It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:06 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
 Fr. Cekada, Ignatian Exercises/Bellarmine on Church members 
Author Message

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post Fr. Cekada, Ignatian Exercises/Bellarmine on Church members
The lastest Quidlibet by Fr. Cekada is titled
"Bp. Williamson Plays Cat and Mouse"
http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/

I have to admit I found his writing concerning and perhaps
actually true. So I felt that it would be good to hear what others
here at this forum thought.

The writing of Bp. Williamson that Fr. Cekada is commenting
on may be found at:
"Pascendi II"
http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/


Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:18 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post 
My SSPX priests use their spare time preaching the Ignatian Exercises. Do they have those at St. Gertrudes?


AMW


Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:04 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
AMWills wrote:
My SSPX priests use their spare time preaching the Ignatian Exercises.


There's a reason for that. It's part of the essential mission of the SSPX, as Providence arranged things. Below are a couple of pages from Tissier's biography of the Archbishop, describing the origins of this work. But first, a few introductory notes.

The Parish Co-Operators of Christ the King was an organisation of priests founded to preach Ignatian Exercises to laymen in parishes in Spain. Multitudes of these laymen were subsequently in the forefront of Franco's crusade against the Communists and were martyred. Later it spread to France, and one of its priests was Fr. Barrielle, who ended up at Ecône as informal spiritual director.

The work of the Parish Co-Operators of Christ the King was essentially to convert adult men through the Exercises, but it was closely associated in France with the work of the Cité Catholique, an organisation founded by two laymen who had been inspired during the Exercises to promote the rights of Christ the King over society. Archbishop Lefebvre had introduced both organisations into his region of Africa in the 1950s, and defended and fostered their work against the opposition of the Communists.

Since the prime target of Vatican II was Christ as King, this previous association of the Archbishop was to prove Providential.


_____________________________________________________________________
FR. BARRIELLE’S TREASURE: THE IGNATIAN EXERCISES

St. Thomas’s solid spirituality based on the distinction of the soul’s powers, the four wounds of original sin, the development of the theological and moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, was soon to receive the support of an instrument that wedded the realism of sin and a sense of being in spiritual combat with the apostolic zeal that the Archbishop wanted to inculcate in his students. Archbishop Lefebvre was fortunate enough to find such a tool in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, as preached, explained and popularized at Ecône by Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle.

He came from Château-Gombert near Marseilles. As a young man this enthusiastic Provençal had fought in the First World War. Later, he was parish priest at the Good Shepherd in Marseilles before becoming a Parish Co-operator of Christ the King (CPCR) at Chabeuil. He had been a close friend of the founder, Fr. Vallet, and was superior of the house at Chabeuil before distancing himself from the post-conciliar liberal tendencies. Thinking about refounding his order in the orbit of Tradition, he came to Ecône one day in October 1971 ... and stayed on. In the end he gave up on his idea, or rather achieved it in a better way as “spiritual director” of the seminary, passing on the torch of the exercises of St. lgnatius to the members of the Society of Saint Pius X.

In his “spiritual talk” in the evening, Fr. Barrielle dished out “milk the novices.” He excelled at giving the students a hunger for sanctity through meditation on the liturgy and the example of the lives of saints. He made them understand the irresistible logic of St. Ignatius’s “Principle and Foundation” that has repercussions throughout the lgnatian vision.

Archbishop Lefebvre admired Ignatius’s perfect Thomism. Man must always ask God for the grace that he wishes to obtain through meditation, be it the conquest of self, or knowing the love of our Lord, the ultimate goal and the greatest means of sanctification. “Accordingly as we love Him, our Lord enlightens the soul, and it instinctively feels within itself the obstacles to union with Him.” [Retreats at Ecône, 76, priestly retreat, Sept. 1986.] In fact, the founder was careful to repeat often: “I have no wish to impose a special spirituality unless it be the spirituality of the Church.”[Spiritual Conferences at Ecône, 36A, Nov. 30, 1976.] This was why he preferred the plan of St. Thomas’s Summa. Nonetheless, the Archbishop recommended the “thirty days” that Fr. Barrielle preached every summer and which he once followed, stating later how profitable he had found them.

Fr. Barrielle knew very well that the Ignatian meditation on the mysteries of Jesus Christ leads the soul to take the “high dive” into sanctity, the second conversion. He said: “I have sometimes seen retreatants being led along the very paths of mysticism after only an eight day retreat.[Ibid. March 13, 1972]

Without Fr. Barrielle, Ecône would not have been Ecône. One would not have had, as Bishop Morilleau remarked while visiting the seminary, the “impression of being in a novitiate.”[Ibid. 85B, June 23, 1981.]

“[He was] a wonderful model of a priest, filled with an intense and continual desire for the salvation of souls. Haunted by the idea of eternal salvation, Fr. Barrielle lived by faith and was in touch with heavenly realities: the Blessed Trinity, the Sacred Heart, St. Joseph. the holy Angels. He lived on these devotions, taught them, and promoted them.” [Ibid. 99A, March 8, 1983.]

