There is much misunderstanding as to how the Church teaches us. That is the reason for much of what plagues us in the Great Apostasy. It exemplifies what was meant by the prophet Zechariah when he wrote, "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered..." In a time of prolonged sedevacantism, people go far astray without a true pope. One such example is how many have a false view of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (hereinafter "UOM").
According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine-Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221; words in brackets and emphasis are mine).
The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly (ex cathedra pronouncements of the pope or of Ecumenical Councils) or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the Vatican Council of 1870. The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium or "UOM". Both are equally infallible.
Two examples of how this truth goes awry can be seen with the Feeneyites (i.e., those who deny Baptism of Blood [BOB] and Baptism of Desire [BOD]), and the "recognize and resisters" ("R&R"; i.e., those who recognize all Vatican II "popes" yet feel free to decide when, how, and if they will obey them, such as the SSPX and John Salza). In the case of the Feeneyites, they disregard the UOM completely and reduce the Magisterium to ex catherda pronouncements exclusively; and then only their private interpretations of them divorced from the teachings of the Church's approved theologians.
I actually had a Twitter exchange some months back with a follower of a the infamous Feenyite Dimond brothers, Fred and Bobby. I inquired of this person how Pope Pius XII could be considered pope since he taught BOD in his Address to Midwives (1951). He responded that since it wasn't an infallible decree, Pope Pius XII "simply got it wrong." It was my interlocutor who got it wrong. The pope is divinely protected by the Holy Ghost from error, so he could not promulgate anything but truth ex cathedra. If any "pope" did so, it is proof that defection from the faith has already taken place. The pope cannot fall from office in his capacity as pope but only as a private theologian. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). Therefore, if the Address to Midwives was a "mere talk" of Pope Pius XII expressing his "personal opinion," and if it is a dogma that baptism by water alone allows one to be saved as the Feeneyites falsely believe, Pope Pius XII would have lost his office at once. So much for the "theology" of Fred and Bobby.
Recently, I came upon an article written by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) entitled Clear Ideas on the Pope's Infallible Magisterium (See https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium). It sounds scholarly, but is actually a masterpiece in fallacious reasoning and introduces the novel idea that the"Authentic Magisterium," which is non-infallible and correctly distinguished from the UOM, may be resisted and need not be followed. If you think about it, it is simply another spin on the Feeneyite idea that anything non-infallible may be discarded if you disagree with it. It is this article with which I will take issue.
Error by Excessive Defects
I will outline the main points; my readers can read the entire article at the web address citation I provided, if they so desire.
The SSPX article cites theologian Salaverri, It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" It then goes on:
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience."
The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium."
Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium. (Emphasis mine).
The SSPX then explains when the UOM really operates:
When Humanae Vitae (Montini's encyclical against artificial contraception---Introibo) came out, various theologians indicated that the notion of ordinary papal Magisterium was obscured. Generally speaking, those who supported the infallibility of Humanae Vitae deduced "the proof [of this infallibility—Ed.] on the basis of the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium, which has never been abandoned and therefore was already definitive in earlier centuries." In other words, on the basis of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (E. Lio, Humanae Vitae ed infallibilita, Libreria Ed. Vaticana, p.38). They should have noticed that even the notion of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and its particularity [its constancy and universality—Ed.] had been effaced from the minds not only of the ordinary faithful but also of the theologians...
Such is the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Wojtyla's decree against priestesses--Introibo)when it repeats the invalidity of the priestly ordination of women, which has always been held by the Church with "unanimity and stability" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).
The "practical application"? Declare Vatican II a true Council, but feel free to reject it.
Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes—apart from certain acts—cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical documents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors." They cannot adhere to them because they have broken with them. Look at the footnotes of Dominus Jesus; it’s as if the Magisterium of the preceding popes did not exist. It is clear that when today’s popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday’s popes, our obedience is due to yesterday’s popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church.
Finally, it is evident that the New Theology, which is so unscrupulous in contradicting the traditional teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, contradicts the Infallible Pontifical Magisterium; accordingly, a Catholic must in all conscience reject and actively attack it...
