Author Topic: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility  (Read 417 times)

Anonimus

by Archbishop Lefebvre (never previously translated into English, or published publicly in any language):

http://tradidi.com/lefebvre/sedevacantism-and-liberalism

 
The following users thanked this post: Callixtus

ubipetrus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2018, 06:06:36 PM »
by Archbishop Lefebvre (never previously translated into English, or published publicly in any language):

http://tradidi.com/lefebvre/sedevacantism-and-liberalism
Just so much more R & R theological fuzz and blur.  He kind of is and isn't Pope, so we kind of do and don't need to follow him; liberals are incapable of dogmatic statements and hence of binding anyone to anything, and so on.  But anyone who has seen the language the Modernists would later inflict upon Abp. Lefebvre himself a mere four years later would have to say that liberals most certainly CAN bind lots of people to their errors, at least from their own perspective (never any real Catholic perspective!), meaning error and heresy (explored even to some real amount in that article itself, especially for example in the writings of Bugnini) are given and imposed in all due forms appropriate for infallible teachings.  The following from that article is telling:
Quote
First, we have seen that, in general, neo-Scholastic textbooks consider as theologically certain the thesis that the universal laws of the Church, including liturgical laws, engage infallibility. Secondly, we then showed that this thesis has, or seems to have, a solid support in Tradition. Thirdly, we pointed out that, despite the testimony of Tradition which has been alleged, there are also serious reasons, both doctrinal and historical for us, to doubt that universal laws always and necessarily imply the infallibility of the Church.
The First and Second are clear enough and obviously established in textbooks, the universal laws of the Church including liturgical laws, and that all of this is solidly supported in Tradition.  That said, the Third (point) makes no sense, merely waters down and contradicts the first two points.
"My food is to do the will of Him that sent me." - John 4:34
 

Samuel

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2018, 12:44:00 AM »
Just so much more R & R theological fuzz and blur.  He kind of is and isn't Pope, so we kind of do and don't need to follow him; liberals are incapable of dogmatic statements and hence of binding anyone to anything, and so on.  But anyone who has seen the language the Modernists would later inflict upon Abp. Lefebvre himself a mere four years later would have to say that liberals most certainly CAN bind lots of people to their errors, at least from their own perspective (never any real Catholic perspective!), meaning error and heresy (explored even to some real amount in that article itself, especially for example in the writings of Bugnini) are given and imposed in all due forms appropriate for infallible teachings. ..

>> Just so much more R & R theological fuzz and blur.

The fuzz and blur can be in the one speaking, but it can also be in the one hearing.

>> He kind of is and isn't Pope, so we kind of do and don't need to follow him

That is a false representation of your opponents' position. It sounds really good though!

>> liberals are incapable of dogmatic statements and hence of binding anyone to anything


So what would YOU answer to the question: is a person who does not believe in objective truth (i.e. a liberal) capable of dogmatic statements? Yes or no?

And if you answer "yes", please give me one example from history. If you answer "no", then who or what are you actually disagreeing with?

>> Abp. Lefebvre himself a mere four years later would have to say that liberals most certainly CAN bind lots of people to their errors..

Really? I didn't think anyone would be able to bind anyone else to "an error", so your statement is simply ... nonsense.
 
The following users thanked this post: Callixtus, Anonimus

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2018, 06:29:41 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2018, 09:40:09 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense: If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia are heretical, insofar as they are precisely causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws.

That would be an absurdity.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 09:43:09 AM by Anonimus »
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2018, 09:51:29 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2018, 09:52:59 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine or principles changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense:

If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia would be heretical, insofar as these precisely represent causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws, and therefore contradict the alleged infallibility allegedly attributed to such laws:

If such laws were infallible, and therefore always good, they would always have to be obeyed, and there would be no room in the Church's body of doctrine for such principles as necessity and epikeia.

The very existence of those doctrines is prima facie evidence that universal ecclesiastical laws are not in every instance infallible, or else how could the Church authorize disregarding and/or ignoring them in certain circumstances?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 09:59:11 AM by Anonimus »
 

Callixtus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2018, 09:56:28 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

The point is that the infallibility of indirect objects is itself something that, though certainly probable for attracting infallibility, does not clearly of its very nature NECESSARILY include or imply it, PLUS that the Vatican II popes have been liberal, which is a completely new condition under which to operate.  Principles don't change, but they might not be applicable in all situations, and the Archbishop is saying that this is a situation where that principle MAY not be applicable.  The traditional principles, AT THE VERY LEAST, do not envision liberal popes or these types of scenarios, so it is perfectly fair to question whether or not "the traditional principle"-- ultramontane fidelity to WHATEVER the pope does and says-- applies here.
 
The following users thanked this post: Samuel

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2018, 10:09:31 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine or principles changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense:

If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia would be heretical, insofar as these precisely represent causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws, and therefore contradict the alleged infallibility allegedly attributed to such laws:

If such laws were infallible, and therefore always good, they would always have to be obeyed, and there would be no room in the Church's body of doctrine for such principles as necessity and epikeia.

The very existence of those doctrines is prima facie evidence that universal ecclesiastical laws are not in every instance infallible, or else how could the Church authorize disregarding and/or ignoring them in certain circumstances?

As you can see, I am strugglinng with the quote function, but what I am saying just above was intended to be my actual comment :angry:
 

Samuel

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2018, 11:46:33 AM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Really? Please explain then how one principle/doctrine can lead to two opposite conclusions. Are both conclusions true, or only one of them, or none of them maybe? And why, what's missing?