Posted on 05/14/2004 2:13:48 PM PDT by gbcdoj
The Local Church of Rome
By Joseph Clifford Fenton
According to the divine constitution of Our Lord's kingdom on earth, membership in that kingdom, the universal Church militant, normally involves membership in some local or individual brotherhood within the universal Church. These individual brotherhoods within the Catholic Church are of two kinds. First there are the various local Churches, the associations of the faithful in the different individual regions of the earth. Then there are the religiones, assemblies of the faithful organized unice et ex integro for the attainment of perfection on the part of those who are admitted into them. According to the Apostolic Constitution Provida mater ecclesia, "the canonical discipline of the state of perfection as a public state was so wisely regulated by the Church that, in the case of clerical religious Institutes, in those matters in general which concern the clerical life of the religious, the Institutes took the place of dioceses, and membership in a religious society was equivalent to the incardination of a cleric in a diocese."[1]
Among these individual brotherhoods that live within the universal Church of God on earth, the local Church of Rome manifestly occupies a unique position. Theologians of an earlier day stressed these prerogatives of the Roman Church quite strongly. Unfortunately, however, in our own time the manuals of sacred theology, considered as a group, dwell almost exclusively upon the nature and the characteristics of the Church universal, without explaining the teaching about the local Church at any length. Consistently with this trend, they have chosen to teach about the Holy Father in relation to the Church throughout the entire world, and have given comparatively little attention to his function precisely as the head of the Christian Church in the Eternal City.
Thus we and the people whom God has commissioned us to instruct may be prone to forget that it is precisely by reason of the fact that he presides over this individual local congregation that the Holy Father is the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the entire Church militant. The Christian community of Rome was and remains Peter's Church. The man who governs that community with apostolic power in the name of Christ is Peter's successor, and is thus Our Lord's vicar in the rule of the Church universal.
It is definitely the more common teaching among the scholastic theologians that the office of the visible head of the entire Church militant is inseparably attached to the position of the Bishop of Rome, and that this absolutely permanent attachment exists by reason of the divine constitution of the Church itself. In other words, an imposing majority of Catholic theologians who have written on this particular subject have manifested the belief that no human agency, not even the Holy Father himself, could render the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church universal the prerogative of some episcopal see other than that of Rome or otherwise separate that primacy from the office and the essential prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. According to this widely accepted teaching, the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth, could not possibly be other than the Bishop who presides over the local Christian community of the Eternal City.
During even its earliest stage of development, scholastic ecclesiology taught expressly that when St. Peter established himself as the head of the local Christian community in Rome, he was acting in accordance with God's own direction. Thus Alvaro Pelayo teaches that the Prince of the Apostles transferred his See from Antioch to Rome "iubente Domino," and that the location of the principal seat of the Christian priesthood in the "caput et domina totius mundi" was to be attributed to Divine Providence.[2] A century later, the Cardinal John de Turrecremata insisted that a special command of Christ had made Rome the primatial See of the Catholic Church.[3] Turrecremata argued that this action on the part of Our Lord made it impossible for even the Sovereign Pontiff himself to detach the primacy from Peter's own local Church in the Eternal City. Later Thomas de Vio Cardinal Cajetan taught that St. Peter had established his See at Rome by Our Lord's express command.[4]
The Counter-Reformation theologians took up this question in much greater detail. Dominic Soto sponsored the teaching, previously attacked by Turrecremata, to the effect that the fixing of the primatial See at Rome was attributable only to St. Peter, in his capacity as the head of the universal Church.[5] Thus Soto held that any one of St. Peter's successors in the Supreme Pontificate could, if he so chose, transfer the primatial See to some other city, in exactly the same way and with exactly the same authority St. Peter had used in bringing the primacy from Antioch to Rome.
Soto's solution of this question never obtained any considerable foothold in scholastic ecclesiology. His contemporary, the ever-truculent Melchoir Cano, derided the contention that, since there is no scriptural evidence in favor of any divine command that the primatial See should have been established in Rome, St. Peter's transfer from Antioch to Rome must be attributed only to St. Peter's own choice.[6] He employed the occasion of this teaching to bring out his own teaching on the importance of tradition as a source of revelation and as a locus theologicus.