The Church’s current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible. Furthermore, it is not at the level of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium because the [Second Vatican] Council did not wish to be a dogmatic one, and because Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI, Ed. Paoline, 1966, pp.51, 52). Lastly, it is not at the level of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The turmoil and division in the Catholic world have been provoked by a break with this doctrinal continuity. Such a break is the very opposite of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Thus Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, or John Paul II’s intervention against women’s ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused no dismay to the Church’s obedient sons.
The upshot of the SSPX argument is that for the Ordinary Magisterium to be infallible it must teach something in a "constant and universal" manner. Any break with tradition means it is not infallible. Moreover, not only is it fallible, since it contradicts traditional teaching, Catholics must "reject and attack it." Vatican II is not dogmatic because the Council itself "did not want to be one." Feel free to pick and choose what you will and won't believe coming from the Vatican II sect. If it follows tradition, accept it--if not, reject it. We need to follow "yesterday's popes" and discard the one we don't like today. There's so much wrong, it's hard to know where I should begin, but I'll do my best to keep it on point and terse.
1. The teaching of theologian Salaverri. The citation to Salaverri is quite beside the point. It appears that the theological giant is somehow giving the green light to "resist" when the pope is not teaching infallibly. Actually, the title on that very page where the citation is taken states, "Internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See authentically approved by the Supreme Pontiff." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, , pg. 241). You will search this tome in vain seeking to find an affirmation that a non-infallible decree of a pope can be resisted.
2. What does it mean that the Ordinary Magisterium must teach something in a "constant and universal" manner? When the Fathers of the 1870 Vatican Council were discussing the draft of Dei Filius before voting, questions were raised about the meaning of the word "universal" in the expression "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" and the Council’s official "relator," Bishop Martin, referred them to Pope Pius IX’s Tuas Libenter (1863). In the relevant portion Pope Pius IX wrote, "Even limiting oneself to the submission made by the act of divine faith, this could not be restricted to those things that have been defined by the express decrees of ecumenical councils and by the decrees of this See, but must be extended also to what is passed on as divinely revealed by the Ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church spread over the world…" (Denzinger 1683). No special kind of teaching is required. Nor is it necessary for the teaching to be given over a lengthy period of time. If the universal teaching authority, i.e. the pope and the bishops with moral unanimity, pass on to the faithful a teaching as revealed, the faithful are obliged under pain of heresy to believe that doctrine with Divine faith.
The teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council on the subject is dogmatic and any doubt of interpretation is resolved by reference to the conciliar discussions. The term "universal" implies universality in place, not in time. In technical terms, it is synchronic universality, not diachronic universality, which conditions the infallibility. The present teaching of the Church’s supreme teaching authority, whether expressed in a solemn judgment or by ordinary acts, is necessarily infallible and thus quite incapable of bringing in false or new doctrine. It may make explicit what has been implicit or reaffirm what has been called into question. If obvious false doctrine is taught, it is not just the novelty that must be rejected, but the pseudo-authority imposing it, because legitimate authority cannot err in such cases. Blatant error is therefore a sure proof of illegitimacy. (See John S. Daly's Did Vatican II Teach Infallibly? for a magnificent elucidation of this point).
3. If you accept Montini as valid (Pope Paul VI), Vatican II is obligatory. Calling Vatican II "pastoral" does nothing to alleviate this obligation.
Despite the quote of Montini (taken out of context anyway), "pastoral" simply means "after the manner of a shepherd." "Pastoral" and "dogmatic" are not mutually exclusive terms as R&R would like us to believe. A "pastoral"council, if it teaches on faith and morals, is also doctrinal or dogmatic in character. "Pope" Paul VI stated in his audience of January 12, 1966: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility."
"...but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents." (Emphasis mine).
Moreover, two of the Council's constitutions expressly call themselves "Dogmatic," i.e., Lumen Gentium ("The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church") and Dei Verbum (i.e., "The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation"). To claim that Vatican II gave no dogmatic teaching directly contradicts the Council itself. Furthermore, Montini expressly reaffirmed the fact that a pastoral role rather implies than excludes doctrinal teaching in his motu proprio Pastorale Munus of 1963 which declares in the first sentence: "The pastoral office was linked by Christ to the grave responsibilities of teaching and sanctifying, of binding and loosing." (Emphasis mine).
