What Can the Virtue of Faith have to do with the Roman Pontiff? Here is What St. Thomas Aquinas Says.
|The Harrowing of Hades|
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 1, Art. 10: Whether It Belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff to Draw Up a Symbol of Faith?
Respondeo: A new edition of the symbol [creed] becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred....Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke xxii. 32): I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. The reason for this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthian I. 10: That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently, it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.
Dr. Chojnowski: What was a common place for St. Thomas Aquinas has slipped out of the minds of the typical "Catholic" in 2019...and for a long time before that. NO ONE establishes their faith on the daily statements, official or unofficial, of Francis. We certainly, obviously, do not attain the necessary unity that characterizes the Catholic Church --- even in the eyes of the world -- by accepting what he says and making it a rule of faith. We have adopted a Gallican --- at best --- or outright Protestant attitude ---- actually --- with regard to anything having to do with Francis. Not even the most devoted Novus Ordo adherent accepts Francis as the Living Rule of Faith. They either spend all of their time trying to figure out how in the world such things could come out of the mouth of a pope (i.e., the right-wing of those comfortable with the Liberal System) or just accepting the spirit of his statements, which is fine, because it fits in with their general, received, outlook on the world and religion anyways (i.e., left-wing of those comfortable with the Liberal System).
For the "traditionalists" among us, NO ONE SAYS, "PHEW! FRANCIS HAS SPOKEN ON AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES US, NOW WE MAY HOLD FIRMLY TO HIS DECISION AND KNOW THAT WE ARE IN THE TRUTH." No one does this. No one. If you are a Modernist you reject dogmatically the existence of objective truth, and if you are not, you ASSUME that if Francis said it it is either laughable, ridiculously peculiar, or something despicable and non-Catholic. Do Protestant treat Francis with as much distain and dismissal as many, many "Catholics" do? Maybe we should dedicate ourselves, during this Easter season, to keeping the "Catholic" in our "traditional Catholic" stance towards the evil Liberal System by remembering that Peter was the greatest gift by Our Risen Lord to his flock on earth. Because "being with Peter" was THE standard by which we would judge if we were "with Christ." We can live and die without access to confession or holy communion, but we cannot live and die without possessing, either implicitly or explicitly, the FAITH OF PETER. If we identify a man as Peter and immediately reject everything that he says, or even the most important things that he says, along with dubbing his doctrine as "heresy," I think we have a problem. Why? Because if we do this, we are no longer Catholic. Check your St. Thomas!
"If we identify a man as Peter and immediately reject everything that he says, or even the most important things that he says, along with dubbing his doctrine as 'heresy'... we are no longer Catholic." That is 100% true!ReplyDelete
So then it should be stated unequivocally that Francis is an Antipope?ReplyDelete
"For the "traditionalists" among us, NO ONE SAYS, "PHEW! FRANCIS HAS SPOKEN ON AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES US, NOW WE MAY HOLD FIRMLY TO HIS DECISION AND KNOW THAT WE ARE IN THE TRUTH.”"ReplyDelete
But that’s only because, all the conciliar popes have ignored the popes who have spoken before them who did unite us in the truth. Instead they say things that are the opposite of their predecessors in the Chair of Peter. It’s because and only because the popes have spoken that we can call the councilor popes heretics and withdraw obedience and reverence from them. If a pope taught contrary St. Thomas Aquinas, but not contrary to one of his predecessors (popes), we could not call him a heretic or withdraw obedience or reverence from him. Peter has rejected the faith of Peter, and we are simply saying "what’s up with that?"! We keep the faith of Peter by adhering to the magisterium of Puis XI.
Pope Pius XII contradicted his predecessor who said in an encyclical that we must believe the literal meaning of Genesis unless science proves otherwise. But Pope Pius XII gave us permission to believe that God created earth through the process of macro evolution without it having to be first proven beyond reasonable doubt by science!
I don’t believe you are correct to conclude traditional Catholics have a Protestant attitude, nor is Louie Verrecchio correct in concluding we have become like the Protestants.
St. Ignatius of Loyola in his discernment of spirits says the devil flip flops his strategy against our individual souls and we can see he does the same against Holy Mother Church. The devil throws the Arian heresy at the Church and St. Athanatius responded with a justified “individual arbiter" reaction. The devil throws the Protestant heresy at the Church with Luther engaging in an unjustified “individual arbiter" action. The devil throws the modernist heresy at the Church and no one wants to respond with an "individual arbiter” reaction, because they think it’s a Protestant thing!
Or we simple say the devil will tell the truth if he can use it to deceive. So “individual arbiter” as an attribute, like truth as a divine attribute, can be used either for good or for evil.
