It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:51 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
 Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
I am confused on a certain topic regarding the papacy, formal heresy and ignorance. They way I see it, eventually there will be a "Pope" who will be "elected" who will not be a formal heretic but will be legitimately ignorant of the faith, born and raised in the Novus Ordo. Yet it is insisted that a person must be a formal heretic and pertinacious in his heresy before he can be considered a false-pope. How do we square the inculpably ignorant Pope issue with pertinacious formal heresy? Can someone who does not know the Catholic faith at all be a valid Pope while the one who knows the faith and rejects a part of it is not? I can see why one who rejects the faith is not Pope but how can one who does not even know the faith be a valid Pope merely because he is not a "formal" "pertinacious" heretic?


Tue May 13, 2014 7:32 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
While I can't give a formal theological answer, I will note that Christ said something about what happens when the blind lead the blind. He said they both fall into a pit.

There are a lot of people, I'd say almost everyone who lives on the earth, who really doesn't know the Catholic Faith. Ignorance does not save. "They have Moses and the prophets", Christ said and if they will not believe them, then there is no hope for them. Frankly, I do not believe even people born and raised in the Novus Ordo can really be ignorant of the Catholic faith. Sure, they can be for a time, and that time really can last a long time, but I find it inconceivable that any man could actually be ordained and not know something is amiss somewhere--even if he does turn a blind eye towards the problems.


Tue May 13, 2014 9:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
TKGS wrote:
While I can't give a formal theological answer, I will note that Christ said something about what happens when the blind lead the blind. He said they both fall into a pit.

There are a lot of people, I'd say almost everyone who lives on the earth, who really doesn't know the Catholic Faith. Ignorance does not save. "They have Moses and the prophets", Christ said and if they will not believe them, then there is no hope for them. Frankly, I do not believe even people born and raised in the Novus Ordo can really be ignorant of the Catholic faith. Sure, they can be for a time, and that time really can last a long time, but I find it inconceivable that any man could actually be ordained and not know something is amiss somewhere--even if he does turn a blind eye towards the problems.


Thank you. Interesting answer. I will have to ponder this.


Tue May 13, 2014 10:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Maria Looch wrote:
I am confused on a certain topic regarding the papacy, formal heresy and ignorance. They way I see it, eventually there will be a "Pope" who will be "elected" who will not be a formal heretic but will be legitimately ignorant of the faith, born and raised in the Novus Ordo. Yet it is insisted that a person must be a formal heretic and pertinacious in his heresy before he can be considered a false-pope. How do we square the inculpably ignorant Pope issue with pertinacious formal heresy? Can someone who does not know the Catholic faith at all be a valid Pope while the one who knows the faith and rejects a part of it is not? I can see why one who rejects the faith is not Pope but how can one who does not even know the faith be a valid Pope merely because he is not a "formal" "pertinacious" heretic?


Can anyone else give me their thoughts on the above? John perhaps? It seems the vast majority of writings by the Fathers, Doctors and Popes on the issue distinguish between public and private heresy and not formal/material. Why do they leave out such an important distinction of formal pertinacious heresy is in fact necessary to lose office?


Wed May 14, 2014 10:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Maria Looch wrote:
I am confused on a certain topic regarding the papacy, formal heresy and ignorance. They way I see it, eventually there will be a "Pope" who will be "elected" who will not be a formal heretic but will be legitimately ignorant of the faith, born and raised in the Novus Ordo. Yet it is insisted that a person must be a formal heretic and pertinacious in his heresy before he can be considered a false-pope. How do we square the inculpably ignorant Pope issue with pertinacious formal heresy? Can someone who does not know the Catholic faith at all be a valid Pope while the one who knows the faith and rejects a part of it is not? I can see why one who rejects the faith is not Pope but how can one who does not even know the faith be a valid Pope merely because he is not a "formal" "pertinacious" heretic?


Formal heresy, which is a public condemnation by the Church, is not necessary for one to lose membership in the Chuch. Material heresy is when someone deviates from the faith in ignorance. Material heresy can either be public or private. If private it has no effect upon ones membership in the Church. But if it is public and manifest it does. Manifest heresy is when the public defection from the faith includes the rejection of the teachings of the hierarchy of the Church or pertinacity. The manifest heretic is also not a member of the Church.

Now to the question at hand. Is someone who is raised in the Novus Ordo, which is a new religion, and who is completely ignorant of the faith capable of being elected pope for he is not a formal heretic? In my opinion no, for although he is not a formal heretic, he is still a manifest heretic just like a Protestant if he denies truths of the faith, there is one God, there is no salvation outside the Church, etc, which he does automatically by being a member of the Novus Ordo Church and espousing the new doctrines of Vatican II. He may be in good faith in his ignorance, but he, just like the Protestant, still is outside the body of the Church because he rejects the magisterium of the Church, although it is possible he still belongs to the soul. But the Church being necessarily visible can only be ruled by those who belong to the body of the Church.

This is not 1970 which still had Catholic clergy teaching Catholic doctrine even though they mistakenly thought they had to submit to the Novus Ordo hierarchy. Today the Novus Ordo clergy officially do not teach Catholic doctrine, but the new religion of Vatican II. There is no faith left in the new religion. Nor can one put the claim that a cleric is inculpably ignorant as it is their duty to know the faith given they are teachers of it.


Wed May 14, 2014 11:43 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
James Schroepfer wrote:
Maria Looch wrote:
I am confused on a certain topic regarding the papacy, formal heresy and ignorance. They way I see it, eventually there will be a "Pope" who will be "elected" who will not be a formal heretic but will be legitimately ignorant of the faith, born and raised in the Novus Ordo. Yet it is insisted that a person must be a formal heretic and pertinacious in his heresy before he can be considered a false-pope. How do we square the inculpably ignorant Pope issue with pertinacious formal heresy? Can someone who does not know the Catholic faith at all be a valid Pope while the one who knows the faith and rejects a part of it is not? I can see why one who rejects the faith is not Pope but how can one who does not even know the faith be a valid Pope merely because he is not a "formal" "pertinacious" heretic?


Formal heresy, which is a public condemnation by the Church, is not necessary for one to lose membership in the Chuch. Material heresy is when someone deviates from the faith in ignorance. Material heresy can either be public or private. If private it has no effect upon ones membership in the Church. But if it is public and manifest it does. Manifest heresy is when the public defection from the faith includes the rejection of the teachings of the hierarchy of the Church or pertinacity. The manifest heretic is also not a member of the Church.

