Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 1:41:52 GMT
Let’s not confuse things. Don’t lose common sense. Pius XII was not referring to family and individual decisions. Neither was Archbp. Lefebvre when he wrote about “ lay theologians”.
Look at what they speak about.
Pius XII- “ professors of this theology occupying established chairs, courses are given, notes published, seminars held.” Archbp. Lefebvre in the OPEN LETTER writing about this new religion of Vat. II and it's new teachings to Catholics:- “ The new Canon Law supports all this. Lay theologians hold chairs of theology in Catholic universities, the faithful take over roles in divine worship which were once reserved to those in clerical orders: they administer some of the sacraments, they distribute Holy Communion and serve as witnesses at weddings.” As far as family decisions Archbp. Lefebvre writes: " This extraordinary influence of the family and background was intended by God. He willed that His blessings should first of all be passed on by the family. This is the reason why He gives to the father of a family such great authority and power over his family, his wife and his children.”Again from the Archbishop: “ This is why Catholics in this latter part of the twentieth century have a duty to be more vigilant than their fathers were. (referring to those Catholics who followed the clergy in going along with the changes) They must not let just any idea be imposed upon them.” Yes, the above papal encyclical of Pope Pius XII was referring to a different example (university professors, etc.) but the principle the Pope gives can be applied to any layperson. “… a danger also lest others begin to be taught by men clearly unfitted for the task.” The Angelus article below talks about “lay theologians” (“unqualified teachers,” “unauthorized teachers”), using the papal encyclical of Pope Pius X, and also mentions that although Pope Pius X “spoke in slightly different circumstances, his words apply equally well to our self-declared traditionalist "theologians": from The Angelus, June 1978 BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
A Guest Editorial by Douglas Laudenschlager
In the present period of general apostasy from the true faith, the infidelity to their office of those pastors of the Church who have inherited the sacred teaching authority of the Apostles has posed, and left unsolved, many of the gravest and most delicate theological problems that the Church has ever encountered—especially the questions of the Pope and of the new "Mass" and "Sacraments." Many anguished Catholics, abandoned by the shepherds who should have provided answers and guidance, have begun to seek the solutions themselves, studying to the best of their ability the traditional principles of Catholic theology and canon law and striving to determine their application in the cases at hand. But the circumstances of daily life permit such a demanding task to relatively few. As an unfortunate result, the quite natural desire to know what to think and how to act in this grave crisis of religious duties has left many all too willing to listen, without sufficient discernment, to anyone, whatever his qualifications, who seems to provide an easy answer.More regrettably yet, such unqualified teachers have not failed to appear, and the good of souls obliges us to unmask them before faithful Catholics. The chemist, the weatherman, the rejected seminarian, even housewives—each turns out his or her little bulletin, sometimes containing an impressive amount of references and quotations, and always insisting that they "have all the answers." When t hese unauthorized teachers do not clearly reveal their intentions, we must not seek to judge them; however, the hatred and obsession frequently evident in the pages of their publications suffice to indicate the questionable equilibrium and purity of intention of their authors. Whatever their intentions, there exists a spreading abuse, that risks leading, and has already led unsuspecting Catholics farther and farther away from sound Catholic notions and a balanced Catholic response to the present crisis. On May 31, 1954, Pope Pius XII addressed a group of several hundred bishops on the subject of unqualified laymen who were usurping a teaching authority not rightfully theirs. Though he spoke in slightly different circumstances, his words apply equally well to our self-declared traditionalist "theologians": "As to the layfolk, it is clear that the legitimate Teachers (i.e. especially the Pope and the Bishops) can appeal to them or admit them, men and women, as auxiliaries in the defense of the faith. It suffices to recall the teaching of the catechism, in which so many thousands of men and women are employed, as well as the other forms of the apostolate of layfolk. All of this merits the greatest praises, and can and should be energetically developed. But it is necessary that such laymen be and remain under the authority, the guidance and the vigilance of those who by divine institution have been established teachers in the Church of Christ. There is in fact no teaching authority in the Church, in all that concerns the salvation of souls, which is not subject to this power and to this vigilance. "Recently, however, what is called 'lay theology' has come to light here and there and has begun to spread, and a category of lay theologians who declare themselves autonomous has been born; this theology gives courses, prints publications, has study groups, professorial chairs, and professors. These latter distinguish their teaching authority from the public teaching authority of the Church, and oppose it in a certain way to their own; sometimes to justify their behavior they appeal to the charisms of teaching and interpretation that the New Testament, and especially the Epistles of St. Paul, mention more than