It seems obvious that you've been going to Mass at SSPX (or Resistance) for quite some time. You have adopted all their reasoning, perhaps without even noticing. You have been faithfully reading their literature and listening to their views on "Modernism", speaking to their priests, etc. What about the catechism which says that the Catholic Church is indefectible? That the Pope cannot err in faith or morals in his teachings? What about the fact that you yourself contradict St Thomas Aquinas, again perhaps unknowingly, who said that the Catholic Church can NEVER teach anything substantially different from what it always taught. Try applying it to Pope Francis who says that the Lutherans have the "true faith of Jesus Christ". Then ask yourself if the SSPX, once set up to be a haven for traditionalists, could now be helping to destroy Catholic beliefs.Delete
As pope Benedict XVI has declared that there is a harmonic of continuity without proving it, you declare the Church has defected unless we have no pope, without proving your case. In imitation of Satan the accuser, you accuse me of contradicting St. Thomas Aquinas without knowing it, yet you show us not how I contradict him. Where have I ever said the Catholic Church has taught something different then it always taught? What if the election of Francis is not valid? Why do you thirst for blood more then you thirst for knowledge and truth? Is that how you want to represent the sedevacantists? The pharisees thirsted for blood in the questions they asked Jesus, the apostles sometimes asked even dumber questions, per say. Even if you could prove that I contradicted St. Thomas, you would not get your picture on the cover of the rolling stone! Kill a chicken drink it’s blood, and then have a civil discussion online! If believing God created the world through the process of evolution is substantially different then believing we must believe the literal meaning of Genesis unless science proves it’s not literal, than you have no right to believe Pope Pius XII was a pope or follow his jurisdiction!Delete
Anonymous 8:12 PM, Dr. Chojnowski's observation that Catholics are becoming like Protestants is absolutely correct. Do you know that Modernism is a development of Protestantism? The individual Modernist will take doctrines of faith and morals and interpret them according to his own ideas and tastes. Like the Protestants, the Modernist believes in a right to private interpretation of doctrine and the Bible. It isn't only the liberal "Catholics" that are Modernists; those who call themselves the "Recognize and Resist" and the "Resistance" are Modernists too.Delete
Also, the "Popes" from whom we are withdrawing obedience cannot be real popes. That's why we're able to withdraw obedience in the first place. If a "pope" rejects or doubts any article of faith determined by the authority of the Catholic Church, then he is no longer head of the Church. By his own act (of heresy) he is no longer pope. It is reality. It's the only position that agrees with Sacred Scripture and with Vatican I's defined teachings on the papal primacy. The other positions, including the SSPX's, are *not* Catholic.
"...you declare the Church has defected unless we have no pope, without proving your case..." Please do some research. Look at what Pope Francis teaches, and his meetings with the Muslims and Jews and his celebration of the Protestant reformation, his proclamation that Luther was right about his heresy, his "Dio non esiste" remarks, etc. Then decide if "the Church" teaches Catholicism or not? The true Church still does. Is the Church in Rome the true Church or is it not? The Catholic Church will not stop teaching the truth and start teaching error. It's impossible. I will pray for you. I didn't mean to offend you.Delete
Anonymous 3:35 PM, you asked one of the other commenters for proof that you contradicted St. Thomas Aquinas. You asked, "Where have I ever said the Catholic Church has taught something different then (sic) it always taught?"Delete
Here is the proof that you did indeed say it. (Not sure how you can forget where you stand.) I'm copying and pasting it from your own post on April 22, 8:12 PM.
"...all the conciliar popes have ignored the popes who have spoken before them... Instead they say things that are the opposite of their predecessors in the Chair of Peter... we can call the councilor popes heretics and withdraw obedience and reverence from them... Peter has rejected the faith of Peter... Pope Pius XII contradicted his predecessor"... Sorry, but these are your very own words. Also, maybe you're the one that needs to learn how to have a nice, civil discussion online.
Resistance, your comment regarding Pope Pius XII was false and defamatory. You said:Delete
"Pope Pius XII contradicted his predecessor who said in an encyclical that we must believe the literal meaning of Genesis unless science proves otherwise. But Pope Pius XII gave us permission to believe that God created earth through the process of macro evolution without it having to be first proven beyond reasonable doubt by science!"
You were wrong, Resistance, it was not Pope Pius XII who was guilty of your accusations. Please, read his Encyclical, Humani Generis. Also, read what "Pope" John Paul II taught regarding Evolution. Either your research was sloppy, or if not, then we must assume that you lie in order to promote your agenda.
