V2, Excommunications, SPPX Deals: A Sermon

[PastorAeternus]

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/CommunArt.pdf

 

Finally, and most importantly, the Roman Catholic Church is joined in no way to bands of heretics and schismatics, for, as we have seen above, the three principles of the Church’s unity are faith, worship, and government. Should even one of these principles of unity be lacking between two churches, there is no ecclesiastical unity and no bond at all. There is not some “halfchurch” or partial unity or communion, any more than someone could be “a little pregnant” or “a little dead.” Substance does not admit of more and less, the way accidents do. One either is or is not pregnant, because either the new substantial form comes into the womb or it does not. One either is or is not dead, since the soul, the substantial form of the body either is or is not present in the body. Similarly a false church or religion either is or is not in communion with the Catholic Church, since communion means unity, which demands sameness in doctrine, worship, and government. But non-Catholic religions lack all of these things. ⁸² 

⁸² What I am stating here pertains to non-Catholic religions as bodies or communities. We have seen earlier, however, that individuals in these false religions, under certain circumstances, can belong to the Catholic Church by desire. In such a case, they adherence to the true Church by desire is in spite of their false religion, which is an obstacle to their adherence to the true Church and their salvation.[my emphasis]

 

So the big question is SO WHAT?  This appears to be a game of semantics on a matter of salvation. If sede’s believe that individuals can be saved IN their false religions; in other words, salvation without unity of faith, without unity of worship and without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, who cares if the same sede believes it is heresy to suggest that a partial-communion may exist with certain false churches?  

 

Hypocrisy, we know thy name.

[Catholicmilkman]

So while that person is united to the Church by his baptism, he is still not in the same situation yet as one who already professes the faith in its entirety and worships in visible unity with his bishop and the Roman Pontiff.

"Partial communion" is the term used to explain that deficient situation of baptized persons in good faith.

I believe that's quite wrong if we're taking about ecclesiastical communion, for such I believe are in real spiritual ecclesiastical communion with the Church. They're not just "united to the Church" but are Catholics, however inculpably ignorant, just like young Catholics who may not know much of the Faith. But that goes back to my conjecture that "partial communion" could be referring to their material state. Materially-speaking they are only partially practicing the Catholic Religion and hence in partial communion with the Church's intrinsic sacramental life. That is, they have Baptism but not Penance or Holy Commuion.

I think if one accepts the premise that they are all in good faith, the conclusion follows logically. I think the premise itself is debatable. It is definitely true that heresy and schism were spoken of in more general terms beforehand (good faith being considered the exception, not the rule), but I don't think presuming good faith (as wrong a decision as it may be) can be considered itself heretical.

Actually it would be sinful to not give the benefit of the doubt to those you don't even know intimately (and hey, Father, that includes our Holy Father). Sadly our fallen nature is inclined to rather think evil than good of others. We Christians are called to see Christ in others though, even especially our enemies.

[Catholicmilkman]

What I am stating here pertains to non-Catholic religions as bodies or communities. We have seen earlier, however, that individuals in these false religions, under certain circumstances, can belong to the Catholic Church by desire. In such a case, they adherence to the true Church by desire is in spite of their false religion, which is an obstacle to their adherence to the true Church and their salvation.[my emphasis]

So the big question is SO WHAT?  This appears to be a game of semantics on a matter of salvation. If sede’s believe that individuals can be saved IN their false religions; in other words, salvation without unity of faith, without unity of worship and without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, who cares if the same sede believes it is heresy to suggest that a partial-communion may exist with certain false churches?   

Hypocrisy, we know thy name.

The problem is that Fr. Sanborn forgets that such "non-Catholic religions as bodies or communities" have not real intrinsic nature as such. Only the Catholic Church is a intrinsic reality as a Church. Such objectively heretical/schismatic sects may be in ignorance as a whole. What then? Then it is whole sects which may belong to the Church, no?

[neel]

So the big question is SO WHAT?  This appears to be a game of semantics on a matter of salvation. If sede’s believe that individuals can be saved IN their false religions; in other words, salvation without unity of faith, without unity of worship and without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, who cares if the same sede believes it is heresy to suggest that a partial-communion may exist with certain false churches?  
 
Hypocrisy, we know thy name

Oh, come on PA, that's really pathetic.  No sede believes any of the things you said and I think you know it.

[SaintSebastian]

I believe that's quite wrong if we're taking about ecclesiastical communion, for such I believe are in real spiritual ecclesiastical communion with the Church. They're not just "united to the Church" but are Catholics, however inculpably ignorant, just like young Catholics who may not know much of the Faith.

Right, but as you said, there's still certain elements of that visible unity that are missing--that's what I think the "partial" relates too also.

Actually it would be sinful to not give the benefit of the doubt to those you don't even know intimately (and hey, Father, that includes our Holy Father). Sadly our fallen nature is inclined to rather think evil than good of others. We Christians are called to see Christ in others though, even especially our enemies.