once; they appeal to history, 'which from the beginning of Christianity to this day, includes the names of so many laymen who by word and writing have taught the truth of Christ for the welfare of souls without having been called to do so by the Bishops, without having received or requested the permission of the Magisterium, but motivated by an interior impulsion and by their apostolic zeal.' "We must, however, maintain on the contrary that there never was, there is not, and there never shall be in the Church a legitimate teaching authority of laymen separated by God from the authority, the guidance, and the vigilance of the Sacred Magisterium; moreover, their very refusal to be subject furnishes a convincing argument and a sure criterion: laymen who speak and act thus are not guided by the spirit of God and of Christ. Everyone can see what danger both of disorder and of error this 'lay theology' contains: the danger as well that such men, men wholly incapable and even deceitful and perfidious, begin to instruct others; men of whom St. Paul writes, 'For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine: but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned into fables.' " The Pope then continues that he certainly does not desire his warning to discourage laymen "from a more profound study of Christian doctrine." But they must not presume to solve the most difficult theological questions of all time and solemnly pronounce theological opinions on every issue after a bit of paging about in old books! The authoritative commentary on the Pope's allocution, published by L'Osservatore Romano on September 16, 1954, wisely remarks that "half-knowledge is sometimes worse than total ignorance." Let us consider a single example of the great delicacy with which the Church herself resolves theological controversies—the question of Anglican Orders in 1896. Pope Leo XIII was ultimately to declare in Apostolicae Curae that their invalidity "has been the common theological opinion—and one confirmed on several occasions by the pronouncements of the Church and by her consistent practice." So the question was already settled! And yet, the Pope did not hesitate, before issuing his bull, to submit it once again to a final examination, lasting several months, by a commission of eminent theologians and the Cardinals of the Holy Office. What a zeal for perfect accuracy and certitude, often so blatantly absent from the impassioned writings of our self-styled pseudo-magisteria! In the last two years, Catholics have witnessed an eloquent example of the diabolical perversity of such theological half-knowledge in the 'conspiracy' of calumny and canonical misreasoning of the writers in question against His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, himself a distinguished theologian, whose work for the preservation of the Catholic faith in pure fidelity to traditional principles Divine Providence has blessed and favored at every step. In questions of theological and canonical nature, let loyal Catholics trust the priests devoted to their service, whose theological formation, as the Osservatore Romano article recalls, "is particularly adequate and complete, both because of the time that is consecrated to it, and because of the sureness of the teaching of their instructors, and also because of their direct and continuous adhesion to the living and authoritative Magisterium of the Church." "Laymen generally speaking do not find themselves in the same favorable conditions."
True, this training has not prevented all priests from accepting the 'new religion.' But "if persons consecrated by their vocation and by their state of life to the quest of theological truth have sometimes fallen into errors, how much greater will not be the danger incurred by laymen when they have the pretentiousness to play theologian and to erect their teaching chairs in the bosom of the Church!" Catholics must realize that they have a duty NOT TO READ or support in any way the writing of such unqualified lay 'teachers,' not even "to keep abreast of what they are saying." And let them encourage all their fellow Catholics to do likewise. NO ONE may endanger his faith and salvation by confiding in such doubtful self-established 'popes,' devoid of all authority and of the necessary training. Once all loyal Catholics will have abandoned them to their lonely obsessions, they will ultimately disappear and be forgotten, and the great work of the salvation of souls will calmly continue with one less hell-bred hindrance. ________________________________________ Mr. Laudenschlager, a native of Emmaus, Pennsylvania, is a seminarian at the International Seminary of St. Pius X, Ecône. Source: www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=57
|
|
|
Post by johnno on Dec 3, 2018 3:04:38 GMT
What the Pope says is absolutely true. But to make such a sweeping statement that covers all the laity declaring they are all untrained is irresponsible. Canon law which is changeable according to which Pope rules is more important that our basic dogmatic unchangeable Catechism by which ABL exhorted the laity to question our priests is not acceptable? The 'training' that counts is that which is recommended by the saints which comes through the gifts of the Holy Spirit when we pray. The gift of understanding is one of them. To limit oneself to promoting Canon Law above teachings in the Catachism is tantamount to a child who, when reaching adulthood, still depends on the commands of his mother rather than think things through himself. He still has to be ordered again and again not to cross the road without looking. He can always blame his mother in the event he is eventually injured by a car when he doesn't cross the road. After all he obeyed her!
What about errors in priests' theologies? Priests such as the Pope, Bishops and priests?
