Skip to main content

Neo-Catholicism Refuted in 1881! - Remnant

+
JMJ

The opponents of traditional Catholics usually resort to extreme accusations.

Here are some of those accusations debunked!

P^3

Courtesy of the Remnant



Neo-Catholicism Refuted in 1881! 

Written by  

Unfortunately for the Neo-Catholics, evidence once again shows that the positions of the so-called “radical traditionalists” are nothing more than the perennial teachings of the CatholicChurch. In an 1881 article published in The Month and Catholic Review, the Rev. Michael Gavin responded to a lengthy attack on papal infallibility launched by a Protestant named Dr. Littledale.  As it turns out, Dr. Littledale was as well informed on papal infallibility as most modern Neo-Catholic apologists. Fr. Gavin goes about setting the poor Dr. Littledale straight on several points, some of which could also serve as a lesson to our Neo-Catholic friends. I’ll now list a few Neo-Catholic whoppers, with quoted rebuttals from Fr. Gavin.

The Pope, Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Always Acts for the Good of the Church

Indeed, this is one of the oldest Neo-Catholic talking points. In most everything the Pope does, they tell us he can really do no wrong. And if he appears to do wrong, it is because we ourselves have not humbled our minds and wills and truly understood the serene wisdom behind the Pope’s latest confusing words or apparently scandalous actions. Fr. Gavin disagrees:The Pope may do a stupid or an imprudential act productive of damage to souls; he may, even in his private capacity, subscribe to an heretical creed...

Papal Excommunications are Infallible

In an overzealous attempt to discredit Archbishop Lefebvre for all time and make his future rehabilitation by Rome impossible, some Neo-Catholics have put forward the idea that anyone who is excommunicated by a Pope and dies in that state is damned for all eternity. To the contrary, Fr. Gavin reaffirms the “radical traditionalist” notion that popes can be wrong on this matter:

It is further alleged by Dr. Littledale, that Liberius condemned St. Athanasius as a heretic. Even supposing he did, theologians allow that the Popes can make mistakes by condemning the innocent or acquitting the guilty, and be a monster of iniquity in addition, and still remain infallible in the only sense in which the Council of the Vatican declares him to  possess this privilegeIn judgments about persons, the Roman Pontiff can go wrong: for informers may mislead  him, false documents may be introduced, and the  like, without detriment to his Infallibility.

The Pope, by Virtue of His Infallibility, Can “Develop Doctrine” by Issuing Changes or Corrections to Prior Church Teaching Which We Must Submit to in Humble Obedience

And now for the coup de grace! We have heard Neo-Catholic apologists tell us, ad nauseam, that any papal pronouncement on a matter of doctrine must be submitted to out of obedience. Even, they tell us, if said pronouncement appears to change the meaning or contradict a previous dogma or doctrine.

They then shamelessly hide behind Cardinal Newman’s “development of doctrine” idea, using Newman to stand for the proposition that a dogma or doctrine can somehow “develop” into something entirely new. Of course they won’t admit the new idea is actually “new” even though neither they, nor the Vatican for the last 50+ years, can satisfactorily explain how the new and old teachingscan be reconciled. To combat this utterly confusing and unworkable view of the “development of doctrine, I’d like to end with Fr. Gavin’s excellent and crystal clear explanation ofthe limits to Papal Infallibility which, surprisingly enough, perfectly coincides with the “radical traditionalist” position. Enjoy.

From Fables About Papal Infallibilityby the Rev. Michael Gavin, 1881:

The Catholic  Church,  as  Dr. Littledale  remarks, maintains that its teaching now is  exactly what it has been from the beginning. Yes; its teaching never contradicts what it  has authoritatively taught in other ages, but it may be on certain points much clearer, fuller, more explicit now than ever it was beforeThe belief of Catholics is ever the  same, that is, the Church never denies what she has once taught, nor can she ever teach, or by her universal practice sanction in matters of faith or morals, what she may hereafter deny or repudiateThe prerogative of Infallibility has been granted to her simply and solely that she may guard and faithfully transmit the body of doctrine entrusted to her on the death of the last apostle.  Catholic theologians teach that nonew revelation affecting the doctrine that binds on the belief of all has been given to the Church since the hour when StJohn yielded his virgin soul to God.ThChurch  can neither add nor take one jot or tittle from that body of truth which as a sacred heirloom was left to Peter and the Apostles, by them to be banded on to their successors until the second comingof our LordThat doctrine is found in the books of the Old and New Testament, which the Church regards as the Word of God, and  in  tradition, that is, in those unwritten sayings received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ, or which the Apostles themselves have mentioned at the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Who has kept them sound and intact in the Church. It would be impossible for sayings and truths to pass from mouth to mouth during a long period without being  much changed in the process were it not for the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit; that overshadows clergy and people in subjection to the Roman Pontiff, guarding them  through him, and because of their union with him, from all error in faith.  Dr. Littledale admits that when heresies  have arisen in the Church, the Supreme   Pontiff and Bishops in communion with him have examined Scripture and the writings of  the  Fathers.
Every practice and creed is sanctioned or condemned according to the relation that it  bears to the faith as handed down by the Apostles. From the First Council of Nice, in  325, to the Council of the Vatican, in 1870, the same truth is ever inculcated, that the assistance of the Holy Ghost bas been promisedto the successors of St Peter, not that  they might find out some new doctrine by some fresh revelation, but that they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Apostolic revelation or the deposit of faith  entrusted to their keeping. Novelty is suspected and shunned, antiquity is followed and prized.