He remained “on the go,” preaching the exercises in the house at Montelenge, Piedmont, until he was totally exhausted. He gave up his valiant soul to God at Ecône on March 1, 1983, the first Friday of the month of St. Joseph in whom he had had unbounded confidence. It would have made the old soldier’s joy complete to see his spiritual sons growing in number and preaching the Exercises, not only to lay people throughout the whole world, but also to priests as required by the statutes of the Society. Thus, the Society fulfills “its true goal which is the sanctification of the priesthood” (Statutes, VIII, 3).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Last edited by Admin on Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:27 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
From: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/histo ... reteat.htm

Fr. Vallet and the Ignatian Exercises in 5 Days

When the Jesuits were re-established in 1814 after a suppression of almost 100 years, Father Roothan, their first Superior General, labored greatly to re-establish the Ignatian Retreat as the formative core and apostolic weapon of the Jesuits. Nevertheless, the Industrial Revolution presented a new slave master who demanded 12 to 18 hours of labor a day and in some cases, a 7-day work week. Preaching the Retreats to the modern man was no easy task in such economic conditions.

Nevertheless, in Northern Spain, the country of Saint Ignatius, God raised up a chosen apostle to condense the 30-Days of Saint Ignatius into a 5-day format that modern men could realistically attend without losing the essential fruits of the 30-Days.

Francis de Paule Vallet was the third son of a family of ten. He had a good Catholic upbringing at home and completed his High School under the Jesuits. From age 17 till 24, he pursued University studies in Barcelona (from 1900-1907), where his vigor of character, qualities of leadership, and eloquence distinguished him. He directed several University newspapers, was elected Secretary of an organization of Engineers, and Vice-President of an Academy. He also undertook to debate anarchists who were trying to recruit students in Barcelona. Nevertheless, living energetically the novelty of University life, being deeply affected by bad examples in eminent professors, Providence permitted him to suffer a difficult interior trial of Faith.

In his trial he looked to God for the answer. Sensing that the world was pulling him down, he felt the need for prayer and separation from the world and so he went to Manresa and made a 30-day Ignatian Retreat under the Jesuit fathers. There, in solitary campaign, wrestling with the sound argument of Divine Truth proposed in spiritual exercises, he was completely and dramatically converted. In the very first days of the retreat, the essential answers to the primary questions of life flooded his soul with lights that would guide him for the rest of his life and would be the driving force behind his gigantic future apostolate. In that retreat, to use his own words:

"I put myself to death, I was put to death. …I no longer recognized myself! …I no longer recognized the world, I believed it had been completely transformed for me! …It was a miracle …Dead, I lived now more intensely than ever …. I was free, master of myself … I lived the truth, hope, I lived in peace and I lived by love!"

His entrance into the Jesuits followed this retreat. But he didn’t enter the Jesuits to follow a religious vocation as an untried young man. He entered tested by trial, converted by grace and pre-occupied with one great idea: to convert the world and turn it back to Christ by converting the adult man. The question and its resolution were clear: Convert the world by getting adult men to do the Exercises and do them well.

He threw his whole soul into the novitiate and sought ardently after perfection. The testimony of his saintly Novice Master amply proves the purity and goodness of his soul. But more striking than this is that the serious Jesuit fathers permitted the young Vallet to organize a campaign of retreats during his novitiate. Though he couldn’t preach, he was the driving organizing impetus behind a campaign of retreats that within a couple years drew over 1800 men.

Completing his novitiate in 1909, Fr. Vallet followed the classical Jesuit curriculum for eleven years. Two years after His priestly ordination in 1920, he was given his first assignment to preach retreats in Manresa. From this time on he would devote his energies to the realization of his divinely inspired plan: the conversion of the adult man through the spiritual exercises of Saint Ignatius. To meet this objective, Fr. Vallet, with the permission and approval of his beloved superiors, left the Jesuits to found the Parish Cooperators of Christ the King. Parish Cooperators devoted themselves entirely to the preaching of the Ignatian Retreat.

A retreat campaign began by a series of preparatory conferences given in various places in the target regions. These conferences were directed by the Father but were complemented by the testimony of one or more Parish Cooperators. There then followed intense publicity which included the foot-work of Parish Cooperators going door to door, speaking in public places, taverns and barbershops, etc. After this preparatory work came the campaign of retreats itself. One retreat was preached and then followed by two or three others. The retreats always increased in numbers because the alumni of one retreat became the ardent promoters for the next.

The following figures will give an idea of the effectiveness of the first 5 years of Fr. Vallet’s campaigns in Spain:

1923 In three campaigns of 19 retreats 1,293 retreatants
1924 In five campaigns of 27 retreats 1,400 retreatants for a total of 2, 697
1925 In five campaigns of 35 retreats 2,620 retreatants for a total of 5, 317
1926 " " " 3,223 retreatants for a total of 8,540
1927 " " " 4,103 retreatants for a total of 12,643

Fr. Vallet had founded the Parish Cooperators of Christ the King in 1922 and after his death in 1947 his priestly collaborators carried on his work. The key preacher at the chief house of the Parish Cooperators in France, was Fr. Ludovic Marie Barrielle. When the changes of Vatican II swept through the Church demanding aggiornamento and change at every level, Fr. Barrielle held firm. Fr. Vallet had been clear: nothing must be changed or else all the fruit would be lost. Though Fr. Barrielle himself held firm, the work of the Parish Cooperators gradually died out. Hearing of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in the 70s, Fr. Barrielle volunteered his services and the Archbishop, in need of experienced priests, accepted.