..
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Dec 3, 2018 3:19:46 GMT
Well then if you hold to that article Pulcheria should you be reading Catholic forums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 4:01:05 GMT
Well then if you hold to that article Pulcheria should you be reading Catholic forums? I guess you missed the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 18:12:13 GMT
My name is Christa Richards. I live in Ohio. I joined the Our Lady of Mount Carmel resistance in May 2015. I attended the Mass of September 13, 2015 with Metropolitan Archbishop Ambrose Moran Dolgorouky. I witnessed nothing out of the ordinary in the Mass. His sermon was full of amazing history of the Church which he had lived through. I had no reason whatsoever to not believe he was exactly who he said he was. I saw the video interviews he gave with Fr. Hewko and became even more honored to have been able to have attended a Mass offered by him. I did not hear of him again at all for an entire year except for the beginnings of horrible accusations being flung which I became indifferent to. I never paid any attention to forums and websites until August of 2018 in finding out that my ten year old son’s picture had been posted on someone’s site in order to promote some lies against the Archbishop. No great mystery as to why the picture was brought down, a picture of my son was being used for a dishonest purpose. It was then also made known to me that my family’s personal website intended only for family had also been posted. I have recently been added to a mailing list from ‘Preiz, Lisez et Resistez’ spreading accusations about the Archbishop. I most likely was wrong to have not paid closer attention to all this in order to defend the Archbishop and in so doing defend Holy Mother Church. I will now do so. In late September of 2016 I began wondering how the Archbishop was doing so I got in touch with him. It was very easy. Thus began my communication with the Archbishop. At that time he was living in Colorado. We simply texted back and forth mostly about whose feast day it was and normal pleasantries. In February, 2017 I became aware that the Archbishop was looking for a cheaper place to live. By chance my in-laws had a small rental become vacant at that same time period. I told the Archbishop of the availability and he made a rental agreement with my in-laws. Father Pfeiffer and Father Hewko and Pablo had nothing to do with it and they did not even know until I told them after the fact. It was nothing out of the ordinary nor mysterious. Just a man renting a home from an older couple who had an available rental property. A normal rental contract was made. My mother-in-law has since past away and so the property and rental contract has been transferred over to my husband. Not only has the Archbishop never missed a rental payment but he is also always on time. Archbishop Ambrose moved into my in-laws’ rental property on June 1, 2017. My husband, two sons, and I helped him move in. At that time he was still suffering greatly from a bad hip. My family witnessed firsthand the enormous quantity of personal effects belonging to the Archbishop that point to exactly who he is. I have lived three minutes away from the Archbishop for the past 18 months. My family and I have come to know him on a weekly basis. We have shared dinners, lunches, stories, family joys and sorrows with him over this time. I hope it is not too much to say that I feel I have come to know the man. I have seen him suffer greatly with physical pain as well as the pain of all the hateful lies from the souls he would love to help. He has endured it all for the sake of these same souls. He is patient in suffering but steadfast in the Faith and the respect due his Episcopacy. He is who he says he is. Education: The Archbishop has made no false claims of all his degrees and doctorates in the fields of medicine, behavioral sciences and psychology. We have unboxed plaque after plaque of embossed, signed and sealed diplomas, a number of which are upper graduate level and doctorate. The man is a treasure of knowledge. Priesthood and Episcopacy: Everything about the Archbishop points to the Catholic Church and his Episcopacy. His demeanor, dress, speech, gestures, stories, artifacts, relics, crosiers, miters, pectoral crosses, icons, vestments, photo albums, document after document, not to mention the polystavrion sakkos and omophorion over his shoulders which he is wearing in the picture in front of Santa Sofia Church in Rome alongside Cardinal Slipyj. Both of these vestments are hanging in his closet. I see them every week when I go to visit him and straighten up a bit for him. When we were unpacking his belongings I recognized this vestment and asked him about it. I even compared it to the picture and it is the very same. And yes, the original picture is hanging in his home. It is aged but still in good shape. He is a Roman Catholic Bishop with permission to celebrate Mass in both the Byzantine and Latin Rite. This privilege was granted to him by Patriarch Josyf Cardinal Slipyj. That he is a Catholic, a priest, and bishop there is no doubt. I have seen an abundance of proof of this in his home. I have seen his original baptismal certificate as he showed it to me himself. I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of photos in albums of him teaching at Catholic Schools, at the military academy, in the seminary, offering his first Mass with his mother and father present, giving blessings after his first Mass and on and on. I’ve seen his certificate to the priesthood and consecration as a bishop. I know all the answers to the 24 objections because I just asked him. It all has solidly reasonable answers. So many of the objections are assumptions or misinformed opinions. Like #23 about the girl who could not decide on a vocation. The Archbishop told