Robert Siscoe on Pope Celestine

Started by Nazianzen, February 23, 2017, 06:42:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Nazianzen

For anybody who might be taken in by what they read in The Remnant.

Siscoe:
Quote
The limitations of Papal Infallibility is further highlighted by the fact that the error of Pope Celestine was later included in the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (known as Quinque Libri Decretalium), which was the first collection of Canon Law[4] promulgated by a Pope for the universal Church.[5]

In his well-known commentary on the 1917 Code, Fr. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., explains that the Papal Bull of Gregory IX, Rex Pacificus, which promulgated the Decretals, gave "full juridical value as a law text" to "each and every chapter in its dispositive part"[6] which obviously includes the erroneous teaching of Pope Celestine. The Decretals of Gregory were later included in the Corpus Iuris Canonici ("Body of Canon Law"), which remained in force until the promulgation of the 1917 Code.[7]

And the relevant footnotes in Siscoe's article:

"[4] From its promulgation by Pope Gregory IX in September 1234, until the Pio-Benedictine Code came into full force in May 1918, the Quinque Libri Decretalium was the basic canon law of the Catholic Church. An authoritative collection—not a code—of canons, the ... books were divided into 185 'titles', themselves made up of 1,871 'chapters'." (Dr. Edward Peters, Resources on Ius Decretalium, Friedberg Edition, January 3, 2013. Source: www.canonlaw.info).
[5] "The next important phase of canonistic development began in 1234 when Gregory IX promulgated a systematic collection of all the decretals and canons ... which he wished to be preserved as laws of universal validity" (Tierney, Brian, The Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 1955, p. 17). "The reason for this collection [i.e., Decretals of Gregory IX] is stated in the Bull 'Rex pacificus' [in which the Pope promulgated the laws] as follows: Some decretals, on account of their length and resemblance to each other, appeared to cause confusion and uncertainty in the schools as well as courts, and to remedy this evil, the present collection is issued as an authentic one, to be employed in schools and ecclesiastic courts exclusively of all others. This meant that (a) the former five compilations were henceforward destitute of juridical value, and therefore could not be alleged as law-texts by the ecclesiastical judges; (b) each and every chapter in its dispositive part, no matter what its source or authority, was to have full juridical value as a law-text; (c) the collection was to be considered the Code of Law for the universal (Latin) Church, to the exclusion of all others of a general character."  (Augustine, Charles, OSB Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol I, 2nd ed, (Herder Book Co, St. Louis Mo., London, 1918) Pp. 36-37. 
[6] Ibid.
[7] "Sometime in the year 1230, (St.) Raymond Peñafort began compiling the texts that would eventually comprise Pope Gregory IX's famous Quinque Libri Decretalium. Upon its promulgation in September of 1234 as the Church's first authentic collection of canon law (not yet a Code, but a binding collection nonetheless), the Liber Extra (as the QLD was also known) was the mechanism by which the canon law of the Catholic Church functioned for nearly 685 years, that is, until the Pio-Benedictine Code went into full effect in 1918" (Dr. Edward Peters blog, In The Light of the Law, January 21, 2010).
[8] "Si infidelis discedit odio Christianae fidei, discedat. Non est enim frater aut soror subiectus seruituti in huiusmodi. Non est enim peccatum dimisso propter Deum, si alii se copulauerit. Contumelia quippe creatoris soluit ius matrimonii circa eum, qui relinquitur. Infidelis autem discedens et in Deum peccat, et in matrimonium..." (Gratiana, Secunda Pars. Causa XXVIII. Quaet. II, c. 2).
[9] Corpus Iuris Canonici - Volume 2, Decretal. Gregory IX, Lib. III, Tit. XXXII, "Concerning the Conversion of the infidels," Cap. 1, pp. 587-588
[10] Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, bk. 4, ch XIV.
[11] "In 1230 Gregory IX ordered St. Raymund of Peñafort to make a new collection, which is called the "Decretals of Gregory IX". To this collection he gave force of law by the Bull "Rex Pacificus", 5 Sept., 1234" (Original Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. IX, p. 393).


