Skip to main content

The importance of distinctions - some reflections of Fr. Gleize's "The Question of Papal Heresy"

Image
By
+
JMJ

Fr. Gleize's study on "The Question of Papal Heresy", has  caused a few people to, unknowingly, enter into mental gymnastics as they "jump" to conclusions and "leap" through flaming hoops.

I've seen Fr. Gleize have the same affect a few years ago when he penned another scholarly article. My suspicion is that the ability to read a long academic article is not a skill easily learned. I now consider myself fortunate to have read over a hundred such articles for my under-grad thesis, although I definitely did not think so at the time.

So, if you're going to read Fr. Gleize, Dr. Lamont, Dr. Shaw et al, you're going to have to exert yourself and if necessary draw a mind-map of the concepts as they are described.

Why?  Because the concepts and principles being discussed are not simple and require deep study to master.



I have received the following brief explanations to some questions posed about Fr. Gleize's article:


At the beginning of Part 4, he clearly stated  "after carefully defining terms, we review the essential question; can the Vicar of Christ be heretical, in the exact sense of the word?"
Fr. Gleize makes all the distinctions, clearly defining the terms used: internal forum vs. external forum; material heresy vs. formal heresy; act of heresy vs. heretical proposition; occult, occult vs. public or notorious heresy.  Then, he applies these terms to the question of the possibility of a heretical Pope.   He explains that what makes a formal heretic is the notoriety of the heresy along with the pertinacity of that person in teaching heretical statements. Now, applying to the person of the Pope, Fr. Gleize concludes that a Pope could not be declared as notorious heretic during his lifetime, because notorious heresy has in fact to be declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically.
The astute reader will note that Fr. Gleize and Dr. Lamont (Considerations on the Dubia) are not in perfect agreement.  While most people like things black and white, this is not the case in unprecedented cases of theology - such as we have today. Theologians will need to work this out by putting forth arguments and discussions.  As Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez were not in perfect agreement, we shall have to sit back and listen to the arguments of various theologians to reach a concensus.  I know more than one person who is impatient for this process to end, but there is nothing for it, we'll have to just wait.
Fr. Gleize adds  further: "the question that we are asking ourselves here is extremely precise: Does Pope Francis deserve this designation [heretic] in the eyes of simple theology... and does he deserves it because of what he affirms in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia?"
This is a hang-up for many mental gymnasts. Don't jump to the conclusion that you want, do the heavy lifting and work through the points one by one.
To answer that question, Fr. Gleize went over the Five Dubia from the Cardinals.  Father then concludes that even though they point out to a number of very confusing and misleading propositions from Amoris Laetitia, we cannot conclude that the said propositions could be considered as "heretical statements" stricte sensu.
I agree with Fr. Gleize who, by the way, is in agreement with the other 40+ theologians.
I think that we have to be careful when we use such words like "heretical".  We have to make the distinction between the broad sense and the technical meaning, according to Catholic theology and Canon Law.
I agree absolutely, as I've seen many use the work "heretic" when they meant simply error.
In any case, there is no much else we can do besides "Oremus pro pontfice nostro Francsico!"

On that note:

P^3
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

By
 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

By
 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

By
 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

By
 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...
Post a Comment
Read more

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

By
 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...
10 comments
Read more