Now to the question at hand. Is someone who is raised in the Novus Ordo, which is a new religion, and who is completely ignorant of the faith capable of being elected pope for he is not a formal heretic? In my opinion no, for although he is not a formal heretic, he is still a manifest heretic just like a Protestant if he denies truths of the faith, there is one God, there is no salvation outside the Church, etc, which he does automatically by being a member of the Novus Ordo Church and espousing the new doctrines of Vatican II. He may be in good faith in his ignorance, but he, just like the Protestant, still is outside the body of the Church because he rejects the magisterium of the Church, although it is possible he still belongs to the soul. But the Church being necessarily visible can only be ruled by those who belong to the body of the Church.

This is not 1970 which still had Catholic clergy teaching Catholic doctrine even though they mistakenly thought they had to submit to the Novus Ordo hierarchy. Today the Novus Ordo clergy officially do not teach Catholic doctrine, but the new religion of Vatican II. There is no faith left in the new religion. Nor can one put the claim that a cleric is inculpably ignorant as it is their duty to know the faith given they are teachers of it.


I agree with this response. The only change I would make would be in regards to the following:
Quote:
He may be in good faith in his ignorance, but he, just like the Protestant, still is outside the body of the Church because he rejects the magisterium of the Church, although it is possible he still belongs to the soul.


I would word the last part "although it is possible he is within the Church by "desire"". Monsignor Fenton shows how calling what is referred to the "soul" of the Church can be confusing and it is better to express this as "the inner bond of unity within the Church" since the soul is actually the Holy Ghost. There was much confusion over Bellarmine's use of "body" and "soul" of the Church though he used the terms correctly they were taken to mean the precise opposite of what he taught in regards to membership in the Church. "Soul" was taken to be either a separate entity from the "body" or a broader entity where non-members of the Church where taught to by otherwise orthodox theologians to be actual members of the "soul" of the Church.

He teaches that one is either within as a member or by desire or outside the Church. And that using the terms "body" and "soul" of the Church led to much confusion and incorrect teaching which gave the Feeneyites legitimate fodder to rail against.

I hope I explained that right. I am not a theologian but I have learned from a great theologian on this issue.

Thank you for clarifying the formal/ignorant aspect. Sometimes the formal pertinacious aspect is stressed to much and gives the anti-SVs fodder which they should not be chewing on. "He's not a formal heretic." "He is not pertinacious." By that rational the most ignorant fool in the universal could be a valid Pope.


Wed May 14, 2014 12:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
James Schroepfer wrote:
Formal heresy, which is a public condemnation by the Church, is not necessary for one to lose membership in the Chuch.


Dear James, I appreciate your posts as I can see that you are grappling seriously with these questions. In this case I think you have winked, I'm sorry.

The material/formal distinction has proper and useful relevance only in the sphere of morality.

All heresy, that is heresy which is complete, includes both the doubt or denial of some point that must be believed with divine and catholic faith, and also the knowing rejection of the authority of the Church.

Formal heresy is heresy which is complete, and morally culpable. Material heresy is heresy which is complete, but morally innocent.

Material heresy, therefore, involves the doubt or denial of some point that must be believed with divine and catholic faith, and also the knowing rejection of the authority of the Church, but without the realisation that one must be subject to the authority of the Church. This can only be the case in one raised outside the Church, for only in such cases can all three conditions be verified. In one raised in the Church all complete or true heresy necessarily involves sin and is therefore formal heresy.

It is not necessary for formal heresy for the Church to warn or judge the culprit.

For membership in the Church baptism is necessary, as well as the absence of any obstacle which will impede the effect of baptism which is incorporation in the Church. Such obstacles include public heresy, whether material or formal. So, baptised adult Protestants are regarded by the Church as no longer her members, precisely because they openly reject submission to the magisterium, the teaching office of the Church. This is true whether they be morally innocent or culpable.

Catholics who openly doubt or deny some dogma, are either lamentably mistaken about what the Church teaches, or they are knowngly rejecting the authority of the Church. In the first case they remain Catholics, and should be thought of as mistaken, since that is what they are (whether morally culpable to some degree or not). There is no heresy, material or formal, in their case, just a mistake of fact.

In the second case they are no longer Catholics, they are formal public heretics. They cannot be material heretics since the fact that they were raised in the faith of their baptism means that they cannot be unaware of their grave obligation of submission to the magisterium.

John Daly wrote an excellent paper on pertinacity, which covers much or all of this ground: http://strobertbellarmine.net/pertinacity.html

Maria's question is a curly one, despite its wildly hypothetical nature, which goes to the heart of the problem of a sect masquerading as the Church, not yet condemned by the Church, and yet recognisable as a sect by many.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 14, 2014 12:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Quote:
Dear James, I appreciate your posts as I can see that you are grappling seriously with these questions. In this case I think you have winked, I'm sorry.


No, thank you John for the correction. :!:

Quote:
The material/formal distinction has proper and useful relevance only in the sphere of morality.


I sometimes mistakenly mix up these terms as they are used so loosely in more than the sphere of morality. I especially run into problems because so many people, including myself, interchange the terms material heretic with Catholic who errors in good faith. They are as you correctly pointed out two distinctly different things, and material heresy only applies to those outside the Church. People also use formal heretic to refer to someone excommunicated by the Church for heresy. This is again an improper use of the word as these are again two distinctly different things.

Question though: Is it not redundant to say pertinacious heretic as all heretics, in a moral sense, are pertinacious by the nature of a heretic himself given whether he be formal or material he rejects the authority of the Church? As I am typing this I suddenly realized I need to distinguish between pertinacious heretic and pertinaciously stating heresy. One can say a heresy without being pertinacious however, would it be proper to say one cannot be a heretic without being pertinacious. Does that sound right? This does get to be a mind-bender. :)


Wed May 14, 2014 2:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John,

I have read JS Daly's article on the distinction between material and formal and it makes sense (I believe he mainly uses Billot in the distinctions he draws?) but I have been unable to really find much on my own which very clearly explains this, on the contrary so far I've only been confused by the sources I've consulted on this issue who don't seem to make much of an effort (if any at all) to explain heresy in such a way that excludes Catholics from being considered material heretics, much less do they actually examine the formal and material constituents beyond basically stating that material heretics hold a heresy in good will, formal heretics hold it in bad will-- which, without any further explanation or qualification, this will invariably lead someone to the idea that a material heretic is simply anyone who doubts or denies a teaching in good will, Catholic or not.

In fact, both Prummer and McHugh & Callan explicitly give examples of Catholics as material heretics. Connell wasn't much help because he didn't even seem to regard either term (material or formal) and simply spoke of those erring in good will and those not. Koch did not say that Catholics could be material heretics, but he does not seem to examine it in such a way that could exclude the possibility.

