It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:46 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
 Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magisterium 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magisterium
"Sancta Sedes Apostolica cui divinitus commissa est custodia depositi, et iniunctum munus ac officium pascendi universam Ecclesiam ad salutem animarum, potest sententias theologicas vel quatenus cum theologicis nectuntur praescribere ut sequendas vel proscribere ut non sequendas, non unice ex intentione definitiva sententia infallibiliter decidendi veritatem, sed etiam absque illa ex necessitate et intentione vel simpliciter vel pro determinatis adiunctis prospiciendi securitati [footnote] doctrinae catholicae (cf. Zaccaria Antifebronius vindicatus T. II. dissert. V. c. 2. n.1.). In huiusmodi declarationibus licet non sit doctrinae veritas infallibilis, quia hanc decidendi ex hypothesi non est intentio; est tamen infallibilis securitas. Securitatem dico tum obiectivam doctrinae declaratae (vel simpliciter vel pro talibus adiunctis), tum subiectivam quatenus omnibus tutum est eam amplecti, et tutum non est nec absque violatione debitae submissionis erga magisterium divinitus constitutum fieri potest, ut eam amplecti recusent."

Footnote: "Non coincidere haec duo, infallibilem veritatem et securitatem, manifestum est vel ex eo, quod secus nulla doctrina probabilis aut probabilior posset dici sana et secura."

Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, S.J. Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura. 3d ed. Romae, ex typographia polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, p. 127. (Caput II, Thesis XII, scholion I, principium VII)

Translation by James Larrabee:

"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."

In a footnote following "exercising care for the safety" he writes: "These two terms, 'infallible truth' and 'infallible safety' are not identical. This can be seen from the fact that otherwise, no doctrine which is 'probable' or 'more probable' could be said to be sound and safe."


Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Not sure what the holy Card. Franzelin was trying to say, since he said this in the era of when papal infallibility was defined, he no doubt was thinking about "infallibility"; how infallibility was essential in the Church.

Is he trying to say that when there is a doctrine proclaimed infallible, the magisterial can further developed this doctrine, as long as the doctrine itself does not change? Any development might just result in a pious belief and we can choose to accept the development and be considered safe?

I wish I knew what he would say about the crisis our generation is experiencing today!

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:44 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Dear Mryna,

It's pretty technical language and does presuppose knowledge of various theological terms and concepts. I'll try and paraphrase it and then apply it to our present circumstances.

The Holy Apostolic See can instruct the faithful to hold theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones), or forbid the faithful from holding certain theological opinions. The Holy See can do so either with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly, but also without that intention. In the latter case the Holy See would have the intention of exercising care for the safety of Catholic doctrine. In such a case, even though the faithful do not have the infallible assurance that the doctrine prescribed is true (precisely because the Holy See did not intend to make that judgement), nevertheless, there is infallible safety. This means that the doctrine so declared does not undermine any of the truths of the faith, and it also means that it is safe for all to embrace it. Further, this means that it is not safe for anybody to fail to embrace the doctrine. Finally, if anybody fails to embrace such a doctrine they commit a sin by refusing proper submission to the teaching authority of the Church.

In sum, we can trust Rome to keep us doctrinally safe, even when Rome is not deciding matters infallibly. Further, we are obliged under pain of sin to trust Rome to keep us safe in this way.

Notes on the present situation.

1. The usurpers in Rome, Paul VI, JP2, B16, abandoned the defence of the faith and no longer proscribe opinions except in rare cases, despite rampant unorthodoxy throughout the Church. This fact alone is a proof that they did not possess the charisms of the office of the papacy. It is the first duty of the pope to defend the faith. The mind of the Church in any case in which a pope was thought not to have done this when necessary can be seen from the few historical cases when this was perceived to have occurred. Pope Honorius is the clearest. The accusation against him as a result of not condemning a doctrine worthy of censure? Heresy.
2. The Holy Ghost, acting as the soul of the Church, gives her constant guidance. For this reason "He who hears you hears Me." For this reason we know that Jesus Christ teaches us through the Church. The doctrinal instructions of New Rome, from Vatican II to encyclicals to catechisms, are manifestly unsafe because in manifest contradiction to tradition. If New Rome were really Rome, this would be impossible.
3. Infallibility is not the only charism of doctrinal security. Those who argue that popes can teach error to the Church just so long as they do not attempt to define their errors infallibly are therefore wrong.