The traditional thesis that Rome is and always will be the primatial See of the Catholic Church received its most important development in St. Robert Bellarmine's Controversies. St. Robert devoted the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De Romano Pontifice to the question De Romana ecclesia particulari. His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.[7]
In the course of this chapter St. Robert exposed as "a pious and most probable teaching" the opinion that "Peter's cathedra could not be taken away from Rome,"[8] and that, for this reason, the individual Roman Church must be considered as both infallible and indefectible. In support of this thesis which, incidentally, he considered as an opinion and not as entirely certain, St. Robert appealed to the doctrine that "God Himself has ordered Peter's Apostolic See to be fixed in Rome."[9]
St. Robert by no means closed the door entirely on the thesis of Dominic Soto. He admits the possibility that the divine mandate according to which St. Peter assumed command of the Church in Rome might have been merely a kind of "inspiration" from God, rather than a definite and express order issued by Our Lord Himself. Always insistent that his thesis was not a matter of divine faith, he repeated his contention that it was most probable and pie credendum "that the See has been established at Rome by divine and immutable precept."[10]
Gregory of Valentia, however, taught that Soto's opinion on this subject was singularis nec vero satis tuta.[11] Adam Tanner believed the thesis that "the supreme authority to govern the Church has been inseparably joined to the Roman See by direct and divine institution and law," though not a doctrine of faith, was still something which could not be denied absque temeritate.[12] In his Tractatus de fide Suarez taught that it seemed more probable and "pious" to say that St. Peter had joined the primacy over the entire Church militant to the See of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own precept and will. Suarez believed, however, that St. Peter received no such order from Christ prior to the Ascension.[13] The outstanding seventeenth century theologians, Francis Sylvius and John Wiggers also subscribed to the opinion that the primacy was permanently attached to the local Church of Rome by reason of Our Lord's own command.[14]
The status of this thesis was further improved when Pope Benedict XIV inserted it into his De synodo diocesana.[15] Pope Benedict believed that St. Peter had chosen the Roman Church either at Our Lord's command, or on his own authority, acting under divine inspiration or guidance. Billuart taught that Rome was chosen as a result of Our Lord's own direct instruction.[16] John Perrone taught that no human authority could transfer the primacy over the universal Church from the See of Rome.[17]
In more recent times interest in this particular thesis has centered around the question of the manner in which God had joined the primacy to the episcopate of the local Church of Rome. Some, like Dominic Palmieri, consider it probable that St. Peter received a divinely revealed mandate to establish his See permanently at Rome before he assumed the leadership of the local Church of the Eternal City."[18] Others, like Reginald Schultes, believe such an antecedent command most unlikely, but insist that an explicit divine mandate to this effect was probably given to St. Peter prior to his martyrdom.[19] Still others, like Cardinal Franzelin and Bishops Felder and D'Herbigny, give it as their opinion that St. Peter's final choice of Rome was brought about by a movement of divine grace or inspiration of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of any transfer of the primatial See from Rome at any subsequent time.[20] Cardinal Billot taught that Rome held its position dispositione divina, and that this thesis, though not yet defined, was unquestionably capable of definition.[21] It is interesting to note that Gerard Paris wrote that more probably the primacy over the universal Church was joined to the episcopate of Rome iure divino, saltem indirecto.[22] The possibility of such an indirect divine mandate has not been generally considered in the recent literature of scholastic ecclesiology.
An overwhelming majority of theologians since the Vatican Council has upheld the thesis that, in one way or another, the primacy is permanently attached to the local Church of Rome iure divino. Within this majority we find such outstanding ecclesiologists as Cardinal Camillus Mazzella, Bonal, Tepe, Crosta, De Groot, Hurter, Dorsch, Manzoni, Bainvel, Tanquerey, Herve, Michelitsch, Van Noort, and Lercher.[23] Despite the preponderance of testimony in favor of this thesis, however, Saiz Ruiz and Calcagno reject the theological arguments usually adduced in its favor, while Dieckmann refers to the question as subject to controversy.[24] Granderath makes it evident that the Vatican Council had no intention of condemning Dominic Soto's teaching in its Constitution Pastor aeternus.[25]
As a consequence of this inseparable union of the primacy with the episcopate of Rome, scholastic theology points to the common Catholic teaching that the local Church of Rome, the faithful of the Eternal City presided over by their Bishop who is surrounded by his own priests and other clerics, as an infallible and indefectible institution. If, until the end of time, the man who is charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal Church militant as Christ's vicar on earth is necessarily the head of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to continue to live as long as the Church militant itself. A man could not be Bishop of Rome unless there were a definite Roman Church over which he could rule by divine authority.
The thesis on the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome has received rather considerable development in the literature of scholastic ecclesiology. Saiz Ruiz is of the opinion that, if the city of Rome were destroyed, it would be sufficient to have the Sovereign Pontiffs retain the title of Bishop of Rome "sicut hodie episcopi in partibus."[26] The terminology of most of the other modern and classical theologians who have dealt with this question, however, involves a rejection of this contention. The bishops in partibus infidelium, properly called titular bishops since Pope Leo XIII decreed this change in terminology in his apostolic letter In supremo, of June 10, 1882, have no jurisdiction whatever over the Catholics of the locality where their ancient churches were situated. No man, according to the prevailing teaching of scholastic theology, could be the successor of St. Peter and thus the visible head of the universal Church militant unless he had particular episcopal authority over the Christians of the Eternal City.
