It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:05 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Interesting quote... one question does anybody know if Fr. Berry´s treatise on the Church is available somewhere in the net?


No, but we'll scan it at some point. Don't hold your breath, however. :)

Bill, do you have a scanner?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Mike,

I thank you for the discussion.

Mike wrote:
In regards to annullments, I am not aware of any instance where the Church has stated that a mistake was made by the pope in granting an annullment. Does the pope have a special grace to not err on this matter? I would like to read what the theologians say on this as well.


Fr. Berry says on pg. 509 that, "A pope, for instance, may be mistaken in declaring a particular marriage valid or invalid.", though again I understand that he is "asserting" this may happen, as opposed to actually having happened. But given this, I certainly would not say it's beyond the pale of obedience to assert that it could happen, and that given a particular circumstance (a hypothetical case in which a person knows it did happen), it did happen. I agree though, we need greater authorities in this matter.

Mike wrote:
I had written you in a previous post that I would be willing to be educated by you on this point, and would look at the sources you would present.


Good Heavens Mike! I consider it a condescension on your part to be "willing" to be educated by me, given my immense respect for the work you do in these forums. I will only say that the reason I entered the discussion is because I thought some phrases were being spread a bit to thin. The texts I have provided were the basis of those thoughts. Now, naturally, I realize that the texts I thought were saying one thing, may not have been saying exactly what I thought. Now who's spreading to thin? :D

Mike wrote:
Jesus Christ our Lord is the Head of the Church, so to what extent does he allow popes in their non-infallible authority to deviate from His Will, or from the truth?


This is a statement that I think illustrates a point of confusion in our conversation. I am in no way thinking of this in terms of.."Jesus Christ our Lord is the Head of the Church, so to what extent does he allow popes in their non-infallible authority to deviate from His Will, or from the truth?"...I am purely thinking of this in terms of "prudence". I have never equated prudence with deviation from the will of God. I have always equated it with not making the best decision, or perhaps acting imprudently. All of this, without ever bringing direct harm to souls, or sacrificing an iota of infallibility. You seem to think that an act that may not be the most prudent, is therefore harmful or somehow disruptive of the will of God (please correct me if I am mistaken). I think this is precisely why the authors I have read distinguish between degrees of prudence and infallibility. One is a given, the other is not.

Your quote from Mr. Daly is fine. I'm sure were in agreement as to the proper disposition to be maintained in regards to all laws of the Church. Though, even this quote is dealing with what is generally considered a "doctrinal precept", not dealing with prudence per se (though I admit there may be a proper analogy). The text you quoted also says this:

Quote:
While it is not intrinsically unorthodox to hold, as some theologians have done, that in a very rare and exceptional case a doctrinal precept of the Holy See may be inaccurate and need subsequent revision, a loyal Catholic can only be exceedingly reluctant to admit that this has occurred in any concrete case.


I agree, we should always be "exceedingly reluctant" to question any law (not just the Popes). I think John's (Lane's) idea was that you ought to readily accept any law, unless you cannot.

Mike wrote:
...you have made me wish to be more clear and accurate on this point.


I take that as a severe complement, given your knowledge and studies. Thank you.

In Christ,
Bill


Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:48 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Quote:
(Cristian, have you checked Billot?).


John i did this morning but i founded nothing.

I also checked all the treatise on the Church i have and i got something. Perhaps tomorrow i`ll quote them (right now i`m not at home). All i may say now is that theologians dispute among them on this subject, but no of them give the possibility the Pope may command an imprudent act, all they concede is that they may issue not the most prudent decission whereas others don`t even accept that possibility.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Quote:
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Interesting quote... one question does anybody know if Fr. Berry´s treatise on the Church is available somewhere in the net?


No, but we'll scan it at some point. Don't hold your breath, however. :)


Please!! i`ll be very gratefu.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Quote:
Please understand Cristian, I was only saying (as I said in a previous post) that I have always percieved the discussion as being broader than "Papal laws".....including but not limited to. The coversation has indeed been focused on "Papal laws"...I was just pointing out that this was not necessarily so.


Bill, do you include on this some laws made by the Bishops in their diocese? Because if so, i concede they may give not only an imprudent law but also they may theach an heretic doctrine!, whereas if you include Universal laws made by the Universal Church (ecumenical Council) so i hold the same as before.