Moving to the Society’s chief seminary in Econe, Switzerland, Fr. Barrielle filled perfectly the office of spiritual director. His role was that of the much needed wiser, more experienced and older priest who helped prepare the young seminarians for the difficult task of the priesthood in the modern world. He counseled, encouraged, and taught them the principles of Saint Ignatius. Most importantly, he gave them the 5-Day Spiritual Exercises after the divinely inspired pattern given him by Fr. Vallet.

Occasionally, when a veteran retreatant would call up for Fr. Barrielle to organize a retreat, Fr. Barrielle would bring along a seminarian and teach him the "ropes." Besides this practical knowledge, in response to the perennial question of the seminarian: "How will I go about the work of saving souls in this world?", he wrote two books: Letter to the Priests of Tomorrow, #1 and Letter to the Priests of Tomorrow, #2. In these books Fr. Barrielle laid down precise instructions for the preaching of the 5-Day Retreats.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
I would like to get thie topic back on track with my original concern
especially the charge of Fr. Cekada that:

Quote:
Bishop Williamson has been using this particular trick for decades: False general principle, then switch to another topic before you’re smoked out.

His recently re-published seminary newsletters from the 1980s are full of it. I will offer a prize to any SSPX seminarian (anonymous, of course) who can find the most examples of it in that collection — a great exercise for the First Year Philosophy students.


I felt that Fr. Cekada may have a point and wanted to get others ideas and comments
about what he is writing. So far no one has commented upon what I quoted above.


Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:20 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
oremus wrote:
I would like to get thie topic back on track with my original concern
especially the charge of Fr. Cekada that:

Quote:
Bishop Williamson has been using this particular trick for decades: False general principle, then switch to another topic before you’re smoked out.

His recently re-published seminary newsletters from the 1980s are full of it. I will offer a prize to any SSPX seminarian (anonymous, of course) who can find the most examples of it in that collection — a great exercise for the First Year Philosophy students.


I felt that Fr. Cekada may have a point and wanted to get others ideas and comments
about what he is writing. So far no one has commented upon what I quoted above.


Well, my view is that Fr. Cekada would do better to avoid judging motives. Especially when his own writing has plenty of holes in it and surely he doesn't want to be accused of dishonesty - he is merely human, like everybody else.

I agree with his general attitude to Bishop Williamson's writing, however, in that it is filled with logical lacunae and non sequiturs, as well as really bad metaphors. It's like Sanborn without the sarcasm. Could we trace both back to their common seminary professor, Guerard des Lauriers? Tissier says that the latter "came to give a class in Mariology for which he had scribbled his notes on the back of a subway ticket but which still went beyond the abilities of the average student to understand." (Biography, p. 445.) Damned with faint praise indeed.

The really interesting thing in all this is Williamson's conclusion. He isn't arguing primarily that sedevacantism is a false conclusion, and he certainly isn't arguing the Fr. Schmidberger line that sedevacantism is an unlawful conclusion. He is merely arguing to the position that "sedevacantism is not binding." In other words, he thinks that sedevacantism is lawful, and might be true, but it is not "compulsory."

Which is all true. Sedevacantism is lawful, non-binding (in the sense that it is not a universal law, but a conclusion reached by individuals), and might be true. Actually, it is true.

Now, if we could get certain prominent sedevacantists to stop claiming that sedevacantism is compulsory for all, as though the Church had defined it, we might have more chance of having a sensible discussion with non-sedevacantists. But while the non-sedevacantists feel the need to prove that sedevacantism is non-binding, they are wasting their time and mental effort, and we can't get to grips with the real issues.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
Below is another viewpoint and writing about Bishop Williamson's writing:

Quote:
Excusing heresy with illogical contrivances
The enduring fallacy of Bp. Richard Williamson
"In Pascendi, Pius X nailed the unhooking of the subjective mind from objective reality as the foundation of the coherent Newfaith of the modernists’ Newchurch. What mental rest and spiritual relaxation to be able to lean on the one true religion given to us from outside and above by the one true God, without our having to pay heed to the mass of modern fantasies!

"However the Conciliar fantasies have taken such a grip on many of today’s churchmen that the temptation arises to consider that none of them are churchmen at all, in particular the last few Popes. But Pascendi can offer a way out of this temptation by its same teaching that subjectivism unhooks churchmen’s minds from reality. Are they fully aware of how mad they are, when virtually everyone shares in their madness? And if they are not fully aware, do they necessarily disqualify themselves as churchmen? Pascendi suggests to me that sedevacantism is not binding.

"By no means everyone agrees with letting the Conciliar churchmen off the hook in this way, but that is of secondary importance. Back to Pascendi – what is of primary importance is to give glory to God and to save our souls by submitting our minds to that one objective Faith which God has revealed, and without which nobody can please God. Back to Pascendi – what is of primary importance is to give glory to God and to save our souls by submitting our minds to that one objective Faith which God has revealed, and without which nobody can please God.…"

NOW Comments: As far as we can remember, Bp. Williamson has used the some of the most strained arguments one will ever encounter in a feeble attempt to extricate the conciliar "popes" from bearing any responsibility for their heretical words and deeds. Back in the 1990s he was writing about the inculpability of John Paul II by virtue of him being in a "liberal dream," based on the inadequate seminary training he had back in Poland. Last year Benedict XVI was given a free pass by Bp. Williamson because Ratzinger's "poor mind, however gifted, is sick," due to him being steeped in modern German philosophy. (See Novus Ordo Watch archive for August 2006; scroll about halfway down the page for Bp. Williamson's remarks and our response.)