Although some theologians, like Suarez and, in our own time Mazzella and Manzoni, hold it as probable that the material city of Rome will be protected by God's providence and will never be completely destroyed,[27] most of the others hold that this destruction is a possibility. They maintain, however, that the destruction of the buildings and even the complete uninhabitability of the city itself would in no way necessitate the destruction of the Roman local Church. Older writers like St. Robert Bellarmine were convinced that at one time the actual city of Rome was entirely without inhabitants, while the local Church, with its clergy and its bishop, continued to live.[28]
From time to time heretics have pointed to the seventeenth and the eighteenth chapters of the Apocalypse as indication that ultimately there would be no followers of Christ within the city of Rome. St. Robert admitted such a possibility at the end of the world, but pointed out the traditional interpretation of this section of the Apocalypse, particularly that popularized by St. Augustine, had nothing to do with the Roman Church during the period immediately preceding the general judgment.[29] Francis Sylvius demonstrated that any application of this section of the Apocalypse to the Roman Church was merely fanciful.[30] Modern theologians, Franzelin and Crosta in particular, have followed this procedure.[31]
Another highly important and sometimes overlooked prerogative of the local Roman Church is its infallibility. By reason of its peculiar place in the universal Church militant, this individual congregation has always been and will always be protected from corporate heresy by God's providential power. The local Church of Rome, with its bishop, its presbyterium, its clergy and its laity will exist until the end of time secure in the purity of its faith. St. Cyprian alluded to this charism when he spoke of the Catholic Romans as those "ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum."[32]
This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.
It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]
Since it is true that the local Church of Rome is infallible in its faith, and that the Holy Father is the only authoritative teacher of the local Church of Rome, it follows that he teaches infallibly when he definitely settles a question about faith or morals so as to fix or determine the belief of that local Church. Since the local Church of Rome is an effective standard for all the other local Churches, and for the universal kingdom of God on earth, in matters of belief, the Holy Father must be considered as addressing the entire Church militant, at least indirectly, when he speaks directly and definitively to the local congregation of the Eternal City. Thus it is perfectly possible to have a definition of the type described in the Vatican Council's Constitution Pastor aeternus, one in which the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra, "exercising his function as the pastor and the teacher of all Christians" and so "according to his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine about faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,"[38] precisely when he speaks to determine the faith of the local Church of Rome.
It is a matter of manifest Catholic doctrine that the episcopate of the local Church of Rome and the visible primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church militant are not actually two episcopates, but constitute only one episcopal function. Today, unfortunately, we are prone to imagine that the headship of the Christian community in the city on the Tiber is something hardly more than incidental to the Sovereign Pontificate. Indicative of this tendency is the declaration of a recent and well-written book about the Holy Year, a statement to the effect that "One of the Holy Father's titles is Bishop of Rome."[39]
Such a statement is not erroneous, but it might well be considered somewhat misleading. "Bishop of Rome" is not merely one of the titles of the Holy Father, it is actually the name of the office which constitutes him as St. Peter's successor and as the Vicar of Christ on earth. And, when the same volume speaks of "the return of the Apostolic See to Rome,"[40]" with reference to the end of the residence of the Popes in Avignon, it is using a definitely bad terminology. The Apostolic See, the cathedra Petri, never left the Eternal City. The men who ruled the Church from Avignon were just as truly the Bishops of Rome as any others among the successors of St. Peter. It is precisely by reason of the inseparable residence within it of the Cathedra Petri that the local Church of Rome possesses its extraordinary privileges and charisms within the Church militant.
Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America Washington, D. C.
ENDNOTES
1 The Provida mater ecclesia was issued on Feb. 2, 1947. The translation of this passage is that of Bouscaren in his Canon Law Digest: Supplement through 1948 (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1949), p. 66.
2 Cf. De statu et planctu ecclesiae, I, a. 40, in Iung, Un Franciscain, theologien du pouvoir pontifical au XIV' siecle: Alvaro Pelayo, Eveque et Penitencier de Jean XXII (Paris: Vrin, 1931), p. III.
3 Cf. Summa de ecclesia, II, c. 40 (Venice, 1561), p. 154".
4 Cf. Apologia de comparata auctoritate papae et concilii, c. 13, in Pollet's edition of Cajetan's Scripta theologica (Rome: Angelicum, 1935), 1, 299.
5 Cf. Commentaria in IV Sent., d. 24.
6 Cf. De locis theologicis, Lib. VI, c. 8, in the Opera theologica (Rome: Filiziani, 1900), II, 44.
7 Cf. De controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos (Cologne, 1620), I, col. 811.
8 Cf. ibid., col. 812.
9 Ibid., col. 813.
10 Ibid., col. 814.
11 Cf. Valentia's Commentaria theologica (Ingolstadt, 1603), III, col. 276.
12 Cf. Tanner's Theologia scholastica (Ingolstadt, 1627), III, col. 240.
13 Cf. Suarez' Opus de triplici virtute theologica (Lyons, 1621), p. 197.
14 Cf. Sylvius' De praecipuis fidei nostrae orthodoxae controversiis cum nostris haereticis, Lib. IV, q. I, a. 6, in D'Elbecque's edition of Sylvius' Opera omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 297; Wigger's Commentaria de virtutibus theologicis (Louvain, 1689), p. 63.
15 Cf. De synodo diocesana, Lib. II, c. I, in Migne's Theologiae cursus completus (Paris, 1840), XXV, col. 825.
16 Cf. Billuart's Tractatus de regulis fidei, diss. 4, a. 4, in the Summa Sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata sive cursus theologiae juxta mentem Divi Thomae (Paris: LeCoffre, 1904), V, 171 f.
17 Cf. Perrone's Tractatus de locis theologicis, pars I, c. 2, in his Praelectiones theologicae in compendium redactae (Paris, 1861), 1, 135.
18 Cf. Palmieri's Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum prolegomena de ecclesia (Prado, 1891), pp. 416 ff.
