Catechism on Modernism by Pascendi's ghostwriter Fr. Lemius

[INPEFESS]

LOC, as you well know and have acknowledged, in the rules of proper debate, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, you are making a very bold claim that makes St. Pius X act contrary to the very teaching he had approved via the manualists used to teach seminarians all over the world (regarding the danger involved in using a false example of holiness). So this claim either accuses him of inconsistency, of failing to believe what he himself allowed to be taught in the name of the Church, or of grave sin by acting contrary to what he believed to be the teaching of the Church. Thus, I am particularly hesitant to accept any claim that would lead us to conclude such a thing without incontrovertible proof. A few points should be kept in mind:

1. The arguments I have been making in favor of the Church's infallibility with regard to canonization are presented in the same manuals that St. Pius X used to teach clergy all over the world. If what you claim is exactly true, then St. Pius was acting contrary to what he knew was the Church's teaching.

2. The sources that document this alleged permission are, according to my findings, almost exclusively Orthodox, who benefit too much from reading into what was specifically allowed to make them considerably unbiased. There is simply too much interest in their claim to make them exclusively reliable in this regard.

3. But even if that could be proved, the alleged permission he gave, especially being private and being restricted to only a handful of Orthodox, would be simply a personal act as pope and not an official action of the Church.

4. Thus, even if such permission were true, (1) the Church's universality was not involved, (2) it was not an official action of the Church but of the pope as private theologian, and (3) it was a matter of permission and not of imposition, meaning that he gave very specific permission to a very specific group of people under very specific conditions, rather than positively set up and impose upon the faithful an example of heroic virtue to be a model for all. Hence, the Church's infallibility, which is the topic of this discussion, is not involved.

5. To further make this point, it should be pointed out that the principles involved in the infallibility of canonizations admittedly don't even apply to beautification, which requires an even greater standard than what was allegedly permitted by St. Pius X. Thus, if beautifications aren't even said to be infallible, then it can hardly be claimed that the alleged permission of St. Pius somehow mitigates the applicability of the principles involved in concluding the infallibility of canonizations. 

6. I await proof from the Vatican's approved sources that such a thing was unequivocally permitted in exactly the manner as expressed here. Those who have too much to gain from claiming this permission represent a conflict of interest, which should be only considered with the greatest skepticism.

I hope you will understand the significance of the points raised as it regards using this historical allegation to overturn the arguments made by the manualists.

[LandOfConfusion]

I have to be brief...

AAS 1935:66 approves Russian liturgical books and finished with its publication "Rome, Typographie de Grottaferrata" 1940

It includes the following Orthodox saints: Nicetus of Novgorod, Sergius of Radonezh, Barlaam of Khutyn, et. al (have to be short).

The "Dictionary of Catholic Biography" by Delaney & Tobin discuss Sergius pages 1048 & 1049 printed in 1961 and I've discussed Butler's Lives already.

I found this quote although I don't know how accurate because i could not find the year attached:
"In monasterio Sanctissimae Trinitatis in Mosquensi Russiae regione, sancti Sergii de Radonez, qui, primum in silvis asperis eremita, dein vitam coenobiticam coluit et hegumenus electus propagavit, vir mitis, consiliarius principum et consolator fidelium" (Martyrologium Romanum, page 536)"

It was the 1917 St. Petersburg Synod that approved Eastern Catholic veneration of Orthodox saints.

Some interesting permissions for Sheptytsky:

Rome 17. 2. 1908
Most Blessed Father!
Andrij Sheptytsky Metropolitan of Halych, Administrator of the Metropolitan See of of Kiev and of all Russia, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness most humbly requests, that there may kindly be granted to him, for the time of his office, the faculty, also communicable to priests in foro interno [in the internal forum; ed.], of dispensing from all merely ecclesiastical laws in accordance with his own conscience or that of a confessor, and in accordance with the advice of men wise in the law and learned in theology.
And may God ...
Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X deigned to sign the original document written by me with the words "As requested."

Rome 17. 2. 1908
Most Blessed Father!
Andrij Sheptytsky Metropolitan of Halych, Administrator of the Metropolitan See of of Kiev and of all Russia, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness most humbly requests, that there kindly be granted to him the faculty, also communicable to confessors, of dispensing the lay faithful from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the orthodox, as often as they shall in conscience deem it prudent.
And may God ...
Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X deigned to sign the original document written by me with the words "Able to be tolerated."

http://lookingeast.stblogs.com/?p=1030

He has a few copies of the original on there. Go through them and it's interesting on marriage too what St. Pius X permitted.