And what we find above is just a variation of this line of argument, only now the culprit is "subjectivism," which has led to a "mass of modern fantasies." Now this is what Bp. Williamson says has caused the "madness" of the churchmen. Elsewhere in his column he speaks about how the error of subjectivism "threatened to undermine the objectivity of all Catholic dogma." Certainly, this was true in the time of Pope St. Pius X and remains so today, but, unfortunately, the flaw in Bp. Williamson's argument is that he leaves culpability out of equation, knowing that his position cannot possibly stand once this is introduced. Also omitted is the fact that St. Pius labeled pride and curiosity the two key faults leading to the apostasy of Modernism.

Yes, the error of subjectivism is at the heart of Modernism, but that in no way renders Modernists blameless or at least of diminished culpability. If it did, then St. Pius would have been wrong to excommunicate Modernists such as Fathers Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell, because they would have been victims of a liberal dream or a modern fantasy and thus no more responsible than poor, confused Fathers Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. (One is permitted to wonder whether Bp. Williamson wants similarly to excuse the rebellion of Simon Magus, Arius, Martin Luther, John Calvin and other heresiarchs due to "mental impairment.")

It is noteworthy that Bp. Williamson never bothers to back up his statements with Church sources, which is completely reasonable because he can't. Once the magisterium is introduced to the discussion, the bishop's line of argumentation is shown to be severely wonting.

Why?

Because, to begin with, Canon Law posits that unless there is real mental impairment (or, say, coercion by another), than a person is deemed accountable for his actions. Now mental impairment doesn't mean someone buying into a false belief system, which is what Bp. Williamson is suggesting, it means reduced ability to comprehend. If Modernists were merely individuals confused into believing false teachings, then St. Pius X would be unjust to excommunicate them as they were incapable of knowing the wrongness of their position. Of course, we know that wasn't the case, as he held them completely accountable for going against the teaching of the Church.

Also noteworthy is that heresy and apostasy are two terms not used here by Bp. Williamson. Could it be that he's afraid his readers will start wondering why he's excusing Novus Ordo leaders who are spreading such poison? It well could be so. Yet heresy and apostasy are precisely what St. Pius X was battling. This is clear when we read the following renunciation of a Modernist proposition that His Holiness insisted be sworn by all those with positions of influence in the Church:

"I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously...." — from The Oath Against Modernism

Let's read a key phrase again: heretical misrepresentation. Not fantasies, liberal dreams, sick minds, modern madness or some other rhetorical write-off, but heretical misrepresentation. So who's interpreting Modernism correctly: St. Pius X or Bp. Williamson? They can't both be right.

Finally, as far as Bp. Williamson's argument that his letting these men "off the hook" is of "secondary importance" to the salvation of souls, we ask: If these men are not true Catholic authorities, then not adhering to them is of primary importance, because following false shepherds is most assuredly a danger to our souls!

Pope Saint Pius X:

should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents [Pascendi and its companion anti-Modernist syllabus, Lamentabili] he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. — from Praestantia Scripturae


Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:06 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Thanks, Oremus. Here are the thoughts I sent to Bishop Williamson in May. This is the text of a letter with only the personal elements edited out.

______________________________________________________________

May 18, 2007


John Lane
[address]


Bishop Williamson,
Seminario Nuestra Senora Corredentora
Caja de Correos #308
La Reja, Moreno
Buenos Aires, RA-1744
Via email.



Dear Bishop Williamson,

RE: The problem of pertinacity in minds disordered by Kantianism

I apologise for having taken so long to send you some thoughts. ...

Let me say firstly that I appreciate very greatly your efforts to engender some intellectual ferment on the great problem of our day – the Modernists who claim most of the offices in the Church, and the mystery that this presents. Nature seeks always to slide back into an easy compromise which only endangers the faithful by disguising the imminence of the threat. The “Motu proprio” will only compound the problem, as I’m sure you see. Until these men convert or are gotten out of the way, they are a clear and present danger to the faithful. That much I think sedevacantist and sedeplenist can agree upon. The “problem of authority” is a genuine problem and must be addressed.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on your thesis.

1. Pertinacity is of course the formal element in the sin and crime of heresy. It is said to be present when the culprit knows that his belief is incompatible with a truth proposed by the Church to be believed with divine-Catholic Faith, and chooses it anyway. To put this in succinct language, this doubt or denial of dogma must be “scienter et volenter”. Hence the problem you pose – how can a man whose mind is incapable of adhering to any objective truth, be truly said to “know” that he is opposed to the Church? You are in fact arguing, if I have correctly understood you, that these men are incapable of true certitude because of a defective philosophical foundation.

2. My first comment is that I think we ought to reflect upon what the authorities have to say. Kant and co. did not appear yesterday. If a thoroughgoing Kantian is incapable of certitude and therefore of pertinacity and therefore of the delict of heresy, this would surely have been alluded to in the technical literature somewhere. I am not aware that any approved author has ever made this claim. Are you?

3. If your argument were to be accepted, surely it would prove too much. If these men are incapable of true certitude because of a defective philosophical foundation, then they are incapable of any act of Faith. But a man who is incapable of any act of faith is not a Catholic. Ergo.