the young lady she could marry a Greek Catholic Seminarian and end up married to a Greek Catholic Priest. This is very true. Even though it is something I’m not used to and it took me by surprise because I grew up in the Western Rite, it is nonetheless true. In fact Fr. Chirovsky (the man used to promote a lie in #24) is a Ukrainian Catholic priest who is married with two children. In fact he was already married when Cardinal Slipyj ordained him. So, objection #23 is answered as I just gave you the answer. The Archbishop offered to say the Latin Mass at our house so we would not have to drive three hours to Kentucky on Sundays. Father Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko had nothing to do with this and they did not know until I told them. I support both the Kentucky Fathers and the Archbishop as I hope my loyalty will always remain with Holy Mother Church. The Resistance priests as well as Archbishop Ambrose are clergy in Holy Mother Church. Archbishop Ambrose teaches the Holy Roman Catholic Faith. He is not an Orthodox. He works hard trying to bring the Orthodox back into the Roman Catholic Church. He catechizes my two sons and has taught them how to serve Latin Rite Mass for a Bishop - down to removing the zucchetto at the appropriate times and getting it back on the head on time and that type of thing. (The Orthodox do not wear zucchettos.) His sermons point always to the One Holy Roman Catholic Church. He preaches against heretics, schismatic and the Vatican II Church, which he calls a false church. Royalty: Archbishop Ambrose Moran Dolgorouky is a Royal Prince through the Dolgorouky line in the Kingdom of Naples. In his house are painted portraits of himself, his cousin and his mother in royal attire. He has plaques and certificates of a number of knighthoods. He has royal pins which he often wears. One woman met him for the first time on a day he happened to be wearing one of his royal pins. She is a learned woman and she knew exactly what it was…..for my embarrassment I did not, but I do now. She was quite taken with the fact that he had it. While unpacking his personal effects we found a number of items pointing to his royalty. Two simple items, but very neat, were two large decorative menus of separate dates from a famous restaurant in New York City. They had been created especially for the Archbishop. One was celebrating his birthday and the other the anniversary of his ordination. Both menus had his name printed on the front as such: H.R.H. Archbishop Ambrose. (H.R.H. – His Royal Highness). The Archbishop has allowed me to record his sermons in order to share his ministry with all the Faithful. I began doing this in July with a few gaps. I will strive to always record them such that his effectiveness will spread through the whole Church. Here is his Youtube channel. I thank you for your consideration. I’ll not be back on this forum, I’m just making this one post as I do not wish to be pulled into any type of discussion. Archbishop Ambrose Sermons - Youtube Channel Thank you, Christa for coming forward. Not only have you explained the ‘disappearance’ of websites (e.g. your family site), you have provided huge circumstantial evidence that supports Father Pfeifer and Father Hewko’s talk(s).
While some have accused Father Pfeifer of privately supporting Bishop Ambrose, you have shown that Father in fact was not involved. Providence is showing that Father is more objective than some are willing to give credit for.
Many in the Resistance are also the veterans of the beginning struggles of the SSPX and have the good memory of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Does this predispose us to expect a bishop who has the same saintliness and wisdom? I say we need to put away our ‘expectations’ and simply take the Church’s criteria to our hearts.
Does it matter where a Bishop comes from, or how great a ‘sinner’ he may appear to us? What, really, do we deserve? What matters is validity, Catholicity, and union with the Eternal Rome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 18:26:06 GMT
I guess you missed the point.
I agree Pulcheria, more than one poster is missing the point.
Our basic dogmatic unchangeable Catechism in the case of Bishop Ambrose demands us to:
Is he Catholic? Check. Is he valid? Check. Check.
Is he (intention) in union with Eternal Rome? Check. Is his preaching (dogma) in union with the Church and the Fathers of the Church? Check.
|
|
agnes
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by agnes on Dec 3, 2018 19:40:15 GMT
Lay theologians, no thank you. One can only imagine the different teachings and interpretation from it, just like all the Protestant sects. I thought that the faith would be restored once the Consecration of Russia was fulfilled. We have our Catechism and Rosary to aid us in this crisis and some are fortunate to have the Mass once a year if that. Our Lord, said that his Church would never die. There will be further turbulent times till the Church obeys Our Lady's request. This is no time for the Pope and the Bishops of the world to fear the risk of looking politically incorrect especially when Putin asked Pope Frances to Consecrate Russia and Pope Frances said he would not speak of it. Do as the Mother of God requested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 12:50:32 GMT
One specific aspect in this circus which isn’t being emphasized enough is a fundamental detail of the so-called "investigation" itself. In much saner days, with these particular circumstances, Holy Mother Church would have commissioned a tribunal/committee of such, to conduct an examination process having upmost scrutiny and deliberation. Such an investigation was done by competent Church authorities who were selected based upon their experience and objectivity, all with the sole intention of attempting to arrive at complete moral certitude.