Flynn, in Smith's "Teaching of the Catholic Church" appears to make the distinction by claiming that Catholics are bound to believe all which they know the Church teaches and implicitly believe all which they are unaware of (which I took to be referring to submission and assent to the Church's rule of faith) and even says that a Catholic who denies either is a formal heretic, but then immediately afterwards says that a Catholic who denies either in good faith out of ignorance is a material heretic. Van Noort distinguished from material and formal probably better than any of these sources, but never really offers a good examination of the formal and material constituents of heresy from which a person could see that non-Catholics can't be material heretics-- nor did I expect him to. I didn't bother to check Ott.

So, I'm just wondering if you have any insight on why all of these English sources seem to fail in properly explaining this. Or if perhaps I'm missing something? Any recommendations for a good English source on this matter beyond Daly's article?


Wed May 14, 2014 8:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Mithrandylan wrote:
John,

I have read JS Daly's article on the distinction between material and formal and it makes sense (I believe he mainly uses Billot in the distinctions he draws?) but I have been unable to really find much on my own which very clearly explains this, on the contrary so far I've only been confused by the sources I've consulted on this issue who don't seem to make much of an effort (if any at all) to explain heresy in such a way that excludes Catholics from being considered material heretics, much less do they actually examine the formal and material constituents beyond basically stating that material heretics hold a heresy in good will, formal heretics hold it in bad will-- which, without any further explanation or qualification, this will invariably lead someone to the idea that a material heretic is simply anyone who doubts or denies a teaching in good will, Catholic or not.

In fact, both Prummer and McHugh & Callan explicitly give examples of Catholics as material heretics. Connell wasn't much help because he didn't even seem to regard either term (material or formal) and simply spoke of those erring in good will and those not. Koch did not say that Catholics could be material heretics, but he does not seem to examine it in such a way that could exclude the possibility.

Flynn, in Smith's "Teaching of the Catholic Church" appears to make the distinction by claiming that Catholics are bound to believe all which they know the Church teaches and implicitly believe all which they are unaware of (which I took to be referring to submission and assent to the Church's rule of faith) and even says that a Catholic who denies either is a formal heretic, but then immediately afterwards says that a Catholic who denies either in good faith out of ignorance is a material heretic. Van Noort distinguished from material and formal probably better than any of these sources, but never really offers a good examination of the formal and material constituents of heresy from which a person could see that non-Catholics can't be material heretics-- nor did I expect him to. I didn't bother to check Ott.

So, I'm just wondering if you have any insight on why all of these English sources seem to fail in properly explaining this. Or if perhaps I'm missing something? Any recommendations for a good English source on this matter beyond Daly's article?


Ott is the same as he does not distinguish between a catholic who errors in good faith and a material heretic but states all who error in good faith are outside the Church. Slater in his moral theology two volume work does not discuss the difference. The only English author, (not that I have read that many,) I have found who makes a clear distinction is Berry in his one volume work on the Church. Even there one has to go through the section on membership in the Church very carefully as when Berry directly compares material and formal he does not differentiate an erring catholic in good faith from a material heretic. However, taken in the context of the preceding paragraph, the reader can see he is defining them as two separate things.

Overall I agree this is confusing because of the lack of most authors to clarify the difference. John's three paragraphs is the most concise and clear explanation in english of the differences I have seen yet. Thanks again John :) Just a thought, but I think the distinction was not really important prior to the crisis as it would be difficult for a Catholic to error in good faith with a visible hierarchy so universal and easy to reference.


Thu May 15, 2014 12:25 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Mithrandylan wrote:
So, I'm just wondering if you have any insight on why all of these English sources seem to fail in properly explaining this. Or if perhaps I'm missing something? Any recommendations for a good English source on this matter beyond Daly's article?


Mith, great summary of the sources. What it shows is that manuals summarise, and often not very clearly. Which is why one can use them to support a point, but one cannot learn any particular subject well from them. They were never intended to be anything but the supporting notes for lectures, and the corresponding reminder texts for busy priests in their presbyteries. Ott's like the archetype of this principle, the absolute epitome of it, taken to the final extreme.

I know of no good thorough source in English other than this, translated by JS Daly: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1632

De Lugo was described by St. Alphonsus as the greatest theologian since St. Thomas. Not a bad recommendation.

Please, everybody who reads this, note well the length and thoroughness of this treatment and then compare it with what you see in a manual, English or Latin, and keep that fact squarely in mind for the future when tempted to quote a manual without knowing that you understand the subject! RJS, that's you especially! :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 15, 2014 12:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
The bottom line as from what I have read generally agrees that a valid Pope cannot teach heresy. His personal guilt has nothing to do with it. Formal and material is not the concern when it comes to him legitimately holding office but only whether it is public or private. His culpability has to do with his salvation, the fact that he teaches heresy, whether he is guilty of it or not, shows he does not legitimately hold office. We merely judge the external realm in regards to his office while God judges the heart in regards his salvation.

Yes?


Thu May 15, 2014 10:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
You might also want to take into account that all the Conciliar claimants are Doctor's in theology. All of them with the exception of Bergoglio had this before Vatican II. As such it is presumed by the Church that you do not need to "teach a doctor in theology" or remind him of basic Dogmas that the church believes. So in their case their pertinacity is presumed in the external forum, suppose that they do "mis-speak" or make a mistake in one of their books the Holy Office would have still been obliged to condemn their writings despite any misunderstanding that might have taken place. We read things in the light of their heretical understanding, and the same goes with speech that favours heresy.

Now suppose you have a real Orthodox priest who has never had a history of modernism, liberalism etc... He makes a simple theological mistake that could be interpreted heretically, but this is an isolated incident and something he never intended to say (it just came out wrong). In this case we can be able to give the benefit of the doubt, but to do this over a period of decades is naive and stupid. BUT even assuming that we want to be so childish as to presume that they still deserve the benefit of the doubt, we can then apply the principles which I outlined above. I.e. in their case there is no excuse period, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly formal heretics. This is something that I never understood before well and this is why I remained sedeplenist for such a long time. I assumed that I could be able to presume they are mad, out of touch with reality etc... Well there is a problem with that even assuming that assumption is correct, I only prove that they are not true Popes! Or that the Conciliar claimants deserve as much of a chance as a catholic who is learning his first Holy communion catechism. There are several ways in which you can approach it, that once he was publically rebuked he could then be a formal heretic (so take the Ottaviani Intervention), there are also the instances of public letters (we know that they read them because it has been confirmed) of +ABL etc... Throughout the "pontificates" of all the Vatican II anti-Popes the SSPX has repeatedly been a thorn on their side reminding them what the church teaches, but obstinately they have rejected their premises and the faith which they hold. So that we can safely be able to without any contradiction that there is a licit pertinacity present in these individuals, which could then make us be able to believe with absolute certainty that they really do not hold office. The real debate is whether or not they have the pertinacity present, not whether it is impossible to be a heretic and remain in office. That is an easier fight to win, if this is what they hold on to (think of Bishop Tissier for example).