When the bishops of the world gathered together in the Vatican from 1962-1965 and gave morally unanimous consent to their teachings on faith and morals to the Church, and which were promulgated by "Pope" Paul VI, all the requirements of an exercise of the infallible UOM were met. If Montini were truly pope, you must submit and believe all of what was taught at Vatican II. To claim the Council was not infallible, can only be sustained as true if there was no pope with whom those bishops could hold union with, and who could ratify their decisions. Welcome to sedevacantism.
The SSPX's "clear ideas" about the pope's infallible Magisterium are little more than muddled thinking, misused terminology, and false principles deceitfully dressed up as "scholarship," so as to lead souls astray by thinking that you can "resist" Vatican II and its false popes. By misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting how the Church teaches us, strange and un-Catholic ideas emerge. Feeneyites claim, "A pope can only lose office if he infallibly proposes error." R&R declares, "Vatican II was only pastoral and not infallible, so you can resist the 'Authentic Ordinary Magisterium' and choose what you want to believe and do regardless of what the 'Church' decrees." Unfortunately, for the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R, infallibility is not outside the Ordinary Magisterium and it guarantees Vatican II must be true and obeyed if Paul VI were a true pope.
The only thing that would really be out of the ordinary is authentic Catholic theology coming from the R&R crowd.
When debating this topic with an R&Rer, you make the point that V2 is a departure from the Faith. They respond that it does not matter since it is not binding. When you point out how V2 is binding they repeat their initial claim that there is nothing actually heretical in V2. And you are back to square one with them. They will repeat this cycle as often as it takes.ReplyDelete
Yes. Try “if it’s binding but not heretical, what’s wrong with it?” If they tell you it’s a departure from the Faith, ask “How can the Church defect like that?” Worth a shot!
Novus Ordo Watch had an article recently saying we should ask those people if it is a sin to accept Vatican 2. They will have to say yes, and then you can ask them how it can be sinful to accept teaching that comes from the Catholic Church.Delete
It's a clever way to turn the tables. I'm a little surprised no one thought of it before (though maybe people have), and it sure puts things in perspective.
An excellent suggestion from NOW!
How can the R&R claim "that there is nothing actually heretical in V2"?Delete
Two words: Mental gymnastics. If you ever sit down and read one of their defenses of the R&R position, they use all kinds of false principles to “prove” V2 was not heretical but “not in conformity with tradition,” so you can reject it. Completely un-Catholic.
I stopped attending the SSPX 2 weeks ago.ReplyDelete
Yes,they have a valid priest at the local chapel but they've become part of the Novus Ordo.
"Bishop" Huonder and the interview with
"Bishop" Schneider on their website are the last straws for me.
Prayer is needed as we only have an SSPV visit once a month other than the SPX.
Thank you for your efforts.
Special prayers for you my friend. Very sad—but you still have more than most. Many can only go to a Traditionalist Mass once a year or less.
I am a novice and don't know much theology, but I can understand what Lumen Gentium is when it states it is Dogmatic. You don't need to be a scholar to figure that out! God does not change "For I am the Lord and I change not" (Malachi 3:6). "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb 13:8). The Novus Ordo and Vatican II is NOT the Catholic Church. Montini and all of his successors are NOT Popes. It is not hard to discern, if a novice like me can understand it. I can only fathom that the R&R does not want to see the blatant truth. "For they have ears, but do not hear, they have eyes but do not see".ReplyDelete
A Happy Thanksgiving to you! Your comment is excellent; I have nothing to add. Let’s pray for the R&R to wake up.
Happy Thanksgiving Introibo! Yes the R+R camp is in quite the pickle with their wacko theology. A true Pope is the standard of faith, he is the rule. There isnt a time in history they can point to that helps their position. It's funny to that when they try to say past popes were heretics, they compare the past with the present "popes". Even Honorious and anyone else they cite would have slapped the V2 claimants across the face. To compare them with complete and udder apostates is dishonest at best. It's not like Francis said 1 thing 1 time, or that Paul VI said 1 thing 1 time, no they literally have mountains of heretical teachings, so the comparisons they make are not even really fair or accurate either.ReplyDelete
Very true. A Happy Thanksgiving my friend to you and all of my readers and their families!