I have to run, hopefully that gives you something to look over.

[INPEFESS]

I have to be brief...

AAS 1935:66 approves Russian liturgical books and finished with its publication "Rome, Typographie de Grottaferrata" 1940

1. I'm not finding it. Could you provide the exact text you're talking about?

2. Whose liturgical books? Russian Catholic or Russian Orthodox?

3. Which liturgical books? Catholic liturgical books that the Orthodox have taken from us and been using for centuries, in the same way that they have been using our traditions?

4. Approved for what and for whom? For liturgical use or private devotion by all Catholics everywhere or for one particular group?

5. At this point, there really isn't enough information to know exactly what was approved, but perhaps you can provide some details from the AAS. Even so, from what this seems to be, this matter does not concern the principles used to establish the infallibility of canonizations. Approving a liturgical book used by non-Catholics but which be perfectly orthodox is not in the same category as setting up Hitler as a model of heroic virtue to be emulated by the universal Church.

It includes the following Orthodox saints: Nicetus of Novgorod, Sergius of Radonezh, Barlaam of Khutyn, et. al (have to be short).

The approved liturgical books or the AAS entry?

The "Dictionary of Catholic Biography" by Delaney & Tobin discuss Sergius pages 1048 & 1049 printed in 1961

1. What does it say that is relevant? Does it claim he is a Catholic saint? 

2. Wasn't this from John XXIII'S reign?

I found this quote although I don't know how accurate because i could not find the year attached:
"In monasterio Sanctissimae Trinitatis in Mosquensi Russiae regione, sancti Sergii de Radonez, qui, primum in silvis asperis eremita, dein vitam coenobiticam coluit et hegumenus electus propagavit, vir mitis, consiliarius principum et consolator fidelium" (Martyrologium Romanum, page 536)"

Interesting. I just searched the entire Roman Martyrology from 1942 with the imprimatur from Card. Gibbons and I found 15 references to St. Sergius, but none of them were Sergius of Radonez.

It was the 1917 St. Petersburg Synod that approved Eastern Catholic veneration of Orthodox saints.

Are you sure that was a Catholic synod? The one I know of was Orthodox conducted by "The Most Holy Synod" for Orthodox reforms. Was there an Eastern Catholic synod in communion with Rome that occurred in St. Petersburg in 1917? If so, what is the relevant text? What did it approve? Was it ratified by the pope? Just saying that it approved Catholics to generate Orthodox saints is not enough.

Some interesting permissions for Sheptytsky:

Rome 17. 2. 1908
Most Blessed Father!
Andrij Sheptytsky Metropolitan of Halych, Administrator of the Metropolitan See of of Kiev and of all Russia, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness most humbly requests, that there may kindly be granted to him, for the time of his office, the faculty, also communicable to priests in foro interno [in the internal forum; ed.], of dispensing from all merely ecclesiastical laws in accordance with his own conscience or that of a confessor, and in accordance with the advice of men wise in the law and learned in theology.
And may God ...
Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X deigned to sign the original document written by me with the words "As requested."

Rome 17. 2. 1908
Most Blessed Father!
Andrij Sheptytsky Metropolitan of Halych, Administrator of the Metropolitan See of of Kiev and of all Russia, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness most humbly requests, that there kindly be granted to him the faculty, also communicable to confessors, of dispensing the lay faithful from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the orthodox, as often as they shall in conscience deem it prudent.
And may God ...
Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X deigned to sign the original document written by me with the words "Able to be tolerated."

http://lookingeast.stblogs.com/?p=1030

He has a few copies of the original on there. Go through them and it's interesting on marriage too what St. Pius X permitted.

I have to run, hopefully that gives you something to look over.

Yes, I already responded to what these meant in the thread I linked earlier from FE. He dispensed with certain ecclesiastical laws that we're in place at the time to avoid scandal, deeming that no scandal would result. He did not permit common liturgical worship, which the same Holy Office had just said was contrary to divine and natural law, and of which it said no one had the power to dispense. Communicatio in sacris is a broad heading that includes many different activities. Please see the thread I linked to for more information on this.

[LandOfConfusion]

1. I'm not finding it. Could you provide the exact text you're talking about?

It just talks about the Russians having great spirituality, etc. which led to reforming their liturgy. It's in the 1935 page 66.

2. Whose liturgical books? Russian Catholic or Russian Orthodox?

Catholic liturgical books.