Our faith is Identical with that professed by the Apostles. They clearly recognized all the   dogmas that ever have been defined, or that ever can be defined, by Pope or Council. They taught them all to their disciplesthough notnecessarily inall the fullness of form in which they are viewednow. It is quite true that from time to time the Church defines some truths which Catholics in previous ages were not obliged to. Believe. Before 1854  it was not an article of Catholic faith that ouLady was sinless in conception; nor before July 1870, that the Pope, singly and apart from his brethren in the Episcopate, is ever free from error when he teaches the whole Church on points of faith or morals. Yet nowhere is the  Church's oneness of  belief  seen  more  clearly  than  in  these  supposed diversities, which we consider as development of doctrine. The Church is not dead. She is made up of living members.

She is a 
living bodySince the Church lives, growth is the very law of her lifeBut this growth, while it implies development and expansion, forbids all change. The growth of a body is the best proof of its lifeand health. As ages glide by, the full force, consequence, and meaning of the truth, hitherto imperfectly apprehended, is brought out by the labour of theologians, the discussions of the schools, the writings of the Fathers, and the  decrees of Councils"Such development is nothing but the  new form, explanation, or carrying out of what in substance was held from the first, what the Apostles have said but have not recorded in writing, or would necessarily have said in our circumstances, or if they had been asked, or in view of certain uprisings of error, and in that sense really portions of that  legacy of truth of which the Church in all her members, but more especially in her hierarchy, is the divinely appointed trustee.”


It belongs to the Church from time to time, as she thinks fit, to tell the world all that is bound up in any truth of Catholic belief which without such declaration would either be  hidden or misunderstood. In brief, all that the Church does is to draw forth, illustrate, make clear, confirm, or apply to particular concrete instances, what has been already revealed. The Churchcan neither discover, nor add, nor changeWhole and entire she has received a body of truth fromher Founder, whole and entire she willkeep it. That doctrine which the Church has to guard initself never changes and never increases; our knowledge of it may grow clearer, and does increase.We willingly allow that certain doctrines now declared of Catholic faith were not clearly recognized by certain portions of the ChurchEither they were not clearly contained in Scripture, or the voice of tradition seemed indistinct. The Church meanwhile kept silent. It is not alwaysprudent to exercise an act of supreme authority. Her theologians read, and wrote, and discussed, missioners preached, holy souls prayedCircumstances arose that compelled her to speak with no wavering voiceThe Church can never define what was at any time unknown to the whole body of the faithful. She may and  she does define certain  doctrines which portions of the Church, even in communion with Rome, have either doubted or deniedOnce Rome speaks, controversy ceases; to the teaching of the  Supreme Pontiff all bend, and from his ruling there is no appeal.  The two hundred  millions of Catholics now spread all over the earth have all one faith.They believe what the Apostles held, though not with that clearness, preciseness, definiteness which the Apostles possessed because of their extraordinary endowmentsThose that come after us can never be askedto hold anything at variance with what the Church now teaches,or with what she sanctions by her universal practice. For them the truths  of faith may be far clearer than for us, their reach may be more widely seen, their connection more fully grasped; what are now considered only safe and probable  opinions may here­ after be binding on the belief of all as necessary portions of  the CreedBut never can the Church, through the mouth of Pope or Council, contradict  what she has once taught, or permit, as Dr. Littledale falsely asserts, doctrines  which are not developments at all, but blank contradictions of the ancient faith.

Heresies will 
always exist, and usagesand tenets willever be in vogue incertain portions of the Church which she can never allowFor these the Church is not responsibleHer doctrines are taught by her universal practice, by the solemn definitions of her Head, by the daily, hourly, and no less binding teaching of her ordinary magisterium-the Bishops of the Catholic world in union with the Holy SeeNor can the Pope, as Dr. Littledale may suppose, at his caprice and good pleasure make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition.

The Pope
 is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation, and to the truths contained inlegitimately flowing from, or necessaryto theguardianship ofthat revelationThe Pope is bound by existing creeds and preceding definitionsIn matters of faith and morals the  Pope cannot change or sanction at hisarbitrary decision. He is merely trustee  and  guardian of the doctrine our Lord gave, which by the Divine assistance will always be  safe in the keeping of the Pope.


Rev. Michael Gavin, 1881

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Count Capponi - RIP

+ JMJ I had heard of Count Capponi over the years and was happy to hear a voice crying in the wilderness. I suspect that his conscience was clearer than many. This part of the article caught my attention: Capponi defended the right of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to continue his work without the label “schismatic,” which term Capponi rejected, saying: “You cannot apply the standards of the new code of canon law and the mentality of the old code. According to the new code, Lefebvre could do what he did with a Catholic intention, and he did what he did in ‘sincerity’ and invoked the ‘state of emergency’ argument, which the new code permits. You might not like the new code, but it’s what governs the Church.” I know a few people who tried to stir up a fuss when the SSPX cited the New Code in one of the documents with Rome.  Yet, the truth is what it is --- the New Code was promulgated by a reigning Pope and flawed as it is ... there are some benefits to its liberality. ...

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...

Those who return to the past are not outside the Church - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ I had been thinking about putting together a post explaining some of the history of how the SSPX has arrived at its current position. Now I see that Rorate has posted a translated editorial that shows the roots of the SSPX principles. In reading these words, I see patterns and themes that were put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre decades ago. Perhaps his sight was clearer than most. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

SSPX Transfers

+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...