Chroncile: Perspectives

+

JMJ

Updated: I found a reference and have made a correction marked 'updated' and in Red.


For many people, it seems this crisis is about lines in the sand.

 

Archbishop Lefebvre and many Catholics like him, drew the line at Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Principles.

Others kept on moving it further and further back.

Now a number of people (how many is hard to tell) have finally refused to move their line in the sand.

 The question is: What are they going to do about it.

More importantly, what are you going to do about it?

I don't think I've said it clearly enough when I've talked about the 'Resistance' and Sedevacantists departure from the foundation of Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, and Principles.

I'll try to make it clearer:

You cannot resolve this conflict by joining the "other" side.

For clarification, by other side I mean the modernists et al who are attempting to re-make the Catholic Church in their own image.

In principle, that is exactly what the 'Resistance' and Sedevacantists are doing by abandoning Catholicity by making stuff up as they try to rationalize their dream version of a Catholic Church vs the abomination of desolation currently in our view.

When you deny the authority of the Vicar of Christ to issue commands that bind you to a certain action (see Obedience Series), then you have drunk deeply from the fountain of liberalism.

Yep - that's right and guess what: Modernism is simply Liberalism in action.

At the root of all this a simple principle issued a long time ago: Non Serviam.

So when someone says: I will not obey, look carefully to determine if this is rebellion against authority or adherence to a higher authority. 

That is the key and the more objective the adherence to a higher authority the better.  

This failing is not found exclusively in the 'Resistance' and Sede circles. 

Even traditionalists will have issues with whether or not Pope St. John Paul II is not really simply Pope John Paul II. (ie the canonization was not valid etc).

In this case it is more about a feeling that he can't possibly be a Saint because of his actions (ie Assisi  etc). 

Even Rorate has published an article by Dr. Lamont ("The authority of canonisations": Do all canonisations need to be accepted as infallible?) in which he posits that:

The assertion that canonisations are infallible thus belongs to the field of free opinions. It is not one that Catholics have an obligation to accept.

This does not appear to be exactly correct, as Dr. Lamont himself demonstrates that it is a common opinion of Theologians to which is attached a theological note of sententia communis (See What are Theological Notes?).  To which, I know, that the denial of which is attached a censure: Temerarious

Updated: I checked some of my other references and found that Ott makes the following assertion:

Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

 So it is in the 'field of free opinions' but would still be Temerarious to depart from.

It is important to make the right distinctions at this point.  

1. The theological note of this doctrine is at a level where Catholics don't have to accept it like a dogma.  In other words it can still change.
2. Denial of it is Temerarious or unsafe.

So if it is  it remains temerarious to deny a teaching that is 'sententia commuis' this is not a matter of free opinion.

However, Dr. Lamont appears to have another perspective:

This has been denied by Fr. Benoit Storez SSPX, who has claimed that doubting the infallibility of canonisations is 'temerarious'. But to say that a proposition is temerarious is not the same as to say that it departs from the common opinion of theologians. The censure of temerity adds something to departure from the common opinion of theologians; it adds the assertion that this departure is undertaken without reason.

Here's where life gets interesting and we need to tread carefully. 

Dr. Lamont is asserting that there is a reason for departing from this teaching.

Objectively, does the assertion that canonization are infallible bear the theological note of 'sententia commuis' or not?  The answer is objectively yes.  

So on that point Fr. Storez is correct.

With respect to it being int he 'field of free opinions' Dr. Lamont is likewise correct.

However, any argument to the contrary misses the point completely. 

Even if all the theologians today asserted that these canonizations are not infallible, it would not change anything.  An authority higher than the mass of theologians would have to make a judgement.

If we don't like a doctrine at a lower level, we may not sin in departing from it, but it still has a censure attached to it and at this level it is unsafe to depart from it.


This leads us back to the denial of authority.

Until the authority amends that doctrine, we are stuck with it and need proceed accordingly.

So when you say 'non serviam' be very, very careful!

P^3

Post Script: It is important to remember that the doctrine of the acceptance of the Pope establishes and infallible dogmatic fact also rests on the general opinion of theologians. So ... it one falls, the authority of the others are at risk of falling like a house of cards.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/how-to-deal-with-our-feelings-of-betrayal-bitterness-sorrow-and-

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/how-lay-people-preaching-can-help-the-church-through-current-crisisdoubt