4. On the other hand, it seems that you do not prove enough, in the sense that your approach seems at most to argue that Modernists err “in good faith” in the sense used in canon 731. The hypothesis that they are incapable of certitude (and therefore of the act of divine and Catholic faith) implies the admission that these men are true heretics, though not morally responsible for their departure from the Church. But this, however true it may be, would not assist in solving the problem of authority, which is the urgent problem you are addressing. A Catholic may err in good faith in matters of doctrine and still hold office in the Church, but this is because he can and does make the act of divine and Catholic faith; he publicly professes submission to the magisterium and certitude regarding its teachings. Even if he misunderstands some of them his convictions are not radically and blatantly incompatible with this submission and certainty. Far different is the case of the non-Catholic, however great his good faith. He may be quite innocent of any sin against faith, but he does not credibly profess submission to the magisterium and certitude regarding its teachings. He is not a Catholic and therefore cannot hold office in the Church.

5. It appears to me very hard to reconcile your thesis with the stance taken by St. Pius X, who defined Modernism as “heresy” and held “Modernists” to be heretics. In fact it seems clear to me that Pius X recognised the very problem that you are putting your finger upon, and having done so, he came to the opposite conclusion to you. Here are some extracts from Pascendi. The saint describes that Modernists as “animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church…” So, he sees that their philosophical foundation is defective. Does he suggest or conclude that they are therefore not responsible for their errors? No, he concludes as follows, “Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action.” And, further, he strips them of any defence along the lines you suggest, by pointing out, “Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.” Please note that I am not here arguing that everybody infected in any way with Modernism is in fact a heretic in the full canonical sense. I am only pointing out that the falsity of a Modernist’s philosophical foundations is an argument against his possession of divine-Catholic Faith, rather than an exculpatory argument tending to confirm his possession and profession of Faith.

6. The question of responsibility seems to me to lie at the root of this problem. Surely your arguments imply that a man is not, all other things being equal, responsible for his acts in relation to the Faith. That he may be excused from heresy if he has been deceived into a false philosophy which renders him incapable of an act of certitude, specifically supernatural certitude, viz. “Supernatural certitude is the firm assent to truth manifested under the light of Revelation to a mind fortified by divine grace.” (Glenn, Criteriology.) It seems to me that the argument cuts the other way. That is, that a man is responsible for his acts and the onus is on him to show that he was not responsible in any given case. I do not say that we must presume pertinacity. Not at all. But I say that if a man is technically incapable of “knowing” anything with certitude as a result of his adopting a philosophy which has been condemned by the Church, then until he proves otherwise he must be held responsible for this state of affairs. This seems to me to chime better with the approach of St. Pius X, who sheets home to the Modernists the responsibility for their actions, “lost to all sense of modesty, [they] put themselves forward as reformers of the Church…” Is he exculpating them of responsibility with those words, or the contrary?


7. This discussion of pertinacity does not address the real underlying cause of the recurrent tides of sedevacantism amongst traditional Catholics, which – I submit – is the problem of the identity of the Church. The ecclesiological problem. I identify two parts to this prime problem of our day. 1. The Catholic Church is a visible unity comprising those who profess the true Faith outwardly, are subject to the same pastors, and share the same sacraments. This is not a description of the Conciliar sect in itself, nor a fortiori is it a description of the traditional Catholics combined with the Conciliar hierarchy and members. The Church cannot be invisible, and she cannot lack essential unity. Nor can she lack the other three marks which, together with the mark of unity, constitute, as it were, her very outward personality. For if she is not visibly united, holy, universal, and identical with the Church of Pentecost, then she is not the Catholic Church. 2. The Catholic Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary provisions, including her liturgy. But the 1983 Code and the New Mass are in themselves on several points contrary to divine law and from all the evidence intrinsically harmful. Therefore they cannot have come from the Catholic Church.

The recurrent sedevacantism amongst traditional Catholics is essentially a response to this problem. A reaction. If you proved that the men who executed the revolution were Catholics, you’d not have advanced one step towards solving this problem. “The Church of Vatican II, of religious liberty and ecumenism, of the Novus Ordo and of Assisi, of agreed statements with heretics and Jews and of the new catechetics, is one and the same institution as the Catholic Church, founded on the rock of Peter, outside of which there is no salvation; its popes represent Christ on earth and are entitled to the habitual docility in law and doctrine of all Catholics.” I submit that not only sedevacantists, but every traditional Catholic with any realisation of the gravity of the crisis will choke on that statement; even if he cannot quite see where the problem lies, he senses that he cannot endorse it.

Anyway, those are some rough thoughts presented in the spirit of fraternal charity, and with the diffidence which properly belongs to an untrained layman, and most especially when addressing a priest, a bishop and a seminary professor. If you wish to discuss the matter any further you have my email address, and of course you may telephone if you prefer.

Wishing you every grace in this wonderful week of the Ascension!

Yours in Christ our Glorious King,
John Lane.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re:
John Lane wrote:
Thanks, Oremus. Here are the thoughts I sent to Bishop Williamson in May.


John, just out of curiosity... did you get any answer?

I completely agree with this letter, except on this...