Cristian

PS: i know is not pertinent to this post, but i sent two private messages which didn`t get to those i sent, does anybody knows what can i do?
"Gratias", could you give me other email so i may re send you the answer?

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

Leon Bloy


Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Pax Christi

Quote:
" Fr. Berry says on pg. 509 that, "A pope, for instance, may be mistaken in declaring a particular marriage valid or invalid.",


I find this rather chilling, who is Fr. Berry? What prestige are his works given compared to the leading Pontifical Theologains of the early 20th centrury?

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi

Quote:
" Fr. Berry says on pg. 509 that, "A pope, for instance, may be mistaken in declaring a particular marriage valid or invalid.",


I find this rather chilling, who is Fr. Berry? What prestige are his works given compared to the leading Pontifical Theologains of the early 20th centrury?


Berry's nobody in particular, Vince. Just another professor. (Although I think his book is a masterpiece).

But there is nothing wrong with this doctrine. The Church does not judge heretics infallibly, marriage cases, or a myriad of other such factual things. Dogmatic facts are judged infallibly, but nobody claims that these kinds of things are dogmatic facts.

But, it would certainly be rash to cast doubt on any actual decision of the Holy See.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
John,

You asked if I have a scanner. I do not, as my computer is still walking with the dinosaurs. Perhaps, in two or three months I'll be able to upgrade.

John wrote:
But, it would certainly be rash to cast doubt on any actual decision of the Holy See.


From your posts, I assume you also believe that there may be circumstances in which a man may not be able to do what he ought to do? Certainly, it would at least be "rash" to judge a Pope a heretic. Yet some of us are compelled to given the extraordinary circumstances of the Post Vatican II era. I wonder if the same circumstances could not apply to lesser judgments of prudence. Especially given the benefits of hindsight, with which we can see outcomes and unintended consequences.

In Christ,
Bill


Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:13 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Cristian,

You wrote:

Quote:
Bill, do you include on this some laws made by the Bishops in their diocese? Because if so, i concede they may give not only an imprudent law but also they may theach an heretic doctrine!, whereas if you include Universal laws made by the Universal Church (ecumenical Council) so i hold the same as before.


Yes, I do include laws made by Bishops, as I have stated in a previous post. These are properly laws of the Church, which need not always be the most prudent.

I have conceded that I was equating imprudent with lesser degrees of prudence. That was not necessary. Though I am still not convinced that the "spectrum" of degrees of prudence cannot include "not prudent". I'm looking forward to the authorities you are going to site. Do you think the hierarchy is ensured always to make the most prudent decisions (even in regards to universal laws)? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

In Christ,
Bill


Last edited by Bill on Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:33 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Vince,

You said:

Quote:
I find this rather chilling, who is Fr. Berry? What prestige are his works given compared to the leading Pontifical Theologains of the early 20th centrury?


In my readings, I have found Fr. Berry's statement rather unextraordinary. You, in an earlier post questioned one of Fr. Berry's statements as well, wondering if he held a minority opinion. What have you read that contradicts Fr. Berry's statement to the point that you have become chilled?

In Christ,
Bill


Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:44 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Sylvester Hunter, S.J.,"Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, Benziger, New York, 1894. pg. 445.

Discussing Papal infallibility, Father Hunter states:

Quote:
There are some persons who think they can learn Catholic doctrine by studying an English dictionary, and these observe that the word infallible is connected with failure and with fall; hence they conclude that according to our doctrine no Pope ever fails in prudence or falls into sin. These are quite mistaken. The infallible character belongs to ex-cathedral utterances, in the sense explained. It has nothing to do with prudence in conduct, though we believe that the Church has been secured from destruction by the more than human prudence that has guided her governors;


In Christ,
Bill


Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:13 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Bill wrote:
Cristian,

You wrote:

Quote:
Bill, do you include on this some laws made by the Bishops in their diocese? Because if so, i concede they may give not only an imprudent law but also they may theach an heretic doctrine!, whereas if you include Universal laws made by the Universal Church (ecumenical Council) so i hold the same as before.


Yes, I do include laws made by Bishops, as I have stated in a previous post. These are properly laws of the Church, which need not always be the most prudent.


