like more traditional worship don't like to be affiliated in any way with Radical Traditionalists. I can't say that I blame you. The thing is, however, that Traditionalist (with a capital "t") is the word used to describe those disobedient Catholics. I wish there were another word to call them by, but I can't think of one. That's just what they're known as.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Guest JeffCR07]

Donna, I apologize for the lack of clarity in my post. The reference to the Mystical Body was with regards to the Magisterium and Holy Father being the "head" and the faithful being the "limbs." One is no greater than the other, but, in accord with the natural (and moral) law, a body cannot function when the limbs disregard the intructions given to them by the head.

Thus, my argument is that these schismatic groups (and again, im not focusing simply on sedevecantists, though they seem to be getting the most attention, but on all groups of similar unorthodoxy, whether to the left or right) are claiming that a non-Magisterial, non-Papal interpretation of teaching can overrule both the Magisterium AND the Papacy. That just doesn't seem to hold...

I know that the sedevecantists claim that the Pope is not the Pope, but how do they deal with the Magisterium being in line with him, and supporting him? Are they attempting to make the claim that the Magisterium is also illegitimate and that, in fact, THEY are the true Magisterium?

[Hananiah]

PSPX,

I'm actually not quite sure about Matatics. According to Dave Armstrong, he describes himself as an agnostic regarding the legitimacy of John Paul II's pontificate. I'm not sure if this is true, but it would be a serious error if it is. Also, he recently did a speaking tour with an SSPX priest.

[Hazilloe]

the 1917 one says that heretics and schismatics cannot get sacraments until they are reconciled with the church.


the 1983 one says that christians in certain circumstances ARE reconciled with the church.


the 1983 one is only defining what "reconciled" means.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jun 14 2004, 07:26 AM'] If you notice the quote you quoted that it is written "those who attack VII".

If you don't attack VII, then you don't fit the definition.

If you like the Latin Mass, that does not make you a 'traditionalist'. I find that the majority of people who wish to be known as traditionalist, hate the New Mass, hate the Pope, etc...

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "attacking Vatican II." Some decry it as a heretical, error filled council, some regard it as being on about the same level of authority as an encyclical, and thus not immune from all error, and some don't charge it with error at all, but only lament its rampant ambiguities and how its documents lend themselves to modernistic abuse, and ask the Vatican for clarifications.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "hating the New Mass." Do you mean to say that most traditionalists believe the New Mass is invalid? Or that, at least the way it is celabrated in most parishes, the liturgy is a disgrace? I think anyone willing to look at the facts objectively would at least agree with the second statement. Just consider how many people, including myself, have repeatedly stepped on Jesus as a result of [b][url="http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2002_September/Communion_in_the_Hand.htm"]communion in the hand[/url][/b].

Also, I highly doubt that many traditionalists "hate" the Pope. Would you hate Honorius, Zozimus, Stephen VI, Urban VI, or any other of the bad to poor Popes with which the Catholic Church has been saddled over her long history if you lived during one of their pontificates? Or woud you love them, pray for them, make every attempt to lead them to self-reform, and do everything in your power to make sure their scandalous words and actions did not destroy the faith of your fellow Catholics? This is the attitude most traditionalists take towards John Paul II. You may believe we are wrong in the way we apply our principles, and I will respect your position, but you cannot claim that our principles are wrong.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Hananiah