Quote:
1. The Catholic Church is a visible unity comprising those who profess the true Faith outwardly, are subject to the same pastors, and share the same sacraments. This is not a description of the Conciliar sect in itself, nor a fortiori is it a description of the traditional Catholics combined with the Conciliar hierarchy and members. The Church cannot be invisible, and she cannot lack essential unity. Nor can she lack the other three marks which, together with the mark of unity, constitute, as it were, her very outward personality. For if she is not visibly united, holy, universal, and identical with the Church of Pentecost, then she is not the Catholic Church. 2. The Catholic Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary provisions, including her liturgy. But the 1983 Code and the New Mass are in themselves on several points contrary to divine law and from all the evidence intrinsically harmful. Therefore they cannot have come from the Catholic Church.


It seems as if you would have forgotten to add the "essence" of memebership in the Church, wich is the Baptismal Character...

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re:
John Lane wrote:
Which is all true. Sedevacantism is lawful, non-binding (in the sense that it is not a universal law, but a conclusion reached by individuals), and might be true. Actually, it is true.

No, it isn't. It is an error. Understandable error. Error with no guilt attached. Error which God will prove to you that it is such in His own good time. But error, nonetheless.

And I suspect that you have purposely used those last four bolded words above because you knew I couldn't resist them. :wink:

If you had said, "In my opinion, it is true". I wouldn't have bothered to attempt to correct you. However, you didn't. Therefore, I haven't included my usual, "In my opinion..." either. :)

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Re:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, just out of curiosity... did you get any answer?


Yes, I did. But I don't think I am at liberty to discuss it.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
It seems as if you would have forgotten to add the "essence" of memebership in the Church, wich is the Baptismal Character...

No, it is included in the "sacraments." In this, I am following Bellarmine, but I agree that it would be better, at least generally, to write, "The Catholic Church is a visible unity comprising those who have been baptised, profess the true Faith outwardly, are subject to the same pastors, and share the same sacraments." The point was to highlight that those who are not in a unity of Faith, subject to the same pastors, and sharing the same sacraments, cannot constitute the one Church, precisely because they lack any essential unity.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Re:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, just out of curiosity... did you get any answer?


Yes, I did. But I don't think I am at liberty to discuss it.

Ok

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
It seems as if you would have forgotten to add the "essence" of memebership in the Church, wich is the Baptismal Character...

No, it is included in the "sacraments." In this, I am following Bellarmine

Ok i see what you mean but in this Bellarmine was not followed by Pius XII as you wel known, actually he (Bellarmine) said that Baptism was not required in order to be a member.

Quote:
but I agree that it would be better, at least generally, to write, "The Catholic Church is a visible unity comprising those who have been baptised, profess the true Faith outwardly, are subject to the same pastors, and share the same sacraments." The point was to highlight that those who are not in a unity of Faith, subject to the same pastors, and sharing the same sacraments, cannot constitute the one Church, precisely because they lack any essential unity.
[/quote]

Ok.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Re:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Ok i see what you mean but in this Bellarmine was not followed by Pius XII as you wel known, actually he (Bellarmine) said that Baptism was not required in order to be a member.


OK, I thought we might be headed for this. I hate to admit to a disagreement with Mons. Fenton, so I have not said this before, but on this question I think he winked.

My position is that Pius XII did follow Bellarmine, that Bellarmine did teach that baptism was necessary for membership in the Church, and that Fenton took his view of the matter from the Controversies only, and misunderstood Bellarmine's purpose there. His entire article on this was therefore misconceived.

I'll put some evidence later, when I have more time.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Cat and Mouse - Fr. Cekada & Ignatian Exercises
Pax Christi !

Quote:
OK, I thought we might be headed for this. I hate to admit to a disagreement with Mons. Fenton, so I have not said this before, but on this question I think he winked.



Dear John,

Could his wink be one of semantics'? Some do not use the term " member" in the strict theological sense. Member i.e.- Only baptized persons who adhere to the Church. Some use "member " in a general sense, to include those few souls that are " within" the confines of the Church, but not actual members?

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Re:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Ok i see what you mean but in this Bellarmine was not followed by Pius XII as you wel known, actually he (Bellarmine) said that Baptism was not required in order to be a member.


OK, I thought we might be headed for this. I hate to admit to a disagreement with Mons. Fenton, so I have not said this before, but on this question I think he winked.

My position is that Pius XII did follow Bellarmine, that Bellarmine did teach that baptism was necessary for membership in the Church, and that Fenton took his view of the matter from the Controversies only, and misunderstood Bellarmine's purpose there. His entire article on this was therefore misconceived.

I'll put some evidence later, when I have more time.


Interesting... strange enough theologians as De Guibert, Zapelena, Wilmers, Muncunill, Salaverri, Pesch and Strub say that Bellarmine teaches that valid Baptism is not necessary, but rather the presumed or putative is enough, but Billot says that even though he teaches so, nevertheless later on he says that "the other theaching is better", so probably you are right and Fenton wrong, but nevertheless i would like to see your evidences.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:08 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Re:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Interesting... strange enough theologians as De Guibert, Zapelena, Wilmers, Muncunill, Salaverri, Pesch and Strub say that Bellarmine teaches that valid Baptism is not necessary, but rather the presumed or putative is enough, but Billot says that even though he teaches so, nevertheless later on he says that "the other theaching is better", so probably you are right and Fenton wrong, but nevertheless i would like to see your evidences.

Yes, I understand. Fenton was probably following others.