I don´t really think we should focus our attention to the laws made by bishops in their own diocese, actually (as far as i know) theologians don´t deal with this kind of laws, and so almost everything we may say will not be able to be contrasted with authorized teaching.


Quote:
I have conceded that I was equating imprudent with lesser degrees of prudence. That was not necessary. Though I am still not convinced that the "spectrum" of degrees of prudence cannot include "not prudent". I'm looking forward to the authorities you are going to site
.

I´ve the quotes in latin, right here, at work but i´m not sure of some of them and i´ll take a lot of time to translate those i can. Perhaps somebody may if i give the latin quotes? they are 11 theologians :)
Schultes, Herve, H Mazzela, Mendive, Tanquerey, Pesch, Lercher, Muncunill, De Guibert, Cano and John of S. Thomas.

Quote:
Do you think the hierarchy is ensured always to make the most prudent decisions (even in regards to universal laws)? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
[/quote]

I´ve a tendency to believe so but nonetheless i accept the possibility it may not be the most prudent decission, but i don´t believe the hierarchy or the Pope may make an imprudent decission affecting the whole Church.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Ok... let´s see what i can do.

1) R. Schultes De Ecclesia (1931) pag. 237 and f.

"... question here is about de infalibillity of the R. Pontiff when making a definitive approval (of a Religiuos Order). In wich we may distinguish the doctrinal from the prudent judgment...
Prudent judgment take into account the utility or necessity of instituting some religious order.
Regarding the prudential judgment... certainly it should be supposed the existence of enough and true reasons. And so in the begining the orders of Franciscans, Domincans and Jesuits, had a number of adversaries inside the Church herself, and nevertheless the prudential judgment of the Roman Pontiff, when approving those religious orders, is confirmed by the immense fruits they gave to the Church afterwards"

Mistake: "...question is about the infalibillity... etc

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

Leon Bloy


Last edited by Cristian Jacobo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
2) Can. Herve (pag 517 and f).

"It seems that infallibility regarding disciplinary laws does not carry per se always the summum degree of prudence, in such a way that the laws promulgated be necessary the most prudent of all, although there is (?) nothing in them against faith and moral" (last sentence in latin is: "dummodo nil in eis contrarium sit fidei aut moribus").

Then Herve quotes Billuart (De regulis Fidei diss 3 art. 5) saying (i put it in latin because i´m not sure... please somebody translate): At saltem temeritatis notam non effugeret qui contra communem sensum, erroneum assereret", ejusmodi judicium de opportunitate (these last words are from Herve).
My translation would be: "He who would dare to say, aginst the common opinion, that such judgment regarding the opportunity is false, at least he would be rash.

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
3) Mazzela H. Vol 1 (1921) Num 578 and fol.
"When a Pope approves a Religious Order we may make two different judgments: the first is "this Religious Order is good"... the other is "here and now, that is, in this moment and regarding the circumstances, it is appropriate to admit this Order (expedire hunc ordinem admittere).
...it seems that in the second judgment, according to the majority, it is also infallible... (and now kaput!) nam eo iudicio Ecclesia fideles omnes monet de re ad communem praxim atque ad eorum aedificationem spectante, nempe de opportunitate acceptandi, fovendi illum ordinem religiosum, atque etiam in illum ingrediendi et illum propagandi".

4) Tanquerey. Num 932 (ed. 1949)
The Church is infalible in promulgating universal disciplinary laws.
Explanation:... as it is obvious that infalibillity can be very easily arrenged (componitur) with the mutability of disciplinary laws and is distinguished of its opportunity; indeed nowhere was promissed to the Church the maximum degree of prudence in order to promulgate the best laws according to the circumstances of time and place".
"... but (the Church) is not infallible regarding the oportunity of approving such and such religious order..."

NB: all the quotes are taken from their respective Treatise on the Church unless otherwise be noted.

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:32 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
5) De Guibert, pag 234.

On the indirect object of the Magisterium
a) The Church is infallible in sanctioning a general discipline.
2...) not in such a way as if the Universal laws were always better than others in those circumstances, and neither they be always appropriate, or prudently given, but in such a way that trough them it is imposible to impose to all the faithfuls some act contrary to revealed doctrine on faith and moral.