19 Cf. Schultes' De ecclesia catholica praelectiones apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux, 1931), pp. 450 ff.
20 Cf. Franzelin's Theses de ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1887), pp. 210 ff.; Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis (Paderborn: Schoeningh, 1923), II, 120 f.; and D'Herbigny's Theologia. de ecclesia (Paris: Beauchesne, 1927), II, 213 ff.
21 Cf. Billot's Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Rome: Gregorian University, 1927), 1, 613 f.
22 Cf. Paris' Tractatus de ecclesia Christi (Turin: Marietti, 1929), pp. 217 f.
23 Cf. Card. Mazzella's De religione et ecclesia praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae, 6th edition (Prado, 1905), pp. 731 ff.; Bonal's Institutiones theologiae ad usum seminariorum, 16th edition (Toulouse, 1887), 1, 422 ff.; Tepe's Institutiones theologicae in usum scholarum (Paris: Lethielleux, 1894), 1, 307 f.; Crosta's Theologia dogmatica in usum scholarum, 3rd edition (Gallarate: Lazzati, 1932), 1, 309 ff.; De Groot's Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica, 3rd edition (Regensburg, 1906), pp. 575 ff.; Hurter's Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, 2nd edition (Innsbruck, 1878), 1, 332; Dorsch's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1928), II, 229; Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4th edition (Turin: Berruti, 1928), 1, 263; Bainvel's De ecclesia Christi (Paris: Beauchesne, 1925), p. 201; Tanquerey's Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, 24th edition (Paris: Desclee, 1937), p. 492; Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, 18th edition (Paris: Berche et Pagis, 1934), 1, 401; Michelitsch's Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis, 3rd edition (Vienna: Styria, 1925), p. 378; Van Noort's Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Hilversum, Holland: Brand, 1932), p. 188; and Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1934), 1, 378 ff.
24 Cf. Saiz Ruiz, Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis (Burgos, 1906), pp. 430 ff.; Calcagno, Theologia fundamentalis (Naples: D'Auria, 1948), pp. 229 f,; and Dieckmann, De ecclesia tractatus historico-dogmatici (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925), 1, 437 f.
25 Cf. Granderath, Constitutiones dogmaticae sacrosancti oecumenici Concilli Vaticani ex ipsis eius actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1892), pp. 137 ff. Although Soto's teaching has not been condemned, the doctrine according to which the primacy could be taken away from Rome by the action of a general council or of the populace as a whole was proscribed by Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors. Cf. DB. 1735.
26 Cf. Saiz Ruiz, op. cit., p. 433.
27 Cf. Suarez, op. cit., p. 198; Mazzella, op. cit., p. 738; Manzoni, op. cit., p. 264.
28 Cf. St. Robert, op. cit., col. 813.
29 Cf. ibid., col. 814 .
30 Cf. Sylvius, op. cit., q. I, a. 4, conclusio 3, p. 291.
31 Cf. Franzelin, op. cit., pp. 213 f.; Crosta, op. cit., p. 312, quotes Franzelin on this question. It is interesting to note that the doctrines of these scholastics coincide with the teachings of the exegete Allo on this subject. Cf. his Saint Jean: L'Apocalypse, 3rd edition (Paris: Gabalda, 1933), pp. 264 ff.
32 Ep. 59, in CSEL, 3, 2, 683.
33 Cf. Hosius, Confutatio prolegomenon Brentii (Lyons, 1564), pp. 170 ff.
34 Cf. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (Louvain, 1530), lib. 4, c. 3, pp. 549 ff.
35 Cf. St. Robert, op. cit., col. 812.
36 This letter is listed among the epistles of St. Cyprian, n. 30.
37 Cf. DB, 730.
38 DB, 1839.
39 Cf. Fenichell and Andrews, The Vatican and Holy Year (New York: Halcyon House, 1950). p. 89.
40 Ibid., p. 4.
This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology of some of the greatest Counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.[33] John Driedo developed it magnificently.[34] St. Robert explained this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.[35] The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given to no other local Church.It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum, constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was meant to conform.[36] The Roman Church could not possibly be the one with which all the other local congregations of Christendom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility. In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church militant throughout the world.
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]
I have posted instead on this thread, Apostolic Constitutions of Holy Roman Pontiffs, and from canonized Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church learned works on this subject, including the original Latin, Italian and French texts, and their exact source and location.
You are correct that the Church cannot err. Your conclusion is that the novus is therefore correct. Wrong. The correct answer is that the novus ordo missae, and those who promulgated it, are in now way part of the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church - rather they are of satan, as are their works.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was one of the most eminent theologians of 20th Century America. He was trained at the Angelicum in Rome and did his doctoral dissertation under the revered theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. From 1944 to 1963, he was editor of the theological journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review. He also defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation," and upheld the traditional Papal Teaching on the Confessional State.
Every single one of the articles they post are obsessively geared toward the trad/Rome flamewars that most around here have put aside as of late in the name of harmony.
Note how famliar they seem with this forum and posting here and how such doesn't coincide with their joined date.
They're deceptive trolls and/or re-treads banees and should be regarded as such. One even admitted to "sharing a desk at work" with banned poster Steven Hand after being put on the spot.
