Novus Ordo Watch Excommunicates Archbishop for Resisting Pope in 1700's

[Chris Jackson]

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3073-novus-ordo-watch-excommunicates-archbishop-for-resisting-pope-in-1700-s

Novus Ordo Watch Excommunicates Archbishop for Resisting Pope in 1700's

Written by  Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist

On January 12th I authored a short blog post entitled, "Resisting Papal Errors: Another Historical Precedent for Cardinal Burke."  In it I recounted a little known tale of the Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, resisting the tragic 1773 brief of Pope Clement XIV suppressing the Jesuits. The post apparently hit a nerve, stoking the ire of the sedevacantist website Novus Ordo Watch.  So much so that the site published an almost 5,600 word tome condemning my piece entitled, "Resisting the Pope? "The Remnant" and the Suppression of the Jesuits.

The author, presumably Mario Derksen, attempts to point out various supposed flaws in my Remnant blog post; a post consisting primarily of quotations from two Catholic historians. The blog post was written not as an exhaustive research paper, but in order to make the historical letter of resistance from Archbishop Beaumont to Pope Clement XIV, which even Mr. Derksen admits is authentic, more widely known to Catholics. 

As it turns out, Abp. Beaumont's letter of resistance was far more objectionable to Mr. Derksen than it was to Pope Clement XIV. This is evident as Mr. Derksen used 5,600 more words than the late pope to respond to it. Although I don't normally make a habit of acknowledging such erroneous rebuttals, I believe in this case responding to some of the more outlandish claims in his piece might be beneficial to any confused readers.


Dr. Warren Carroll

First, Mr. Derksen spends five paragraphs explaining that famed Catholic historian Dr. Warren Carroll, who I cite in my post, was a Novus Ordo conservative or Neo-Catholic.  This is correct.  However, Mr. Derksen misses the significance of this point entirely. Novus Ordo conservatives, just like Mr. Derksen and other sedevacantists, hold the position that the pope's official legislation, and in most cases whatever he says, is never to be contradicted or resisted in any manner whatsoever by the faithful.

This is precisely why Dr. Carroll, who even condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's own resistance to Paul VI and John Paul II, coming out in favor of Abp. Beaumont's resistance to Clement XIV was so striking and persuasive. For in the case of the Jesuit Suppression even a Novus Ordo conservative like Dr. Carroll could see and admit that resistance was called for and morally justified. Thus, far from lessening the credibility of the argument, Dr. Carroll admitting Archbishop Beaumont acted rightly only strengthens the resistance argument.

Read the rest here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3073-novus-ordo-watch-excommunicates-archbishop-for-resisting-pope-in-1700-s

[Prayerful]

There were issues with the pre-suppression Jesuits. Causistry was an intellectual form in which Jesuits specialised, but was often put to the service of easing the conscience of the rich and immoral (roughly that a man in good conscience could prefer a laxer opinion from a qualified scholar). It wasn't just Blaise Pascal, famously satirising the abuses in the Provincial Letters, but Innocent XI was driven to condemn its misuse. However, there is a strong body of opinion that this suppression was unjust. This Regalism which informed the civil suppressions was shown by the French Revolution to be something which undermined the royal power it sought to bolster. It was a character of chemotherapy that killed the patient.

[Nazianzen]

This is nicely written by Mr. Jackson.  There's just one problem - he appears to have entirely abandoned his first position, in order to adopt a new position which is superior to that of NovusOrdoWatch!

This is near the end of the article:

<< And here it is worthy of remark that no Bull of Suppression was issued, but merely the brief, "Dominus ac Redemptor Noster," which could be revoked at any time without difficulty, and was not binding on the Pope's successors. The usual formalities for its publication and execution were not observed, and the bishops were not commanded, but merely recommended, to notify the contents of the brief to those concerned. (703)

(H. L. R., "The Suppression of the Jesuits by Pope Clement XIV", American Catholic Quarterly Review XIII, no. 52 [October, 1888]) >>

And Mr. Jackson adds, immediately:  << Checkmate. >>

Well, if the suppression was not mandated by the pope, and merely left to the bishops' individual decisions to execute, then Archbishop Beaumont didn't "resist" anything or anybody at all.  And if so, Mr. Jackson has just checkmated not just N.O.W., but himself! 

[Chris Jackson]

If you read Abp. Beaumont's letter, I think you'll see he very much resisted the explicit will and decision of the pope in his brief. Notice the last line in the excerpts from Abp. Beaumont's letter below:

"This Brief is nothing else than a personal and private judgment. Among other things that are remarked in it by our clergy is the extraordinary, odious, immoderate characterization of  the Bull  "Pascendi  munus"  of  the saintly Clement XII, whose memory will be forever glorious, and who had invested the  Bull  in  question   with  all  the  due  and  proper  formalities  of  such documents: It is described by the Brief not only as being inexact but also as having been "extorted"  rather than obtained;  whereas it has all the authority of a general council...

It was conceived and published in a manner as general as it was solemn. .  . .  As for the secular princes, if there were any which did not unite with the others to give their approbation, their number was inconsiderable.  Not one of them protested against it, not one opposed it, and even those who, at that very time, were laying their plans to abolish the Jesuits, allowed the Bull to be published in their dominions. . . . 

