Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

One, Holy — 4 years later

March 2nd, 2017, Promulgated by Diane Harris

For our friends who haven’t quite figured out all that is going on in and from the Vatican, the latest article from LifeSiteNews provides the cliff-notes: www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/they-gave-pope-francis-four-years-to-make-the-church-over-again.-heres-how

Why should we be surprised at the seeming departures from traditional Church teaching when the enthroned tabernacle has been, for decades, moved off-center in so many churches, even to a remote location?

Maranatha! The Lord has come!  Marana tha!  Come Lord, Jesus!

|
Share this article

17 Responses to “One, Holy — 4 years later”

  1. avatar BigE says:

    What ex cathedra teachings have been departed from? I only know of two such teachings: The immaculate conception and Mary’s assumption and neither have been departed from to my knowledge. Did you mean infallible? I’d then have to ask which infallible teachings you think have “seeming departures”?

  2. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Good point, Big E. “Ex cathedra” is far too narrow. So I am changing it to include all the Church’s teachings based on the Deposit of the Faith and Tradition of the Church. I’d start with Amoris Laetitia. Validly married in the Church, divorced, and living in another ‘marriage’ without benefit of annulment is adultery. Mortal sin. Not permitted to approach the Eucharist, no matter what supportive comments the bishops in Argentina, San Diego or Malta might offer. No matter what Dubia any pope refuses to answer.

  3. avatar gaudium says:

    Actually, this is a good teaching moment. There are many infallible (de fide) teachings. How about the Creed? The two cited are the only ones universally considered to be made as a direct expression of papal infallibility. However, John Paul’s declaration teaching that the Church is not authorized to ordain women to the priesthood used the language necessary for it to be considered an ex cathedra teaching and seems to be generally accepted as such. We are not free to dissent from teachings universally taught by the Magisterium. So, yes, for example, adultery is always wrong. The pope doesn’t have to make a declaration from the chair to have that accepted.

  4. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Earlier today I read:
    “1) Be sure to read Bob Royal’s latest dispatch from Rome about the ongoing Vatican “workshop” on Bioextinction: How to Save the Natural Environment on Which We Depend. (An excerpt of it states: The controversy over this event has largely been driven by the way that the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences has let itself be dominated by population control figures affiliated with the United Nations such as Jeffrey Sachs and Michael Shank. That there are a few Catholics sprinkled into the proceedings does not much alter a simple fact: anyone looking at the lineup would be hard pressed to see how it would be much different if it were being run out of the U.N. rather than the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences.)

    2) Be sure to tune in to The World Over with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN tonight. Dr. Royal will talk – from Rome – with Mr. Arroyo about happenings in and around the above-mentioned event. The program airs beginning at 8:00 P.M.”

    Frankly, The Arroyo interview of Robert Royal startled me….world population control experts in the Vatican….did I misunderstand?

    “Robert Royal reports on the ongoing Vatican conference: “Bioextinction: How to Save the Natural Environment on Which We Depend.” As he mentioned, he and other journalists were banned from the “workshop,” but Our Man in Rome gets the story just the same. It’s one thing to work diligently towards the achievable goal of clean water for everyone, but quite another to advocate anti-human, anti-Catholic solutions to a raft of other environmental problems.”– Brad Miner

    Could someone explain to me what is happening?

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/02/28/an-odd-way-to-run-a-pontifical-academy/

  5. avatar BigE says:

    @Diane
    Your changed wording makes much more sense now. Thanks.

    @Gaudium
    I agree there are many infallible teachings, the Creeds for sure being the best example.
    I do not believe however, that the Church’s teachings on women’s ordination meets the very strict definition of infallibilty no matter how hard some want it to.