They think they're clever but they're not. If the mods can't or won't deal with them, let them be known for what they are.
I have no relation, at all, with "McClave". I have never met him, Stephen Hand, or any of the writers of the site "Traditional catholic reflections" nor corresponded with any of them in any way, except perhaps on this board. This is my only account I have ever had on this forum, and as for the supposed familiarity - this is accounted for by the fact that I registered on Jan 1 and posted first on March 14 - about the "separation of church and state" (supporting the position of Bl. Pius IX) and not about anything to do with the Society or any other traditionalist group.
Viva Christo Rey is not a SSPXer - he is a sedevacantist. At the very least a material schismatic according to the Society (cf. Sedevacantism), which believes that the Pope is actually a Pope and expelled the sedevacantist "Society of St. Pius V" members. Surely you have nothing against attempting to assist a schismatic out of his schism, or defending Blessed John XXIII from the totally unwarranted charge of contumacious heresy!
It is from a 1950 article by Msgr. Joseph Fenton (as is clearly stated in the OP), conservative and arch-enemy of Fr. John Courtney-Murray and his theses on religious liberty. He served with Cardinal Ottaviani on the preparatory commission for Vatican II which produced the document on "Religious Tolerance" rejected by the Council. As CatherineSiena posted:
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was one of the most eminent theologians of 20th Century America. He was trained at the Angelicum in Rome and did his doctoral dissertation under the revered theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. From 1944 to 1963, he was editor of the theological journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review. He also defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation," and upheld the traditional Papal Teaching on the Confessional State.
The fact that you don't know who he is indicates that you have not even read Michael Davies' book on religious liberty - yet you have the audacity to judge the Supreme Pontiff a heretic!
You are correct that the Church cannot err. Your conclusion is that the novus is therefore correct. Wrong. The correct answer is that the novus ordo missae, and those who promulgated it, are in now way part of the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church - rather they are of satan, as are their works.
You'd do better if you read the article. It has an interesting part which states the proposition "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" was condemned as manifest heresy by Pope Sixtus IV. This thesis is exactly the error of Luther:
For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world -- as you are not ignorant -- than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness...
And it is exactly the thesis you hold! But as is pointed out - the Roman Church is indefectible and infallible. This means the diocese of Rome will persevere until the end of time. And this is what proves the error of the sedevacantist heresy - it holds that the local Church of Rome has fallen into error - for as Pius XII points out in Mediator Dei: "let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief" (§48) - and ceased to be part of "the true Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church".
Is there any way to get ahold of old copies of the American Ecclesiastical Review? The individual articles I've read from it are outstanding (including contributions by Ottaviani) and there are few writings you can find these days that are comparable in breadth and scope (the possible exception being John McCarthy and Brian Harrison's work for the Roman Theological Forum).
It may be a worthwhile project for someone to look into what it would take to transfer the material to the Internet. At a time where Catholic Universities have stripped the title "theologian" of any useful meaning, the wisdom of dedicated Catholic theologians of a generation past are welcome and necessary.
You could try emailing the Catholic Culture staff - they must have gotten copyright permission and the articles from someone. CUA Press might still have old copies. I agree, the articles in the journal which have been put online are brilliant.
I did find this: "Vols. 16-169 (last publ.). 1897-1975. Bound" for $2500. Bit expensive...it gives an email to ask for quotes on individual issues though.
It may be a worthwhile project for someone to look into what it would take to transfer the material to the Internet.
Yep.
This site looked promising until I realized it was the old PetersNet site. I still find their rating system quite amusing, particularly its combination of dire "fidelity" warnings according to a strange set of standards (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=114 or http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=997) with critiques of site usability and user interface (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=863). They also put a large amount of emphasis on what other sites a site they review links to (http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=334).
Does anyone else have an opinion on this rating system?
I suppose they'd rate Alfons Cardinal Stickler as having a poor fidelity as well, for writing "we can say the theological attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass corresponds with the theological incorrectness of the Vatican [II] Mass".
Now, hows' that for humor?
Huh? On the defense now?
I thought we were defending the Pope!
Is this an SSPX-Sede-Gruner-Feeneyite-Whatever private club?
Did we come in the wrong door?
I thought this was a "Religion" section? Show us (orthodox, Roman, Catholics) where we are allowed to post as Freepers and we'll stay there since you can't follow an argument without obsessively bringing up Steven Hand or whomever the heck freaks you out....
Free speech is free speech. Let it go.
All Remnant folks...
What a cocktail! Maybe The Remnant is cover for an Acid trip----beyond contradiction?
OK then, admit you're a troll or Steven Hand himself and I'll stop the "namby pamby". Until then I'll consider you a dishonest poster with an agenda. Are you writing from the computer you admittedly share with him tonight?
BTW, when you say "we're" who are you referring to? Those who came to FR long after I did and were banned a long time ago? If so I have no desire whatsoever to "discuss theology" with you.
Me hat's off you ya, sir. Someone on Free Republic actually believes in free speech! Whatta ya know?
There's hope here yet.
Me hat's off to you ya, sir. Someone on Free Republic actually believes in free speech! Whatta ya know?
