Author Topic: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility  (Read 339 times)

ubipetrus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2018, 02:30:43 PM »
I have never heard anyone say, as you do above, that "Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they can NEVER be infallible..."
Well I have.  It is right in the meaning of the word.  Suppose someone were to say of a computer, "this computer is bug-free."  If even so much as one single lonely little bug were found in that computer, then it would not be bug-free, now would it?  Now maybe you could still call it bug-free in this or that limited aspect, something not affected by whatever bug(s) may be found, but the computer as a whole is no longer bug-free.  And even in "this or that limited aspect," sooner or later a bug shows up in this one or that one, thus whittling down our specification of bug-free closer and closer to a total nullity.
According to that, you must believe the Pope is infallible all the time (which is precisely the problem with sedevacantism), whereas the reality is exactly what you deny:
The Pope is only infallible some of the time.
My conclusion is that your metaphysics (i.e., fundamental principle, two lines above) is what causes your inability to assent to what Archbishop Lefebvre explains.
That "the Pope is infallible all the time" is precisely the problem which the Sede Vacante finding directly solves.  The man (Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio) has been yea verily found to be fallible; that much cannot be questioned by any informed and loyal doctrinaire Catholic.  If the fallible man was/is a Pope while proving to be fallible, then Popes are fallible and it is no longer meaningful to speak of Popes as being infallible.  Solution?  If the fallible man was/is NOT a Pope while proving to be fallible, then Popes can still be regarded as being infallible (as the fallibility/infallibility of non-popes has no relevance to the infallibility of Popes), and the Catholic dogma stands as promulgated at Vatican I.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 46 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2018, 02:59:00 PM »
There's a reason that the Vatican Council used the words "infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff" and not "infallibility of the Roman Pontiff".
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

ubipetrus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2018, 03:57:17 PM »
But the Archbishop then went on to give some reasons why, in some circumstances, such laws might not be the secondary object of infallibility (e.g., If the legislator had no intent to bind, or was not capable of binding, etc.).
How do we know if a legislator seeks to bind anyone to a given law, mandate, decree, or command?  The answer is very simple:  if there are punitive measures to be taken against those who do not comply with the law, mandate, decree, or command, then it is obviously meant to be binding.  Laws (and etc.) have no value and no meaning unless there are also at least meant to be courts to adjudicate whether they have or have not been complied with, to impose penalties (fines, suspension, excommunication, etc.), and at least meant to be the visible forms of authority exist to carry out and enforce the penalties.

For example, we all know that the "law" to use the Novus Ordo Missae was a "bad law," one which intrinsically cannot be truly and morally binding on anyone, as that manner of ceremony is perfectly Protestant worship and as such forbidden to Catholics (intrinsically out of communion with the Church).  You are claiming that the mere badness of the law itself excuses Catholics from its observance.  That much is correct.  But to say that such an excuse therefore also excuses the legislating "authority" which imposed it from any responsibility for having promulgated such a bad law, such that Paul VI remains "Pope" even while imposing such a bad law upon the Church, that goes beyond the pale.  And it doesn't do to say that "well, Paul VI only characterized his promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae as something that "we [the "royal we," meaning Paul VI himself as monarch] wish ..." as if it were some mere idle wish one may or not may choose to comply with depending upon whether we would like to do him that favor.  The fact is that by 1971 the boom had been lowered (though finally put in writing in 1974) to the effect that any priest saying the Catholic Mass is "breaking the law."  Throughout the 1970's and much of the 1980's many priests were reprimanded, disciplined, suspended, outright ousted from their (Novus Ordo) "parishes," or even excommunicated, merely for saying the Catholic Mass.  The 1984 Indult changed things somewhat, in that some few Novus Ordo functionaries ("bishops") were generous enough to permit some priests to say the Catholic Mass (under onerous conditions no Catholic should accept, but those conditions were quite unevenly applied), but many others simply turned down any request for the "celebret" to say the "Indult" Mass:  "I know the bishops are permitted to grant permission for such a thing at their discretion, but I choose not to grant any such celebrets, so screw you Father, you have to use the bogus new ritual OR ELSE!"