"...and if you are not [a Modernist], you ASSUME that if Francis said it it is either laughable, ridiculously peculiar, or something despicable and non-Catholic."ReplyDelete
Usually, yes - but a mixture of truth and error is also very much part of Francis' playbook. The way this works, is that during any given Francis missive he (small "h") throws in some truth along the way to cover up his heretical/blasphemous/ridiculous blathering. This way his conservative novus ordite and R&R dupes can seize upon the truthful part of his ravings and say, "See, he is Catholic!" The orthodox statements made by Francis are designed to keep his dupes hanging on in the hope that he'll start to be completely orthodox. Fat chance.
Dr Chojnowski why don't You say anything about infability of pope did You forget? Ot conclusion would be different?ReplyDelete
Anonymous 3:26 AM, you wanted to know about papal infallibility in relation to a heretic "pope"? Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati answered your question succinctly in a conference after his return from Vatican Council I : "If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." (Abp. John B. Purcell quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII; Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903. p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago.)Delete
If you are referring to infallibility, then that is exactly what Dr Chojnowski is talking about! Read it again! And also read Vatican I which infallibly declared synods to be infallible.Delete
"Read it again! And also read Vatican I which infallibly declared synods to be infallible."Delete
"They condemned the synod and stigmatized eighty-five of its propositions as erroneous and dangerous." That is the Synod of Pistoia
There must be some fine print in Vatican I you are failing to read!?! Post the "anathema" or the "we declare phrase" from Vatican I.
We are speaking of the authority of the Pope here. Of course, if there is a so-called synod that has been condemned by a true Pope of the Catholic Church at the time it was held, such as Pistoia, then it is not to be recognised as valid. If we do not clarify that we are speaking of synods approved by true Popes then perhaps we will become like a cat chasing its tail. I thought it obvious that we are speaking of synods convened and approved by true popes. To be infallible it has to be approved by a true pope and not disapproved by him. If it is approved by a true Pope then it does NOT contain any error against faith or morals. "Synods" (chapters?) called privately outside the jurisdiction of the Holy Father with an aim to oppose Papal authority are absolutely dangerous. Wake up SSPX.Delete
I nearly forgot to post the anathema that you asked me for. There are probably quite a few, but this one perhaps suits best:Delete
Chapter 3. No. 9. So, then, if anyone says the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
I'm so glad you mentioned Pistoia as I have just done some further reading to refresh my memory on this. If you get a hold of a the pre-Vatican II Catholic encyclopaedia, also available online at newadvent.org, you will see an article on Auctorem Fidei, the Bull issued by Pope Pius VI that condemned this synod. It condemned it for Gallican and Jansenistic acts and tendencies. It was initiated by the Grand Duke of Tuscany. It is not teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church so it is not "proof" that the Magisterium can err. [The Catholic Magisterium can never err on faith and morals.] It's strange that the priests' who give this quote this accept a Gallican tendency themselves by disobeying the Pope whenever they think he is "wrong". I have been given this quote by a Resistance priest also in the past who even thinks that the pope's canon law is wrong. But I ask, how could a sincere priest give as an example something condemned by the Church (such as Pistoia) as if it was taught by the Church? He is making a prey of people's ignorance. The same priest likes to quote documents in Latin because he believes the faithful will never be able to argue with that. Unfortunately, for him some of us do look things up and can understand Latin. I think the warning to all of us is, don't recycle anything from a priest like that without first checking it yourself!Delete
By the way, Chapter 4, part 4 is on synods, but I encourage you to read the context. I only posted one of the anathemas from the end of the Council. Here is part of what is says on synods:Delete
4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.
God bless your quest for the truth.
Hopefully, Resistance is indeed on a quest for the truth. Maybe it would help if Resistance would answer a question:Delete
First of all, the Church infallibly teaches that the "supreme judge of the Church...the Pope himself is judged by nobody." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, "The Nature of the Papal Primacy", no. 2 c.).
Nobody means nobody: "The pope himself is judged by nobody."
Resistance, can you explain how you are not violating the doctrine on the nature of the Papal Primacy when you withdraw obedience and judge a man you believe is the true "Pope", the *supreme judge* of the Church? Please don't say that you're disobeying him because "he's rejecting what his predecessor ruled on, or because he's a heretic." We get that. But that doesn't answer the question. It's like saying, "My car broke down because it's not working."
It explains nothing.
