"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Churchmen have no authority to change Sacred Tradition (Part Two)

Churchmen have no authority to change Sacred Tradition (Part Two)
From the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians
Part Two 

“Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.”
 (Ecclesia Dei, 1988) Pope John Paul II

Modernist John Paul II admitted there were new doctrines
yet what does the Catholic Church say concerning the ability

of any church member to change what has been already infallibly taught? Let us further examine: 

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)
 "Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients.  
Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

        "There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be 
questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.  Thus, St. Paul, who was a 
subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent 
danger of scandal in a matter of Faith.  And, as the Glossa of St. 
Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example 
to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, 
they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from 
their subjects....  The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for 
it was not light:  there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel 
truth....  The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and 
manifest.  For this reason, St. Paul writes:  'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, 
Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was 
fraught with danger to everyone.  (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 

        "Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the 
prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, 
or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their 
subjects.  However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the 
prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected.  
And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against 
them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own 
sake....   For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of 
fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be 
corrected by their subjects."  (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)

"Most Holy Father,... because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul.... If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me. (Letter to Pope Gregory XI) "Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376.) JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468) (UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR) OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"
"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV) "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism.... "He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons. "By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...." (Summa de Ecclesia [1489]) ST. ANTONINUS, O.P. (1389-1459) BISHOP AND THEOLOGIAN
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. "A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica) GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA (1452-1498) DOMINICAN PREACHER (CAUSE FOR CANONIZATION PENDING)
The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be.... This I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian; he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety." (Letter to the Emperor) SYLVESTRO MAZZOLINI (PRIERIAS), O.P. (1460-1523) THEOLOGIAN "What should be done when the pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church...? What if the pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate positive law...? He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such a fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. (De Iuridica et Irrefragabili Veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis, secs. 4 and 15) GIACOMO TOMMASO DE VIO GAETANI [CAJETAN], O.P. (1469-1534) THEOLOGIAN AND CARDINAL
Cardinal Cajetan points out that the famous axiom "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" [Where the Pope is, there is also the Church] holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church." (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6) This statement accords with that of St. Ignatius of Antioch (ob. ca. 107), one of the Apostolic Fathers: "Where Christ is, there is the Church" (Epistula ad Smyrnaeos, 8). One must resist to his face a Pope who publicly destroys the Church. (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio, cap. XXVII apud Victoria) FRANCISCO DE VICTORIA, O.P. (1480?-1546) THEOLOGIAN
"Consequently, if he [the pope] wished to give away the whole treasure of the Church or the Patrimony of St. Peter to his relatives, if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not possess power in order to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is lawful to resist him. The result of all this is that if the pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented. "Second proof of the thesis. By Natural Law it is lawful to repel violence with violence. Now then, with such orders and idspensations the pope exerts violence, since he acts against the Law, as we have proven. Therefore, it is lawful to resist him." (Dialogus de Potestate Papae [1517], para. 4) POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)
"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)." (Quaest. in IV Sententiam). "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII) ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621) CARDINAL AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"Papa hereticus ipso facto depositus est" [An heretical pope is by that very fact deposed]. "In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required.... Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man's person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls or troubled the state (turbanti rempublicam) and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29) "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (De Romano Pontifice, II.30) According to St. Robert Bellarmine, papal infallibility is a charism of divine assistance accorded by God to the Pope because of his possessing the magisterium, or the office of primacy. Bellarmine concludes that in the event that an individual Pontiff should delinquently lose the papacy, he would necessarily lose not only the papal office but also the divine charism of infallibility. In short, the divine assistance is attached not to the person of the Pope per se, but to the office that is filled by this person. Therefore, an individual Pontiff enjoys this assistance of the Holy Spirit as long as he also enjoys the possession of the magisterial office. Should this office be forfeited, his prerogative of infallibility would also lapse. Thus, Bellarmine foresaw the possibility of an individual Pontiff lapsing into manifest heresy. The First Vatican Council incorporated Bellarmine's own formula in qualifying papal infallibility. In his treatise De Romano Pontifice, Bellarmine limits infallibility to those pronouncements made by the Sovereign Pontiff "cum ex cathedra loquitur." Thus, the charism of infallibility is a free gift given the Pontiff not for his personal sanctification, but to assure the welfare of others by means of his preserving and explaining the Deposit of Faith. The First Vatican Council amended the original title of its draft from De Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate (Concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff) to De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio (Concerning the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff). By stressing the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, this latter title clarified not only the source and purpose of the divine charism of infallibility, but its resultant loss should an individual Pope regretfully lapse from the magisterial office. In this respect, the Constitution merely defined what in fact had already become the common opinion, as most capably explained by Bellarmine. NINETEENTH (DOGMATIC) OECUMENICAL COUNCIL, TRENT (1545-1563)
"Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae ritus in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novus alio per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit." - -Session VII, Canon 13 [If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor (a term that includes the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.]

A Conversation on Catholic Tradition with Fr Gregory Hesse

No comments:

Post a Comment