Morally binding?  Obviously not, even were the real Church capable of such a thing (which it is not, which is what a secondary object of infallibility is all about).
But binding per the will of its legislator (Paul VI and those coming after him)?  Unmistakably so.  Abp. Lefebvre himself felt that wrath in the form of the putative "excommunication" he received and endured in 1988.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

TKGS

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2018, 04:26:10 PM »
The fact is that by 1971 the boom had been lowered (though finally put in writing in 1974) to the effect that any priest saying the Catholic Mass is "breaking the law."  Throughout the 1970's and much of the 1980's many priests were reprimanded, disciplined, suspended, outright ousted from their (Novus Ordo) "parishes," or even excommunicated, merely for saying the Catholic Mass.  The 1984 Indult changed things somewhat, in that some few Novus Ordo functionaries ("bishops") were generous enough to permit some priests to say the Catholic Mass (under onerous conditions no Catholic should accept, but those conditions were quite unevenly applied), but many others simply turned down any request for the "celebret" to say the "Indult" Mass:  "I know the bishops are permitted to grant permission for such a thing at their discretion, but I choose not to grant any such celebrets, so screw you Father, you have to use the bogus new ritual OR ELSE!"

And yet the R&R, "conservatives", legalists, and anti-sedevacantists simply deny these historical facts.
 

2Vermont

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2018, 04:34:13 PM »
The fact is that by 1971 the boom had been lowered (though finally put in writing in 1974) to the effect that any priest saying the Catholic Mass is "breaking the law."  Throughout the 1970's and much of the 1980's many priests were reprimanded, disciplined, suspended, outright ousted from their (Novus Ordo) "parishes," or even excommunicated, merely for saying the Catholic Mass.  The 1984 Indult changed things somewhat, in that some few Novus Ordo functionaries ("bishops") were generous enough to permit some priests to say the Catholic Mass (under onerous conditions no Catholic should accept, but those conditions were quite unevenly applied), but many others simply turned down any request for the "celebret" to say the "Indult" Mass:  "I know the bishops are permitted to grant permission for such a thing at their discretion, but I choose not to grant any such celebrets, so screw you Father, you have to use the bogus new ritual OR ELSE!"

And yet the R&R, "conservatives", legalists, and anti-sedevacantists simply deny these historical facts.

That's what happens when one believes that Benedict XVI was pope.  He assured us in Summorum Pontificum that the Latin Mass was never abrogated, so that makes it so.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

TKGS

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2018, 04:36:34 PM »
The fact is that by 1971 the boom had been lowered (though finally put in writing in 1974) to the effect that any priest saying the Catholic Mass is "breaking the law."  Throughout the 1970's and much of the 1980's many priests were reprimanded, disciplined, suspended, outright ousted from their (Novus Ordo) "parishes," or even excommunicated, merely for saying the Catholic Mass.  The 1984 Indult changed things somewhat, in that some few Novus Ordo functionaries ("bishops") were generous enough to permit some priests to say the Catholic Mass (under onerous conditions no Catholic should accept, but those conditions were quite unevenly applied), but many others simply turned down any request for the "celebret" to say the "Indult" Mass:  "I know the bishops are permitted to grant permission for such a thing at their discretion, but I choose not to grant any such celebrets, so screw you Father, you have to use the bogus new ritual OR ELSE!"

And yet the R&R, "conservatives", legalists, and anti-sedevacantists simply deny these historical facts.

That's what happens when one believes that Benedict XVI was pope.  He assured us in Summorum Pontificum that the Latin Mass was never abrogated, so that makes it so.

But there's still a problem.  Even if the traditional Mass was never abrogated, its celebration was still ruthlessly punished throughout the world for years.
 