What exactly is a pastoral council and does it differ from an ecumenical council? For that matter, what is an ecumenical council? Are both kinds of councils dogmatic if they teach on faith and/or morals? How many types of councils does the Church hold?ReplyDelete
According to Theologian Turrecremata there are three classes of councils: Ecumenical (aka “Universal” or “General”), provincial councils, and diocesan synods. The last two categories are usually disciplinary in nature and are a function of the Authentic Magisterium. Unless specially promulgated by the pope, they have no binding force upon the entire Church.
An Ecumenical Council he defines as, “...the congregation of the major prelates convoked by the special authority of the Roman Pontiff to deal solemnly and with common purpose with the Christian religion under the presidency of the Pope or his delegate.” (See theologian McDonald, “The General Council”, pg. 158).
If an Ecumenical Council teaches on a matter of Faith and/or morals it is infallible by the extraordinary Magisterium (If in Dogmatic Canons approved by the pope) or by virtue of the UOM if not by Dogmatic Canons.
Even in matters of Universal Disciplinary Law, all decrees would be infallible.
There have been twenty Ecumenical Councils from Nicea I in 325 AD to the Vatican Council Of 1870. If Montini were a true pope as Paul VI, then Vatican II would be the twenty-first Ecumenical Council, and there’s nothing a Catholic can oppose or “resist.”
The idea of a “pastoral council” which you can obey or reject is an invention of the R&R.
Why do I keep reading that the last time a Pope spoke infallibly was the Assumption of Mary? Shouldn't it be Vatican II?ReplyDelete
Actually, it would be Bergoglio’s “canonizations.” Canonization is infallible. Get a “relic” of “St” John Paul the Great Apostate for Christmas!!
Just to clarify. What I meant to say is that if Paul Vi was a true Pope, wouldn't Vatican II be the last time a Pope spoke infallibly?Delete
No. Montini canonized saints after 1965. His last infallible act would be the canonization of “St” Charbel Makhlouf in 1977. His promulgation of the Novus Bogus “Mass” in 1969 would also have been infallible as a Universal Disciplinary Law.
It really is irrelevant when was the last time an infallible statement was issued. The issue is when was the last time a Pope taught an error in faith or morals to the Universal Church. The answer must be, NEVER.Delete
You are correct. Proof that Montini could not possibly have been pope.
Introibo, can we contact by email?ReplyDelete
The neo gAllicAn movement is 100% democratic: the "people" have to save the "church" from the "evil heretical popes"
The neo gAllicAn movement sells a "Hannah Baker church" that instead of being crucified by Her enemies like Jesus Christ, "crucifies" herself by spiritual suicide
If you send me your email via these comments, I promise not to publish it. I will then contact you from an email that protects my identity. It will read "Hello from Introibo" in the subject line. We can communicate through that email.
The Catholic Encyclopedia includes this statement in its article on infallibility:ReplyDelete
We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, IT IS TRUE AT THE SAME TIME THAT IN PRACTICE IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT SUCH UNANIMITY AS MAY EXIST HAS A STRICTLY DEFINITIVE VALUE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, UNLESS IT HAS BEEN EMBODIED IN A DECREE OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, OR IN THE EX CATHEDRA TEACHING OF THE POPE, OR, AT LEAST, IN SOME DEFINITE FORMULA SUCH AS THE ATHANASIAN CREED. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III)
If this is the case, doesn’t it effectively render meaningless the infallibility of the UOM since it cannot be proven that some representative of the Church somewhere, at some point, taught contrary to the apparently universal teaching of the Church?
No. The Catholic Encyclopedia, is not a theological treatise. It is often imprecise “it may be.. in practice.. etc.” To analogize, “Blacks Law Dictionary” is good for a general overview of a word or phrase, but you will sometimes get the specifics wrong unless you consult, e.g., Williston on “Contracts.”Delete
The Catholic Encyclopedia will never be cited in any theological work, nor is it subjected to the same rigor as real theological tomes. Try looking up Sedevacantism, or the possibility of an interregnum of years; it’s not there, but it doesn’t mean it’s not taught.
Can you provide some examples of doctrines that were defined solely by the UOM?ReplyDelete
Here are some historical examples of the UOM:
100 A.D. Scripture is officially complete at the death of the last Apostle (St. John). Scripture confirms the Church founded by Christ cannot teach error, and that those who reject it are condemned. The pope and bishops of the Church continue to propagate the infallible Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition) from generation to generation. Again, this teaching is referred to as the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) and is infallible. The primary methods of teaching used by the UOM are by preaching and writing.