Also the Lane magisterium :D has said, I agree also. Causa finita est. :lol:

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sun May 18, 2014 9:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
You might also want to take into account that all the Conciliar claimants are Doctor's in theology. All of them with the exception of Bergoglio had this before Vatican II. As such it is presumed by the Church that you do not need to "teach a doctor in theology" or remind him of basic Dogmas that the church believes. So in their case their pertinacity is presumed in the external forum, suppose that they do "mis-speak" or make a mistake in one of their books the Holy Office would have still been obliged to condemn their writings despite any misunderstanding that might have taken place. We read things in the light of their heretical understanding, and the same goes with speech that favours heresy.

Now suppose you have a real Orthodox priest who has never had a history of modernism, liberalism etc... He makes a simple theological mistake that could be interpreted heretically, but this is an isolated incident and something he never intended to say (it just came out wrong). In this case we can be able to give the benefit of the doubt, but to do this over a period of decades is naive and stupid. BUT even assuming that we want to be so childish as to presume that they still deserve the benefit of the doubt, we can then apply the principles which I outlined above. I.e. in their case there is no excuse period, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly formal heretics. This is something that I never understood before well and this is why I remained sedeplenist for such a long time. I assumed that I could be able to presume they are mad, out of touch with reality etc... Well there is a problem with that even assuming that assumption is correct, I only prove that they are not true Popes! Or that the Conciliar claimants deserve as much of a chance as a catholic who is learning his first Holy communion catechism. There are several ways in which you can approach it, that once he was publically rebuked he could then be a formal heretic (so take the Ottaviani Intervention), there are also the instances of public letters (we know that they read them because it has been confirmed) of +ABL etc... Throughout the "pontificates" of all the Vatican II anti-Popes the SSPX has repeatedly been a thorn on their side reminding them what the church teaches, but obstinately they have rejected their premises and the faith which they hold. So that we can safely be able to without any contradiction that there is a licit pertinacity present in these individuals, which could then make us be able to believe with absolute certainty that they really do not hold office. The real debate is whether or not they have the pertinacity present, not whether it is impossible to be a heretic and remain in office. That is an easier fight to win, if this is what they hold on to (think of Bishop Tissier for example).

Also the Lane magisterium :D has said, I agree also. Causa finita est. :lol:


What you say is true. But it still take into count what may happen in the near future. One elected "Pope" who was born and raised in the N.O. who truly believes the N.O. doctrine's are Catholic doctrines. One who is simply mistaken on a host of issues and takes mistaken positions that are objectively heretical.

This is why I believe it is wrong that a purported Pope must be a formal pertinacious heretic in order to be invalid. This would mean a legitimately ignorant Catholic who is an objective heretic on countless issues through no fault of his own can innocently teach heresy from the chair as a valid Pope due to ignorance.

I do not believe this is possible. I believe we can be sure that if one who claims to be Pope repeatedly teaches heresy and engages in heretical acts and maintains doubtful and invalid sacraments on the Church etc. and does so innocently due to legitimate ignorance cannot be a valid Pope.

I believe the focus must be on whether he teaches objective heresy repeatedly publicly or not apart from whether he is a formal heretic or not.

We are not obliged to figure out whether he is a formal heretic or not. That is God's job. We merely judge in the external forum. If he appears to be a heretic we judge him as such plain and simple according to Paul IV. Eventually the SSPX will give up correcting him and say what is the use. So after that, when no one corrects him are we to just say, "well, he is not pertinacious since no one is correcting him so we have to believe he is a valid Pope". The focus is on the wrong area when we insist that he must be a formal pertinacious heretic IMO.

Can someone conclusively correct me if I am wrong?


Mon May 19, 2014 12:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Maria Looch,

I think that you're right, and there have been not a few threads here that have removed the emphasis from the formal/material distinction and placed it on the public/occult distinction, since theologians teach that public heretics are not members of the Church, usually without regard to whether or not the public heretic is in good faith or not.

The difficulty I have is more of a theoretical one. Common sense and basic public information precludes any of the post-VII popes from being ignorant of what the Church teaches. There is no possible way that men who spent their entire lives in seminaries and religious institutions (indeed, sometimes surrounded by some of the best and most orthodox minds the Church had to offer at the time) and be ignorant of something as basic as the first commandment. However, there must be some regard for the pertinacity of a public heretic, since it's perfectly conceivable that even a good and holy pope could, through human weakness or thoughtlessness publicly express something heretical without ever intending to. There is a quantitative difference between a man who has been expressing and teaching heresy publicly for most of his life and a man who publicly and quite innocently makes a (or perhaps a few, throughout the course of his life) heretical statement(s). But what is the qualitative difference? Seems it would have to be pertinacity, otherwise any Catholic whatsoever who errs in good will and is quite open to correction would lose membership due to an isolated mistake. But if pertinacity is then the point of distinguishing the two, the argument seems to necessarily involve separating formal and material heretics. We all probably grant that the VII-popes are formal heretics, but for discussion purposes and trying to make a case for their nontificates, it is remarkably better if such a distinction is not required, since most traditionalists agree they are public heretics and if the fact of their public heresy warrants loss of office (or, as is more often and likely the case, inability to ever achieve the office in the first place) without having to examine whether or not they are a formal heretic (something sedeplenists would never admit to) this is a much better and more effective argument to use.


Mon May 19, 2014 1:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Popes cannot teach heresy as popes. A pope could, exceptionally, express heretical doctrine in a sermon or some other non-papal act. Whether a true pope could (as a private person) actually become a heretic is disputed, and the contrary doctrine is common.

Quote:
As to the question whether a Pontiff could be heretical in his expressions, it seems altogether futile. History has hitherto furnished no example of such an occurrence, though there have been allegations of the kind, as in the case of honorius. If Christ has promised to keep the Church from error through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost, we may suppose that He will keep the Pontiff, to whom He has committed the guidance of that Church, likewise from error. And as the weaknesses of members in the Church do not militate against this operation of the Holy Ghost, neither would the personal weaknesses of its head interfere with the divine promise. For the rest, the admission that the Pope, whilst personally peccable, yet in his office as supreme teacher and moderator of the Church is infallible, covers the whole case; nor is there any more difficulty here than there is in distinguishing between the official acts of a sovereign and his private deeds, not as a private man but as sovereign.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=196


Quote:
One elected "Pope" who was born and raised in the N.O. who truly believes the N.O. doctrine's are Catholic doctrines. One who is simply mistaken on a host of issues and takes mistaken positions that are objectively heretical.


