+
JMJ
As noted earlier a branch of the 'resistance' referenced one of my articles (natually without directly responding to its contents) making the assertion that:
No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle...“a canonical recognition cannot be had if it is not based on the Catholic Faith”In support of this assertion the author made a number of claims, one of which came from Satis Cognitum, a quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre and then his own reasoning.
In the final analysis the author concludes that because the principle 'No Canonical agreement ... etc' is the same as being Unity of Faith, and therefore without a Unity of Faith there cannot be a true order issued by the Pope as long as:
Any position of the Pope showing indifference or opposition towards this internal principle [Unity of Faith] makes his command, under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church, null and void because his command would not serve the purpose of achieving a true and authentic Catholic unity.There are three problems with this reasoning.
Firstly, St.Thomas Aquinas' principle of obedience:
It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.St. Thomas further notes that the scope of a superior's authority is not without limit. So, as long as the order of the superior does not go against God, and is within the superior's scope of authority, they are to be obeyed. In order to adhere to his own theory, the Ecclesia Militans (EM) author must abandon the principle of St. Thomas because the principle relies upon objective facts (the superior having authority, and the command not being against God.). Whereas EM's theory rests upon the subjective assessment of whether or not the Pope shows indifference or even opposition towards the Unity of Faith.
The second point is the internal "Unity of Faith" issue, which presupposes that Unity of Faith has been broken by the Pope. Perhaps the author meant that accepting a canonical solution that meets the criteria of St. Thomas somehow interferes with the Unity of Faith.
Either way the author is again in the weeds.
Let's establish a clear understanding of what constitutes Unity of Faith:
This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. ... Unity of Faith leaves room for various opinions in those controversial questions which the Church has not finally decided. (Source-Ott)The truths of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Church are those that the Church has finally decided, ie the de fide teachings of the Church.
Keeping in mind that none of the post conciliar Pontiffs have attempted to change a de fide teaching of the Church, the de fide teachings that require an internal assent of the Faith remains intact. It is this Unity of Faith that Traditional Catholics have with "Modern" Catholics who implicitly accept all that the Church Teaches.
Even those Catholics who have (based on external measures) probably lost the Faith, remain in a state of material heresy if they don't separate themselves from the Church and have not demonstrated pertinacity in the face of an authoritative remonstration. As Catholic material heretics, the Church regards them as still members of the Church as their material heresy is deemed temporary as their good-will is presumed.
The third problem is that the EM author asserts that Pope Benedict sought to order the SSPX to accept a Canonical Regularization "...under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church...".
The problem is that Church teaching is that the Unity of the Church is based upon both the Unity of Faith and the Unity of Government, and the Sin of Heresy breaks Unity of Faith and the Sin of Schism breaks the Unity of Government.
It is not merely a pretext, the argument put forward would serve just as easily for the Orthodox as it would for the 'resistance'. The authority of the Pope who states what must be believed (de fide) is what the Orthodox rejected when they reaffirmed their schism. In a same manner, the 'resistance' would deny the authority of the Pope and reject a 'canonical regularization' that met the conditions for obedience.
Beyond these initial thoughts, there are a number of other structural issues with the EM author's article, but this is sufficient for now.
Ultimately, the example of St. Athanasius repeatedly comes to my mind.
Following the author's reasoning St. Athanasius was wrong to return to his See when allowed to, and Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to seek a no-compromise regularization for the SSPX.
There are number of other problems with the article, but there is no point in further untangling this gordian knot of assertions and twisted reasoning.
The Faith isn't that convoluted.
The first Mark of the Church is comprised of Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
To keep the Faith and separate from the Communion of the Church by breaking from Unity of Government is Schism.
Christe Eleison
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
Comments
Post a Comment