  6. avatar gaudium says:

    The issue has nothing to do with “how hard some want it to be” nor with how hard they don’t want it to be. Pope Paul VI issued the document Inter Insigniores which seemed to be a pretty clear teaching about reserving priestly ordination to men alone. The new Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983 also states that only a baptized male can validly receive Holy Orders. However, there was enough perceived wiggle room that some bishops, including Bishop Clark, openly supported the possibility of the ordination of women. After the issuance of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Bishop Clark clearly accepted it and issued a public acceptance of it in the Catholic Courier. At that time, the name of the Women’s Ordination Committee was changed to the Women’s Commission. I have pasted below the Vatican Council I’s definition of papal infallibility, John Paul II declaration (which practically echoes the language of VC I) and Vatican II’s further declaration on the dogma. It is important to remember that there is no special formula that the pope must follow as though a declaration is like a conjuration or a spell that must have exact terms used, like “I’m speaking infallibly now” nor does he have to be sitting in his cathedra at the church of St. John Lateran. His intention and his matter of speaking are what matter. Now, I realize that there is a danger of creeping infallibilism but, the language used in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly is meant to be definitive, binding, and unquestioned. I am unaware of any other recent document (since 1950) in which the pope uses such language. The excellent theologian, Fr. Sullivan, in his book Magisterium, Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, states that, if someone simply cannot bring himself to belief in an infallible teaching, then he should submit out of obedience and remain silent.

    Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II, 1994

    when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
    Pastor Aeternus, First Vatican Council

    This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (#25) Vatican II

  7. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Brother Gaudium, excellent reply to “no matter how hard some want it to be”!

    For what’s it worth: when documents of the Church or excerpts thereof are read, recited or meditated upon, each of us should check our hearts. Sense a warmth that is God’s Holy Spirit confirming what is good, beautiful and true? Good, we are then not far from the Kingdom of God….

  8. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Back to the conference Bioextinction: How To Save The Natural Environment On Which We Depend…..

    Robert Royal’s reports are still alarming!
    What is happening in Rome?

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/03/03/between-two-worlds/

  9. avatar BigE says:

    @Guadium
    “seeming” to be pretty clear does not = infallibilty.
    “definitive, binding, unquestioned…” (or any other words someone may choose to use when talking about a teaching) does not = infallibility.
    Canon 749.3 clearly stipulates that if there is any doubt about the infallible nature of a teaching, it is not infallible. The canon reads: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”
    The Pope has never defined this teaching as infallible Ex Cathedra.
    Nor has there ever been a conciliar dogmatic definition ruling out the possibility of women’s ordination.
    So all that is left is something being taught infallibly by the ordinary magisterium…which for infallibility requires: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.”
    That hurdle in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) has not been met.
    Thus, the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination – while to be respected (and certainly in light of current teachings, to be followed) – is NOT infallible.

  10. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    the male-only priesthood is an infallible teaching… not ex cathedra:

    http://www.cleansingfire.org/2012/07/the-infallibility-of-the-magisterium-the-male-only-priesthood-and-the-intrinsically-evil-nature-of-contraception/

    …in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), Pope John Paul II taught that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this judgment is to be held definitively by all the faithful. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared, in a “response” of October 28, 1995, that Pope John Paul II’s determination on this point confirmed a teaching that pertained to the deposit of faith and one that had already been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Although the response of the CDF is not itself protected by the charism of infallibility, it embodies the considered judgment of the highest doctrinal organ of the Church, confirmed by the pope. In view of the strong evidence from Scripture and Tradition for the reservation of ordination to men, the papal decision is solidly grounded in the deposit of faith. M – pp 72-73

    At the Vallombrosa meeting the representatives of the CDF stated with reference to Ordinatio sacerdotalis: “It would be contrary to the teaching of the Church to maintain that this doctrine belongs to the third paragraph, and as such requires only religious submission of intellect and will, and not a firm and irrevocable assent” (Vallombrosa Papers, 65). In an ad limina speech to German bishops of November 20, 199, Pope John Paul II himself declared that “the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen gentium speaks of and to which I gave juridical form in the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem”.

  11. avatar BigE says:

    @Ben
    “definitive” is not infallible.
    And the CDF is not the ordinary magisterium.

