Support This Website! Shop Here!

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Schismatics Teach the Pope

Differences in admonitions 

directed towards 

Pope John XXII (1333) 

vs Pope Francis (2017)

Pope John XXII (1333)
Pope Francis (2017)
Teaching being debated
Not formally defined (a question concerning the Beatific Vision)
Formally defined (the status of married persons)
In reference to what papal statements?
A few private sermons made both before and after the papal coronation
An apostolic exhortation
Public Papal statement regarding the controversy
Pope said theologians were free to disagree with him, as the teaching was not formally defined
Theologians summoned to meet by?
King Philip VI of France
No one
Under whose direction did the group meet?
Dominican patriarch of Jerusalem
No one 
Who created the document?
No one of particular note or unusual standing
In whose presence did the theologians meet?
Kings, bishops and priests
No one of particular note or unusual standing
Document contained?
Profession of faith
No profession of faith
What did the theologians ask the Pope for?
Apostolic sanction to their decision
Nothing. They don’t ask for apostolic sanction of their assertions. 

In fact, quite the opposite: they claim to teach the Pope.


Confitebor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Confitebor said...

Oh looky! The fallacies of ad hominem, straw man, and red herring in convenient chart form!

First, you calumniate the Catholic signatories of the Filial Correction. Not a single one of them is schismatic nor even excommunicated. They explicitly acknowledge the Pope's authority and address him as his children (even as St. Catherine of Siena corrected the pope even though she had no magisterial authority and wasn't a theologian).

Second, Amoris Laetitia is not a papal encyclical, but thankfully is a less authoritative instrument of papal magisterium, a mere apostolic exhortation -- not a document by which the Church teaches definitively or issues juridically binding decrees.

Third, it's far from the whole story to say that Pope John XXII said theologians were free to disagree with him as the teaching was not formally defined. To begin with, in the face of the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the sensus fidelium, John XXII prior to being pope advanced his erroneous pet theory in a public treatise, and then as pope began to preach his error in his sermons and sent a Dominican and the General of the Minorite Order to the University of Paris to try to convince the faithful to come over to his erroneous opinion. That's when the faithful began to push back against the pope, and only then did the pope assert that because he had not yet definitively ruled on this matter everyone was free to make up their own minds. But the faithful weren't content with that partial retreat, because they knew that this couldn't possibly be an open question. And so the French king called on the best theologians of Christendom to school the pope, which in turn got him to back down and to recant his error -- and after his death his successor immediately issued an infallible definition classing John XXII's former opinion as heresy to prevent anyone else from trying any more of the funny business John XXII had attempted. John XXII's error and his attempts to spread it are analogous to Pope Francis' actions at his rigged extraordinary synods and his directing that scandalous recommendations that the bishops had rejected be included in the synod's Relatio, followed by his further statements indicating how his apostolic exhortation is to be interpreted and applied.

Fourth, the comparison of Philip VI's commission to the persons of the Correction's preparers and signatories is not relevant. Catholic monarchies and Catholic universities are virtually extinct today. What matters is whether or not the substance and arguments and evidence of the Filial Correction are true or false. Address that, not the persons of the clergy and lay theologians who wrote and signed the Correction. There is neither canon nor any law whether natural or divine that forbids or reprobates the Filial Correction.

Fifth, the Filial Correction does indeed ask, even urge, the pope's sanction. Both they and the theologians who corrected Pope John XXII claimed and exercised their God-given right and duty to teach the pope when the Truth was at stake, when the one whose duty it is to strengthen the brethren had not attempted to sanctify the Apostolic See with the teaching of Apostolic Tradition. You are right about one important matter, though -- John XXII's error involved a matter that the Church had never had any need to define before, since until his day no one had dared to deny the Church's beliefs, whereas in our day we have settled and defined doctrines of the greatest importance that are being denied or ignored or questioned. I for one can only wonder what has taken so long for the faithful to voice their filial plaint to their spiritual Father.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Reply to First: National Catholic Register reports Bishop Fellay signed ex post facto. Fellay is an SSPX schismatic (but I repeat myself).

Reply to Second: True, it is an apostolic exhortation. Thank you for the correction on that point. But, just as the Pope is the Pope regardless of whether he is in the Popemobile or a VW Beetle, so an infallible teaching is infallible, regardless of what vehicle carries the teaching. If you were correct, then the signatories would be condemned from your own mouth, as they would be taking unnecessary scandal from a non-Magisterial instrument.

In the same vein, St. Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church. The bozos who comprise the signatories are most assuredly not.

Reply to the Third: " only then did the pope assert that because he had not yet definitively ruled on this matter everyone was free to make up their own minds." You admit my point. Thanks.

Reply to the Fourth: Correct, Catholic monarchies and Catholic universities - specifically, the enormous theological weight carried by the opinion of the theologians of the University of Paris - have no modern counterpart. Yet the signatories attempt to cloak themselves in that ancient, missing gravitas by explicitly comparing their own drivel to that of the statements of 1333. If I were trying to defend the 2017 jackals, I would imitate you in pretending their explicit comparison was not relevant to the discussion.

Reply to the Fifth: No evidence has yet been brought forward that Pope Francis has mis-taught on any matter of doctrine. You and those whom you defend have so far simply demonstrated no capacity to understand the doctrine you pretend to defend.

Dawn Eden Goldstein said...

Brilliant, Steve. Thank you.

Confitebor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Confitebor said...

First: The Church does not say that Bishop Fellay is schismatic. He merely heads a priestly fraternity that has not yet been re-recognised by the Church following the remission of Bishop Fellay's excommunication. In any case, he only signed the Filial Correction after it was delivered to the pope last month, and had nothing to do with its composition. Both as a bishop and simply as a Catholic he has every right and duty to support the FC. Not a single schismatic is involved with the FC, only Catholics.

Second: AL being an apostolic exhortation only is not an exercise of extraordinary papal magisterium, so there's no question of the fallibility of the counsel and opinions the pope expressed in it. Also, St. Catherine was not a Doctor of the Church when she corrected the pope.

Third: No, I showed that your point doesn't mean what you think it means.

Fourth: Address the substance of the FC, not the persons who wrote and signed it. If it's really drivel, neither you nor anyone else should have trouble showing that it is.

Fifth: I disagree -- the FC seems chock full of evidence. Engage with it.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Confitebor, thank you for illustrating your ignorance.

First, Lefebvre was explicitly declared schismatic for ordaining Fellay. While the declaration may have been lifted out of mercy, both were objectively and explicitly schismatic by the act.

Second, you apparently are unfamiliar with the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. Further, St. Catherine was declared Doctor based on her life. Your argument is as nonsensical as saying that since she wasn't declared a saint until after she was dead, she was not a saint during her life.

Third. ROTFL

Fourth, there is no substance to address

Fifth, your invincible ignorance cannot, by definition, be corrected by me.

However, I very much DO thank you for demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what is going on.