1st evidence:

The claim that St. Robert did not require valid baptism is based, as far as I can see, primarily on negative evidence. That is, he failed to mention this requirement explicitly. The main text used for this purpose is the following, from the Controversies.

“But we teach that there is only one Church and not two, and that the one and true Church is the assembly (coetum) of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From this definition it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which ones do not belong to it. This definition has three parts, the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor. By reason of the first part, all infidels, both those who never have been in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, and those who have been in it, but have left, such as heretics and apostates, are excluded. By reason of the second part, catechumens and excommunicated persons are excluded, since the former have not as yet been admitted to the communion of the sacraments, while the latter have been expelled from it. By reason of the third, schismatics, who have the faith and the sacraments, but who are not subject to the legitimate pastor, and who consequently profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [the Church], are excluded. All others are included, even though they be reprobates, hardened sinners, and impious men.” (Extract from De ecclesia militante, ch. II, transl. by Mgsr. J.C. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, Nov. 1952.)

Note, however, that in commenting on his own definition, Bellarmine says, “By reason of the second part, catechumens and excommunicated persons are excluded, since the former have not as yet been admitted to the communion of the sacraments, while the latter have been expelled from it.” Catechumens are excluded, so at least putative baptism is required. I think all would agree with that much. But what is the evidence that Bellarmine considered that putative baptism would suffice? (Check towards the end of the tenth chapter of the De ecclesia militante, for the evidence, such as it is.) It seems to me that he is passing over that question, perhaps as unnecessary and too subtle.

2nd evidence:

Bellarmine’s Dottrina Cristiana, published in 1597-1598, subsequent to the Controversies, and which was eventually translated into 56 languages and dialects, thus making it one of the most widely diffused books in history, and helps to explain how Bellarmine’s doctrine became so universally accepted in the Church.

“What do we mean by the Church? By the Church we mean a convocation and congregation of men, who are baptized and make profession of the faith and laws of Christ, under obedience to the supreme Roman Pontiff.”

“Why is it called a convocation? Because we are not born Christians as we are born Italians or Frenchmen or of any other nationality. But we are called by God and enter into this congregation by means of Baptism which is, as it were, the door of the Church. However, it is not enough to be baptized to be in the Church. It is also necessary to believe and confess the holy faith and laws of Christ, as the pastors and preachers of the Church teach us. Nor is even this enough. It is also necessary to be subject in obedience to the supreme Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, which means, to recognize and regard him as the highest superior in place of Christ.”

To my mind this evidence is irrefutable. If he was in doubt at the earlier stage when he penned the Controversies, he was not when he wrote his catechism. Note also how the wording of this text is echoed by that of Mystici Corporis Christi.

3rd evidence:

The entire structure of Bellarmine’s doctrine on membership and the nature of the Church demands that baptism be recognised as the first requirement for membership. The members are the component parts of the Church, and baptism is the one door by which the members enter and become parts of the Church. I could multiply quotes on this point, but it should not be necessary.

4th evidence:

Even Mons. Fenton, writing in AER, April 1945 “Membership in the Church”, acknowledged this understanding of Bellarmine, viz. “With St. Robert these two great theologians [Wiggers and Sylvius] demanded the baptismal character for membership in the Church.“ (p. 297) Somehow Fenton changed his mind on this by 1950, and yet seems not at any point to have considered the evidence of Bellarmine’s Catechism, given above. To me this is a mystery.

What do you think?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Re:
Quote:
Yes, I understand. Fenton was probably following others.

1st evidence:

The claim that St. Robert did not require valid baptism is based, as far as I can see, primarily on negative evidence. That is, he failed to mention this requirement explicitly. The main text used for this purpose is the following, from the Controversies.

“But we teach that there is only one Church and not two, and that the one and true Church is the assembly (coetum) of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From this definition it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which ones do not belong to it. This definition has three parts, the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor. By reason of the first part, all infidels, both those who never have been in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, and those who have been in it, but have left, such as heretics and apostates, are excluded. By reason of the second part, catechumens and excommunicated persons are excluded, since the former have not as yet been admitted to the communion of the sacraments, while the latter have been expelled from it. By reason of the third, schismatics, who have the faith and the sacraments, but who are not subject to the legitimate pastor, and who consequently profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [the Church], are excluded. All others are included, even though they be reprobates, hardened sinners, and impious men.” (Extract from De ecclesia militante, ch. II, transl. by Mgsr. J.C. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, Nov. 1952.)

Note, however, that in commenting on his own definition, Bellarmine says, “By reason of the second part, catechumens and excommunicated persons are excluded, since the former have not as yet been admitted to the communion of the sacraments, while the latter have been expelled from it.” Catechumens are excluded, so at least putative baptism is required. I think all would agree with that much. But what is the evidence that Bellarmine considered that putative baptism would suffice? (Check towards the end of the tenth chapter of the De ecclesia militante, for the evidence, such as it is.) It seems to me that he is passing over that question, perhaps as unnecessary and too subtle.


To me this is not as acurate as it should, and the reason is that he is not explicit regarding the Baptismal Charactert, which is that what makes you Catholic, whereas the other 3 requisites, viz.

Quote:
From this definition it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which ones do not belong to it. This definition has three parts, the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.


act as "Removentis prohibentis" (i quote by heart Billot), which means something like "that what removes what impedes (or forbid)" the effects of the Baptismal character, and so he seems to include the Baptismal character in the 3 requisite, which does not seem to be right.
I don´t know if you get the point.