Such a man isn't a Catholic as far as anybody can judge, even if, ex hypothesi, he is innocent.

There's a fundamental error which the Resistance spreads around at every opportunity, and which numerous traditional Catholics appear to have adopted even before this revolutionary movement got going, relating to the ontological priority of faith and authority. Faith cometh by hearing. Faith is an infused virtue, but the content of faith (the "objects of faith") is received from the Church, that is, from the authorised teachers sent by God. The reason that we reject novelties is because they are incompatible with what we are already obliged to believe. That is, because we have already been bound, by authority, to hold this doctrine, then we are obliged to reject that doctrine which is incompatible with it. The way that many traditionalists talk one would think that the faith is infused with all of its objects and the reason that we must reject novelties is because we, that is, the infallible judges of faith(!), know what is true and what isn't (because of some interior light - perhaps the sensus catholicus). This is Protestantism, or superstition, or something else utterly unCatholic.

So, the man that you describe holds (ex hypothesi) doctrines that the Church has already publicly bound all to reject. That is, he holds actual heresies. At first blush, he isn't a Catholic. It may be that he can show, in a trial, that he is innocent, so that he can get off the charge of heresy. Good on him. But before he achieves that, he is a heretic as far as we can tell. He openly rejects the public law of faith. So he isn't a Catholic and he isn't the pope. Further, if he teaches error from the Chair of Peter, he really is undoubtedly not the pope for an entirely separate reason - the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff - as already highlighted.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 19, 2014 2:09 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John, your post reminded me of a passage in A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik”, Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.

CHAPTER II.
THE TRANSMISSION OF REVELATION.
Sec. 14

Quote:
III. The Indefectibility of the Faith in individual members is closely connected with the external and social Indefectibility of the Church. The two stand to each as cause and effect, and act and react on each other. The interior Faith of individual members, even of the Pope and the Bishops, may fail; but it is impossible for the Faith to fail in the whole mass. The Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church and of the Faith require on the part of the Head, that by means of his legislative and judicial power the law of Faith should be always infallibly proposed; but this does not require the infallibility and indefectibility of his own interior Faith and of his extrajudicial utterances. On the part of the Teaching Body as a whole, there is directly required merely that it should not fail collectively, which, of course, supposes that it does not err universally in its internal Faith. Lastly, on the part of the Body of the Faithful, it is directly and absolutely required that their inner Faith (sensus et virtus fidei) should never fail entirely, and also that the external profession should never be universally wrong.


Now the SSPX, at least here in the USA, is arguing that Francis changed the meaning of saint so therefore when he infallibly declared JP II and John XXIII, because Francis does not believe in saints, the canonization, his solemn act as pope, was not infallibly guarantied. Yet this seems to me to directly contradict Church teaching as in the passage from above which state his extrajudicial utterances have no bearing on the infallibility or indefectibility of his legislative and judicial acts. Therefore, because the act of canonization is a legislative and judicial act, Francis's personal belief, if he is still the pope, has no bearing on the infallibility of the act.

I understand it is a disputed point among theologians as to whether a pope could ever even become a heretic private or public. However, either way, it would have no bearing on the infallibility of his acts if he were still the pope. At least this is how I am understanding it.

Quote:
John Lane
The way that many traditionalists talk one would think that the faith is infused with all of its objects and the reason that we must reject novelties is because we, that is, the infallible judges of faith(!), know what is true and what isn't (because of some interior light - perhaps the sensus catholicus). This is Protestantism, or superstition, or something else utterly unCatholic.


This is absolutely true. Well said :!: :!: :!:


Mon May 19, 2014 3:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John Lane wrote:
Popes cannot teach heresy as popes. A pope could, exceptionally, express heretical doctrine in a sermon or some other non-papal act. Whether a true pope could (as a private person) actually become a heretic is disputed, and the contrary doctrine is common.

Quote:
As to the question whether a Pontiff could be heretical in his expressions, it seems altogether futile. History has hitherto furnished no example of such an occurrence, though there have been allegations of the kind, as in the case of honorius. If Christ has promised to keep the Church from error through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost, we may suppose that He will keep the Pontiff, to whom He has committed the guidance of that Church, likewise from error. And as the weaknesses of members in the Church do not militate against this operation of the Holy Ghost, neither would the personal weaknesses of its head interfere with the divine promise. For the rest, the admission that the Pope, whilst personally peccable, yet in his office as supreme teacher and moderator of the Church is infallible, covers the whole case; nor is there any more difficulty here than there is in distinguishing between the official acts of a sovereign and his private deeds, not as a private man but as sovereign.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... ?f=2&t=196


Quote:
One elected "Pope" who was born and raised in the N.O. who truly believes the N.O. doctrine's are Catholic doctrines. One who is simply mistaken on a host of issues and takes mistaken positions that are objectively heretical.


Such a man isn't a Catholic as far as anybody can judge, even if, ex hypothesi, he is innocent.

There's a fundamental error which the Resistance spreads around at every opportunity, and which numerous traditional Catholics appear to have adopted even before this revolutionary movement got going, relating to the ontological priority of faith and authority. Faith cometh by hearing. Faith is an infused virtue, but the content of faith (the "objects of faith") is received from the Church, that is, from the authorised teachers sent by God. The reason that we reject novelties is because they are incompatible with what we are already obliged to believe. That is, because we have already been bound, by authority, to hold this doctrine, then we are obliged to reject that doctrine which is incompatible with it. The way that many traditionalists talk one would think that the faith is infused with all of its objects and the reason that we must reject novelties is because we, that is, the infallible judges of faith(!), know what is true and what isn't (because of some interior light - perhaps the sensus catholicus). This is Protestantism, or superstition, or something else utterly unCatholic.

So, the man that you describe holds (ex hypothesi) doctrines that the Church has already publicly bound all to reject. That is, he holds actual heresies. At first blush, he isn't a Catholic. It may be that he can show, in a trial, that he is innocent, so that he can get off the charge of heresy. Good on him. But before he achieves that, he is a heretic as far as we can tell. He openly rejects the public law of faith. So he isn't a Catholic and he isn't the pope. Further, if he teaches error from the Chair of Peter, he really is undoubtedly not the pope for an entirely separate reason - the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff - as already highlighted.


Thanks for this John. This REALLY helps. Hopefully those who seem to teach that he must be a pertinacious formal heretic will revise this teaching and or clarify past writings that seemed to indicate the contrary as the writings that seemed to indicate the contrary gives fodder to anti-SVs to say "well you can never prove he is pertinacious and or a formal heretic". Even if we could prove such it is unnecessary to do so. I believe this will become especially important if many more "Popes" get "elected" in the future. I was born and raised in the NO and was very sincerely ignorant of many things for a long time and if I was elected "Pope" I believe I would have sincerely taught those errors unless the Holy Ghost prevented me.