  12. avatar gaudium says:

    BigE, “Thus, the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination – while to be respected (and certainly in light of current teachings, to be followed) – is NOT infallible.” Is that statement itself infallible? Maybe if the pope had capitalized the statement, “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” it would be more believable. What of his statement quoted by Ben Anderson? “the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen gentium speaks of.” Neither you nor I can apodictically state that a papal teaching is NOT infallible. The pope does not say, “this is an infallible, ex cathedra teaching.” If that is the bar, then no pope has ever spoken infallibly. Doubt about the infallibility of a teaching does not mean that if someone or anyone subjectively doubts then the teaching is not infallible. If there is objective doubt, the Magisterium settles the issue not our personal preference or subjective doubt. Ben Anderson outlines this well. A “Dubium” is not settled by majority vote or by one’s preferences or affective state. How many people doubt the existence of God. Does he not even exist? Your statement, “Thus, the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination – while to be respected (and certainly in light of current teachings, to be followed) – is NOT infallible,” is so troubling and so incorrect. A teaching on this level is not merely to be respected but accepted with religious submission of intellect and will and with firm assent.

  13. avatar BigE says:

    @Gaudium,
    1)No, my statement is not infallible. It doesn’t meet the Church’s definition of infallibility. 🙂
    2)And being “more believable” does not make a teaching infallible either.
    3)And yes, I would think any teaching of the church would be considered fallible until it meets the rigorous definition of infallibility as laid out by our Church. So if it hasn’t met those rigorous standards, why can’t we say it’s not infallible? (which doesn’t mean it’s not true, or doesn’t mean that at some time in the future we may come to understand it as infallible –> it only means that at this point in time, we can’t know “with absolute 100% certainty” if it’s without error)
    4) The Pope CAN say Ex Cathedra “this in infallible”. When they choose not to do so, there is a reason.
    5) And the Pope can also speak infallibly outside of Ex Cathedra when they speak in unity with all the other Bishops. “This is so, when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.” So to say what I have laid out prevents a Pope from speaking infallibly outside of Ex Cathedra is wrong.
    6) My whole point is the Magisterium HAS NOT settled the issue. The CDF is not the Magisterium. The Pope speaking outside of Ex Cathedra and on his own IS NOT the magisterium. There has never been a conciliar dogmatic definition ruling out the possibility of women’s ordination. It is not settled.

  14. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    BigE, BigE, Why Do You Persist In This Stuborness? It is hard for you to kick against the goads!

    Firm and irrevocable assent; Big E, yes you can!
    Saint Pope John Paul II: “the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to men possesses, by virtue of the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium, that character of infallibility which Lumen gentium speaks of and to which I gave juridical form in the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem”.

    You can know with absolute certainty! “If any man will do the will of him, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:17

    BigE, it is settled!

  15. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Excerpt from tonight’s LifeSiteNews (Phil Lawler): “Day after day, in his homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican’s St. Martha residence, Pope Francis denounces the “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes his interpretation of the day’s Scripture readings is forced; often his characterization of tradition-minded Catholics is insulting. But in this case, the Pope turned the Gospel reading completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of that astonishing homily, I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.

    For over 20 years now, writing daily about the news from the Vatican, I have tried to be honest in my assessment of papal statements and gestures. I sometimes criticized St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when I thought that their actions were imprudent. But never did it cross my mind that either of those Popes posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith. Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist?”

    Read the whole article here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/this-disastrous-papacy

  16. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    BigE, it sounds like you’re missing the “ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church”.

    Such doctrines [#2 above – second paragraph] can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths [#2 above – second paragraph], based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

    I suggest any further discussion on this topic move over to this post:
    http://www.cleansingfire.org/2012/07/the-infallibility-of-the-magisterium-the-male-only-priesthood-and-the-intrinsically-evil-nature-of-contraception/

    Actually, I’ll go further and say that any further discussion on this topic will be deleted on this post. The whole reason I wrote that post was to put these discussions to bed.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-