Right, but the Magisterium before spoke in more general terms. Before, it might be said "Protestants are not in communion with the Church" while there was always the underlying acknowledgment that there are exceptions to this general statement for those in good faith. Of course as a practical matter of charity, as you said, we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt as none of us know for sure. I think what throws some people off is that more recent Magisterial texts, when explaining ecclesiology, incorporate this approach rather than making the more general statements of the past.

[PastorAeternus]

So the big question is SO WHAT? This appears to be a game of semantics on a matter of salvation. If sede’s believe that individuals can be saved IN their false religions; in other words, salvation without unity of faith, without unity of worship and without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, who cares if the same sede believes it is heresy to suggest that a partial-communion may exist with certain false churches?

Hypocrisy, we know thy name

Oh, come on PA, that's really pathetic. No sede believes any of the things you said and I think you know it.

Sure ... are you suggesting that I took the exact word-for-word citation out of context?  That is precisely what "they" (the majority) believe.      

[Caminus]

Fr. Cekada is correct insofar as asserting that the ecclesiological question is the principle concern.  Yet, even if I grant the aberrations of Ratzinger, et al., which I do, the matter most probably does not involve canonical heresy.  In it's positive assertions, it is a grave theological error in both the speculative and practical orders.  Negatively, there are also grave omissions.  These positive errors or negative omissions have destroyed Catholic doctrine no doubt.  The liturgy was perverted because of it, Catholics have lost their identity because of it and consequently the traditional acts which proceed from such knowledge and identity.  I cannot think of anything more erroneous than to call a public heretic, i.e. a protestant, a "brother in the Lord."  It is repugnant on several levels, yet such language is uncritically accepted everywhere in the Church today. 

But in reality, even the slightest non-heretical error can cause havoc in the mind and socially in the Church.  I think they are arguing principally from the effects of this error.  In the face of such destruction, they feel the need to censure it as heretical.  To get caught up in making judgments regarding the type of censure one could attach to such propositions, and consequently who remains Catholic and in office, it would be a better use of time to combat the error itself and simply adhere to tradition in all respects.   

[FatherCekada]

Caminus said:

Fr. Cekada is correct insofar as asserting that the ecclesiological question is the principle concern.  Yet, even if I grant the aberrations of Ratzinger, et al., which I do, the matter most probably does not involve canonical heresy.  In it's positive assertions, it is a grave theological error in both the speculative and practical orders.

Well, even if it is just a "grave theological error," the way it is taught meets the criteria for universal ordinary magisterium, which you are obliged to believe.

The new ecclesiology, for instance, is taught in the new Catechism, which John Paul II declared “a sure norm for teaching the faith,” “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine… to assist in the writing of new local catechisms… while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.”

The doctrine this Catechism contains is now taught by all bishops throughout the world — so it cannot be other than universal ordinary magisterium.

So if, positis ponendis, John Paul II was a true pope (a sede might say depositis deponendis…), you're obliged to believe the new ecclesiology.

But it is a real tar baby, and ruins the traditional theology of the Church.

[Caminus]

Caminus said:

Fr. Cekada is correct insofar as asserting that the ecclesiological question is the principle concern. Yet, even if I grant the aberrations of Ratzinger, et al., which I do, the matter most probably does not involve canonical heresy. In it's positive assertions, it is a grave theological error in both the speculative and practical orders.

Well, even if it is just a "grave theological error," the way it is taught meets the criteria for universal ordinary magisterium, which you are obliged to believe.

The new ecclesiology, for instance, is taught in the new Catechism, which John Paul II declared “a sure norm for teaching the faith,” “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine… to assist in the writing of new local catechisms… while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.”

The doctrine this Catechism contains is now taught by all bishops throughout the world — so it cannot be other than universal ordinary magisterium.

So if, positis ponendis, John Paul II was a true pope (a sede might say depositis deponendis…), you're obliged to believe the new ecclesiology.

But it is a real tar baby, and ruins the traditional theology of the Church.

I'm not obliged to adhere to a theological error, neither in its positive aspects nor negative omissions.  Similarly, I'm not obliged to recognize an evil law that is promulgated by the legislator.  The current situation simply stretches beyond the pre-conceived imagination.  Is it possible that almost all the bishops of the Church could adhere to a theological error?  Apparently it is -- behold the Will of God.  The difference between you and I is that you would censure it as canonical heresy whereas I recognize it as an error. 

Even if the ecclesiological error were judged to be a proposition that is proximate to heresy, a proposition that would be formulated in such a way that could easily induce some to censure it as heretical, it would still cause your position to collapse.  This uncertainty should give serious pause.  Do the ecclesiological errors directly deny a revealed truth defined by the Church to be believed with divine and catholic faith?  Or do they indirectly deny such an article due to logical remoteness?  I have never seen a sedevacantist deal with this question ex professo.   

In reference to Bishop Sanborn, his judgment cannot be trusted considering that he holds the sedevacantist opinion to be a theological conclusion.  Even if I grant the rectitude of his opinion, it most certainly does not and cannot rank among theological conclusions.  This fact casts doubt upon his judgment relating to the level of censure that ought to be attached to the current ecclesiological error.