3. Which liturgical books? Catholic liturgical books that the Orthodox have taken from us and been using for centuries, in the same way that they have been using our traditions?

Rites of the Catholic church.

4. Approved for what and for whom? For liturgical use or private devotion by all Catholics everywhere or for one particular group?

If you want more help and more details I don't have them all, but if you want a reference there is a book that goes over this by a Catholic Jesuit in 1941. Fr. Alphonse Raes, S.J. "La première édition romaine de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome en staroslave," Orientalia christiana periodica 7 (1941)

5. At this point, there really isn't enough information to know exactly what was approved, but perhaps you can provide some details from the AAS. Even so, from what this seems to be, this matter does not concern the principles used to establish the infallibility of canonizations. Approving a liturgical book used by non-Catholics but which be perfectly orthodox is not in the same category as setting up Hitler as a model of heroic virtue to be emulated by the universal Church.

It was to be used by Catholics, ergo my issue.

The approved liturgical books or the AAS entry?

Approved liturgies and recognized saints. Here's a great site you can look at as this guy used to catalog this and his confusion about the issue and researched it far more than I did:
http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/11/post-schism-russian-orthodox-saints-fr.html

You can see the list of Orthodox saints below the image that he cites that were added.

The priest you can look up who wrote about this is called Fr. Serge Keleher, a Catholic priest who passed away in August of this year. He wrote quite a bit on forums before he got ill and was quite the intellectual about these matters. You can do research on his citations as well as who he was as he translated Sheptytsky's biography by Korolevsky.

1. What does it say that is relevant? Does it claim he is a Catholic saint?

Yes a Catholic saint.

2. Wasn't this from John XXIII'S reign?

Yes, but now we have recognition by Butler's in the 40's, liturgical books Fr. Keleher has seen and showed his friend who believed he was joking.

Interesting. I just searched the entire Roman Martyrology from 1942 with the imprimatur from Card. Gibbons and I found 15 references to St. Sergius, but none of them were Sergius of Radonez.

As I mentioned these were notes I made and I wish I kept better notes.

It was the 1917 St. Petersburg Synod that approved Eastern Catholic veneration of Orthodox saints.

Are you sure that was a Catholic synod? The one I know of was Orthodox conducted by "The Most Holy Synod" for Orthodox reforms. Was there an Eastern Catholic synod in communion with Rome that occurred in St. Petersburg in 1917? If so, what is the relevant text? What did it approve? Was it ratified by the pope? Just saying that it approved Catholics to generate Orthodox saints is not enough.

I do it was a Synod in which Archbishop Sheptytsky was there and it approved Catholics venerating Orthodox saints.

Yes, I already responded to what these meant in the thread I linked earlier from FE. He dispensed with certain ecclesiastical laws that we're in place at the time to avoid scandal, deeming that no scandal would result. He did not permit common liturgical worship, which the same Holy Office had just said was contrary to divine and natural law, and of which it said no one had the power to dispense. Communicatio in sacris is a broad heading that includes many different activities. Please see the thread I linked to for more information on this.

I get what you are saying, but this biography written by a Catholic priest who states that he did and I can't find it although I think its the one by Fr. Korolevsky who was very close to Sheptytsky. I did the best I could with the time I have and this week I'll have no time whatsoever as family is coming in town.

Also the statement that Sheptytsky got permission for veneration of the Orthodox from St. Pius X was in 1904 and there was no AAS back then. I'm thinking by looking at my notes and try to verify them and I believe it was really 1940 and they mistakenly believed it was Pius X when it fact it was Pius XII, although the 1917 St. Petersburg Synod started the ball rolling full steam ahead and led to the book written by Slipyj to venerate Gregory Palamas who used the 1917 precedent for his ruling on Palamas.

[INPEFESS]

LOC, I sincerely mean no disrespect at all, nor do I intend to insult your intelligence, but at this point in the discussion I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the evidence presented and claims made. It is no surprise that the certain popes have selectively granted suspension of certain ecclesiastical laws for certain people, for certain reasons, for certain times, in certain places, and with certain conditions. I am not sure how this is being used to disprove the argument made with regard to canonizations.

I am trying to understand your argument as it relates to using this evidence to counter the principles used to establish the infallibility of canonizations, but I am not sure how the evidence thus far presented--which seems to me to be largely hearsay evidence--counters any of the premises used by the manualists to establish the conclusion that canonizations are infallible.