The Brief which destroys the Society of Jesus is nothing else than an isolated, private, and pernicious judgment, which does no honor to the tiara and is prejudicial to the glory of the Church and the growth and conservation of the orthodox Faith.  In any case, Holy Father, it is impossible for me to ask the clergy to accept the Brief, for in the first place, I would not be listened to, were I unfortunate enough to lend  my ministry  to its  acceptance. Moreover, I would dishonor my office if I did so ...

To charge myself with the task you wish me to perform would be to inflict a serious injury on religion as well as to cast an aspersion on the learning and integrity of the prelates who laid before the King their approval of the very points that are now condemned by this Brief.  For what is the peace that is incompatible with this Society?  The question is startling in the reflection it evokes; for we fail to understand how such a motive had the power to induce Your Holiness to adopt a measure which is so hazardous, so dangerous, and so prejudicial. . . . 

In a word, what the Brief designates as peace is not peace. . . . It is precisely that peace against which the Jesuits in the four quarters of the world have declared an active, a vigorous, and a bloody warfare; which they have carried to the limit and in which they have received the greatest success.  To put an end to that peace, they have devoted their talents; they have undergone pain and suffering. By their zeal and eloquence they have striven to block every avenue of approach by which this false peace might enter  and  rend  the bosom of the Church; they have set the souls of men free from its thralldom, and they have pursued it to its innermost lair, making light of its danger and expecting no other reward for their daring, than the hatred of the licentious and the persecution of the ungodly. . . . 

In a word, Most Holy Father, the clergy of France, which is the most learned and the most illustrious of Holy Church, and which has no other aim than to promote the glory of the Church, does now judge after deep reflection that the reception of this Brief of Your Holiness will cast a shadow on the glory of the Church of France, and it does not propose to consent to a measure which, in ages to come, will tarnish its glory. By rejecting this Brief and by an active resistance to it our clergy will transmit to posterity a splendid example of integrity and of zeal for the Catholic Faith, for the prosperity of the Church and particularly for the honor of its Visible Head.

[Maximilian]

"In a word, Most Holy Father, the clergy of France, which is the most learned and the most illustrious of Holy Church, and which has no other aim than to promote the glory of the Church, does now judge after deep reflection that the reception of this Brief of Your Holiness will cast a shadow on the glory of the Church of France, and it does not propose to consent to a measure which, in ages to come, will tarnish its glory. By rejecting this Brief and by an active resistance to it our clergy will transmit to posterity a splendid example of integrity and of zeal for the Catholic Faith, for the prosperity of the Church and particularly for the honor of its Visible Head.

Those were the good old days ...

... The Jesuits being suppressed
... The pope being resisted to his face by "the clergy of France, which is the most learned and the most illustrious of Holy Church"
... No sign of any ultramontanism in sight on one side or the other
... No hint of infallibility either in theory or in practice

And all of it taking place less than 100 years before Vatican I.

[King Wenceslas]

"In a word, Most Holy Father, the clergy of France, which is the most learned and the most illustrious of Holy Church, and which has no other aim than to promote the glory of the Church, does now judge after deep reflection that the reception of this Brief of Your Holiness will cast a shadow on the glory of the Church of France, and it does not propose to consent to a measure which, in ages to come, will tarnish its glory. By rejecting this Brief and by an active resistance to it our clergy will transmit to posterity a splendid example of integrity and of zeal for the Catholic Faith, for the prosperity of the Church and particularly for the honor of its Visible Head.

Those were the good old days ...

... The Jesuits being suppressed
... The pope being resisted to his face by "the clergy of France, which is the most learned and the most illustrious of Holy Church"
... No sign of any ultramontanism in sight on one side or the other
... No hint of infallibility either in theory or in practice

And all of it taking place less than 100 years before Vatican I.

So are the Popes just another one of the guys who all spit out error on a regular basis.

[Nazianzen]

Hello Mr. Jackson,

If you read Abp. Beaumont's letter, I think you'll see he very much resisted the explicit will and decision of the pope in his brief. Notice the last line in the excerpts from Abp. Beaumont's letter below:

Well, how about noticing the first line?  "This Brief is nothing else than a personal and private judgment."

That's the crux of the issue - is this an act binding the universal Church, or not?  If not, then it's the "private" act of the man who is pope, and can be resisted without sin.

And in any case, do you not recognize that your own argument answering N.O.W. was as much against your own original position as anybody's?

<< And here it is worthy of remark that no Bull of Suppression was issued, but merely the brief, "Dominus ac Redemptor Noster," which could be revoked at any time without difficulty, and was not binding on the Pope's successors. The usual formalities for its publication and execution were not observed, and the bishops were not commanded, but merely recommended, to notify the contents of the brief to those concerned. (703)

(H. L. R., "The Suppression of the Jesuits by Pope Clement XIV", American Catholic Quarterly Review XIII, no. 52 [October, 1888]) >>

And Mr. Jackson adds, immediately:  << Checkmate. >>