It is currently Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:43 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 Response to Salza's latest? 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:29 am
Posts: 6
New post Response to Salza's latest?
I was wondering if there has been a response by either the Diamond brothers or other sedevacantists regarding Salza's latest rebuttal to the Diamond's critique on Salza's first article. The one in question is http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_Salza's_rebuttal_of_Dimond_on_sedevacantism_(2).pdf

The main foundational point Salza uses to defend his position is canon 2223.4, which was avoided by the brothers and I'm trying to understand why and find other sources that might deal with this canon. Note I am not a sede but a struggling trad seeking to find the truth of the matter so I'm open to read anything as long as it presents facts.


Thanks,
JMJ

_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." Innocent III


Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Here's an answer from more than a decade ago:

Quote:
Objection 2.

Canon 2233 §1 legislates: "No penalty can be inflicted unless it is certain that a crime was committed and that its prosecution is not barred by prescription." §2 of the same canon lays down that before a penalty can be inflicted the culprit must be warned, and given the opportunity to desist.

Answer to Objection 2.

Canon 188 §4 is not penal, and therefore Canon 2233 does not apply to cases covered by it.

As Bellarmine has said in answer to a parallel objection: "There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."28 (Emphasis added).

It should be noted that Canons such as 188 and 646 would be meaningless if it was impossible to know a heretic with certainty unless a canonical warning had previously been issued.


http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
When I first learned that there were people out there who didn't believe the pope was the pope, I started to research the issue because the answers as to how the pope and the Church could be doing the things they did just didn't set right. Eventually, I found various websites and articles that explained the sedevacanitst theories (including this website).

Since then I've noticed that virtually all refutations of the sedevacantist theory rests upon legalisms or "faith alone". Furthermore, every few months or years, another "refutation" comes out that simply re-hashes the same arguments that have been so thoroughly been debunked that it is clear each person simply hasn't researched any arguments contrary to their position and hasn't bothered to consider any facts that have already been offered in evidence. They seem to re-present the same articles over and over, never actually refuting the opposition.


Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
If you don´t mind John I`d like to add what Mc Devitt has to say about canon 188:

Mc Devitt, “The renunciation of an Ecclesiastical office” CUA 1946 pag 115/7, says:

Quote:
“It is to be noted that every type of offices becomes vacant by means of tacit renunciation when the incumbent places one of the acts specified in cn 188, for the canon uses the words “quaelibet officia”. Likewise all clerics come under the prescriptions of this canon since the canon makes no distinction. While Cardinals are not subject to the penal law unless they are expressly mentioned (2227.2), the writer believes that they are subject to the prescription of canon 188 without any such special mention, since in his opinion this canon is not a penal canon. It is true that some of the acts enumerated in canon 188 constitute delicts, and have special penalties attached to them, but the effect of a tacit renunciation is not to be considered in the nature of canonical penalty.
In treating of public defection from the faith, Coronata notes that the tacit renunciation which results in consequence of this defection is not strictly the effect of a penal sanction (Instit. IV, n: 1864). This statement is quite true. Certainly the tacit renunciation cannot be considered a penalty for a religious profession, which according to cn 188.1 effects a tacit renunciation. There is certainly nothing in such an act that would warrant a penalty. Even with regard to the acts in cn 188 which constitute crime the writer believes that the tacit renunciation is not inflicted as a penalty. This fact seems quite clear to the writer, especially in view of the manner in which the codes refers to the tacit renunciation in the cn which treat of penalties.
The quotation from the following two canons will serve to demonstrate the definition that the code makes. Cn 2168.2 in treating of the procedure against non resident clerics, states the following:

“In monitione Ordinarius recolat poenas quas incurrunt clerici non residentes itemque praescriptum cn 188.8.”

Cn 2314 in dealing with the crime of those who are guilty of heresy or apostasy reads as follows:
1.3 Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adheserint, ipso facto infames sunt, et firmo praescripto cn 188.4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur.