That all sounds rather impressive, well-researched, and thoroughly documented, doesn't it?

It isn't.  There's a small problem: this text of Pope Celestine's was specifically excluded from St. Raymond's collection, by order of the pope who promulgated it, Gregory IX.

Cardinal Billot:

<< Respondeo quod in citata responsione Caelestinus opinative loquitur ... Sed quia de causa particulari agebatur, in qua nihil decretorie Pontifex praestituit, nullum sequitur inconveniens. Caeterum responsio ista opinativa nunquam transivit in ius. Imo Gregorius IX expresse iussit illam abesse a collectione canonum authentica a S. Raymundo adornata. >>

"I answer that in the quoted response, Celestine spoke by giving his opinion... but since it dealt with a particular case in which the Pontiff decreed nothing, there is no problem. Besides, this answer by way of opinion never became law. Gregory IX even ordered expressly that it be excluded from an authentic collection of canons made by St. Raymond". (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. II, pp. 441 https://archive.org/stream/deecclesiaesacra02bill#page/440/mode/2up )

So all of that commentary on this error being given the force of law, and all of those footnotes regarding the Decretals are window-dressing for a crass error of fact, easily discovered as such.

Nazianzen

This article is a major threshold for Robert Siscoe.  He has applied his "historical theology" Dollinger-wise to yet another pope, this time Celestine III, and concluded (again) that popes really cannot be trusted, even when legislating for the universal Church.  But actually, Celestine's private opinion never made it into the canon law, it was never legislation, and Siscoe has completely goofed on the facts.

Will he retract?  Or will he stay over that threshold? 

A Catholic Thinker

"Dollinger-wise" - let's remind ourselves what John Lane was told, by an SSPX priest he had tried to "turn," regarding his own preposterous assertion that Salza & Siscoe were "endorsing" Dollinger merely by referencing him:

"Your insistence on TOFP's mention of Döllinger to constitute a praise is an absurdity! Modern scholarship is much more insistent on giving precise reference, and so modern scholarly works include many references: one would evidently jump to conclusion to assume that all such reference constitute a general praise of the authors thus quoted! At most it constitutes a particular agreement on the point referenced, and is far from endorsing all the works of the quoted author. Hence your jumping to conclusion that such a quote constitute a praise is indeed a false accusation, and your insistence in defending such false accusation does not honour you."

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/second-failed-e-mail-campaign-by-john.html

Nazianzen

Quote from: A Catholic Thinker on March 08, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
"Dollinger-wise" - let's remind ourselves what John Lane was told, by an SSPX priest he had tried to "turn," regarding his own preposterous assertion that Salza & Siscoe were "endorsing" Dollinger merely by referencing him:

The trouble with that answer, ACT, is that it dodges the point.  I am not describing the method of TOFP as "Dollinger-wise" because they mention Dollinger positively, describing him as a "Church historian and theologian", but because they use the same method as Dollinger used, and with the same results.  That is, they trawl through history finding examples which can be twisted to support the denial of what is taught by the approved theologians.  That's what Dollinger did, and it's what Siscoe and Salza do.  Same method, same results.

Here's the Latin of Bellarmine on Celestine III by the way: https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_B0G1UjyRYyIC#page/n441/mode/2up

Siscoe needs to retract his error, primarily for the sake of those who will otherwise follow him in his denial that the Church's laws are protected by infallibility, and secondarily for the sake of his own faith.

Cardinal Billot:

<< Respondeo quod in citata responsione Caelestinus opinative loquitur ... Sed quia de causa particulari agebatur, in qua nihil decretorie Pontifex praestituit, nullum sequitur inconveniens. Caeterum responsio ista opinativa nunquam transivit in ius. Imo Gregorius IX expresse iussit illam abesse a collectione canonum authentica a S. Raymundo adornata. >>

"I answer that in the quoted response, Celestine spoke by giving his opinion... but since it dealt with a particular case in which the Pontiff decreed nothing, there is no problem. Besides, this answer by way of opinion never became law. Gregory IX even ordered expressly that it be excluded from an authentic collection of canons made by St. Raymond". (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Vol. II, pp. 441 https://archive.org/stream/deecclesiaesacra02bill#page/440/mode/2up )

So all of that commentary on this error being given the force of law, and all of those footnotes regarding the Decretals are window-dressing for a crass error of fact, easily discovered as such.