Mon May 19, 2014 3:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Maria Looch wrote:
Hopefully those who seem to teach that he must be a pertinacious formal heretic will revise this teaching and or clarify past writings that seemed to indicate the contrary as the writings that seemed to indicate the contrary gives fodder to anti-SVs to say "well you can never prove he is pertinacious and or a formal heretic". Even if we could prove such it is unnecessary to do so.


Well, you need to be careful here. It is absolutely necessary that to leave the Church the culprit be a true heretic - that is, somebody who doubts or denies some dogma, and knows that he is bound to believe it. That is a pertinacious heretic (if you like that term - I prefer to say, "a true heretic").

We are talking here about what we can know and how we must judge, not what might possibly be true but which is unknowable.

As already said, it may be that due to his upbringing he can prove that he was sincerely confused about which church was the true one (i.e. which magisterium he was bound to accept) and therefore he was never guilty of the sin of heresy, but in the mean time he isn't, as far as anybody can tell, a Catholic. Nor am I convinced that a theologian, reviewing the question after the fact, would regard him as having been a Catholic prior to this hypothetical trial, since objectively he neither professed the true faith nor submitted to the magisterium. His claim to being a Catholic during that period rests exclusively on factors which are purely internal. But what is internal is irrelevant to the question of membership in the Church.

There is an intrinsic difficulty in handling these matters which arises from the distinction between what is actual and what is known or knowable. Men are not able to read hearts and minds, but must judge based upon what is external. The Church is a visible entity. All that matters in relation to identifying the Church is what is visible.

Nor is there necessarily any injustice in this. A liberal, modern, mind will exercise itself to death over the possibility of somebody being thought a non-Catholic who was somehow within the Church by the skin of his teeth. But truly the only way anybody is going to think you are not a Catholic is if you yourself posit acts which lead to that judgement. So, any man who professes error and shows himself not to be subject to the magisterium is responsible for the impression he creates. It is his own responsibility to undo the scandal of his words and acts. In a word, it is his problem. He created the bad impression, and if he isn't happy with it, he needs to fix it. Liberals invert everything and want the bad guys' own mistakes or sins to be everybody else's fault, while refusing to allow the good individual who wants to save his soul to escape to safety by rejecting the heretic. That would be judging, they cry. So there are no heretics and the faithful are helpless, if you listen to a liberal. But we know that the truth is entirely the other way. We are instructed to beware wolves that wear the clothing of sheep.

It isn't hard to see why the liberals think that way, either. The liberal is the man who places all value on the individual. The liberal doesn't recognise the priority of the common good. For a liberal the greatest possible tragedy is if somebody is punished slightly more than they strictly deserved. For a Catholic this is hardly something worthy of comment. Ultimately there is no injustice at all anyway, because it's all dealt with after each man's death at the Particular Judgement, and in any case we all deserve more than we would ever get from a human tribunal, even if in the extreme case that tribunal puts us to death for something we didn't do. A Catholic is more concerned with the common good. He recognises that a heretic is dangerous to the faithful, and he can see, as anybody can see if they consider things for more than one second, that the words and acts which have created the impression of heresy are the culprit's own fault, his own responsibility. Bergoglio gets up every morning and chooses to say and do the things he says and does. If he's worried about what others (e.g. Catholics) think about him, then let him adjust his behaviour. But he's a heretic and he doesn't care what we think.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 20, 2014 1:49 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
This is probably worth reviewing as you grapple with these questions also: viewtopic.php?p=15184#p15184

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 20, 2014 8:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John Lane wrote:
Maria Looch wrote:
Hopefully those who seem to teach that he must be a pertinacious formal heretic will revise this teaching and or clarify past writings that seemed to indicate the contrary as the writings that seemed to indicate the contrary gives fodder to anti-SVs to say "well you can never prove he is pertinacious and or a formal heretic". Even if we could prove such it is unnecessary to do so.


Well, you need to be careful here. It is absolutely necessary that to leave the Church the culprit be a true heretic - that is, somebody who doubts or denies some dogma, and knows that he is bound to believe it. That is a pertinacious heretic (if you like that term - I prefer to say, "a true heretic").

We are talking here about what we can know and how we must judge, not what might possibly be true but which is unknowable.

As already said, it may be that due to his upbringing he can prove that he was sincerely confused about which church was the true one (i.e. which magisterium he was bound to accept) and therefore he was never guilty of the sin of heresy, but in the mean time he isn't, as far as anybody can tell, a Catholic. Nor am I convinced that a theologian, reviewing the question after the fact, would regard him as having been a Catholic prior to this hypothetical trial, since objectively he neither professed the true faith nor submitted to the magisterium. His claim to being a Catholic during that period rests exclusively on factors which are purely internal. But what is internal is irrelevant to the question of membership in the Church.

There is an intrinsic difficulty in handling these matters which arises from the distinction between what is actual and what is known or knowable. Men are not able to read hearts and minds, but must judge based upon what is external. The Church is a visible entity. All that matters in relation to identifying the Church is what is visible.

Nor is there necessarily any injustice in this. A liberal, modern, mind will exercise itself to death over the possibility of somebody being thought a non-Catholic who was somehow within the Church by the skin of his teeth. But truly the only way anybody is going to think you are not a Catholic is if you yourself posit acts which lead to that judgement. So, any man who professes error and shows himself not to be subject to the magisterium is responsible for the impression he creates. It is his own responsibility to undo the scandal of his words and acts. In a word, it is his problem. He created the bad impression, and if he isn't happy with it, he needs to fix it. Liberals invert everything and want the bad guys' own mistakes or sins to be everybody else's fault, while refusing to allow the good individual who wants to save his soul to escape to safety by rejecting the heretic. That would be judging, they cry. So there are no heretics and the faithful are helpless, if you listen to a liberal. But we know that the truth is entirely the other way. We are instructed to beware wolves that wear the clothing of sheep.

It isn't hard to see why the liberals think that way, either. The liberal is the man who places all value on the individual. The liberal doesn't recognise the priority of the common good. For a liberal the greatest possible tragedy is if somebody is punished slightly more than they strictly deserved. For a Catholic this is hardly something worthy of comment. Ultimately there is no injustice at all anyway, because it's all dealt with after each man's death at the Particular Judgement, and in any case we all deserve more than we would ever get from a human tribunal, even if in the extreme case that tribunal puts us to death for something we didn't do. A Catholic is more concerned with the common good. He recognises that a heretic is dangerous to the faithful, and he can see, as anybody can see if they consider things for more than one second, that the words and acts which have created the impression of heresy are the culprit's own fault, his own responsibility. Bergoglio gets up every morning and chooses to say and do the things he says and does. If he's worried about what others (e.g. Catholics) think about him, then let him adjust his behaviour. But he's a heretic and he doesn't care what we think.