There's hope here yet.
It's like a syndrome. For some reason there are people who feel the need to judge, attack, correct, hound and badger traditionalist Catholics of all stripes. It doesn't come across as heartfelt concern for a brother's soul either, it comes across as neurotic and mean spirited at times.
Do yourself and everyone else a favor and worry about the homos, power mongers, apostates, heretics, clowns and whatever else. Once we take care of them we can worry about those who worship Jesus devoutly. Even if they may not be doing it correctly in your view.
(Posing like Reagan) There you go again! I'm only an elf (but a heterosexual one!) Why are you so obsessed?
Quotheth, he, again: Those who came to FR long after I did and were banned a long time ago? If so I have no desire whatsoever to "discuss theology" with you.
So much for free speech. You want to excommunicate, excommunicate...cast into the outer darkness... It must be a papal fantasy, born of too much private judgement and heaping doses of The Angelus Magazine.
Watch out or you'll be donning the robes and mitre, don't ya know? You won't be the first either...
I notice that you won't deny that you're him. At least there's hope that you're truly Catholic and won't lie directly to my face. It's a step in the right direction anyway.
Well, I'm not 'obsessed with trads' - see here for example, where I was discussing the filioque and schism with an Eastern Orthodox poster. Most of my "anti-traditional" posts were in response to stuff like this: "It is, in fact, the Lutheran worship service adapted for Catholics by a committee of humanists. Its theology is Protestant, not Catholic, and it violates strictures established by the Council of Trent. It is therefore an abomination and a danger to the faith." and "The current crop of blighters were all formal heretics before being putatively elected and hence never did, or could ever, occupy the papal throne or possess the Keys of Peter."
It's like a syndrome. For some reason there are people who feel the need to judge, attack, correct, hound and badger traditionalist Catholics of all stripes. It doesn't come across as heartfelt concern for a brother's soul either, it comes across as neurotic and mean spirited at times.
On the subject of "mean spirited", my current discussion with Viva Christo Rey started out with this post of his:
The author, who decries the well-meaning laity obsessing over triviliaties while the Church burns, is guilty of the same, because it is not the Roman Catholic Church, but a false edifice, constructed of tarpaper, by apostates who have usurped titles alone, and have thus led the untutored faithful from the true Body of Christ under the whip of "obedience", obedience to error, lies, untruth, scheming, heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege and apostasy.The only real solution is to call error, error, lies, lies, apostasy, apostasy, and that which stinks of satan, is of satan and inseparable from it.
And then to return to what the Church has taught, always, in all places and by all, in other words the normal state of affairs before hell opened and spewed forth "Vatican 2", remain in communion with those who hold the true Faith, and separate oneself and flee from those spewing forth heresy, especially from those heretics who purport to possess authority
assaulting what even the Society recognizes as the One Church of Christ as a "false edifice". St. Pius V would have had a man burned at the stake for what is written above. This fulfills everything laid down by St. Thomas in the Summa for "schismatics properly so called" (ST II-II q. 39 a. 1).
It's clear Viva Christo Rey simply doesn't understand Catholic theology well enough. For instance, he asserted on the other thread that religious liberty is a heresy - except it isn't. Even the most authoritative condemnation of religious liberty, by Bl. Pius IX in Quanta Cura, was only infallible but not dogmatic. He, after repeated requests, still hasn't produced a pertinacious heresy of Bl. John XXIII or Paul VI, even after slandering them as "formal heretics". Not to mention the fact "no one who is not a Catholic bishop may conclude definitively that a Pope is a notorious heretic" (Fr. Harrison O.S., cf. Wernz-Vidal 1942, vol. II, p. 518)
I have not gotten that impression. I am impressed with the quality of the material that gbcdoj is posting. While I don't agree with him, it would be unfair to mis-characterize his participation. In contrast, the other person you mention has done little except throw around gratuitous insults. But while gbcdoj's position may be similar to that other person, his style is night and day. And "style" consists of things like courtesy and charity and knowledgeableness, which it makes it an important consideration.
John Vennari has been re-printing quite a bit of material from American Ecclesiastical Review in Catholic Family News. I believe that he is travelling to his local seminary library and transcribing old copies by hand.
I, on the other hand, agree with Pope Pius IX:
From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."Quanta Cura "Condemning Certain Errors" 1864But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
Yes, yes, the Catholic Churuch condemns all free speech but yours. How simple. Thomas Aquinas would be surprised at the way you construe Pius IX!
Why not start a "Totalitarian Republic" website for yourSelf and call yourselves Grimreepers? It would suit your principles of (private) interpretation. You and AAA WORST (that other emblem of self-disclosure who wishes he were a private EYE!)
You pronounce this thread quite dead.
Don't fall for it, gbcdoj. Calculated Max flattery. He's notorious for it.
Well it's nice to know that I'm notorious for something.
In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known. (Libertas)
McClave, your posts on this thread aren't really helping you advance your cause at all...
Thank you, Maximilian. I believe I can say the same for you.
Leading off with "however" is a dead giveaway that Leo XII was not coming out in favor of free speech as your little snippet implied. Here is the rest of the paragraph:
23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which -- as We have before said and must again and again repeat -- it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.Clearly Pope Leo XIII was not quite ready to join the ACLU.The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint.