Vincentus Ioannes

Dear A-Catholic-Thinker:
Why are you un-willing to admit that Mr.-Siscoe erred when he claimed that Celestine-III's error was made a-part of the universal-disciplinary-laws of the Church?  If nothing-else, this-much seems very clear-cut to me.

A Catholic Thinker

Quote from: Vincentus Ioannes on March 09, 2017, 06:00:37 PM
Dear A-Catholic-Thinker:
Why are you un-willing to admit that Mr.-Siscoe erred when he claimed that Celestine-III's error was made a-part of the universal-disciplinary-laws of the Church?  If nothing-else, this-much seems very clear-cut to me.

I didn't address that point at all.

P.S. I put serious effort into avoiding comment on grammar, but your habit of extensive, pseudo-random hyphenation is extremely bizarre.

A Catholic Thinker

Quote from: Nazianzen on March 09, 2017, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: A Catholic Thinker on March 08, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
"Dollinger-wise" - let's remind ourselves what John Lane was told, by an SSPX priest he had tried to "turn," regarding his own preposterous assertion that Salza & Siscoe were "endorsing" Dollinger merely by referencing him:

The trouble with that answer, ACT, is that it dodges the point.

I didn't address your point directly, quite obviously, but called question into your judgement, referencing the absolutely "absurd" assertion that Salza & Siscoe have endorsed Dollinger by referencing him - since you chose to mention him.

How relevant is the canon law aspect of this issue?  Canon law is not directly concerned with faith & morals.

There are differing opinions, none infallible, regarding whether or not the ruling was enshrined into law.  The ruling is clear in either case!

Nazianzen

It wasn't a ruling, it was an opinion, as Bellarmine and Billot make clear. 

It certainly wasn't incorporated into the law, as Billot makes abundantly clear by mentioning that Gregory IX expressly ordered it omitted from St. Raymond's authoritative collection, and as Bellarmine makes clear to those who know how to read him, by saying that the text was formerly found in the epistles in the decretals.  Texts didn't fall out of the decretals like papers dropping out of a legal dossier on the street; if they disappeared, they were taken out.

Instead of playing the man, Siscoe & Salza style, and directing your attention to the quality of my judgment, why not try dealing with the facts, and the teachings of the Church?  If you haven't worked out by now that you won't succeed in discrediting me, you're very stupid.  But I don't think you're that stupid, you're just somebody who has not read very much, and who has been taken in by some scam artists.  So let's hit the re-set button.  You start reading actual Catholic books, and addressing the actual arguments, and I won't keep reminding you of all of your clangers here so far.

It's your choice. 

Now, do you have access to Fenton's The Catholic Church and Salvation?  If so, have a look at pages 85-95.  Study the doctrine on the infallible safety of the magisterium, which is, in essence, this:

1.  When the Church intends to teach truth, she is infallible.
2.  When the Church intends not to teach truth, but to warn the faithful away from error, for example, she is infallible also. 

The first kind of infallibility is infallibility in truth.  The second kind is infallibility in safety.

Pius IX's theologian at the Vatican Council, Cardinal Franzelin, S.J., expresses this doctrine also, in his Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura. 3d ed. Romae, ex typographia polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, p. 127. (Caput II, Thesis XII, scholion I, principium VII)

"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."

In a footnote following "exercising care for the safety" Franzelin writes: "These two terms, 'infallible truth' and 'infallible safety' are not identical. This can be seen from the fact that otherwise, no doctrine which is 'probable' or 'more probable' could be said to be sound and safe."

Cardinal Billot quotes this with approval, and certainly teaches the same thing, and Fr. Salaverri, one of the most profound theologians of the twentieth century, says the same.  Monsignor Fenton asserted that Salaverri "holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid-twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago."  High praise indeed.