The same procedure is followed in the other canons which make mention of a tacit renunciation. It’s plainly evident that a distinction is being made between the threatened or enacted penalty on the one hand and a tacit renunciation on the other: nowhere in the code is the tacit renunciation called a penalty, it’s always set off in a separate ablative clause when it is enumerated with penalties. For this reason the writer is of the opinion that a tacit renunciation is not to be classified as a penalty. The authors do not expressly designate it as a penalty, but they do list it along with the penalties when they consider the juridical effects consequent upon specific crimes. (Vermesch- Creusen. Epitome III; 513, Coronata, Institutiones IV num. 2178, 2196).
The direct purpose of this discussion was to demonstrate that Cardinals are subject to the prescriptions of cn 188. Consequently the presentation of the arguments served the further purpose of clarifying that in this cn the law is not imposing a penalty, but is rather accepting the specified acts as tantamount to an express renunciation of office. It may here be noted also that a tacit renunciation and a privation of the office are very similar, but that the law nevertheless consistently places them in different categories.”


There is an official interpretation of canon 646 which confirms all this, but I don´t have it here :)

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Cristian,

I can't believe you're posting stuff like this from there! :)

In the same article referenced above, The Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, the official interpretation of Canon 464 is provided.

Quote:
Answer to Objection 3.

If this were true it would be a vital element of the law, and yet the Canons are entirely silent on the matter. Furthermore Church history is filled with examples of saints acting against heretics without first waiting for a public judgement. Additionally, Holy Scripture makes perfectly clear that we are to react to heretics, not merely pass a secret judgement on them: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."29

In a case where the law does stipulate the necessity for a declaration (Canon 646), we find that Holy Church has expressly taught the opposite - i.e. that we do not have to wait until after the declaration to act upon the fact.

Canon 646 §1 states that a religious who commits certain crimes is dismissed ipso facto by the law itself. § 2 of the same canon prescribes that the superior of such an ex-religious must make a written declaration of the fact. On July 30, 1934 the Code Commission gave an answer to the following question: "Is it necessary that the fact which is referred to in c. 646, §2, shall have been declared, in order that the religious be considered ipso facto as legitimately dismissed?" The reply: "In the negative."30 Clearly, once the fact is public the effect occurs, and others can and should treat the ex-religious accordingly.

The question may then be raised, what is the nature of the required declaration? Jone answers: "This declaration can be made without any canonical trial. It is not equivalent to a judicial sentence, nor even to a declaratory sentence, nor yet to the decree of a judge. Hence, no formalities are prescribed for making it. According to the response of the Commission for Interpreting the Canons of the Code, 30th July 1934, the declaration of the fact is not required for the religious to be ipso facto dismissed in accordance with no.1 of the Canon. The declaration of the fact and conservation of the evidence are prescribed so that the dismissal may be fully established ["constet"] in law and to offset future doubts and possible difficulties."31

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:03 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:29 am
Posts: 6
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
All this is wonderful material and forcing me to contemplate the big picture here, and believe me I am, but is there anything specifically addressing canon 2223.4?

In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given.

Salza puts emphasis on "a declaratory sentence must be given" because in the case of a Pope, the "common good requires it" for the Church to know if she has a Pope or not. Off the bat I see that asserting that the "common good requires it" to know if we have a Pope or not is a subjective opinion and not really based off the facts and the intrinsic problem at hand but just looking for what others have said.

Thanks.

_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." Innocent III


Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
TS Aquinas wrote:
All this is wonderful material and forcing me to contemplate the big picture here, and believe me I am, but is there anything specifically addressing canon 2223.4?

In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given.

Salza puts emphasis on "a declaratory sentence must be given" because in the case of a Pope, the "common good requires it" for the Church to know if she has a Pope or not. Off the bat I see that asserting that the "common good requires it" to know if we have a Pope or not is a subjective opinion and not really based off the facts and the intrinsic problem at hand but just looking for what others have said.