300 A.D. The first three centuries of Catholics have lived without any teaching from the Extraordinary Magisterium. They have learned their faith solely through the ordinary everyday teaching of the popes and bishops (the infallible UOM). The Deposit of Faith remains completely intact and is infallible.
319 A.D. Arius, a Catholic Priest, is noticed to be preaching a doctrine on the Divinity of Christ that differs from the continuous teaching of the Church handed down (the UOM). The clergy know the Deposit of Faith handed down so far is infallible, so when they notice a departure from it, they immediately know it's heretical. Arius is then corrected by his peers.
326 A.D. The Council of Nicaea, the first use of the Extraordinary Magisterium since the founding of the Catholic Church, is called to order, which condemns Arius and his false doctrine, since he refuses to recant. The doctrine on the Divinity of Christ is ALREADY considered infallible through the day to day teaching of the UOM, and now the Church has confirmed it is infallible again through the Extraordinary Magisterium, so there is no confusion about it among the faithful.
Also Baptism Of Desire And Baptism Of Blood
Back in the Adam and Eve post from August 2019 (https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/08/adam-and-eve.html), we saw that Pius XII apparently contradicted the UOM in “Humani Generis,” in which he left open the possibility of evolution of the human body. We know Pius XII’s encyclical gave permission for Catholics to believe in bodily evolution, not merely study it, because the theologian who helped write it, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, said so, as you pointed out. We further saw that, in the nineteenth century, approved theologians taught that evolution was heretical, the Holy Office censured books by Catholic authors trying to promote evolution, and the Vatican Council intended to address evolution and would probably have condemned it but was prevented when it was cut short. Prior to the twentieth century, as far as I can tell, the Church had always taught the literal Biblical creation of Adam and Eve. Hasn’t it been proven that Pius XII was a heretic for contradicting the UOM on the evolution of the human body, and shouldn’t traditionalists reject him as a Pope and place the beginning of the vacancy with the death of Pope Pius XI?ReplyDelete
No. The evolution of the body as taught by Pope Pius XII does not contradict The UOM anymore than Pope St Pius X contradicted the UOM when he permitted the “yom” Of Genesis to be more than a literal 24 hour day.
As I wrote in that post:
We are not required to believe that the body of the first human was prepared by a kind of evolution, but neither is the idea heretical, censured, or opposed to the One True Church and Her authoritative teachings. In the words of theologian Ott, "While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ibid, pg. 95).
We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?"
The UOM taught the unique creation of humans. It never taught that it MUST BE LITERAL AS IN THE GENESIS ACCOUNT.
When before the twentieth century did the Church ever entertain the notion of bodily evolution or indicate that it was permissible to believe in?Delete
If the evolution of the body was permissible to believe in, why did the Holy Office in the nineteenth century censure books by Catholic authors teaching evolution? Fr. Léroy tried to promote an early theory of intelligent design in his book “The Evolution of Organic Species,” but the Holy Office put his book on the Index.
Why did nineteenth century theologians such as Fr. Matthias Scheeben and Cardinal Camillo Mazzella teach against evolution?
The theologians you mentioned came out against DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. The Church was teaching the special creation of humans NOT SPECIFICALLY THE MODE. God used concepts that humans of the time could understand. The Bible speaks of “the rising of the sun” and not the spinning of the Earth because that is how it looked and as they understood at the time. God was not teaching about astronomy.
The problem I have with “Science Deniers” is the same I have with ”Apparitionists”—-both attempt to force what is permissible into dogma. If you want to believe in a Young Earth and a literal 6 days of 24 hours you may do so. It’s not heretical or sinful. NEITHER IS EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY AS TAUGHT BY POPE PIUS XII AND THE THEOLOGIANS.
Likewise, if the Church approves a private revelation, like Fatima, you MAY believe it; you are NOT REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IT.
I believe in Fatima, but I have no right to tell others they must. What the message CONTAINS is to be believed:
* do penance for sins
* pray the Rosary
* attend Mass as often as possible and receive Communion devoutly
* pray for the conversion of sinners
Be a young Earther. Just don’t try to turn into a “dogma.”