So, I am saying that there are four authorities, three of whom are very weighty, and the last (Fenton) is known to be absolutely Roman in his theology, who all teach this same doctrine, that the Church even when not exercising her magisterium to teach infallibly, is protected from leading the faithful into error.  Indeed, these authors say, she is infallible in keeping the faithful from error.

The obvious reality that the Conciliar popes have led the faithful into danger is therefore a theological problem.  Robert Siscoe gets that much.  His "solution"?  Deny that Franzelin, Billot, Salaverri, and Fenton, teach the truth, and "prove" this by citing the case of Celestine III.

Whom do you prefer to give your credence to?  Franzelin, Billot, Salaverri, and Fenton, or Robert Siscoe?   :cheesehead:

Vincentus Ioannes

Quote from: A Catholic Thinker on March 09, 2017, 09:00:54 PM
Quote from: Vincentus Ioannes on March 09, 2017, 06:00:37 PM
Dear A-Catholic-Thinker:
Why are you un-willing to admit that Mr.-Siscoe erred when he claimed that Celestine-III's error was made a-part of the universal-disciplinary-laws of the Church?  If nothing-else, this-much seems very clear-cut to me.

I didn't address that point at all.

P.S. I put serious effort into avoiding comment on grammar, but your habit of extensive, pseudo-random hyphenation is extremely bizarre.
Will you do-so now?

ts aquinas

Quote from: Nazianzen on March 09, 2017, 10:12:18 PM
It wasn't a ruling, it was an opinion, as Bellarmine and Billot make clear. 

It certainly wasn't incorporated into the law, as Billot makes abundantly clear by mentioning that Gregory IX expressly ordered it omitted from St. Raymond's authoritative collection, and as Bellarmine makes clear to those who know how to read him, by saying that the text was formerly found in the epistles in the decretals.  Texts didn't fall out of the decretals like papers dropping out of a legal dossier on the street; if they disappeared, they were taken out.

Instead of playing the man, Siscoe & Salza style, and directing your attention to the quality of my judgment, why not try dealing with the facts, and the teachings of the Church?  If you haven't worked out by now that you won't succeed in discrediting me, you're very stupid.  But I don't think you're that stupid, you're just somebody who has not read very much, and who has been taken in by some scam artists.  So let's hit the re-set button.  You start reading actual Catholic books, and addressing the actual arguments, and I won't keep reminding you of all of your clangers here so far.

It's your choice. 

Now, do you have access to Fenton's The Catholic Church and Salvation?  If so, have a look at pages 85-95.  Study the doctrine on the infallible safety of the magisterium, which is, in essence, this:

1.  When the Church intends to teach truth, she is infallible.
2.  When the Church intends not to teach truth, but to warn the faithful away from error, for example, she is infallible also. 

The first kind of infallibility is infallibility in truth.  The second kind is infallibility in safety.

Pius IX's theologian at the Vatican Council, Cardinal Franzelin, S.J., expresses this doctrine also, in his Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura. 3d ed. Romae, ex typographia polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, p. 127. (Caput II, Thesis XII, scholion I, principium VII)

"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."

In a footnote following "exercising care for the safety" Franzelin writes: "These two terms, 'infallible truth' and 'infallible safety' are not identical. This can be seen from the fact that otherwise, no doctrine which is 'probable' or 'more probable' could be said to be sound and safe."

Cardinal Billot quotes this with approval, and certainly teaches the same thing, and Fr. Salaverri, one of the most profound theologians of the twentieth century, says the same.  Monsignor Fenton asserted that Salaverri "holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid-twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago."  High praise indeed.

So, I am saying that there are four authorities, three of whom are very weighty, and the last (Fenton) is known to be absolutely Roman in his theology, who all teach this same doctrine, that the Church even when not exercising her magisterium to teach infallibly, is protected from leading the faithful into error.  Indeed, these authors say, she is infallible in keeping the faithful from error.

The obvious reality that the Conciliar popes have led the faithful into danger is therefore a theological problem.  Robert Siscoe gets that much.  His "solution"?  Deny that Franzelin, Billot, Salaverri, and Fenton, teach the truth, and "prove" this by citing the case of Celestine III.