6) Lercher, De Ecclesia n 510
"... it cannot be deny that when the Church teaches something definitive, although the law promulgated may not be the best and the most opportune, nevertheless it is agreed with faith and moral.

(Tomorrow i´ll give the other ones)

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Cristian,

Thank you. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

In Christ,
Bill


Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Pax Christi !


John Lane stated;
Quote:
But there is nothing wrong with this doctrine. The Church does not judge heretics infallibly, marriage cases, or a myriad of other such factual things. Dogmatic facts are judged infallibly, but nobody claims that these kinds of things are dogmatic facts.

But, it would certainly be rash to cast doubt on any actual decision of the Holy See.


Dear John,

I am glad you added the comment that a rejection of said judgments by the Holy See would be rash. However, I am a bit uneasy. For yes, the church does not judge the internal forum. i.e. the internal regarding heretics and marriage. When she judges one a heretic or a marriage invalid ( if I understand correctly) she judges the externals. It appears while dealing with the human element that the only infallible judgment is when she declares one a saint. That is judging both the external and internal forum of the persons thoughts and actions.


But that does not mean there is not certainty when she declares a persons works ( writings, sayings, actions) to be heretical, or if she declares a marriage ( based on external data) to be invalid.

While technically not " infallible", one would think there is certitude in the Holy See's judgment on these matters.

In this time we live, I get uneasy with us laymen and some priests, making the " imprudent" claim to actions and laws enacted by the Holy See. Given our fallen human nature, it becomes easy to make judgments based on " well the Church is not infallible in these judgments". We find that in Feeneyism all the time.

My nature, when we have a Pope, is to look to the Holy See with utmost respect in all matters, he is given extra graces for the good of the Church and souls.

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:07 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Quote:
Mike,

I thank you for the discussion.


Mike wrote:
In regards to annullments, I am not aware of any instance where the Church has stated that a mistake was made by the pope in granting an annullment. Does the pope have a special grace to not err on this matter? I would like to read what the theologians say on this as well.


Fr. Berry says on pg. 509 that, "A pope, for instance, may be mistaken in declaring a particular marriage valid or invalid.", though again I understand that he is "asserting" this may happen, as opposed to actually having happened. But given this, I certainly would not say it's beyond the pale of obedience to assert that it could happen, and that given a particular circumstance (a hypothetical case in which a person knows it did happen), it did happen. I agree though, we need greater authorities in this matter.


Mike wrote:
I had written you in a previous post that I would be willing to be educated by you on this point, and would look at the sources you would present.


Good Heavens Mike! I consider it a condescension on your part to be "willing" to be educated by me, given my immense respect for the work you do in these forums. I will only say that the reason I entered the discussion is because I thought some phrases were being spread a bit to thin. The texts I have provided were the basis of those thoughts. Now, naturally, I realize that the texts I thought were saying one thing, may not have been saying exactly what I thought. Now who's spreading to thin?


Mike wrote:
Jesus Christ our Lord is the Head of the Church, so to what extent does he allow popes in their non-infallible authority to deviate from His Will, or from the truth?


This is a statement that I think illustrates a point of confusion in our conversation. I am in no way thinking of this in terms of.."Jesus Christ our Lord is the Head of the Church, so to what extent does he allow popes in their non-infallible authority to deviate from His Will, or from the truth?"...I am purely thinking of this in terms of "prudence". I have never equated prudence with deviation from the will of God. I have always equated it with not making the best decision, or perhaps acting imprudently. All of this, without ever bringing direct harm to souls, or sacrificing an iota of infallibility. You seem to think that an act that may not be the most prudent, is therefore harmful or somehow disruptive of the will of God (please correct me if I am mistaken). I think this is precisely why the authors I have read distinguish between degrees of prudence and infallibility. One is a given, the other is not.

Your quote from Mr. Daly is fine. I'm sure were in agreement as to the proper disposition to be maintained in regards to all laws of the Church. Though, even this quote is dealing with what is generally considered a "doctrinal precept", not dealing with prudence per se (though I admit there may be a proper analogy). The text you quoted also says this:


Quote:
While it is not intrinsically unorthodox to hold, as some theologians have done, that in a very rare and exceptional case a doctrinal precept of the Holy See may be inaccurate and need subsequent revision, a loyal Catholic can only be exceedingly reluctant to admit that this has occurred in any concrete case.


