It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:52 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
 Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents (in Latin)
  1. On liberalism (Mirari Vos) by Pope Gregory XVI
  2. On current errors (Quanta Cura) by Pope Pius IX
    1. Cf., e.g., §3 of this encyclical to §2 of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ.
    2. Vide also 6. below.
    Syllabus of errors by Pope Pius IX
    1. Cf. condemned propositions 15 and 77-79 to Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ.
    2. Vide also 6. below and
    3. Brian Mullady, O.P. (1994). "Religious Freedom: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Development?". The Thomist 58: 93-108.
    On government authority (Diuturnum Illud) by Pope Leo XIII
  3. On Freemasonry and Naturalism (Humanum Genus) by Pope Leo XIII
    1. Pope Leo XIII highly recommended Msgr. George F. Dillon's book on this subject: Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (a.k.a. War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization).
    2. Vide also The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita by John Vennari.
    On the nature of true liberty (Libertas Praestantissimum) by Pope Leo XIII
    1. Vide also "Religious Liberty & Vatican II" by Michael Davies and
    2. John R. T. Lamont (2008). "Determining the Content and Degree of Authority of Church Teachings". The Thomist 72: 371-407.
    On the condition of the working classes (Rerum Novarum) by Pope Leo XIII
    1. Vide also the Distributist Review.
    On Christian democracy (Graves de Communi Re) by Pope Leo XIII
  4. Syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists (Lamentabili Sane) by Pope St. Pius X
  5. On Modernism (Pascendi Dominici Gregis) by Pope St. Pius X
  6. Our Apostolic Mandate (On the "Sillon") by Pope St. Pius X
  7. The oath against Modernism by Pope St. Pius X
    1. Introduction to the Oath, Sacrorum antistitum (in Latin)
  8. On the Feast of Christ the King (Quas Primas) by Pope Pius XI
  9. On fostering true religious unity (Mortalium Animos) by Pope Pius XI
  10. On atheistic communism (Divini Redemptoris) by Pope Pius XI
  11. On certain false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine (Humani Generis) by Pope Pius XII.
    1. Vide also "The structure of the encyclical 'Humani Generis'" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.,
    2. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Æterni Patris (in Latin here) on the restoration of Christian philosophy, and
    3. Greenstock, David L., T.O.P., "Thomism and the New Theology," The Thomist, 13 (1950) p. 567.

The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II)
Vatican II was not entirely infallible because it "ha evitato di pronunciare in modo straordinario dogmi dotati della nota di infallibilità [avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way (new) dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility]" (Pope Paul VI audience, 12 January 1966) and "In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so," which it never did (Council's General Secretary, 16 November 1964).

For more information on the Novus Ordo Mass, read: Dr. James Lothian (2000 October). "Mass of Paul VI: The Record After Thirty Years". Homiletics & Pastoral Review (1): 26-31.


source

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:37 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
Geremia wrote:
Vatican II was not entirely infallible because it "ha evitato di pronunciare in modo straordinario dogmi dotati della nota di infallibilità [avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way (new) dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility]" (Pope Paul VI audience, 12 January 1966) and "In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so," which it never did (Council's General Secretary, 16 November 1964).


This doesn't cover the case.

Firstly, in the official notification of the Council, attached to Lumen Gentium, the above is followed by, "Other matters that the Sacred Synod proposes as being the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church must be received and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful in accordance with the intentions of the Sacred Synod itself, manifested either by the subject matter or by the manner of expression, according to the norms of theological interpretation."

Paul VI said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

He also explained, in his letter of 21st September 1966 to Cardinal Pizzardo on this subject, that the teaching of Vatican II on matters of faith and morals “constitutes a proximate and universal norm of truth, from which it is never lawful for theologians to depart…”