In this case, the investigation is being conducted primarily by Fr. Pfeiffer. Since Father has an invested interest in the outcome of the investigation, this automatically disqualifies any objectivity in the process. To say the least, such bias is most inordinate; especially with the fact that as the person in charge, Father has no recourse to any authority but his own, which further complicates and ultimately, detracts from his overall judgment and direction. Such bias can also foster discord and division, whereas, impartiality fosters harmony and agreement. Setting oneself up as judge and jury, while pressured with a sense of sacramental desperation are very dangerous variables in the equation. This dilemma, along with additional important points, is considered with greater detail in this recent essay.
It could be argued that because of the crisis in the Church, submitting to the normal Ecclesiastical investigation process is simply impossible. But do such obstacles give license to conduct a subjective process which invariably compromises moral certitude for reasonable doubt? The difficulty in obtaining an independent, objective process is insufficient reason to substitute it for something biased and subjective. When it comes to the Sacraments, the crisis in the Church is not an excuse to abandon the principals of our Faith; but rather, as the Archbishop clearly instructs, it’s even greater reason to hold fast to follow moral certainty and avoid all occasions of doubt.
We’ve been spiritually advised to pray to our Blessed Lady to learn God’s Will. Perhaps His adorable Will in this matter is indeed being manifest to us by the simple fact that the typical Church investigation by competent authorities is a near impossibility; and therefore the arrival at complete moral certitude for this case is just as impossible. This could account for the circus-like confusion and great lack of peace. In following His Will, God never asks us to overcome the impossible; and He certainly never asks us to compromise and settle for what’s "close enough." But often times He does oblige us to just walk away.
Bravo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 12:52:05 GMT
Remy, are you Machabees?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 13:00:26 GMT
In union with Cardinal Slipyj is in union with Catholicism which the records show had brought in many priests including Fr. Moran at the time. This historical part is a key element showing a working relationship and involvement with Cardinal Slipyj rome acknowledges he had ordained/conditionally ordained and consecrated/ conditionally consecrated many priests and bishop through that apostolate. Records show Fr. Moran is one of them. Which records show that Fr. Moran was brought in union with Cardinal Slipyj? Remy, which records show that Fr. Moran was brought in union with Cardinal Slipyj?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 13:01:03 GMT
Remy, please explain how Ambrose Moran was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Slipy when: 1) Ambrose Moran claims he was consecrated in 1976 by Cardinal Slipyj, Bishop Borecky, and Bishop Dimitri: ambrosemoran.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ambrose0022.jpg 2) Ambrose Moran claims Bishop Borecky wrote him a letter dated August 26, 1976 (shortly after the alleged consecration) that he, Ambrose Moran, was appointed the successor to Cardinal Slipyj: ambrosemoran.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ambrose0021.jpg 3) The following letter dated June 30, 1980 was written by William Moran to Bishop Borecky: www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Letter_Fr._Moran_June_30_1980.pdfThis letter was obtained from Fr. Bohdan Bilinksy of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto who found it in the archives of the eparchy: www.ucet.ca/chancery_193.htmIn this letter: a) William Moran addresses himself as a priest (Fr. Moran) and not as a Bishop. b) William Moran requests a reference letter from Bishop Borecky, one of the bishops that Ambrose Moran claims consecrated him, to join a schismatic Orthodox sect (Orthodox Church of America), so that he may finally be canonically regularized. Note: The letter is point #2 above was not found in the Eparchy of Toronto archives. 4) Orthodox priest, Fr. Tosi, confirms that William Moran applied to the Orthodox Church of America as an archimandrite (honorary title for Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests) but was not accepted: www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2018/07/31/the-june-30-1980-letter-of-william-moran-to-bishop-borecky/oca.org/about/chancery-staff
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 13:58:25 GMT
Let’s not confuse things. Don’t lose common sense. Pius XII was not referring to family and individual decisions. Neither was Archbp. Lefebvre when he wrote about “ lay theologians”.