Thank you John. That was enlightening. I hadn't thought of it that way but it makes perfect sense.


Tue May 20, 2014 10:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
There's something interesting going on here. I have just been asked to listen to Fr. Pfeiffer parsing the Declaration of the three SSPX bishops on the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations - this document: http://sspx.org/en/sspxs-bishops-declar ... nniversary

It's a magnificent document, utterly clear, carefully written, and Fr. Pfeiffer is at a complete loss to find fault with it. He bends himself into countless knots trying to mess it up, in fact. His attempts to show that the grammar of the text reveals an error are actually hilarious. Jeremiah was a bullfrog gets a look in, and apparently that's not a good sentence. When I went to school, a name and a predicate in conjunction like that formed a perfectly cogent and useful sentence. Somehow Jeremiah must be defined - he is! he's a bullfrog! - and "bullfrog" must be defined - I'd hate to see Fr. Pfeiffer's parsed and corrected version of Little Miss Muffet sat on her tuffet! A diminutive unmarried female human being poised her nether regions upon whatever a tuffet actually is (help!). Paula Haigh would give the Fraternity bishops an "F" we are told. Well, that says something about Ms. Haigh, perhaps...

But that's not my main point. The main point is to highlight how contradictory his own theology is. I had him in mind when I wrote the following:
John Lane wrote:
There's a fundamental error which the Resistance spreads around at every opportunity, and which numerous traditional Catholics appear to have adopted even before this revolutionary movement got going, relating to the ontological priority of faith and authority. Faith cometh by hearing. Faith is an infused virtue, but the content of faith (the "objects of faith") is received from the Church, that is, from the authorised teachers sent by God. The reason that we reject novelties is because they are incompatible with what we are already obliged to believe. That is, because we have already been bound, by authority, to hold this doctrine, then we are obliged to reject that doctrine which is incompatible with it. The way that many traditionalists talk one would think that the faith is infused with all of its objects and the reason that we must reject novelties is because we, that is, the infallible judges of faith(!), know what is true and what isn't (because of some interior light - perhaps the sensus catholicus). This is Protestantism, or superstition, or something else utterly unCatholic.


Now, consider his novel defence of Bergoglio. On his theory Bergoglio is not a heretic because the Church has never had the opportunity to teach him the true faith. Leaving aside the obvious retort that if he never learned the faith, he isn't a Catholic, consider this theory in the light of the error he has been proclaiming above. Fr. Pfeiffer stridently declares that faith is prior to authority, meaning that we know the faith by some other cause than the preaching of authority; now he tells us that Bergoglio's faith is sound precisely because he has not been subject to the true teaching authority of the Church and therefore doesn't realise that his ideas are heretical. Well, which comes first, authority or faith?

Of course, as already pointed out, this is a question requiring a distinction to answer accurately. The virtue of faith is infused at Baptism. The objects of faith come by preaching, that is, by authorised proclamation on the part of official witnesses - those with the mission of the Church. Since Fr. Pfeiffer has lost this distinction, he answers erroneously, asserting that faith comes first and not authority, and concludes that the faithful are the proper judges of the faith, not the bishops. This is a heresy. Then he contradicts himself and finds that Bergoglio remains a Catholic because he has not received the true objects of faith from authority.

What a mess.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 20, 2014 3:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Those with a strong stomach and an excellent sense of humour, fortified by a good bottle of red, I suggest, might like to have a listen to Fr. Pfeiffer here: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/07 ... claration/

Don't blame me, I warned you. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 20, 2014 3:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John Lane wrote:
But that's not my main point. The main point is to highlight how contradictory his own theology is. I had him in mind when I wrote the following:
John Lane wrote:
There's a fundamental error which the Resistance spreads around at every opportunity, and which numerous traditional Catholics appear to have adopted even before this revolutionary movement got going, relating to the ontological priority of faith and authority. Faith cometh by hearing. Faith is an infused virtue, but the content of faith (the "objects of faith") is received from the Church, that is, from the authorised teachers sent by God. The reason that we reject novelties is because they are incompatible with what we are already obliged to believe. That is, because we have already been bound, by authority, to hold this doctrine, then we are obliged to reject that doctrine which is incompatible with it. The way that many traditionalists talk one would think that the faith is infused with all of its objects and the reason that we must reject novelties is because we, that is, the infallible judges of faith(!), know what is true and what isn't (because of some interior light - perhaps the sensus catholicus). This is Protestantism, or superstition, or something else utterly unCatholic.


Now, consider his novel defence of Bergoglio. On his theory Bergoglio is not a heretic because the Church has never had the opportunity to teach him the true faith. Leaving aside the obvious retort that if he never learned the faith, he isn't a Catholic, consider this theory in the light of the error he has been proclaiming above. Fr. Pfeiffer stridently declares that faith is prior to authority, meaning that we know the faith by some other cause than the preaching of authority; now he tells us that Bergoglio's faith is sound precisely because he has not been subject to the true teaching authority of the Church and therefore doesn't realise that his ideas are heretical. Well, which comes first, authority or faith?

Of course, as already pointed out, this is a question requiring a distinction to answer accurately. The virtue of faith is infused at Baptism. The objects of faith come by preaching, that is, by authorised proclamation on the part of official witnesses - those with the mission of the Church. Since Fr. Pfeiffer has lost this distinction, he answers erroneously, asserting that faith comes first and not authority, and concludes that the faithful are the proper judges of the faith, not the bishops. This is a heresy. Then he contradicts himself and finds that Bergoglio remains a Catholic because he has not received the true objects of faith from authority.

What a mess.


John, have you read this? http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=10 is there any difference between Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Sanborn?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Tue May 20, 2014 3:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, have you read this? http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=10 is there any difference between Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Sanborn?


Yes, they have opposite doctrines. Fr. Sanborn is sufficiently clear that he is speaking of the objects of faith, not merely the virtue of faith, when he says that the faithful must reject novelties. Fr. Pfeiffer is preaching revolution, against all authority.

Fr. Sanborn wrote:
The method which the objection proposes is to say that Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II are unmistakably the successors of St. Peter, have been elected by due process, and having been recognized as such by the entire Catholic hierarchy. Therefore they have apostolic authority. Therefore their doctrine, worship, and discipline is infallibly Catholic, and any contradiction must be held by the faith to be only apparent and not real.