Now according to the traditional doctrine found in the theology manuals prior to V2 (i.e. "the norms of theological interpretation"), the above texts can only mean one thing - Vatican II did not solemnly define any dogmas, but it definitely contained infallible teaching.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Thomism and the New Theology
Geremia wrote:
Greenstock, David L., T.O.P., "Thomism and the New Theology," The Thomist, 13 (1950) p. 567.
Greenstock's article is very good. Read at least this quote from it on theological conclusions (transcribed courtesy "Don Paco" of Ite ad Thomam):
Quote:
St. Thomas’ view of this problem of the relationship between faith and reason which gives rise to the science of theology was both deep and clear and is admirably set out and defended by John of St. Thomas. Theology is a true science, indeed it is the most noble of the sciences worthy in every way of the name of sapientia. The principles upon which it relies in its evolution and in its investigations are those divine facts which have been revealed by God. However, as a science, those divinely revealed principles do not form its proper object, that is the role of the conclusions which are drawn from them with the help of human reason. Such a statement, which seems so clear to us now, was a real revolution when it was first made. The object of the science of theology is the theological conclusion strictly so called. Now, in order to deduce these conclusions from revealed truth there is need of a fitting instrument with which to work. Sometimes this instrument takes the form of another revealed truth, while at other times it is a truth which is known to human reason by its own unaided efforts. Now, obviously, the minor premise which contains another revealed truth will have far greater influence on the conclusion than one which contains a truth known to human reason alone. But, and here is the crux of the whole question, even though the human truth occupies an inferior position, that of a mere instrument, the revealed truth in the major premise does exercise a great influence on that human instrument. That is why St. Thomas speaks of these natural truths which are so used in theology as that “handmaidens” of that science, in the sense that theology, as a true science, makes use of these human truths for its major purpose, which is to explain revealed truth in human language, so far as that is possible.

The position of the new theologians is very different from that of Aquinas. Their idea is that theological reasoning consists in using revealed truth in order to draw out of the full latent content contained in human truths--the contrary, in fact of the Thomist position. This is a logical conclusion which follows from their vitalistic attitude towards truth and especially from their statements that the theological conclusion strictly so called has little or no value. It also follows from their teaching with regard to the evolution, necessarily connected with contemporary history, through which theology must pass if it is to remain alive and to play an effective part in the modern world. As one of the partisans of the new theology expresses it, “L’histoire manifeste donc a la fois la relativite des notions, des schemes ou la theologie et, en mem temps, offer aux regards de la foi l’affirmation absolue, la Parole divine qui s’y est incarnee.” (Henri Bouillard) Thus, human reasoning, which changes according to the dictates of its historical evolution and the necessities of the times, uses the permanent element, which is divine truth, as an instrument to develop and present its latent content.

Thus the central problem which confronts us here is quite simply one of two contrary ways of considering the relation between revelation and reason. Either reason is the instrument in the development of revealed truth or the revealed truth is the instrument of reason. It is our opinion that, unless the fact which we have mentioned before–of the great influence of the revealed truths on the natural truth which is used as an instrument in their full development–is understood and clearly brought to light, then this fundamental error in the new theology will never be completely overcome. For that reason it is useful to notice that the same conclusion could have been reached by a consideration of the role of the middle term in the theological syllogism, which in one case–that of the major premise–is a revealed truth, and in the other minor premise, a truth of human reason. In order that this middle term in the minor premise may have exactly the same sense as that which it has in the major premise, thus avoiding four terms in the syllogism, it must of necessity have the “approval,” as it were, of the revealed truth. If we examine it carefully we shall see that it is just this approval which gives to the theological conclusion its full force as an element in the expression of divine revelation which also brings to light the role of human truth as an instrument in theology.

We know that, according to St. Thomas, the instrument has a double activity, i.e., its own, which is attributed to its personal activity in the forming of the effect, and also another power which it receives from that cause which uses it as an instrument. Thus, in the theological conclusion we are not dealing with a series of probabilities, but with strict conclusions in the form of judgments which correspond to the ontological truth virtually contained in the revealed principles. This doctrine has been very clearly expressed by John of St. Thomas, when he said:
Quote:
Praemissa naturalis consideratur dupliciter. Primo secundum quod praecise naturalis est, et sic ex hac parte non concurrit nisi ministerialiter…Alio modo consideratur praemissa naturalis ut conjuncta praemissae supernaturali de fide, scilicet ut ab ea elevator quia approbatur et corrigitur ab ipsa et eius certitudinem participat: et hoc modo etiam praemissa naturalis concurrit non principaliter, et per se, sed sub altiori lumine. (Cusus Theologicus, I, q. 1, a. 6.)
From all these various angles we reach one and the same conclusion, namely that it is the truth of faith which plays the active part in the theological process of reasoning, using the natural truth to develop the latent content in revelation, and using it as a strict instrument in the Thomist sense of that word. For this reason those theological conclusions are more certain than any merely natural truth could ever be, because they are reduced, in their final analysis, to a higher principle than natural reason, one which is supernatural and divine, which colours all that is human in the theological process, giving it a new and a supernatural value. It is this divine element in theology which unifies everything, even speculative and the practical aspects of it. Because the new theology has failed to appreciate this truth with regard to the theological conclusion it has also failed to realize the role of the merely human truth as an instrument of faith.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:18 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
Utterly brilliant, Alan, thank you for posting it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
John Lane wrote:
Utterly brilliant, Alan, thank you for posting it.
Yes, it is, isn't it? I originally found out about it in John Vennari's "Short Catechism on the New Theology," which also cites Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's excellent "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" and Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought as well as Sì Sì No No's excellent 9-part series "They Think They've Won". He also cites Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement by Cardinal Siri and Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There by Bishop Aloysius Wycislo, neither of which I have heard of nor read. Have you? Thanks