Thanks.


Please forgive my ignorance of how legalities work. Salza seems to be suggesting that, since no one actually wrote up the declaritory sentence that some one was supposed to do, the actual event did not happen. Surely, just because someone has been derelict in his duties, the whole world is not supposed to pretend that the Conciliar popes are not heretics!


Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:01 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
The whole objection is wrong-headed, since it is based upon the unstated assumption that the loss of office for manifest heresy is a penalty. It isn't a penalty, it's a theological consequence of the free choice of the culprit to depart from the Church. In making this choice, he makes the choice of resigning any offices he may hold as well. That is what Canon 188,4 teaches, it is what St. Jerome and the fathers teach, it is what Bellarmine explains, and it is what Cum ex apostolatus reflects also. It's divine law. Our role is to learn it and accept it.

If the common good of the Church were in view (it isn't, except insofar as God made this law, and presumably He made it for the common good of the Church), then the argument would cut the other way. Against the potential evil of widespread doubt about the legitimacy of a true pope, you have the concrete evil of a series of heretics who have devastated the Church precisely because their putative authority was not subject to widespread doubt or denial. It seems pretty fantastical to argue from a potential evil in the face of an actual evil of unrivaled magnitude.

And, of course, Archbishop Lefebvre didn't argue along Salza's line. Lefebvre accepted Bellarmine's doctrine. He was only unsure about the factual situation, and with good reason, in that the heretical papal claimants took great care to confuse the situation so as to appear as unwilling observers of the chaos their own decisions and instructions produced.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Gentlemen and Ladies: Below is a link to an article, written by a friend of mine who publishes under the name of Gregorius. This article rebuts Mr. Salza's arguments in detail, and although to my way of thinking, this rebuttal is a bit too long, it is nonetheless very thorough. I was particularly pleased to read it, and I hope you will be too.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair ... KHt_2ePzDl

Your comments would be appreciated.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
I thought I should explain my position for those newer readers who are not familiar with it: I do not regard myself as a sedevacantist, although my position and theirs corresponds in many ways. I am what you may call a "sede-impeditist", if you must, although I much prefer to be called, simply and accurately, a Roman Catholic.

However, I have yet to read any so-called rebuttal to the sedevacantist position that is not very seriously flawed in one way or another, and usually in multiple ways.

Where the sedevacantists and we agree are primarily that the Novus Ordo, or Concilliar, Church cannot possibly be the True Catholic Church, and that all of the papal claimants since the death of Pope Pius XII are anti-popes: they were never true popes to begin with.

Furthermore, we regard Ratzinger to be absolutely the worst heretic with whom our beloved Church has ever been afflicted.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:29 am
Posts: 6
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
John Lane wrote:
If the common good of the Church were in view (it isn't, except insofar as God made this law, and presumably He made it for the common good of the Church), then the argument would cut the other way. Against the potential evil of widespread doubt about the legitimacy of a true pope, you have the concrete evil of a series of heretics who have devastated the Church precisely because their putative authority was not subject to widespread doubt or denial. It seems pretty fantastical to argue from a potential evil in the face of an actual evil of unrivaled magnitude.


Yes, I saw that as well and aiding the sede case more-so than his own.




Ken Gordon wrote:
Gentlemen and Ladies: Below is a link to an article, written by a friend of mine who publishes under the name of Gregorius. This article rebuts Mr. Salza's arguments in detail, and although to my way of thinking, this rebuttal is a bit too long, it is nonetheless very thorough. I was particularly pleased to read it, and I hope you will be too.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair ... KHt_2ePzDl

Your comments would be appreciated.


:shock:

What an ironclad rebuttal, half way through but so far it is all air tight. This isn't the biggest thing I'm shocked with but I can't believe Salza cited the Summa without actually quoting because if he did so, his argument would've turned against him... Wow. Either that is complete stupidity or bad will.


