Posted on 03/06/2005 9:45:17 AM PST by Land of the Irish
Ping
bttt
excerpt from They Think They've Won-Part VII
______________________________________________________
THE TACIT REPUDIATION OF HUMANI GENERIS
Under Pope John Paul II's pontificate, the other founding fathers of the "new theology" were able, already in their lifetime, to bask in their share of (the modernistic) glory. On February 2, 1983, Pope John Paul II bestowed the cardinal's hat on De Lubac who was then almost eighty years of age. This papal action constituted a de facto rehabilitation, absolutely unjustified, as well as an unjustifiable repudiation of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis. In the Catholic world, this was taken as a certain sign of the new pope's "new" theological direction. On January 7, 1983, Present, a Parisian daily (newspaper) made the following pointed observation:
"We have often wondered for what reason Fr. Wojtyla, who had studied theology in Rome under Pope Pius XII, had, subsequently, almost never referred to that great pope's doctrinal teachings. The explanation lies simply in the fact that he had theologically chosen to follow De Lubac (one of the "fathers" of the "new theology") rather than Pius XII. This fact is more readily understood at the present time."
On the occasion of the venerated Card. De Lubac's death, L'Osservatore Romano (May 9, 1991) made public, on its first page, the contents of two telegrams sent by His Holiness John Paul II: the first one, to Card. Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, and the other one to the Superior General of the Company of Jesus (Jesuits).
The first telegram is as follows:
"Recalling the long and faithful service accomplished by this theologian who succeeded in collecting and saving the best of Catholic tradition in his meditations on the Church and the modern world, I fervently beg Christ the Savior to grant him the reward of His eternal peace."
And the second telegram:
"For many years, I had greatly appreciated the vast culture, spirit of self sacrifice, and intellectual integrity, which have all served to make of this model religious an outstanding servant of the Church, particularly on the occasion of Vatican Council II."
There followed, on page 6, the deceased's curriculum vitae prepared by L'Osservatore Romano's editorial staff which, on the 8th and 11th of September, went right on celebrating the memory of the "father" of "new theology," previously condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis.
While alive, Hans von Balthasar was glorified by Pope John Paul II. And not only he, but also the lady whom he had described as being his theological "better half" Adrienne von Speyr. In 1985, with the publicity being provided by L'Osservatore Romano, a symposium was held in Rome on Adrienne the "mystic," and Von Balthasar in Premessa, and Il Nostro Compito, made it publicly known that this event constituted the realization of a "desire expressed in 1983 by the Holy Father." Von Balthasar himself was promoted to cardinal (June 1988) but died on the very eve of being awarded his "well-deserved honorary distinction" (Card. Ratzinger). However, Ratzinger himself declared in his funeral oration:
"That which the Pope wished to express by this gesture of gratitude and acknowledgment or, rather, of honor, remains valid."
How can we blame him (for publicly declaring the unvarnished truth of the matter)? Nevertheless, it 'is' a fact that this gesture of gratitude, or rather, of honor, on the part of the Pope, has been addressed to the pseudo-theology of a pseudo-theologian who has wearily trudged "along the path of sheer personal fancy, of error, and of heresy". (cf. Courrier de Rome, 147 (337) June 1993; for Cardinal Ratzinger's homily, see H.W. von Balthasar, Figura e opera, p.541).
Pius XII on the New Theology which insisted all truth was continually evolving and is never fixed: "if we were to embrace or share such opinions, what would become of the immutable or unchangeable Dogmas of the Catholic Church? What would become of the unity and stability of the Faith?" (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 38,S., 2,13,1946. p, 385).
Be there or be square.
"Blind they are and leaders of the blind, puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the Holy and Apostolic Traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself' (St. Pius X, Pascendi quotation from the encyclical Singulari nos of Pope Gregory XVI, June 25, 1834).
Actions speak louder than words.
So are you saying Saint Joan of Arc is suffering eternal damnation in Hell?
St. Joan wasn't excommunicated; she received holy Communion before her execution. In any case, her trial was manifestly unjust and illegal (her appeal to the Pope was ignored), and hence a sentence of excommunication would have been invalid. Moreover, unjust excommunications, while they separate a man from the communion of the Church, do not result in damnation, for "the person [unjustly] excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit) [. . .] if he submit humbly, the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of excommunication" (St. Thomas, Sup., q. 21 a. 4).