I agree, we should always be "exceedingly reluctant" to question any law (not just the Popes). I think John's (Lane's) idea was that you ought to readily accept any law, unless you cannot.


Mike wrote:
...you have made me wish to be more clear and accurate on this point.


I take that as a severe complement, given your knowledge and studies. Thank you.

In Christ,
Bill


Dear Bill,

I thank you also for the discussion. I also appreciate the kind words and the respect shown towards myself. I have that same respect for you also. I think in the times that we live in that many of us, ordinary laymen, for the love of the Church are drawn to study theology, as we all see the Church under attack from all sides, and we also see the utter confusion among the faithful on so many points of theology.

Among these laymen, first of all, I would regard John Lane and John Daly, among other who have studied and devoted tremendous time to researching and defending the faith. But, also, I have been very edified to read the posts of Vincent, Cristian, yourself and others on this forum, all laymen who love the Church, and love theology, and wish to submit with docility to the Magisterium and the authorized teachers of the Church.

I continue to find it amazing that so many men and women who come out of the ashes of the Novus Ordo, find the truth, and come to love the truth, learn their Faith, and wish to be good Catholics as their grandparents or great grandparents once were. It is a beautiful and magnificent thing to witness.

So, in that context, I am willing to be learn from any Catholic who presents to me the authorized writings of the theologians, or writings of the Sacred Magisterium. The longer I read and study from these great men, the Church's theologians, the more I realize how ignorant I am.

I pray for better times, that we will once again live under a pope and under the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him, we as Catholics will readily submit to all laws, and once again have authorized teachers, trained and approved by the Church to look to learn theology, so that error may come to an end among the faithful of the Church.

God bless you.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:59 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
7) Mendive "Institutiones" (1895) pag 352

2) Whether the Roman Pontiff is infallible on approving a religious order.
Answer: 2 things should be considered when the Pope institute some religious order, honestas, that is the aptitude to get the christian perfection and opportunitas of that institution.
.... regarding the second, many theologians such as Cano (De Locis book 5, chap 5), Bañez, Sylvius etc, deny infalibillity, whereas Valentia (De Fide disp. 1.41) following the opposite opinion says: "in no way should be accepted the possibility the R. Pontiff may bound the Universal Church to something that not belongs to her construction (aedificationem) but rather in some way or other to her destruction.
But when the Pontiff accepts in the Church a religious order certainly bounds and obliges the Uiversal Church to the point (eatenus) that one cannot oppose to it..." Suarez (Vol 3, de Religione, book 2 c 17 n 22) thinks this teaching is "magis pium", and notes that unless it is evident the Pope was wrong we should always suppose he is right (notatque semper pro Pontifice praesumendum esse, ubi aliud evidenter non constat)".

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
John wrote

Quote:
Further, it refers to special graces, analogous or parallel to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are granted to the hierarchy in order to enable them to act as docile instruments of Our Lord. The three named are the gifts of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. This notion it seems to me is exactly the same one referred to by Pope Leo XIII above, as a "special light of the gift of counsel" - counsel, of course, being especially required in the application of eternal principles to contingent facts, one of the vital tasks of government, and of course it is also a gift of the Holy Ghost. I submit that Leo refers here not to the gift of the Holy Ghost, but rather to what Fenton describes as gratiae gratis datae. That is, Fenton distinguishes them from the Gifts of the Holy Ghost precisely on the ground that they have a social purpose, the fulfilling of the duties of the office, rather than primarily an individual purpose, the perfecting of the individual.


John i completely agree with that, i thought Leo XIII referred to the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but obviously not, among other reasons because the gifts of the Holy Ghost cannot act unless the person be in state of grace, and clearly Leo XIII makes no difference on whether or not the Pope is in mortal sin.
Nonetheless, glancing Garrigou´s outstanding work "The three ages of the Spiritual Life", when talking about prudence,i founded this statement: "This gift of council flies to help prudence above all in the difficult and unexpected circumstances... etc (translation from Spanish).
It is obvious from the context that he is talking about one of the seven gift of the Holy Ghost (council), but nonetheless i think this shows there is a relationship between council and prudence, and as you said "it refers to special graces, analogous or parallel to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost", and so it seems that according to Leo XIII when the Pope receives that grace (and is faithful to it, which it should always be supposed) prudence is guaranteed.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
8. Ch. Pesch. De Ecclesia (Thesis L)

N 541: "We neither say the Ecclesiastical laws are always the most prudent of all. Nowhere was promissed to those who govern the Church the summus of prudence in the practical order (in rebus agendis), but only that which is enough to conserve intact faith and moral, nor we say the ecclesiastical laws are immutable..."