I would summarise this by pointing out that the essential note that divides traditional Catholics from everybody else is distrust of "rome". This is true of the priests of the SSPX, the faithful who attend SSPX chapels, and even in general the Indult attendees. This point can only really be seen by contrasting the proper attitude of a Catholic towards the Holy See with the habitual manner in which traditional Catholics view the Modernist Unholy See. The lack of docility is manifest. I ascribe this to the virtue of faith which, despite whatever concomitant errors may be present, acts in the soul of every Catholic. The grace which informs this virtue is incompatible with true submission to false teachers. Any attempt to treat a false shepherd as a true shepherd results in internal conflict and thereby destroys peace, rendering a docile submission impossible. Whatever submission is achieved, it is manifestly not that which is described by Cardinal Franzelin above. On the other hand, when somebody does violence to the virtue of faith by choosing obedience to heretics over their solemn duty to hold fast to the truth, he loses his faith.

Incidentally, even the Modernist "faithful" don't regard rome as Catholics traditionally and properly regard Rome. Docility and revolution are not compatible.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
John Lane wrote:
The mind of the Church in any case in which a pope was thought not to have done this when necessary can be seen from the few historical cases when this was perceived to have occurred. Pope Honorius is the clearest. The accusation against him as a result of not condemning a doctrine worthy of censure? Heresy.


John: I will have to dig out some references for you to read. Nonetheless, I must advise you that Rome has never accepted the so-called censure of Honorius I. That was a Greek calumny. One possible proof is that when the subject of Honorius' supposed heresy was brought up at Vatican Council I in opposition to the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope, it was totally rejected by Rome as being a valueless argument.

I have pointed you to the article on our website which addresses this issue in the past. Perhaps you have forgotten it. Here is a link to that article.

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

The primary proof in that article for the complete orthodoxy of Honorius I comes from St. Robert Bellarmine, and his "Controversarium De Summo Pontifice, Liber Quartus, De Potestate Spirituali, Caput XI, De Honorio I". This IS the Bellarmine Forum, is it not? :D

On page 102 of my copy of this book, there is a long footnote written by several known lights of the Church, including Dom. Gueranger of the monastry of Solesmes in support of and in further explanation of St. Robert's accusations against the Greeks, among other things.

I have this entire book of St. Robert's in Latin as an MS-Word file if you would like to have it.

Honorius I was NOT an heretic, nor had he ever inadequately condemned heresy, and he has NEVER been censured by Rome.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
I might add that the proof of the complete orthodoxy of Honorius I is, to me, further proof that the present usurpers of the Holy See cannot possibly be true popes....and never were from the day of their "elections".

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Not sure if this is very much related but there is a very good commentary of this passage of Franzelin made by Fenton in his "The Catholic Church and Salvation" commenting the Mystici Corporis of Pius XII (pages 85-95). IMO it is a very good argument against the Papacy of BXVI.

Fenton, after quoting this passage: “‘As you know very well, Venerable Brethren, from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have entrusted even those who do not belong to the visible structure of the Catholic Church to the heavenly protection and direction, solemnly asserting that, following the example of the Good Shepherd, We wanted nothing more than that they should have life and have it more abundantly. Begging the prayers of the entire Church, We wish to repeat Our solemn declaration in this encyclical letter in which We have praised the great and glorious Body of Christ, most affectionately inviting each and every one of them to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation. For even though they may be directed towards the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention, they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church” he then explains it and this is my resume:

Those who are not members of the Church cannot be secure about their eternal salvation, since as Pius XII says “they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church”.
In the other hand the members of the Church have a relative security about their eternal salvation.

Security is opposed to Certainty.

Major: That which gives security is proper of the Catholic Church.
Minor: Those things that are proper of the Catholic Church are her external bounds.
Ergo.

In other words the difference between a member and a non-member of the Catholic Church is the threefold external bound of unity.

1) Unitas Fidei or Infallibilitas in docendo: Intellectual infallibility.
The teaching of the Church may be infallible or not. In the first case we have an infallible truth and in the second one an infallible security (Franzelin, De Divina Traditione et Scriptura, Rome 1875, pages 127 and ff.)

“Thus in the field of the profession of the true Christian faith, the member of the Catholic Church has the indescribable important advantage of belonging to a society within which the revealed message of God is preserved, taught, and defended in such a way that the purity and the integrity of the faith is always protected” (page 92).