This is false. A more accurate critique of Balthasar's error may be found here:
It should be clear that this condemnation is not directly contrary to Fr. von Balthasar's thesis. He does not teach that the damned will be eventually restored. He proposes the hope that no humans are or will be actually damned. Furthermore, he teaches, along with this canon and all other pertinent teaching of the Magisterium, that the devil(s) are eternally damned. [. . .] In the light of what it has been given us to know, we must presume that (in numbers completely unknown to us) humans will be included in "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41), and that we ourselves could be among that number. It is such a presumption that the words of Jesus and the teaching of the Church would appear to have as their own, and better guides in this matter we cannot have. Against such a presumption one cannot have what is properly defined as theological hope, but one can and must have a human hope, a wish which expresses itself in prayer and zealous efforts, for the salvation of all. For we do and must pray: "Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy." (James T. O'Connor, "Von Balthasar and Salvation")
As was Archbishop Lefebvre's sentence.
Heck, New Rome didn't even give him a trial.
Oh please! The Pope's intentions were perfectly clear that Lefebre was excommunicated.
Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops did not appeal the sentence against them by the Congregation for Bishops. In any case, John Paul II confirmed the judgment in "Ecclesia Dei".
Bl. Pius IX's words about a former schism seem pertinent:
Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment." [. . .] But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since "every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church." Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. (Quartus Supra)
It's all right there: appeals to the state of necessity, claims of unjust excommunication (apparently without a trial), claims that the Pope has exceeded his powers, and so on. Bl. Pius IX gave short shrift to such arguments. Pius VI, of blessed memory, has the same teaching: "the right of ordaining bishops [. . .] cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained" (Charitas). He later prohibits the appeal to the "pretext of necessity".
Heck, New Rome didn't even give him a trial.
47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,-false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. (Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, DZ 1547)
Humani Generis was intended to say "No" to the sorts of approaches represented by la nouvelle theologie, but it was modified, according to de Lubac, who had a letter from John XXIII on this, stating that Pius XII had himself altered elements in Humani Generis that were directly critical of the kind of work de Lubac was doing.
Is that why he joined the other "experts" of modernism at the Council--men like Courtney Murray and Schillebeeck? I don't buy it. The New Theology was lethal to the faith. Pius XII knew it and he said so, condemning the very men who became the leading lights at Vatican II. Is it any wonder disaster followed within ten years? Humani Generis still stands as a warning, though you'd never know it in the contemporary Church which glorifies what had been condemned.
Wrong, again
After the reading of the sentence of excommunication came a long pause, for a condemned person was not denied time to address the people if wishing to do so. For half an hour or more Joan spoke, protesting her faith and trust in God, asking for the prayers of the people as well as for the intercession of the saints, and her words, "pitiful, devout and Catholic", were so moving that those who could hear her, even the Cardinal of England and many Englishmen, were seen to weep.
The soldiers grew impatient. Two sergeants came and forced her down from the platform where she stood and led her to the Bailiff who represented the English authorities. So far she had been excommunicated but not sentenced to death: yet no judgment was read in the name of the king, no sentence was pronounced, and the Bailiff, merely waving his hand, to signify these legal formalities were not worth troubling about, said: ""—that is: "Take her away. Take her away"—and she was straightway taken to the stake and handed to the executioner. She asked for a cross and a soldier hastily made one with two pieces of wood tied together—she kissed it and put it in her bosom. Then her arms were pinioned behind her back and she was chained to the stake. At her request, Isambart, who, as well as Ladvenu, was attending her, sent for the cross of a near-by church and held it before her right to the end of her long agony. "To the end of her life", affirms Martin Ladvenu, "she maintained and asserted that her Voices came from God and that what she had done had been done by God's command. She did not believe that her Voices had deceived her, and in giving up the ghost, bending her head she uttered the name of Jesus in a voice that could be heard all over the market-place by all present, as a sign that she was fervent in the faith of God." Her heart was unconsumed. By order of Cardinal Beaufort, the ashes and all that remained of St Joan were put into a sack and thrown into the Seine "that the world might have no relic of her of whom the world was not worthy".[5]
By a contradiction which shows how little the Tribunal were convinced of the justice of their own sentence, they granted her—a declared schismatic and heretic—the privilege of Holy Communion, which all these long months had been denied her.
I will grant you that the Tribunal attempted to excommunicate her; it would seem, however, that it was invalid (and hence there was no excommunication) since it was manifestly contrary to the law. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church. Now an appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. The illegality of the former proceedings was made clear ...
In any case, the example of St. Joan doesn't seem to prove your point. Are you arguing that since she was truly excommunicated unjustly, the excommunication had no force, and hence the same is true of Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops? St. Thomas explains why whether or not she was excommunicated unjustly or not excommunicated due to illegality of the sentence, she would not have been damned. For he says, as I pointed out in my previous post:
In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally. (Sup., q. 21 a. 4)
Obviously the case of St. Joan, who appealed the sentence and submitted, is far different from the case of Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops, who did and do in fact contemn the sentence against them. Hence no comparison is possible, it would seem.
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.