N 546 "... what Cano (De Locis Book 5.5) wrote on this topic is irreverent and imprudent (quae de hac re scripsit Canus sunt imprudenter et irreverenter dicta et a reliquis theologis reiciuntur) and was rejected by the theologians" (i´ll quote him later).

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

Leon Bloy


Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
9) Muncunil S.I., De Ecclesia .

Num. 507: " We don´t deal here on whether or not such (universal) law has to be completely prudent, advisable (conveniens) and timely. Suarez says (De Fide, d 5, s. 8, num 8.) This (that is, the infallibility of the Pope in promulgating universal laws) should be understood regarding the substance or morality of it, but regarding the circumstances... there is no inconvenient to commit some human defect because this is not against the Sanctity of the Church...".
"... We don´t deal here (in approving a Religious Order) with infallibility regarding prucence, opportunity and other similar circumstances...
Then he quotes Suarez saying the same as in the precedent paragraph, and Billuart (see the quote of Herve).

Corollarium II: "if the R. Pontiff would err (errare) in particular facts, for instance in repeating the sacrament of order, in granting dispensations, etc. wouldn´t be licit to conclude against infallibility, because there is neither... a definition Ex-Cathedra nor a universal law... Nevertheless to judge the Pope erred in those cases, is per se rash (temararium), because it may happen the Pope know better the case and has an assistence of God attached to His charge (quia Pontifex rem melius noscere potuit, et adiutorium Dei adnexum muneri habet)
and it doesn´t belong to the faithfuls to judge their Pastor".

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
10) John of Saint Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, Tomus Septimus, Disp III, art. III, De Auct. Summi Pontificis.

Art.III) "Whether the Pope may err in promulgating universal laws or in approving a Religious Order"

III)... it should be noted that what also is thought by Suarez and Bañez, namely that there is no problem (to say) the Pope may err in some circumstances of the laws made by him, for instance to multiply the precepts, or to be too severe (rigorem), or in imposing a penalty; but he cannot err in its substance, and regarding the morality of the law... and so... we can distinguish its morality as if where its object (quasi ex parte obiecti), or its aplication hic et nunc (here and now) to some persons or circumstances, as severity etc,; the two latter (quae duo) seem to belong to prudence, excecution and direction of the law rather than to its substance.

V) Nevertheless regarding the prudential application to some persons, or in condemning someone, or in some circumstances of law there is no problem to believe the Pope may err, because all these things depend upon a fallible testimony of men, as Saint Thomas says (Qudl. IX, last chapter)... (and then he quotes some text in support of this theaching and says) it is patent (constat) that the Church may err in imposing some penalty, in applying some laws... and in that which dependes upon information or truth of fact (veritate facti) may err and in fact many times pontifical laws are revoked... but in those laws proposed to the universal Church as those of an ecumenical Council, or given in a code, it is more difficult to admit even a prudential error, because of the general approval, and so they can`t be revoked unless a special mention is made of it.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:18 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
V) Nevertheless regarding the prudential application to some persons, or in condemning someone, or in some circumstances of law there is no problem to believe the Pope may err, because all these things depend upon a fallible testimony of men, as Saint Thomas says (Qudl. IX, last chapter)...


Dear Cristian,

That you very much for doing this work.

It seems clear that it is possible to maintain what is maintained by many, that the Roman Pontiff is specially protected in relation to prudence, and also that he may err by being deceived in relation to contingent facts. This is what I was pointing out with respect to Leo II, whom Bellarmine says was deceived by the falsification of documents by the Greeks - and yet his decision in relation to the Honorius case displays the highest degree of prudence, as far as I can judge. So, he was specially prudent, and yet deceived and we may even admit, could have erred. What was before him on the table was defective data, yet his judgement was in itself prudent.