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:12 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
Alan Aversa wrote:
He also cites Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement by Cardinal Siri and Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There by Bishop Aloysius Wycislo, neither of which I have heard of nor read. Have you? Thanks


No, I've heard of neither. Let us know if you read them and think they're really valuable.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Religious Freedom: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Development?
What do you all think of this quote from the article quoted above?
Quote:
the religious freedom condemned in the Syllabus of Errors refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the intellect, or freedom respecting the truth; whereas the freedom of religion guaranteed and encouraged by Dignitatis Humanae refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the will in morals. In other words, those who see in these different expressions a change in teaching are committing the fallacy of univocity of terms in logic. The terms "freedom" refer to two very different acts of the soul.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:17 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
Well, two thoughts, briefly.

One, if that was what was meant, why was it not expressed in clear terms? Why did we have to wait so many years to find out what 2500 men were thinking when they carefully and solemnly prepared and promulgated a text? In other words, this is fathering an interpretation on the fathers of the council.

Two, whatever is in view in any doctrinal text in terms of content, it addresses both intellect and will because it directs itself to human acts, even when those human acts are purely acts of belief. For example, when the Church lays down that we are to believe in the Trinity, she demands that we conform our intellect to that truth and that we make acts of faith in it and that we profess it outwardly when appropriate. Likewise, the Church demands that we reject the doctrine that the best condition of society is one in which there is no state religion. Rather, she demands that we believe and profess that Our Lord Jesus Christ has an absolute right to be recognised and worshiped by the state. She demands that we believe that all men have a duty to seek the truth and to adhere to it when they find it, and that the truth is preached by the Catholic Church. She teaches that all rights are correlatives of duties. Therefore the rights men have in relation to religion are all ordered to the seeking and maintaining of the true religion. She recognises no "right" to maintain error, a condition which may only, for proportionate reason, be tolerated as an evil. These truths touch both intellect and will, in every case. It is difficult to see how there could be real distinction of the nature put by this writer.

What he is saying is that if I believe mistakenly that a man seen through a mist is a wild animal, I have a right to shoot him. This is nonsensical. My error does not confer, or condition, my rights, except insofar as it disorders the act and dissolves my rights. If rights arise only from duties, then they only truly exist when I am objectively and truly performing my duties. That is what they are ordered to, that is what they exist for. They have no meaning out of that context. To pretend that they do is merely sophism, in the full sense of that term.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Popes against modern errors : 16 papal documents
John Lane wrote:
Two, whatever is in view in any doctrinal text in terms of content, it addresses both intellect and will because it directs itself to human acts, even when those human acts are purely acts of belief. For example, when the Church lays down that we are to believe in the Trinity, she demands that we conform our intellect to that truth and that we make acts of faith in it and that we profess it outwardly when appropriate. Likewise, the Church demands that we reject the doctrine that the best condition of society is one in which there is no state religion. Rather, she demands that we believe and profess that Our Lord Jesus Christ has an absolute right to be recognised and worshiped by the state. She demands that we believe that all men have a duty to seek the truth and to adhere to it when they find it, and that the truth is preached by the Catholic Church. She teaches that all rights are correlatives of duties. Therefore the rights men have in relation to religion are all ordered to the seeking and maintaining of the true religion. She recognises no "right" to maintain error, a condition which may only, for proportionate reason, be tolerated as an evil. These truths touch both intellect and will, in every case.
Yes, the intellect presents the will with its object, the good.
John Lane wrote:
It is difficult to see how there could be real distinction of the nature put by this writer.

What he is saying is that if I believe mistakenly that a man seen through a mist is a wild animal, I have a right to shoot him. This is nonsensical. My error does not confer, or condition, my rights, except insofar as it disorders the act and dissolves my rights. If rights arise only from duties, then they only truly exist when I am objectively and truly performing my duties. That is what they are ordered to, that is what they exist for. They have no meaning out of that context. To pretend that they do is merely sophism, in the full sense of that term.
Yes, that's true. One does not have a right just because one is in error.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:07 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.