Could you explain the "sede-impeditist" position to me, if you will? Because as I see the sede position more and more air tight, I'm in the incognito territory with my own and want to examine all positions before coming to a conclusion.

_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." Innocent III


Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
TS Aquinas wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm#.UKHt_2ePzDl


What an ironclad rebuttal, half way through but so far it is all air tight. This isn't the biggest thing I'm shocked with but I can't believe Salza cited the Summa without actually quoting because if he did so, his argument would've turned against him... Wow. Either that is complete stupidity or bad will.

Well, I am not sure I would characterize it as either one: I would call it sheer laziness.
TS Aquinas wrote:
Could you explain the "sede-impeditist" position to me, if you will?

Well, basically and simply, it means that we sede-impeditists cannot agree with the sede-vacantists that we have had no True Pope for almost 60 years and continuing. Not to say that it couldn't happen (at least as far as I know), but it has never happened in the entire history of the Church.

The longest previous interregnum was a little over three years. From what I have read concerning the Papacy, the Church MUST have a true Pope. We believe that we have had a true pope since the death of Pius XII. We believe that there was a True Pope elected in 1958 before The Fat Man showed his ugly face. At this point, the evidence points to Cardinal Siri, but in fact, it could have been any number of others.

We believe, on the basis of what we consider to be sufficient evidence, mostly, but certainly not all, circumstantial, that we have had a true Pope who has been "impeded" from taking his rightful seat. We believe we still have one, although at this point we cannot point him out. Siri is dead: his successor is dead. But the line must continue. God doesn't "do" unnecessary miracles. We are certain that when we all do learn what played out, we are going to be very, very surprised. We are reasonably certain that not one of the presently described scenarios will be the true one.

You may not be aware that throughout the history of the Church, there have been 44 anti-popes (if we include those since Pius XII). That works out to two per century on average. As I remember it, there was even one in the time of St. Peter.

John has not minded that I point you to our website on this subject. If you would care to visit it and read what we have posted there, you may find it interesting.

http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/

By the way, I chose St. Tomas ab Aquino as my Confirmation name.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:29 am
Posts: 6
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Interesting reading on the subject, I will certainly research and contemplate it thoroughly. Thank you.


So I am guessing that to either position my confirmation is invalid then? Since I was confirmed this past Easter in the Roman Church in the Novus Ordo (I had no choice in the matter) under a priest who was ordained under the new rite (as well as the diocesan bishop where the oil came from). If I were to adopt any sede position, how would I go about fixing that?

_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." Innocent III


Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
TSA, the Fraternity would share our concerns, and would give you conditional confirmation at a moment's notice!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:29 am
Posts: 6
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Fraternity as in the FSSP or the SSPX? I assume you mean FSSP but I have heard "Fraternity" used to refer to the SSPX. But who blesses the oil the FSSP uses, if that matters?

_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." Innocent III


Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
TS Aquinas wrote:
Interesting reading on the subject, I will certainly research and contemplate it thoroughly. Thank you.

You're welcome.
TS Aquinas wrote:
So I am guessing that to either position my confirmation is invalid then? Since I was confirmed this past Easter in the Roman Church in the Novus Ordo (I had no choice in the matter) under a priest who was ordained under the new rite (as well as the diocesan bishop where the oil came from).

Yes. I am afraid you are correct. From past discussions and articles researched and written by some we consider to be competent in these matters, it appears certain that the Novus Ordo "ordination" (they don't call it "consecration" any more) of a bishop using the new rite is invalid. Opinion on the new rite of ordination of a priest is divided, but if the bishop isn't a bishop, it doesn't matter.

TS Aquinas wrote:
If I were to adopt any sede position, how would I go about fixing that?

I don't know that adopting either position is what is important here. What is important is that you receive certainly-valid sacraments, and you can only receive those from a certainly-valid priest, or a certainly-valid bishop in the case of confirmation (or a priest with the requisite faculties).

