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:
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)
THE "ANGELIC" DOCTOR AND PRINCIPAL THEOLOGIAN OF THE CHURCH
"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.
4)
"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)
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)
DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"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.]
No comments:
Post a Comment