You are responding with the pejorative “science deniers,” an ad hominem attack, as if evolution has been scientifically proven.Delete
I asked it once, and I’ll ask it again, since I did not get an answer: When before the twentieth century did the Church ever entertain the notion of bodily evolution or indicate that it was permissible to believe in?
The Novus Ordo “theologian” Brian Harrison reviewed the documents from the Holy Office proceedings that led to Fr. Léroy’s book being placed on the Index. See http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html
Regarding Cardinal Mazzella, Harrison has this to say about his position: “By the 1870s, Father (later Cardinal) Mazzella was teaching at the papal seminary in Rome: hence, the fact that his dogmatic theology text, which went through four editions before the end of the century, declares the immediate formation of Adam’s body by God to be a "most certain truth" derived from Revelation leaves no doubt as to what the Vatican-approved doctrine was at that time.” This statement of Cardinal Mazzella obviously precludes not just Darwinian (natural) evolution but also divinely-guided evolution.
From Harrison’s essay, here are more theologians who support the Biblical narrative: “Suarez (loc. cit., nos. 4 and 6) classifies this truth as "Catholic doctrine"; Perrone (De Deo Creatore, part 3, ch. 1, p.1) holds that it "pertains to the faith"; while Riccardo holds that the contrary opinion is heretical, insofar as it is opposed to Genesis.”
Read the arguments of Fr. Luigi Tripepi against evolution. He affirmed that the Doctors and Fathers of the Church were UNANIMOUS in taking a literal interpretation of the Biblical narrative of the creation of man, as were theologians up until the nineteenth century, and of the dissident theologians, Fr. Tripepi wrote that “. . . these few cannot diminish in any way the concord among theologians which until recently was FULL, SOLEMN, UNINTERRUPTED and UNIVERSAL, in regard to this question. . . . [They] cannot carry weight in comparison with those in Rome who have carried out serious studies of the Fathers and of the great philosophers and theologians of the Church down through the centuries. Much less can they claim any authority in the face of the elevated wisdom of the Most Eminent Judges of the Roman Congregations.” Several of these theologians had their works placed on the Index.
If the literal Biblical narrative of man’s creation was held and taught unanimously for the first 1800+ years of the Church’s history, how does this not meet the conditions of the universal and ordinary magisterium?
You have a hard time comprehending things so please read carefully as this will be my final response to you.
1. You may believe in a "literal" account if you wish. DON'T MAKE IT DOGMA TO ENFORCE ON OTHERS. "Science Deniers" want people to accept their version of science as dogma. THAT is wrong. It also includes, for some, the Earth is Flat, the Moon Landing was a conspiracy, among other nonsense.
2. You claim "several" of these theologians had their works placed on the Index. You don't name one. Darwinian evolution is FALSE, not the kind the approved theologians and Pope Pius XII envisioned. These unnamed theologians might have adopted Darwinian evolution or had other problems with their works.
According to theologian Van Noort:
"Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.
Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224).
That says it all.
Question still not answered. When before the twentieth century did the Church ever entertain the notion of bodily evolution or indicate that it was permissible to believe in?Delete
You didn’t answer this question either: If the literal Biblical narrative of man’s creation was held and taught UNANIMOUSLY for the first 1800+ years of the Church’s history, how does this not meet the conditions of being part of the universal and ordinary magisterium?
Your logic is circular: You say that Pius XII did not violate the universal and ordinary magisterium because approved theologians of Pius's reign such as Van Noort and Ott say that one can believe in a non-Biblical creation-of-man narrative, and his theologians hold their position as approved theologians because Pius XII as a valid Pope approved them. But, if Pius XII were a heretic, then his theologians were not protected from error. IF PIUS XII WERE NOT A VALID POPE, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HIS THEOLOGIANS SAY!!! That is why you need to find an instance from BEFORE the reign of Pius XII, and preferably from before the twentieth century, where the Church endorsed the idea of even non-Darwinian (i.e., divinely-guided) evolution of the human body. Apparently, you cannot find even one, so you are going to censor comments in frustration.