2) Unitas Regiminis or Infallibilitas in Agendo: Practical infallibility.
“It would be quite impossible for a man to lose his soul through the obedience to the legislation of the universal Church militant of the New Testament”.
Cf. Billot De Ecclesia Vol. 1, pages 477-82.

3) Unitas Communionis o Infallibilitas in Recipiendo:
“Most of those who are not members of the Church have not the benefit of any sacrament at all. The minority who are validly baptized do not usually have access to the Eucharist, or to the sacraments of penance, confirmation and extreme unction. And we must not forget that, even in those dissident communities in which a valid priesthood has been retained and in which, as a consequence, the members may receive the Eucharist, they are approaching the sacrament and the sacrifice under circumstances definitely and objectively opposed to the expressed will of God” (page 94).

So, I think the argument may be summed up as follow:

Major: it is proper of the Catholic Church to guarantee its members with the security of their eternal salvation.
Minor: he who follows BXVI cannot be secure of his salvation (the opposite is true).
Therefore he can´t be Pope.


Could be or I better go to sleep? :mrgreen:

Gute nacht

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
1. The usurpers in Rome, Paul VI, JP2, B16, abandoned the defence of the faith and no longer proscribe opinions except in rare cases, despite rampant unorthodoxy throughout the Church. This fact alone is a proof that they did not possess the charisms of the office of the papacy. It is the first duty of the pope to defend the faith. The mind of the Church in any case in which a pope was thought not to have done this when necessary can be seen from the few historical cases when this was perceived to have occurred. Pope Honorius is the clearest. The accusation against him as a result of not condemning a doctrine worthy of censure? Heresy.
2. The Holy Ghost, acting as the soul of the Church, gives her constant guidance. For this reason "He who hears you hears Me." For this reason we know that Jesus Christ teaches us through the Church. The doctrinal instructions of New Rome, from Vatican II to encyclicals to catechisms, are manifestly unsafe because in manifest contradiction to tradition. If New Rome were really Rome, this would be impossible.
3. Infallibility is not the only charism of doctrinal security. Those who argue that popes can teach error to the Church just so long as they do not attempt to define their errors infallibly are therefore wrong.

I would summarise this by pointing out that the essential note that divides traditional Catholics from everybody else is distrust of "rome". This is true of the priests of the SSPX, the faithful who attend SSPX chapels, and even in general the Indult attendees. This point can only really be seen by contrasting the proper attitude of a Catholic towards the Holy See with the habitual manner in which traditional Catholics view the Modernist Unholy See. The lack of docility is manifest. I ascribe this to the virtue of faith which, despite whatever concomitant errors may be present, acts in the soul of every Catholic. The grace which informs this virtue is incompatible with true submission to false teachers. Any attempt to treat a false shepherd as a true shepherd results in internal conflict and thereby destroys peace, rendering a docile submission impossible. Whatever submission is achieved, it is manifestly not that which is described by Cardinal Franzelin above. On the other hand, when somebody does violence to the virtue of faith by choosing obedience to heretics over their solemn duty to hold fast to the truth, he loses his faith.

Incidentally, even the Modernist "faithful" don't regard rome as Catholics traditionally and properly regard Rome. Docility and revolution are not compatible.


I think it may be worthwhile for readers on this forum to re-read and refresh their memory of the postings on here from a few years ago.

1. Read "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals" by Msgr. Fenton Parts I and II
Part I: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=779
Part II: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=781

2. Read "The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary Teaching of the Holy Father in View of the Humani generis." Fr. Benard viewtopic.php?f=2&t=764

Interestingly enough, Msgr. Fenton's essay directly uses Cardinal Franzelin's teaching as part of the framework for his explanation of the assent that Catholics must give to the Holy Father's ordinary teaching.

If Catholics do not clearly grasp the teaching of Cardinal Franzelin posted by John Lane above and also explained at length by Msgr. Fenton and Fr. Benard's excellent explanations of the assent which must be given to the Holy Father's infallible and non-infallible teaching, then they are gravely disadvantaged in being able to understand the events in the Church for the last 50 years and draw the appropriate Catholic response.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:17 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
For those that do not have the time to read the entire text of Msgr. Fenton and Fr. Benard from my last post, I think the following statement from Msgr. Fenton from the text of "The Doctrinal Authority of the Papal Encyclicals" sums up the point succinctly:

Quote:
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
boldfacing added.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=779

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:47 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Ken Gordon wrote:
Honorius I was NOT an heretic, nor had he ever inadequately condemned heresy, and he has NEVER been censured by Rome.