ubipetrus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2018, 04:45:27 PM »
#1 ABL states the principle being used by both sedes and liberals.
#2 ABL states the conclusion that sedes draw from this principle.
#3 ABL states the conclusion that liberals draw from this principle.
Obviously, #2 and #3 are contradictory conclusions, so at least one of these conclusions must be wrong, and possibly both of them.
They only contradict each other.  Either of them alone would fit perfectly within this neat little syllogism.  Of course, #3 is tied to a whole host of rejections of so very much of what the Faith is all about as to be patently false (I think we can certainly all agree to that much at least), so it itself is necessarily wrong.  That leaves us with #2 as the truth.
#4 ABL states his reason for believing that both #2 and #3 are false conclusions: the principle in #1 depends on circumstances which were taken for granted when the principle was defined and used in former times, but because of our unique circumstances ("this liberal and modernist spirit into the higher levels of the Church") this same principle is no longer valid, and hence both sedes and liberals err in their conclusion.
I can understand seeking some sort of "third" position if one is plainly out of the question and the other is against some position which a person has decided to throw in with (for whatever reason).  Sometimes, a third position can be helpful, or resolve a valid dilemma, but not in this case.  For one thing there is nothing wrong with #2 except certain person's arbitrary rejection thereof.  However, another problem is specifically with that third position as ventured by Abp. Lefebvre, namely that it (a) questions an established principle as though a mere change of circumstances can render a principle no longer true (very questionable, unless one can show that the principle might have always been more open to alternative interpretations if only better or more precisely expressed), and (b) is based on a grave misreading of our present ecclesial circumstance.  In particular, he is claiming that "this liberal and modernist spirit [is penetrating] into the higher levels of the Church," which is patently impossible, cannot occur, and in fact has not occurred.  That into the "higher levels" of which such liberal and modernists spirit is indeed penetrating is not the Church, but a schismatic sect which had already visibly and canonically separated itself from the Catholic Church, and as such its failure to be Catholic has no relevance to the Catholicity of that which is the Church.

WERE such a thing possible to the Church then I suppose his response would be correct, but then again, WERE such a thing possible to the Church, then we have no way of knowing whether some other alien "spirit" might have penetrated the higher levels of the Church in previous ages, and confirmed as doctrines and sound practices consistent with these doctrines things that are in fact as false as liberalism and modernism, albeit different from them.
In other words, the real question is: If a Pope no longer believes in objective truth...
If a Pope (or anyone at all) does not believe in objective truth, then that person ("Pope," or anyone at all) does not believe in God, for God IS the ultimate objective truth.  A "God" who is not objective truth is a god that exists only in our imaginations, a god that has no reality beyond the conceptions that humans have of such a god as an artifact of their flawed, or at least idiosyncratic, thought processes, a god we ourselves have created, rather than the other way around.  Just how heretical does he have to be before you will say, "well, maybe he really isn't a Catholic Pope"?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 04:52:15 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

ubipetrus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2018, 05:06:35 PM »
Msgr. G. Van Noort discusses this concept in considerable detail (Volume 2, pages 114-116):
Quote
    Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
    By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
    The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. * This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
[Footnote reads:] * An example may help to clarify the matter. If the whole Christ were not present under the appearances of bread alone, the law forbidding lay people to drink from the chalice would offend against the faith. Or if the words increase and multiply (Gen. 1:28) constituted an ordinance binding every individual man, then the law of celibacy would be opposed to right morals. The same conclusion would hold if virginal purity were morally impossible for men. [Main text continuing:]
    Although it would be rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to be infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above–and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conductive to the injury to souls.
    The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.
    Proof:
    1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.
    2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish disciplines which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism.”
Corollary
    The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true. As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.
So, is the "Novus Ordo Missae" service "at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conductive to the injury to souls"?  If so, then the Church could not have issued it (and no real Pope could have promulgated it) hence the Sede Vacante finding once again, and if not, then there is no good reason to avoid it, no reason for traditional clergy of unassailable validity to say the real Catholic Mass, no reason for traditional Catholics to object to any aspect of the whole Novus Ordo religion.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 05:19:35 PM by ubipetrus »
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, Joe Cupertino

TKGS

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2018, 02:47:47 PM »
So, is the "Novus Ordo Missae" service "at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conductive to the injury to souls"?  If so, then the Church could not have issued it (and no real Pope could have promulgated it) hence the Sede Vacante finding once again, and if not, then there is no good reason to avoid it, no reason for traditional clergy of unassailable validity to say the real Catholic Mass, no reason for traditional Catholics to object to any aspect of the whole Novus Ordo religion.

This really is the bottom line.  To reject as "harmful to the faith" a certainly valid true Mass promulgated by the Church is heresy and those who claim that the Novus Ordo is a valid Catholic Mass promulgated by the Church but nevertheless "harmful to the faith" are heretics and, by that reason, objectively outside the Church and should be treated as such.

Whether or not their heresy is mitigated or even non-existence due to ignorance is something that only God can judge.