I'm so glad you mentioned accessing "the Mass and the Sacraments", the most common excuse these days for rejecting Catholic truths or acceptance of those who do, as if they were in Communion with Catholics. Catholics have never been allowed to attend a Mass in union with a heretic or receive Communion from that Mass (as it is being in Communion with a heretic and therefore a sin). As far as I know there is an exception made for absolution for someone in danger of death who has no access to Catholic sacraments. No matter how good the Mass looks, if it is in union with the synthesis of all heresies in the Vatican AKA the whore of Babylon, it cannot be pleasing to God. Without this love of God and obedience to the laws of his Holy Church it will be "as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal". 1 Cor !3:1 and "Without (this) faith it is impossible to please God" Hebrews 11:6.ReplyDelete
The main problem with the SSPX/Recognize and Resist is the utter contempt they show towards St. Peter. How do they get away with a blatantly fallacious comparison between a heretic "Pope" and the Holy and Illustrious Apostle Peter? Paul resisted Peter to the face, therefore, they claim a heretic (or apostate) can be a true successor of St. Peter who can also be resisted to the face. Absolutely disgusting. No Catholic in his right mind would promote a doctrine that comes straight from the pit of hell.ReplyDelete
Peter's FAITH IN CHRIST was the reason why he was appointed by Christ as the support and foundation of His Church. However, for some strange reason, this is a truth that the SSPX/R+R can't seem to grasp. First of all, their position mocks Our Lord, "(Who) founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time."(De fide.) It also denies the nature of the Papal Primacy: "The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church." (De fide.)
The Gallicanist proposition: that a Pope's judgement is not final unless the consent of the Church be added was condemned by Vatican Council I. Therefore, Gallicanism (a.k.a Recognize and Resist) is a heresy. The SSPX know this but obviously don't care--as long as their dupes remain in the dark.
"Let them alone: they are blind and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." (Matt xv. 14)
If a pope ruled on something that his predecessor did not rule on, you would have an example of Gallicanism if the faithful rejected it. Here we have a pope rejecting that what his predecessor ruled on and the faithful are simply pointing that out. Sure it is a good question if partial obedience is needed once a predecessors rule has been breached. I argue in favor of a total withdrawal of obedience.Delete
Yes, exactly. As if Peter making a scandalous little mistake on protocol compares with a torrent of blasphemy spewing forth from the last 50 years from Paul VI Audience (snake) Hall.Delete
Anonymous 9:11 PM, it doesn't matter what you are in "favor of". What I wrote was not based on my own opinions. It is directly quoted from Catholic dogma. If you start interpreting the doctrines of faith and morals according to your own ideas and tastes, then you are a Modernist.Delete
Anonymous 9:11 PM., you're saying that the faithful are "simply pointing out" their "Pope's" heresy--which is ludicrous by the way. Then you contradict yourself: You're no longer "pointing out" something, but you're "in favor of a total withdrawal of obedience". You believe the heretic is a true Pope, yet argue that his judgment is not final unless the consent of the Church be added. This heresy (Gallicanism) was condemned by Vatican Council I. Whether you like it or not, your position is not Catholic. You can't dance around reality.Delete
An error of fact does not make one non-Catholic. You are sorely mistaken good doctor. Heretics deny in principle the rule of faith whereas catholics today struggle against particular men in authority who have deviated from that rule. St Thomas made proper distinctions. Being a thomist yourself I recommend you do the same.ReplyDelete
An error of fact may not make one non-Catholic, but what about creating a new rite of "Mass" and forbidding the old (tell the priests who were thrown out of their parishes and persecuted for 30+ years that it was "never abrogated")? Or publishing a new Code of Canon Law which allows non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist, amongst other things? Or solemnly teaching in an Ecumenical Council that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation and that they have a God-given right to publicly exercise their false doctrines and worship? Or that Catholic States must remove everything from their constitutions and laws that make Christ the King of their nations? Or allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion? Or for saying that there is no Catholic God, or "God does not exist"? Or it is the will of God that there are many religions? Are they still Catholic who say and do these things, for well over 50 years? Or does that still not establish "pertinacity"?Delete
One can only make so many distinctions. The R&R make distinctions upon distinctions and they end up accepting these heretics as Roman Pontiffs, but then make more distinctions to get them out of obeying them. For 40+ years. They are wrong on both counts. For a true Roman Pontiff cannot be a heretic, and Catholics cannot "resist" him.
You're doing the very thing that the op cited as rendering one non-Catholic. The only difference is that you wash your hands of them by opining that they must be non catholic. There's no real difference in method between you and me except you draw a conclusion that isn't really necessary. The fact that the op cites Thomas to show that catholics in controversy with authority are not really catholic is ridiculous. That's the question of fact that I referred to. You apparently don't know the difference between a question of fact versus a question of law.Delete
I completely agree with Librorum.Delete