Yes, I know. That's why I worded the comments the way that I did. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:18 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Btw, Ken, that's an excellent article.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
John Lane wrote:
Btw, Ken, that's an excellent article.


Thank you, John. You're a good man.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Thank you John for stepping down the language a bit, now that you have expounded, it has jogged something I have read in my Catholic Almanac.
Quote:
“The Church is also infallible in her ORDINARY TEACHING AUTHORITY. This is exercised when doctrines are unanimously taught by the bishops of the world, in agreement with the teaching of the Bishop of Rome. It is likewise expressed in the official worship of the Church. In the common consent of the Fathers and theologians concerning a doctrine and, finally, in the unanimous belief or mind of the faithful.
This foregoing means of employing her solemn or ordinary teaching authority are known as the organs of Tradition.”
Does anyone NOT believe we are living in the Great Apostasy? Apostasy: the total repudiation of the Christian faith. To deny any point of the Catholic Faith is to deny it completely; according to the footnotes regarding Galatians 1; 6 “Deserting Him: refers to our heavenly Father. Another gospel: a different gospel, a gospel containing serious doctrinal errors. Anathema meaning, cursed, excluded from the Kingdom of God.”
Today we have a New Rome in other words Rome is no longer Catholic it is mainly an ecumenical worship services.
Where are the four marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? New Rome now has new marks, Ecumenism, Liberalism, Modernism and Hominism. By Hominism I mean the belief that everything is oriented toward man as the supreme good.
Think about all the changes we Traditionalist hate, they are all for the benefit of man, not God. A reversed teaching; now God Himself is in the service of man. False teachings such as “Universal Salvation” and “Adaptation to the World”. New Rome fornicates with false religions; New Rome is intimate with these manmade religions and is the Roman whore.
So my question has always been, why is SSPX even talking to Rome?

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Myrna wrote:
Does anyone NOT believe we are living in the Great Apostasy?


I fear that we are, but I always pray that we are not.


Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:38 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Myrna wrote:
Does anyone NOT believe we are living in the Great Apostasy?


We're certainly living in a great apostasy.

Quote:
So my question has always been, why is SSPX even talking to Rome?


Because they think Benedict must be pope or the Catholic Church has failed by not possessing a hierarchy. The same fundamental reason motivates Bishop Sanborn and the other Guerardians (i.e. the Cassiciacum Thesis adherents), so the problem is real and demands a solution. As everybody knows, there has been nothing from the standard sedevacantists on this problem and until there is the position is not merely open to criticism, but will attract contempt from the more theologically educated.

Yes, I know we like to think we're the best theologically educated traditional Catholics (irony!). Some of the very best are in fact in the SSPX. If and when we see the documents prepared by their theologians for the instruction of "rome" I have no doubt this will be clear to all.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Quote:
Does anyone NOT believe we are living in the Great Apostasy?

Obviously, there is no way to rule this out, and of course the truly Christian heart longs for the coming of the Day, Amen, Come Lord Jesus. But I must admit my own gut feeling about this time is that it is not the actual final Apostasy of biblical prophecy, but very likely in many ways a very serious "dry run" for it. I do perceive that sometimes a crisis can help provide a precedent to understand a yet greater crisis to come. Certainly several well-known precedents serve well towards understanding aspects of our present situation. For example the Arian crisis shows that a near-total defection, such that nearly the whole world and nearly all who regard themselves as followers of Christ, can be so fantastically wrong, and in a state of serious heresy and schism from the Church while imaginging themselves faithful. The fall of the Church in England (to becoming the newly-created "Church of England") demonstrates the ability of the holders of the conventional structures and physical plant and even most persons lay and cleric alike, to cease to be the Church, to cease to come under the protection and guarantees of the Holy Ghost for having departed from the Church and the Faith, even unintentionally. The first Great Western Schism demonstrates that there can arise such a confusion as to the whereabouts of true Catholic authority that even canonizable saints can be on differing sides of such a serious question, and that the Mark of Unity, however clouded in the mystery of the two and then three separate parallel papal successions, nevertheless remains.
While it does seem that there are quite a number of different precedents to explain different aspects of our present situation, there nevertheless remain many precedents that have little to nothing to do with our situation. But when the real final Apostasy comes, I expect that every single precedent of every single crisis, all taken together, will apply.

Quote:
So my question has always been, why is SSPX even talking to Rome?