Nope, not the ACLU for Leo XIII. But on questions where neither divine Revelation nor the Church of Christ have pronounced sentence, free discussion may be given.
We'll watch gbcdoj convert Max and AAA to Vatican II as interprted by John Paul II and the magisterium.
You see, these good clowns talk about humor, but reject it at every turn. The rather employ mockery against the Pope and, of course, against those who defend him.
Really, outside this little forum this place is known as a nuthouse. We try to persuade people to give these time, and allow the process...
That is charity because it Hopes against seeming futility. When one prefers private interpretation to the magisterium one is a essentially Protestant, and Protestants always think they are the true faith.
So we keep on in Hope and humor. Ian and your friends
Ever has it been that flattery succeeds to destroy souls where persecution fails. PS Someone send me a private email telling me who all these guys really are, since they are so inquisitive about I, McClave, and company.
A very frightened forum. But, as you say it is private with no free speech here, you are (in calling this "Free" Republic) anti-constitutional (incapable of employing its principles even in this nutty tiny micro-forum) -----and thus hypocrisy itself.
Came in the wrong door, we, I guess. Thought free speech was allowed within catholic dogmatic parameters in a place called "Free" Republic. Thatnks for the correction. Everything makes sense now. You not only are Luther, but Pol Pott if you had power.
Bye.
Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII
FRANCIS XAVIER WERNZ, S.J. (1842-1914) SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE JESUITS & RECTOR OF THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY AT ROME AND FRANCOIS D'ASISE VIDAL Y BARRAQUER (1868-1943) CARDINAL
Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church. (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian University, 1937], Vol. VII, p.398
"When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to defend itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the treasure of revelation, there are certain points that every Christian necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend." (L'anne liturgique - Le temps de la septuagesime, 1932)
"The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament; he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. He has no fresh inspiration nor revelation. "His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy....
(The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 27-28)
"It has been a common teaching of theologians that a validly elected pope can fall into heresy and so vacate the See of Peter by automatic tacit resignation."
"Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiae corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tentat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellet omnes Ecclesiasticas caeremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere. (De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
"And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."
"Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae ritus in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novus alio per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit." - -Session VII, Canon 13
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor [which includes the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.
"A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."
(Summa Theologica)
"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus: if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed...."
"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared."
"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I."
It has nothing at all to do with whether he is making a statement ex cathedra or not - otherwise by that logic, one is stating that only a "pope" could be guilty of formal heresy. If it applies to you or me, it most assuredly applies to him.
Bon appetit!
All men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation. (Redemptor Hominis 13.3)
All men are saved. (Osservatore Romano, 6 May 1980)
Christ's Mystical Body is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church. (Osservatore Romano, 8 July 1980)
The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is present, in all its essential elements in non-Catholic sects. (Letter to the Bishops on "Communion," 1992)
The Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects. (Ibid.)
The Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel unless there is a "reunion of Christians". (Osservatore Romano, 20 May 1980)
The Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with non-Catholic sects. (Ibid.)
Non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission. (Osservatore Romano, 10 June 1980)
The Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as means of salvation. (Catechesi Tradendae, 16 October 1979)
It is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience. (Redemptor Hominis 12.2, Dives in Misericordia, and passim)
The miracles of Christ do not prove his messianic dignity. (Speech to Lutherans, 11 December 1983)
The article in the Apostles' Creed, 'He descended into hell', simply means that Christ's body was in the earth for three days. (Osservatore Romano, 16 January 1989)
...So we keep on in Hope and humor. Ian and your friends...
...PS Someone send me a private email telling me who all these guys really are, since they are so inquisitive about I, McClave, and company...
OK, this multiple personality McClave think is starting to confuse me now. I was willing to drop this after the whole "I share a computer at work with Stephen Hand" thing, but the strange properties affiliated with this screenname keeps getting brought up (and by McClave themselves) - and I'm getting more rather than less confused.
So far, we know based on McClave's own words:
Ridiculous. You cite no source for the supposed "correction", because it has never happened.
It has nothing at all to do with whether he is making a statement ex cathedra or not - otherwise by that logic, one is stating that only a "pope" could be guilty of formal heresy. If it applies to you or me, it most assuredly applies to him.
A heresy has to be contrary to something which must be held with divine and catholic faith, having been proposed by the Church as having been revealed by God. (c. 751; Cf. also the corresponding canon in the 1917 Code).
Bon appetit!
I note you failed to provide the de fide dogmas which these statements supposedly contradict. Furthermore, they entirely lack context and appear to be paraphrases which distort the meaning of the original in the cases where the document is available for examination.
All men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation. (Redemptor Hominis 13.3)
When we penetrate by means of the continually and rapidly increasing experience of the human family into the mystery of Jesus Christ, we understand with greater clarity that there is at the basis of all these ways that the Church of our time must follow, in accordance with the wisdom of Pope Paul VI [Cf. Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam: AAS 56 (1964) 609-659.], one single way: it is the way that has stood the test of centuries and it is also the way of the future. Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, "by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man" [Vatican Council II: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22: AAS 58 ( 1966) 1042.].
