Good statement for Sedevacantism

[Baylee]

Wouldn't "charism of infallibility" = "infallibility in the strict sense"? And "are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful" = "a kind of infallibility distinct from...."?

No, because words matter.

If he had wanted to imply that disciplines are subject to something like "a kind of infallibility," he would have used that language. 

In addition, both require the adherence of the Faithful to decisions made by the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline.

Servility is not obedience.

Did you expect a Modernist to speak.....clearly?

[Michael Wilson]

Khalid,
I don't have an online link, I own the book, "On Divine Tradition" John Baptist Cardinal Franzelin S.J.
I purchased my copy on Amazon.

[Michael Wilson]

Chairman Joe,

Your line of argument depends on accepting Monsignor Fenton's assertion.  He asserts that theologians throughout time unanimously held that disciplinary decisions are subject to something more or less equivalent to the charism of infallibility.

Disciplinary decisions even though they are often closely related to doctrine, are not directly so. I'll explain: In the case of the Eucharistic fast, it is related to the doctrine of the real presence, and the dispositions to worthily receive Holy Communion; but the question of how long must one abstain from food and drink before receiving, can be modified for the good of souls. Once all Catholics had to abstain from food and water from midnight before receiving Holy Communion. Catholics were bound under pain of Mortal Sin from violating this fast. The Church in the XXth C. Reduced the fast for food to three hours; and water, up to the time of Mass. Yet in both cases these laws were "infallibly safe" and Catholics could follow the regulations, without any fear of spiritual harm to their souls.

Cardinal Ratzinger contradicts him:  "17. [...] For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful."

Doctrinal Infallible decrees are "irreformable" i.e. Can never be changed. While disciplinary decrees can. Cardinal Ratzinger is stating the same thing (with less explicitness) as  Fr. Fenton. 

Again, I know that document wouldn't in itself hold any weight for a Catholic who believes that it was issued during an interregnum, but I would suggest that it hints that Monsignor Fenton's view was not universally held, and that further study is warranted.

Fr. Fenton is repeating what the best theologians have stated. On another thread I quoted extensively from Cardinal Franzelin from the 19 C. The very same doctrine.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Once all Catholics had to abstain from food and water from midnight before receiving Holy Communion. Catholics were bound under pain of Mortal Sin from violating this fast. The Church in the XXth C. Reduced the fast for food to three hours; and water, up to the time of Mass. Yet in both cases these laws were "infallibly safe" and Catholics could follow the regulations, without any fear of spiritual harm to their souls.

How do you know that these changes were "infallibly safe" and not the beginning of the present crisis of unbelief in the Real Presence?  How do we know that the Church didn't actually defect in 1953 when Pius XII started making these changes?

[Michael Wilson]

We assume that the Popes up to Pius XII where Catholic, because they faithfully transmitted to us the Catholic faith; we cannot say the same thing of those that followed.
One can read the addresses of Pius XII (and his predecessors) on any topic, and find the care they took in clearly stating the Catholic position on any issue. The contrary could be said of those that followed.

[awkward customer]

Once all Catholics had to abstain from food and water from midnight before receiving Holy Communion. Catholics were bound under pain of Mortal Sin from violating this fast. The Church in the XXth C. Reduced the fast for food to three hours; and water, up to the time of Mass. Yet in both cases these laws were "infallibly safe" and Catholics could follow the regulations, without any fear of spiritual harm to their souls.

How do you know that these changes were "infallibly safe" and not the beginning of the present crisis of unbelief in the Real Presence?  How do we know that the Church didn't actually defect in 1953 when Pius XII started making these changes?

This is a good question.  Major changes don't happen overnight, they happen in stages, a bit like going bankrupt - slowly at first, then all at once.  They just seem sudden because we're only really aware of the dramatic end stage.. 

There is definitely a crisis of belief in the Real Presence as you say.  But is it all due to Vatican II, or could the causes be more long term and gradual.

For example, getting rid of Rood Screens and opening up the Sanctuary to view happened during the Counter-Reformation period.  IMO, this was the first step in lessening the reverence due to the Altar, the Sanctuary and eventually the Blessed Sacrament.

I suppose it depends how far back you go.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

This doesn't really address the problem.

It is clear now that watering down the Eucharistic fast has damaged the faith of many Catholics.

If it is true that all disciplinary decisions issued by true Popes are "infallibly safe," (i.e. not damaging to the faith), then it must also be the case that Pius XII lost the papacy when he watered down the Eucharistic fast--that is, unless he had already lost it when he weakened Lenten fasting and abstinence disciplines, a change which surely damaged the faith of those who understood frequent penance to be a key part of the Christian life.

This all could be moot, though, if Leo XIII lost the papacy when he weakened Lenten fasting disciplines some decades prior.

If, on the other hand, it is possible for a true Pope to issue disciplinary decrees which have the unintended consequence of damaging the faith of some (but not all), then Fenton's position on #5 is wrong.

[awkward customer]

It is clear now that watering down the Eucharistic fast has damaged the faith of many Catholics.

If it is true that all disciplinary decisions issued by true Popes are "infallibly safe," (i.e. not damaging to the faith), then it must also be the case that Pius XII lost the papacy when he watered down the Eucharistic fast--that is, unless he had already lost it when he weakened Lenten fasting and abstinence disciplines, a change which surely damaged the faith of those who understood frequent penance to be a key part of the Christian life.