Whom do you prefer to give your credence to?  Franzelin, Billot, Salaverri, and Fenton, or Robert Siscoe?   :cheesehead:


You could also add:

Must I Believe It? Canon Smith, (Clergy Review, 1940s)  "It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself.  This is by no means necessary.  It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary Magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council."


A Catholic Thinker

Everyone knows the OUM is infallible.  How can such ridiculous misunderstanding persist here?

Vincentus Ioannes

Quote from: A Catholic Thinker on March 14, 2017, 06:56:38 PM
Everyone knows the OUM is infallible.  How can such ridiculous misunderstanding persist here?

Denying the infallibility of the Universal-Ordinary-Magisterium is objectively-heretical.


YeOldeFustilarians

#13
Quote from: Santantonio on March 17, 2017, 10:37:55 AM
The Magisteriums explained:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm

This is possibly the most utterly confused "explanation" of the magisterium I have ever been exposed to.  The man can't even define it.  Anyone looking for answers is going to be at a serious disadvantage trying to get them from that author!

Try Parente, instead:

Quote from: Fr. Pietro Parente, s.v. "'magisterium' of the Church," from Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology"magisterium" of the Church.  The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia Docens) is constituted as the unique depositary and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation.  That this teaching power is of divine institution can be perceived clearly from the words with which Christ, on the point of leaving this earth, entrusts to the Apostles the mission of evangelizing the world: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations" (Matt. 28:19); "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). The means, therefore, established by Christ for the propagation of His teaching is not writing, but oral preaching, living magisterium, to which he assures his personal assistance to the end of the world, saying in the sequence of the text quoted from St. Matthew: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." These words prove also that the magisterium founded by Christ is perpetual and infallible. Entrusted to the Apostolic College (Apostles as a body) after the constitution of Peter's primacy, foundation, and supreme pastor of the Church (Matt. 16:18, John 21:15ff), this teaching authority resides primarily in Peter and his successors as in its source, and then in the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, subordinately to the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Tradition, from St. Ignatius to St. Ireneus and St. Augustine, recognizes this hierarchical constitution, and against doctrinal and moral aberrations makes constant appeal to the teaching of the Roman Church and its bishop, in whom St. Peter lives along with his primacy. St. Augustine, picking up the voice of Tradition, goes so far as to say that he would not even believe the Gospel if the Church magisterium did not propose it to him to believe (Contra ep. fundam., c. 5, PL, 42, 176).

According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, Holy Scripture and Tradition are only the remote rule of faith, while the proximate rule is the living magisterium of the Church, which resides in the Roman pontiff and in the bishops, inasmuch as they are subject to and united with him.  The Vatican Council (sess. 4, c. 4, DB 1832) has sealed this truth by defining that in the primacy of Peter and his successors is included the supreme power of teaching, which is veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma ("the charism of never failing truth and faith"). Luther dared to impugn this truth that had been lived by fifteen centuries of Christianity and, denying the magisterium of the Church, proclaimed in its stead Holy Scripture, entrusted to the individual interpretation of the faithful, as the one sole rule of faith.  But even to prescind from its open contradiction to revelation, this theory shows itself false by its own fruits matured over a period of four centuries: the innumerable Protestant sects with their characteristic doctrinal confusion and degeneration are an evident proof of the failure of that principles and its falsity.  Reason itself sees the necessity of an easy and sure guide for the life of faith, considering the difficulty, for a great part of mankind, of the study and interpretation of Holy Scripture (Parente, P. Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, s.v. "'magisterium' of the Church," trans. Doronzo, 1951, Bruce: Milwaukee, pp. 170-71, all emphases original).

ETA: minor formatting discrepancy
Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.

A Catholic Thinker

Quote from: YeOldeFustilarians link=topic=17041.msg380493#msg380493 This is possibly the most utterly confused "explanation" of thei]magisterium[/i] I have ever been exposed to.  The man can't even define it.  Anyone looking for answers is going to be at a serious disadvantage trying to get them from that author!

Hey, I agree with you about something.  I've been through this fellow's site and, well, he's pretty much got his own take about everything (just as all the major sedes do).