One thing that this discussion has brought out very successfully is the necessity to read precise texts carefully. That is, the theologians write with incredible precision, and therefore they ought to be read very closely, noting carefully the various modifying terms.

I'm interested to see what Cano wrote that other theologians rejected. I'll bet it sounds like the common opinion on Angelqueen... :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
John Lane wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
V) Nevertheless regarding the prudential application to some persons, or in condemning someone, or in some circumstances of law there is no problem to believe the Pope may err, because all these things depend upon a fallible testimony of men, as Saint Thomas says (Qudl. IX, last chapter)...


Dear Cristian,

That you very much for doing this work.


Dear John,

You`re welcome, actually it is my pleasure.
I`m just admired of the patience many of the members of this forum have with mi translations! :)

Quote:
It seems clear that it is possible to maintain what is maintained by many, that the Roman Pontiff is specially protected in relation to prudence, and also that he may err by being deceived in relation to contingent facts. This is what I was pointing out with respect to Leo II, whom Bellarmine says was deceived by the falsification of documents by the Greeks - and yet his decision in relation to the Honorius case displays the highest degree of prudence, as far as I can judge. So, he was specially prudent, and yet deceived and we may even admit, could have erred. What was before him on the table was defective data, yet his judgement was in itself prudent.

One thing that this discussion has brought out very successfully is the necessity to read precise texts carefully. That is, the theologians write with incredible precision, and therefore they ought to be read very closely, noting carefully the various modifying terms.


Agree

Quote:
I'm interested to see what Cano wrote that other theologians rejected.

Me too, Cano`s latin is quite rare :D

Quote:
I'll bet it sounds like the common opinion on Angelqueen... :)

No idea what you mean:?:

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:41 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I`m just admired of the patience many of the members of this forum have with mi translations! :)

They're a bit ordinary, but they're infinitely better than the ones we don't have. :)

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Quote:
I'll bet it sounds like the common opinion on Angelqueen... :)

No idea what you mean:?:

I mean that as a result of ignorance and the pressure of current circumstances, men have adopted views which are in no way compatible with the common doctrine of the schools, particularly in relation to the role, prerogatives, and charisms of the Roman Pontiff. Things that were never heard from Catholic lips are now almost commonplaces. Examples include the inconceivably rash repetition of the Protestant and Gallican calumnies against numerous popes (that they erred etc.), the impossible quote attributed to Pius IX to the effect that one must be prepared to reject the teaching of the Roman Pontiff when he errs, the completely flippant attitude towards the non-infallible judgements and decisions of the men regarded by most Catholics as Roman Pontiffs since V2, etc.

It is difficult to maintain the right attitude of complete horror towards these opinions and attitudes whilst also maintaining the perfect peace which charity demands.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
11) M. Cano, De Locis Book V, Chap. 5, n 46.
Cfr. Ch Pech (number 8.)

Latin text
Quote:
"... Ordines igitur vel probare vel refellere, quoniam non e scientia id solum, sed etiam e prudentia pendet, non ad ea pertinet, in quibus S. pontifex errare nequit. Atqui iam vel in concilio Lateranensi advertebatur, religionum nimiam multitudinem, quam nunc esse videmus, valde Ecclesiae Christi incommodare. Concilium quoque Lugdunense fatetur..."
"Et quidem ante D. Thomae tempora adeo restricte et gravate novi ordines admittebantur... nostro vero hoc saeculo tam multae sunt religiones a pontficibus confirmatae, ut qui eas omnes tueri voluerit tamquam Ecclesaie vel utiles vel necessarias, hic imprudentiae, non dicam stultitiae nomine, iure optimo summisque rationibus arguatur..."


"...To approve or reject a religious order, and because it does not depend on knowlegde alone but also on prudence, does not belong to those things in which the Pope cannot err, and therefore in the Lateran Council (De Rel. do. cap. ult.) was warned about the inconvenience for the Church to have a lot of religious orders. Also the Council of Lion (De Rel. do. in 6.)..."
"... and so before the times of S. Thomas news religious orders were admited with grave reasons and in a restricted way... In our times the R. Orders approved by the popes are so numerous, that he who hould try to defend them as useful or necessary, could rightly and with grave reasons be called imprudent, not to say fool (stultus)"

Note: it seems from the context of the first paragraph that Cano is not denying the infallibility of the Popes in approving a R. Order but rather regarding prudence, and that is the opinion of some theologian, but right here i can`t say his name.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Dear Cristian,

Thank you again for all of this work, and now for finding Cano. I agree that his words were shocking - he didn't merely assert in the abstract that popes may make imprudent decisions, he identified a current trend in papal government which he characterised as imprudent as a whole. Incredible!