The same reason that anyone of us should be willing to talk to our neighbors, namely out of Christian love for their souls. I realize of course that the SSPX labors under the misconception that the characters at the Vatican with whom they carry on their dialogs would somehow (how?) comprise some aspect of the Church, such that some sort of "rehabilitation" of them would have to be inevitable, that is, if one could ever explain how it is the Church could ever come to be in any need of such a great rehabilitation in the first place. But the fact is that if the SSPX didn't do it, then we would be so obliged, and I think that would be an improvement, for we would not be buttering them up with false praises but laying it out like the proverbial "dutch uncle" telling it like it is straight out instead of pussyfooting around and beating around the bush. Who knows, but some might even prefer to deal with us since withus they know precisely where they stand whereas with teh SSPX one cannot be sure.


Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:03 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
John Lane wrote:
"Sancta Sedes Apostolica cui divinitus commissa est custodia depositi, et iniunctum munus ac officium pascendi universam Ecclesiam ad salutem animarum, potest sententias theologicas vel quatenus cum theologicis nectuntur praescribere ut sequendas vel proscribere ut non sequendas, non unice ex intentione definitiva sententia infallibiliter decidendi veritatem, sed etiam absque illa ex necessitate et intentione vel simpliciter vel pro determinatis adiunctis prospiciendi securitati [footnote] doctrinae catholicae (cf. Zaccaria Antifebronius vindicatus T. II. dissert. V. c. 2. n.1.). In huiusmodi declarationibus licet non sit doctrinae veritas infallibilis, quia hanc decidendi ex hypothesi non est intentio; est tamen infallibilis securitas. Securitatem dico tum obiectivam doctrinae declaratae (vel simpliciter vel pro talibus adiunctis), tum subiectivam quatenus omnibus tutum est eam amplecti, et tutum non est nec absque violatione debitae submissionis erga magisterium divinitus constitutum fieri potest, ut eam amplecti recusent."

Footnote: "Non coincidere haec duo, infallibilem veritatem et securitatem, manifestum est vel ex eo, quod secus nulla doctrina probabilis aut probabilior posset dici sana et secura."

Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, S.J. Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura. 3d ed. Romae, ex typographia polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, p. 127. (Caput II, Thesis XII, scholion I, principium VII)

Translation by James Larrabee:

"The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, [but] with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. [ref. omitted] In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine (because, ex hypothesi, there is not the intention of deciding this), but nevertheless, there is infallible safety [infallibilis securitas]. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it."

In a footnote following "exercising care for the safety" he writes: "These two terms, 'infallible truth' and 'infallible safety' are not identical. This can be seen from the fact that otherwise, no doctrine which is 'probable' or 'more probable' could be said to be sound and safe."


A really interesting text, thank you for having posted.
But it is not very clear for me the distinction between infallible truth and infallible safety. I wonder, how is it possible to conceive infallible safety without infallible truth?
In any case, we can call "this sort of declarations" simply infallibles? I think so.
Cordially


Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
In MY opinion, the Precursor of Anti-Christ mentioned in the Apocalypse is none other than the succession of anti-popes we have suffered through since Pius XII.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Card. Franzelin - infallible safety of ordinary magister
Gabriele wrote:
But it is not very clear for me the distinction between infallible truth and infallible safety. I wonder, how is it possible to conceive infallible safety without infallible truth?
In any case, we can call "this sort of declarations" simply infallibles? I think so.


Call them what you like (but not on here). :)

Think of any factual matter, because theology is fact and reasoning upon fact. Imagine that the Church's role includes cartography and therefore she is required to tell us where the Grand Canyon is, and also to guide us away from its edge. What we call "infallibility" would protect her from ever misinforming us about precisely where the edges of the Grand Canyon are when she issues a map defining it. What Franzelin refers to as "infallibilis securitas" would protect her from ever giving bad guidance which would endanger her members in those cases where she doesn't issue a map to define the exact location of the edge of the Canyon, but rather when she says "Avoid travelling any farther West than Map Reference XY", for example. In this kind of case she isn't telling us what the exact truth is, she is merely warning us against any of the possibilities beyond a particular limit. She is infallible in such a case also, but it is not infallibility in truth and couldn't be because her intention is not to instruct us on the main truth which is her business, but merely to keep us safe. She is infallible in keeping us safe.

There are other kinds of cases that fit the general category also, but this one should help you see the distinction between safety and truth.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:46 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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.