It is noted that he quotes Gaudium et Spes:
He Who is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),(21) is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, [Cf. Second Council of Constantinople, canon 7: "The divine Word was not changed into a human nature, nor was a human nature absorbed by the Word." Denzinger 219 (428); Cf. also Third Council of Constantinople: "For just as His most holy and immaculate human nature, though deified, was not destroyed (theotheisa ouk anerethe), but rather remained in its proper state and mode of being": Denzinger 291 (556); Cf. Council of Chalce, don:" to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion change, division, or separation." Denzinger 148 (302).] by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice [Cf. Third Council of Constantinople: "and so His human will, though deified, is not destroyed": Denzinger 291 (556).] and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin. [Cf. Heb. 4:15.]
There is no heresy here. All the "united Himself" means is that he became "like us in all things except sin". Unless you think St. Paul was a heretic?
All men are saved. (Osservatore Romano, 6 May 1980)
A lie.
But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him (General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999)
Christ's Mystical Body is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church. (Osservatore Romano, 8 July 1980)
He didn't.
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"[273] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."[274] Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[275] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[276] (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, [Ibid.; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 13. Cf. also Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 15 and the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.] that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. [The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).] But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. [Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.] (Dominus Iesus, approved in forma specifica by Pope John Paul II)
The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is present, in all its essential elements in non-Catholic sects. (Letter to the Bishops on "Communion," 1992)
There is nothing heretical about this. Non-Catholic sects [the Eastern Orthodox] have a valid Eucharist (ST III q. 82 a. 7) and the Catholic Church of Christ is therefore present, since the Eucharist does not exist outside the Church. This doesn't mean that the members of these non-Catholic sects are in the Church.
... in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present ("Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion")
The Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects. (Ibid.)
Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it, as in the case of the Christian Churches separated from Rome. (ibid.)
These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. (Unitatis Redintegratio)
Lefebvre signed the Decree on Ecumenicism. He didn't see anything wrong with this - where's the heresy here?
The Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel unless there is a "reunion of Christians". (Osservatore Romano, 20 May 1980)
Unclear. Not contrary to any dogma. Probably a distortion, like so many other of these "heresies". The existence of heretics and schismatics does complicate the proclaimation of the Gospel.
The Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with non-Catholic sects. (Ibid.)
We do share a common faith in certain areas. This statement is true because certain non-Catholics who believe in the trinity share this part of the apostolic faith with us, although they lack the fulness of the apostolic faith.
Non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission. (Osservatore Romano, 10 June 1980)
Unclear. Not contrary to any dogma. Probably a distortion of what he really said.
The Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as means of salvation. (Catechesi Tradendae, 16 October 1979)
He uses the Catholic elements in these sects, yes. Take a look at ST III q. 82 a. 7. The Eucharist is valid consecrated in some non-Catholic sects and therefore those who are inculpably ignorant of the true Church and in good faith (and therefore united with her soul according to St. Pius X) can recieve grace through this Eucharist.
It is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience. (Redemptor Hominis 12.2, Dives in Misericordia, and passim)
Men do have a right to religious freedom, but that this is divinely revealed isn't what is taught in Redemptor Hominis (the Declaration itself is clear that religious freedom is part of the natural law):
For this reason the Church in our time attaches great importance to all that is stated by the Second Vatican Council in its Declaration on Religious Freedom, both the first and the second part of the document. We perceive intimately that the truth revealed to us by God imposes on us an obligation. We have, in particular, a great sense of responsibility for this truth. By Christ's institution the Church is its guardian and teacher, having been endowed with a unique assistance of the Holy Spirit in order to guard and teach it in its most exact integrity. (§12)
Nothing here is mentioned about the condemned error of "liberty of conscience" (which was not condemened as a heresy, though, simply as an error).
Nothing of the sort is taught in Dives in Misericordia
In any case, religious freedom is perfectly true and compatible with Catholic doctrine. Read Pius XII's allocution Ci Riesce and Michael Davies' book The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, as well as the articles I gave you links to before.
The miracles of Christ do not prove his messianic dignity. (Speech to Lutherans, 11 December 1983)
A calumny.
515 The Gospels were written by men who were among the first to have the faith and wanted to share it with others. Having known in faith who Jesus is, they could see and make others see the traces of his mystery in all his earthly life. From the swaddling clothes of his birth to the vinegar of his Passion and the shroud of his Resurrection, everything in Jesus' life was a sign of his mystery. His deeds, miracles and words all revealed that "in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." His humanity appeared as "sacrament", that is, the sign and instrument, of his divinity and of the salvation he brings: what was visible in his earthly life leads to the invisible mystery of his divine sonship and redemptive mission (John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
The article in the Apostles' Creed, 'He descended into hell', simply means that Christ's body was in the earth for three days. (Osservatore Romano, 16 January 1989)
632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.[477] This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Saviour, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.[478] 633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.[479] Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":[480] "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."[481] Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.[482] (John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Firstly, the Pope didn't take the Coronation Oath. Secondly, he hasn't put himself out of the Church. Thirdly, he has kept to the discipline and rite of the Church - unless you think St. Pius V also excommunicated himself:
We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers ... This new rite alone is to be used ... (Quo Primum)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.