The doctrine which seems to me to be both common and to be consistent with all that we know about the related doctrines and historical facts is that given by John of St. Thomas, as follows:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
V) Nevertheless regarding the prudential application to some persons, or in condemning someone, or in some circumstances of law there is no problem to believe the Pope may err, because all these things depend upon a fallible testimony of men, as Saint Thomas says (Qudl. IX, last chapter)... it is patent (constat) that the Church may err in imposing some penalty, in applying some laws... and in that which dependes upon information or truth of fact (veritate facti) may err and in fact many times pontifical laws are revoked... but in those laws proposed to the universal Church as those of an ecumenical Council, or given in a code, it is more difficult to admit even a prudential error, because of the general approval, and so they can`t be revoked unless a special mention is made of it.


So, in the Honorius case we may admit an error by Leo II due to his necessary reliance upon the fallible testimony of men; and yet we may also maintain that popes receive a special light of the gift of counsel which ensures that their acts will always be prudent, even though we know that their acts are not guaranteed to be the most prudent possible on every occasion.

Pesch summarises this very concisely, "We neither say the Ecclesiastical laws are always the most prudent of all. Nowhere was promised to those who govern the Church the fulness of prudence in the practical order (in rebus agendis), but only that which is enough to conserve intact faith and morals, nor do we say the ecclesiastical laws are immutable..."

Clearly in Pesch's mind there was a guarantee given by Our Lord to assist with the gift of counsel so as "to conserve intact faith and morals." But that guarantee does not extend to ensuring that every decision is the most prudent possible. If this were not true, the theologians would say, "popes may err and they may act imprudently." But that is not what they say, and for good reason, as we have seen.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: 1956 Address of Pope Pius XII on the Liturgy
Quote:
John Lane wrote:
Dear Cristian,

Thank you again for all of this work, and now for finding Cano. I agree that his words were shocking - he didn't merely assert in the abstract that popes may make imprudent decisions, he identified a current trend in papal government which he characterised as imprudent as a whole. Incredible!

The doctrine which seems to me to be both common and to be consistent with all that we know about the related doctrines and historical facts is that given by John of St. Thomas, as follows:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
V) Nevertheless regarding the prudential application to some persons, or in condemning someone, or in some circumstances of law there is no problem to believe the Pope may err, because all these things depend upon a fallible testimony of men, as Saint Thomas says (Qudl. IX, last chapter)... it is patent (constat) that the Church may err in imposing some penalty, in applying some laws... and in that which dependes upon information or truth of fact (veritate facti) may err and in fact many times pontifical laws are revoked... but in those laws proposed to the universal Church as those of an ecumenical Council, or given in a code, it is more difficult to admit even a prudential error, because of the general approval, and so they can`t be revoked unless a special mention is made of it.


So, in the Honorius case we may admit an error by Leo II due to his necessary reliance upon the fallible testimony of men; and yet we may also maintain that popes receive a special light of the gift of counsel which ensures that their acts will always be prudent, even though we know that their acts are not guaranteed to be the most prudent possible on every occasion.

Pesch summarises this very concisely, "We neither say the Ecclesiastical laws are always the most prudent of all. Nowhere was promised to those who govern the Church the fulness of prudence in the practical order (in rebus agendis), but only that which is enough to conserve intact faith and morals, nor do we say the ecclesiastical laws are immutable..."

Clearly in Pesch's mind there was a guarantee given by Our Lord to assist with the gift of counsel so as "to conserve intact faith and morals." But that guarantee does not extend to ensuring that every decision is the most prudent possible. If this were not true, the theologians would say, "popes may err and they may act imprudently." But that is not what they say, and for good reason, as we have seen.


You are welcome, John.
Thanks for this summary... i perfectly agree.

Cristian

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

Leon Bloy


Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


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.