I respond by saying that the act of faith, being an act of assent of the intellect, is made with an implicit affirmation of the principle of contradiction, which principle cannot, by metaphysical impossibility, bear its contradictory. To recall the example cited above, the intellect cannot assent to, at the same time, the proposition Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist and Christ is not really present in the Holy Eucharist. To do so would be the equivalent of asserting that a circle is a square, which is intrinsically impossible.

The type of act which Vatican II is requiring of the faith is an impossible act, i.e., to assent to contradictory teaching, especially with the motive of God revealing and divinely assisted apostolic authority proposing.


There's no doubt whatsover in this of the essential role of authority in producing faith in the dogmas of the Catholic religion - viz. "to assent to contradictory teaching, especially with the motive of God revealing and divinely assisted apostolic authority proposing."

Fr. Pfeiffer expresses his doctrine here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsuOpfijXMk Listen from 19.45 until 27.50 or thereabouts. I apologise for putting you through this! :) He even criticises pagan religions for saying that authority is sacred, "The gods say, you must listen to the priests!" What a mess! Instead of affirming this sound principle and pointing out that unlike false religions, contradictions are impossible in the Catholic church, he goes off on an utterly irrelevant digression about sin vs impeccability. This is not a man in command of the necessary doctrine, but rather a man stumbling around trying to find a foundation for his stance. He runs through the tired and stupid procedure of finding exceptions to the rule in order to elevate the exception into the true rule. (Incidentally, he asks if St. Catherine of Sienna ever learned to read! She did. !!!) He asserts that inferiors teach superiors "all the time" - this happens "all the time" etc. It's revolution. Not grasping what he is trying to grasp, he falsely opposes the notion that "destruction of authority ruins the Church" to the notion that "loss of faith ruins the Church." These two things are not opposed, but complementary and necessarily complementary. One is intrinsically connected to the other.

So where does he end up? Around 25.00 he praises the false doctrine of Vatican II, collegiality, by ridiculing the rejection of this by traditional Catholics! It's astonishing, but fact all the same. People are being told that they must escape the SSPX or they will one day be taught the doctrines of Vatican II. Well, run to Fr. Pfeiffer and get those errors today!

I have never heard a traditional priest express so much error, so much confusion, and so much revolution, before. The red sash is perfect, and complements the beard and the sloppy rhetoric perfectly. I can't believe sober and informed Catholics could be taken in by such a man.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue May 20, 2014 11:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, have you read this? http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=10 is there any difference between Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Sanborn?


Yes, they have opposite doctrines. Fr. Sanborn is sufficiently clear that he is speaking of the objects of faith, not merely the virtue of faith, when he says that the faithful must reject novelties. Fr. Pfeiffer is preaching revolution, against all authority.

Fr. Sanborn wrote:
The method which the objection proposes is to say that Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II are unmistakably the successors of St. Peter, have been elected by due process, and having been recognized as such by the entire Catholic hierarchy. Therefore they have apostolic authority. Therefore their doctrine, worship, and discipline is infallibly Catholic, and any contradiction must be held by the faith to be only apparent and not real.

I respond by saying that the act of faith, being an act of assent of the intellect, is made with an implicit affirmation of the principle of contradiction, which principle cannot, by metaphysical impossibility, bear its contradictory. To recall the example cited above, the intellect cannot assent to, at the same time, the proposition Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist and Christ is not really present in the Holy Eucharist. To do so would be the equivalent of asserting that a circle is a square, which is intrinsically impossible.

The type of act which Vatican II is requiring of the faith is an impossible act, i.e., to assent to contradictory teaching, especially with the motive of God revealing and divinely assisted apostolic authority proposing.


There's no doubt whatsover in this of the essential role of authority in producing faith in the dogmas of the Catholic religion - viz. "to assent to contradictory teaching, especially with the motive of God revealing and divinely assisted apostolic authority proposing."


Ahhh thanks, I wasn´t sure about it!

Quote:
Fr. Pfeiffer expresses his doctrine here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsuOpfijXMk Listen from 19.45 until 27.50 or thereabouts. I apologise for putting you through this! :)


Not to me. I won´t spent a single second of mi life hearing that sermon! :D

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed May 21, 2014 12:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
John Lane wrote:
Yes, they have opposite doctrines. Fr. Sanborn is sufficiently clear that he is speaking of the objects of faith, not merely the virtue of faith, when he says that the faithful must reject novelties. Fr. Pfeiffer is preaching revolution, against all authority.


Well, this is interesting. Frankly, it sounds like Martin Luther all over again. He preached private interpretation of scripture and then was appalled that people had interpretations that differed from his. Joseph Pfeiffer is preaching against authority, and I would suggest that he would probably be appalled at people who reject his authority.

He will reap what he sows.

I've listened to, I think, two sermons of his. In both sermons he made it clear that he considers sedevacantism the greatest evil facing the Church while railing against papal authority or the authority of his superior general. While I still have misgivings concerning Bishop Fellay and a lot of little things in the SSPX (which, admittedly, I receive second and third hand), even I am scandalized about what he says about Bishop Fellay.

I stopped listening to him.


Wed May 21, 2014 8:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
He reminds me of a fellow who lives in Truth Or Consequences, NM!


Wed May 21, 2014 8:43 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
This is a very interesting topic. There are definitely people who are currently attached to the Novus Ordo that are absolutely authentically Catholic (in spite of their NO affiliation). Before I came to tradition, I attended the Franciscan University of Steubenville and met many such people. Most of the students, teachers and priests who reside there truly are seeking God and want nothing more than to follow the Catholic faith. Many of the students go to daily mass and there is a small chapel called the portiuncula, modeled after the chapel in Assisi, with perpetual Eucharist adoration. 24 hours a day this chapel is full of students and priests praying rosaries and reading spiritual works from St. Alphonsus and St. Louis De Montfort.

They strive to constantly be 100% orthodox, which to them means totally following everything from the modern church's CDF. Students and professors there are constantly criticizing liberal Bishops like Mahony and Kasper. Basically, in effort to remain Catholic, these types end up openly criticizing the more theologically modernist Bishops and then preforming mental gymnastics to explain away all the hetrodox statements from Rome. But their motivation truly seems to be a desire to be completely attached to the religion of the saints.

So if one of these EWTN types ever ended up becoming pope, I really don't think we could say that they were willfully preaching any type of heresy. They just totally believe that the V2 church is the true church of Christ.


Wed May 28, 2014 7:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Formal Heresy vs. Complete Ignorance
brogan wrote:
So if one of these EWTN types ever ended up becoming pope, I really don't think we could say that they were willfully preaching any type of heresy. They just totally believe that the V2 church is the true church of Christ.


But isn't the problem that when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the pit?


Wed May 28, 2014 11:42 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.