I would say, however, that once you have received a certainly-valid Confirmation, and continue to receive other valid Sacraments, coupled with assiduous prayer, God will give you the grace to see and follow the truth.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
TS Aquinas wrote:
Fraternity as in the FSSP or the SSPX? I assume you mean FSSP but I have heard "Fraternity" used to refer to the SSPX. But who blesses the oil the FSSP uses, if that matters?

Yes. It does matter. From what I have seen so far, the FSSP is "served" by "bishops" who were "ordained" by other "bishops" using the new, defective, Montinian rite. Therefore, none of those people are valid bishops, and their oils are ineffective and invalid for confirmation.

I would avoid the FSSP in its entirety.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
John:
Quote:
The whole objection is wrong-headed, since it is based upon the unstated assumption that the loss of office for manifest heresy is a penalty. It isn't a penalty, it's a theological consequence of the free choice of the culprit to depart from the Church. In making this choice, he makes the choice of resigning any offices he may hold as well.


I've sometimes toyed with the idea that even this could be taken one step further. That is, that the loss is more than a penalty, more even than theological consequence, but its ultimately a violation of ontology. If what is required is a fish, and someone hands us a small puppy, then the problem is not a matter of a penalty, nor a law violation, but simply a failure to to comply with the realities of being. Is it possible that the Papacy is more than an office, more than a theological response, but a state of being that requires the existence of a man with certain qualities to be able to become "that person"? Maybe this is an argument going round on itself, so feel free to make of it what you must.

But dogs aren't useful for flying. They're just no darn good for that. If a ask you for a screwdriver and you hand me a hammer, it's just not going to work for what I need to do. Not my fault, not even directly your fault--it's just the way things ARE.


Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:05 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
I think this is the point that has been being made. Loss of office on the part of the public heretic isn't a penalty or even "more than a penalty". It is simply what is. To use your tool analogy, I ask for a pope and you give me a Lutheran. I still haven't got a pope.

(By the way, I use a Lutheran here because, what little I know of Lutheranism, it seems that the Conciliar church transformed from Catholicism to Lutheranism during and in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II. The only reason that everyone does not see that is that the tranformation completed over a period of years and there are still too many Catholic books and catechisms available and the leaders of the Conciliar church won't directly condemn them, they just say and teach things directly opposed to them. I would love to make a prediction here (though not a prophesy) that the Vatican will authorize inter-communion between Lutherans and (Conciliar) Catholics by 31 October 2017 to honor the 500th anniversary of Wittenburg.)


Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
TK:

Quote:
I think this is the point that has been being made.


Not sure of your meaning here.

TK:

Quote:
Loss of office on the part of the public heretic isn't a penalty or even "more than a penalty". It is simply what is. To use your tool analogy, I ask for a pope and you give me a Lutheran. I still haven't got a pope.


My point exactly, although there is a loss of an office, and it is, no doubt, a penalty. Just trying to deal with the fact that, even with some adjustment, use, or non-use of the juridical side, this dog won't fly. This, I would think, would make any impedimentist position less relevant, unless the impediment is ontological and not juridical.

The dog hasn't had his flying license revoked. And we could allow him to hunt--or not. But the disability is not up to anyone's say so. This dog might hunt, or not, but it CAN"T fly, it can't fly, it can't fly. But, perhaps, I have only invented a new way to talk about a tautology.


Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
John:
Quote:
The whole objection is wrong-headed, since it is based upon the unstated assumption that the loss of office for manifest heresy is a penalty. It isn't a penalty, it's a theological consequence of the free choice of the culprit to depart from the Church. In making this choice, he makes the choice of resigning any offices he may hold as well.


I've sometimes toyed with the idea that even this could be taken one step further. That is, that the loss is more than a penalty, more even than theological consequence, but its ultimately a violation of ontology. If what is required is a fish, and someone hands us a small puppy, then the problem is not a matter of a penalty, nor a law violation, but simply a failure to to comply with the realities of being.