This all could be moot, though, if Leo XIII lost the papacy when he weakened Lenten fasting disciplines some decades prior.

If, on the other hand, it is possible for a true Pope to issue disciplinary decrees which have the unintended consequence of damaging the faith of some (but not all), then Fenton's position on #5 is wrong.

Weakening fasting disciplines may be evidence of laxity.  But it is only by heresy that a Pope loses his office.

The changes instituted by Pius XII were not heretical.  They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

The changes instituted by Pius XII were not heretical.  They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

This is a much lower standard than the one proposed by Monsignor Fenton.

[Michael Wilson]

C.J.A.M.P.

This doesn't really address the problem.

It is clear now that watering down the Eucharistic fast has damaged the faith of many Catholics.

This isn't "clear" at all; what damaged the faith in the Eucharist, was the cavalier, disrespectful, and even sacrilegious manner that the Blessed Eucharist came to be treated during the post-Conciliar period.

If it is true that all disciplinary decisions issued by true Popes are "infallibly safe," (i.e. not damaging to the faith), then it must also be the case that Pius XII lost the papacy when he watered down the Eucharistic fast--that is, unless he had already lost it when he weakened Lenten fasting and abstinence disciplines, a change which surely damaged the faith of those who understood frequent penance to be a key part of the Christian life.

Doesn't follow; see above.

This all could be moot, though, if Leo XIII lost the papacy when he weakened Lenten fasting disciplines some decades prior.

It follows if you deny one Church teaching, they all come down sooner or latter in a heaping crash.

If, on the other hand, it is possible for a true Pope to issue disciplinary decrees which have the unintended consequence of damaging the faith of some (but not all), then Fenton's position on #5 is wrong.

It would also follow that Catholics would have to consult you or some other authority that wasn't the Pope each time a new disciplinary law was issued, to make sure that it was O.K. Which would mean that the Church as an institution with Christ's own power to teach and rule the faithful would be at an end.

[Michael Wilson]

A.C.:

Weakening fasting disciplines may be evidence of laxity.  But it is only by heresy that a Pope loses his office.
The changes instituted by Pius XII were not heretical.  They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

That is why one cannot hold this position or accept such a "cause and effect". Here is Pius VI in the Encyclical "Auctorem Fidei" proposition #78 condemning one of the many errors of the pseudo Jansenist Council of Pisotoia:

578 78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

That is pretty definite.

[awkward customer]

A.C.:

Weakening fasting disciplines may be evidence of laxity.  But it is only by heresy that a Pope loses his office.
The changes instituted by Pius XII were not heretical.  They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

That is why one cannot hold this position or accept such a "cause and effect". Here is Pius VI in the Encyclical "Auctorem Fidei" proposition #78 condemning one of the many errors of the pseudo Jansenist Council of Pisotoia:

578 78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

That is pretty definite.

I don't understand the point you are making here. 

[Michael Wilson]

A.C.

They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

vs. Auctorem Fidei

but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism

If the eucharistic fast changes "damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, then they were "harmful" to souls spiritually. 

[awkward customer]

A.C.

They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

vs. Auctorem Fidei

but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism

If the eucharistic fast changes "damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, then they were "harmful" to souls spiritually. 

Thanks, I understand your point now.

But why relax the eucharistic fast?  Was it too strict before?  Is it too lax now?  Or doesn't it make any difference?

I have no strong opinion on this particular issue.  But I do believe that the Counter-Reformation opening up of the sanctuary to the world by getting rid of Rood Screens was a mistake, as well as introducing pews which were designed by Protestants to take attention away from the altar.

This was a massive liturgical shift and seems to have just happened without raising a comment.  Why was it done?  Has it ever been explained?  Why did the Church adopt a liturgical layout favoured by Protestants? 

Am I not supposed to think that the men of the Church can make mistakes, that they can introduces practices which cause harm in the long term?  Mistakes are human and forgivable.  Mistakes don't exclude Catholics from the Church.  Only heresy does that.

Vatican II didn't appear out of nowhere.  It was a long time in the making.

[Baylee]

A.C.

They may have damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but to the extent that the changes caused this damage, they were a product of weakness, not heresy.

vs. Auctorem Fidei

but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism

If the eucharistic fast changes "damaged the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, then they were "harmful" to souls spiritually. 

Thanks, I understand your point now.

But why relax the eucharistic fast?  Was it too strict before?  Is it too lax now?  Or doesn't it make any difference?

I have no strong opinion on this particular issue.  But I do believe that the Counter-Reformation opening up of the sanctuary to the world by getting rid of Rood Screens was a mistake, as well as introducing pews which were designed by Protestants to take attention away from the altar.

This was a massive liturgical shift and seems to have just happened without raising a comment.  Why was it done?  Has it ever been explained?  Why did the Church adopt a liturgical layout favoured by Protestants? 

Am I not supposed to think that the men of the Church can make mistakes, that they can introduces practices which cause harm in the long term?  Mistakes are human and forgivable.  Mistakes don't exclude Catholics from the Church.  Only heresy does that.

Vatican II didn't appear out of nowhere.  It was a long time in the making.

I think that changes to the ecclesiastical law can cause issues down the road without that being the intent of the one who makes the law. 

For example, I think that the 3 hour fast of Pius XII was not evil or harmful in and of itself, but the Modernists used it to then change it to ONE HOUR.  It is the ONE HOUR that helped damage the reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. I mean, honestly, a ONE HOUR fast means you could literally eat right before mass.