Quote:
2nd evidence:

Bellarmine’s Dottrina Cristiana, published in 1597-1598, subsequent to the Controversies, and which was eventually translated into 56 languages and dialects, thus making it one of the most widely diffused books in history, and helps to explain how Bellarmine’s doctrine became so universally accepted in the Church.

“What do we mean by the Church? By the Church we mean a convocation and congregation of men, who are baptized and make profession of the faith and laws of Christ, under obedience to the supreme Roman Pontiff.”

“Why is it called a convocation? Because we are not born Christians as we are born Italians or Frenchmen or of any other nationality. But we are called by God and enter into this congregation by means of Baptism which is, as it were, the door of the Church. However, it is not enough to be baptized to be in the Church. It is also necessary to believe and confess the holy faith and laws of Christ, as the pastors and preachers of the Church teach us. Nor is even this enough. It is also necessary to be subject in obedience to the supreme Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, which means, to recognize and regard him as the highest superior in place of Christ.”

To my mind this evidence is irrefutable. If he was in doubt at the earlier stage when he penned the Controversies, he was not when he wrote his catechism. Note also how the wording of this text is echoed by that of Mystici Corporis Christi.

3rd evidence:

The entire structure of Bellarmine’s doctrine on membership and the nature of the Church demands that baptism be recognised as the first requirement for membership. The members are the component parts of the Church, and baptism is the one door by which the members enter and become parts of the Church. I could multiply quotes on this point, but it should not be necessary.

4th evidence:

Even Mons. Fenton, writing in AER, April 1945 “Membership in the Church”, acknowledged this understanding of Bellarmine, viz. “With St. Robert these two great theologians [Wiggers and Sylvius] demanded the baptismal character for membership in the Church.“ (p. 297) Somehow Fenton changed his mind on this by 1950, and yet seems not at any point to have considered the evidence of Bellarmine’s Catechism, given above. To me this is a mystery.

What do you think?


All this seems irrefutable, and i must confess that i have not yet read Bellarmine, except some pages from "De Romano Pontifice" (BTW which book do you recomend me to begin with?) so my ignorance on St Robert seems to be crass :)

That change of mind of Fenton is a little odd (although is not the first one i noticed), but he was probably following the other theologians, although he forgot to check Billot :)

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Cekada, Ignatian Exercises/Bellarmine on Church memb
oremus wrote:
The writing of Bp. Williamson that Fr. Cekada is commenting
on may be found at:
"Pascendi II"
http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/
Does anyone have his "Pascendi II" article backup up? His blog no longer exists. thanks

I can get the gist from Fr. Cekada's articles:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/11/04/ ... and-mouse/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=12

But I would like to read Bp. Williamson's original piece.

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


Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Fr. Cekada, Ignatian Exercises/Bellarmine on Church memb
Is this it?

Saturday, July 28, 2007
Pascendi


In a little over one month’s time, on September 8, all Catholics who rejoice in Pope Pius X’s resistance to modernism will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of his great Encyclical letter, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (in English, “Feeding the Lord’s Flock”).

I think it is essential to come to grips with the central doctrine of Pascendi if one does not wish to lose one’s footing in today’s crisis of the Church, ongoing and by no means over, on the contrary.

In brief, Pius X says that thanks to delinquent modern philosophy (reflecting and promoting modern living), the human mind has become unhooked from objective reality, and is spinning around inside the subject, fabricating whatever he wants and then imposing it on his surroundings. One name for this stupendous error is “subjectivism”. Truth becomes what I say it is. This is such insanity that I can only survive by applying it only selectively. For instance two and two will be four when I need them to be (e.g. in designing an aeroplane); they will be five when I want them to be (e.g. in choosing a religion).

Now when this error began in the universities, over 200 years ago, a lot of peasants living on the land still had a lot of common sense. But today a lot of city-dwellers have little or no common sense left, and a mass of quite ordinary people are subjectivists, indeed so many that they are no longer the exception, they have become the rule. Whereupon it is that much more difficult for them to realize that they are – objectively – insane. They can well think – subjectively – that they are perfectly sane.

Such is surely the case with many – not all – modernist churchmen, and I would include Pope Benedict XVI amongst them. So he can be objectively insane from the standpoint of the Catholic Faith, and yet subjectively in a kind of good faith. What does this “good faith” matter if he is objectively way off the mark? What matters is that he thinks he is normal and in the truth, so he behaves as though he is, and so he persuades many Catholics that he is. Here is why this crisis of the Church is so terrible – so many cardinals, bishops and priests cannot believe that they or their Pope are in any way off the mark.

Conclusion? – I need not believe that they are not at all cardinals or bishops or Pope, because when virtually everybody is insane, they are that much less necessarily aware that they are not sane. So I can treat the Pope with all the charity and respect due to his exalted position, and I can rejoice in all the objective good that he does, for instance in the recent “Motu Proprio,” but I will do nothing, but nothing, to associate with his insane Conciliar belief-system until it is clear as clear can be that he repudiates both Vatican II and his subjectivism.

Read Pascendi. Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson
La Reja, Argentina


Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Fr. Cekada, Ignatian Exercises/Bellarmine on Church memb
Yes, TKGS, that is it; 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


Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:22 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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.