You say I didn’t name a single theologian whose work was placed on the Index. Did you miss this sentence above: “Fr. Léroy tried to promote an early theory of intelligent design in his book “The Evolution of Organic Species,” but the Holy Office put his book on the Index.” The subject of Harrison’s article I referenced in my long comment above was the background of Leroy’s book being put on the Index. Leroy was not promoting Darwinian evolution. See this description of Leroy’s theory on page 58 of the book “Negotiating Darwin”: “The Council of Cologne condemns those who claim that the human body arose as the result of a SPONTANEOUS AND CONTINUOUS CHANGE starting from a lower animal, but clearly, says Leroy, that condemnation refers to the radical transformationists who propose evolution without God and does not apply to those who propose an evolution linked to the divine plan and to the action of the Creator: in this case there is no SPONTANEOUS CHANGE, because change occurs under divine inspiration.” https://books.google.com/books?id=Q8WrXHnQf8MC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=leroy+The+Evolution+of+Organic+Species+negotiating+darwin&source=bl&ots=Jy0YV-YuHN&sig=ACfU3U19dwH22MyAC39WUEOGY0tf0nyLlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc6d2T0d7mAhWIo1kKHblpBgYQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=leroy%20council%20of%20cologne%20spontaneous%20and%20continuous%20lower%20animal&f=false
As far as the Moon landing goes, it has been proven to be a hoax by the video of Neil Armstrong and the other Apollo 11 crew faking being halfway from the Earth by tricks with the camera and lighting in the Apollo 11 spacecraft, which was also linked in the comments in the Adam and Eve thread.
Answer NOT UNDERSTOOD BY YOU!
The literal Biblical narrative was not taught as you think. As Van Noort points out “ Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force.” In other words the SPECIAL CREATION OF HUMANS was taught by the UOM, NOT that God breathed life into a clump of dirt. The MODE of special creation is left open as Moses wrote in terms people of the time could understand.
Your own source demonstrates that you don’t understand the case of Fr Dalmace Leroy. “The Holy Office published no document pertaining to this case.” Unless approved by the pope and published, such decisions involve nothing Magisterial. That is an UNOFFICIAL condemnation that can easily be reversed. The Holy Ghost at work!
You have no problem citing “Fr” Harrison. Do you accept his other theological beliefs only only the one that comports with yours?
Moon hoax. “ You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”
Take the red pill! (Pop culture reference with modern to The Matrix)
Over and out,
You didn’t answer the question because Van Noort did not write that prior to the twentieth century.Delete
Harrison’s footnote 56 says that Leroy’s book was placed on the Index. Unfortunately, I cannot find an accessible electronic copy of Bishop Zubizarreta’s book, which is referenced in that footnote. I did not cite Harrison here for his theological beliefs but only for his relation of the facts that led to Leroy’s book being condemned. In fact, Harrison comes to the same conclusion that you do, that “special transformism,” as he calls it, is permissible to believe in.
Regardless of whether or not the Holy Office publicly condemned the book (and even books officially put on the Index could apparently be taken off, as Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works were), if the literal Biblical narrative of man’s creation was held and taught UNANIMOUSLY for the first 1800+ years of the Church’s history, how does this not meet the conditions of being part of the universal and ordinary magisterium?
I must be a masochist to keep answering. Arguing with science deniers is like arguing with Feenyites.
1. You don’t understand what the “literal” means. What was taught literally was the special creation of humans. Not the mode. Get it? It’s like asking “what theologians before the 20th century condemned in vitro fertilization.”
They couldn’t condemn that which was not yet known. The principles upon which it stands condemned pre-date the technology.
Transformism was relatively new and not dealt with until the early 1900s.
Therefore, the UOM was not literal as to the MODE. THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
2. St Augustine and St Gregory of Nyssa have been cited as implying that humans may have been transformed. See “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” IIB: 249-250.
I will not respond further. I was a teacher before I became a lawyer, but I taught science, not special education.
Also, Fr. Tripepi stated that some Doctors/Fathers/theologians held that “yom” could refer to a measure of time other than a literal single day, so this is NOT part of the universal and ordinary magisterium the way the Biblical narrative of man’s creation is. Please don’t use the Church’s permitting that one can hold “yom” to be a period other than a 24-hour day as permission to believe in evolution.ReplyDelete
I've done no such thing. See my response to you directly above.