Geoff, this is not taking it a step further, it's just explaining the same point using different language. You're exactly right - the loss (or failure to acquire) the office is a concomitant of the lack of membership in the Church. Without the status of "member" there is no possibility of holding an office in the Church.

When we say that this is divine law, we mean not merely that something is forbidden, but that something is woven into the very fabric of reality. It is divine law that a non-member cannot possess an office just as it is divine law that bodies tend to fall towards the earth. Chesterton once said that the man who leaps from the cliff-top declaring that he does not believe in gravity, denies and proves the truth in the one act. The fact that the fall is unpleasant and therefore can be thought of as a "penalty" is actually beside the point. The divine law governing bodies operates automatically and without reference to evil consequences in specific circumstances. The same law is operating without interference or diminution when another man leaps from a cliff-top whilst attached to a hang-glider. The consequences are not unpleasant, and so we don't think of any penalty, but gravity is still operating. The difference is, the law is being obeyed, not violated.

But in any case, when we say that canon 188 is not "penal" we are speaking technically, that is, we mean that this law is not imposing a canonical censure. It is not in the section of the Code which comprises the Church's penal sanctions, and it is not in the nature of a sanction. It is merely a reflection of the reality created by God in His infinite wisdom and goodness.

The Church is a visible unity of faith and charity. This is its nature, what it was made by God. This is an example of divine law. What it means, amongst other things, is that the component parts of the Church, the cells of which it is composed, are men who meet certain criteria. They have been baptised, and they profess the true faith outwardly, and they have remained subject to their lawful pastors, and in peaceful communion with the other members of the Church (cf. Mystici Corporis Christi).

When a man leaves this visible unity by open heresy, schism, or apostasy, he suffers various disabilities, but these are consequences of his own act, not punishments as such. For example, he cannot access the goods of the Church, he cannot be saved, he cannot truly call himself a Christian, he cannot hold an office in the Church. These are all bad things, but they are not canonical penalties, they are natural effects flowing from his status as non-Christian. They are the things he freely chooses when he elects to depart from the Church.

In addition to these things, the Church inflicts penalties of her own, mostly with a view to correcting such a man so as to bring him to a better mind, so that he may return to her unity and be saved. These penalties, in the case of open heretics, do not include loss of office, because this is automatic and therefore will already have occurred. Instead, the relevant penal canon simply states that "canon 188,4 holding firm" etc, and thus refers us back to the non-penal part of the Code dealing with offices as such.

The relevant distinctions are all clear in canon 192.

Canon 192 §1, states: "A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed from, an office, either by operation of law or by an act of the lawful superior." Note the clear alternatives: either by the law itself, or by a superior. Bouscaren and Ellis, whose translation this is, provide the following commentary:

"1. Deprivation is effected by operation of law: (a) in the cases of tacit resignation enumerated above under canon 188; (b) in certain cases where the law declares privation from office as a penalty: e.g., upon sentence of excommunication, in the case of a vitandus (c. 2266), etc.[other cases not relevant to us are given]"

"2. It may be done by an act of the lawful superior. This may be either penal or administrative. Etc. [Further explanation of these categories is given]."19 (Emphasis added).

Salza is only looking at the cases which come under head no. 2 - dismissal by a superior. But the pope has no superior, so even if his case were cogent, which it isn't, it would be moot.

What is arguable is whether or not these culprits have been manifest heretics, or rather something less than manifest heretics. That was the point upon which Archbishop Lefebvre hesitated. However his theology was entirely at one with Bellarmine's.

We've been patiently, and perhaps not so patiently, pointing this out in public, for at least ten years now. It's time people like Salza displayed sufficient respect for their fellow traditional Catholics to at least notice what point the debate has reached. He is arguing positions long-since demolished by "sedevacantists", and therefore abandoned by Fraternity priests.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Thanks, John. Very helpful.


Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Response to Salza's latest?
Bump


Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:45 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.