Look at what they speak about.
Pius XII- “ professors of this theology occupying established chairs, courses are given, notes published, seminars held.” Archbp. Lefebvre in the OPEN LETTER writing about this new religion of Vat. II and it's new teachings to Catholics:- “ The new Canon Law supports all this. Lay theologians hold chairs of theology in Catholic universities, the faithful take over roles in divine worship which were once reserved to those in clerical orders: they administer some of the sacraments, they distribute Holy Communion and serve as witnesses at weddings.” As far as family decisions Archbp. Lefebvre writes: " This extraordinary influence of the family and background was intended by God. He willed that His blessings should first of all be passed on by the family. This is the reason why He gives to the father of a family such great authority and power over his family, his wife and his children.”Again from the Archbishop: “ This is why Catholics in this latter part of the twentieth century have a duty to be more vigilant than their fathers were. (referring to those Catholics who followed the clergy in going along with the changes) They must not let just any idea be imposed upon them.” Yes, the above papal encyclical of Pope Pius XII was referring to a different example (university professors, etc.) but the principle the Pope gives can be applied to any layperson. “… a danger also lest others begin to be taught by men clearly unfitted for the task.” The Angelus article below talks about “lay theologians” (“unqualified teachers,” “unauthorized teachers”), using the papal encyclical of Pope Pius X, and also mentions that although Pope Pius X “spoke in slightly different circumstances, his words apply equally well to our self-declared traditionalist "theologians": from The Angelus, June 1978 BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
A Guest Editorial by Douglas Laudenschlager
In the present period of general apostasy from the true faith, the infidelity to their office of those pastors of the Church who have inherited the sacred teaching authority of the Apostles has posed, and left unsolved, many of the gravest and most delicate theological problems that the Church has ever encountered—especially the questions of the Pope and of the new "Mass" and "Sacraments." Many anguished Catholics, abandoned by the shepherds who should have provided answers and guidance, have begun to seek the solutions themselves, studying to the best of their ability the traditional principles of Catholic theology and canon law and striving to determine their application in the cases at hand. But the circumstances of daily life permit such a demanding task to relatively few. As an unfortunate result, the quite natural desire to know what to think and how to act in this grave crisis of religious duties has left many all too willing to listen, without sufficient discernment, to anyone, whatever his qualifications, who seems to provide an easy answer.More regrettably yet, such unqualified teachers have not failed to appear, and the good of souls obliges us to unmask them before faithful Catholics. The chemist, the weatherman, the rejected seminarian, even housewives—each turns out his or her little bulletin, sometimes containing an impressive amount of references and quotations, and always insisting that they "have all the answers." When t hese unauthorized teachers do not clearly reveal their intentions, we must not seek to judge them; however, the hatred and obsession frequently evident in the pages of their publications suffice to indicate the questionable equilibrium and purity of intention of their authors. Whatever their intentions, there exists a spreading abuse, that risks leading, and has already led unsuspecting Catholics farther and farther away from sound Catholic notions and a balanced Catholic response to the present crisis. On May 31, 1954, Pope Pius XII addressed a group of several hundred bishops on the subject of unqualified laymen who were usurping a teaching authority not rightfully theirs. Though he spoke in slightly different circumstances, his words apply equally well to our self-declared traditionalist "theologians": "As to the layfolk, it is clear that the legitimate Teachers (i.e. especially the Pope and the Bishops) can appeal to them or admit them, men and women, as auxiliaries in the defense of the faith. It suffices to recall the teaching of the catechism, in which so many thousands of men and women are employed, as well as the other forms of the apostolate of layfolk. All of this merits the greatest praises, and can and should be energetically developed. But it is necessary that such laymen be and remain under the authority, the guidance and the vigilance of those who by divine institution have been established teachers in the Church of Christ. There is in fact no teaching authority in the Church, in all that concerns the salvation of souls, which is not subject to this power and to this vigilance. "Recently, however, what is called 'lay theology' has come to light here and there and has begun to spread, and a category of lay theologians who declare themselves autonomous has been born; this theology gives courses, prints publications, has study groups, professorial chairs, and professors. These latter distinguish their teaching authority from the public teaching authority of the Church, and oppose it in a certain way to their own; sometimes to justify their behavior they appeal to the charisms of teaching and interpretation that the New Testament, and especially the Epistles of St. Paul, mention more than once; they appeal to history, 'which from the beginning of Christianity to this day, includes the names of so many laymen who by word and writing have taught the truth of Christ for the welfare of souls without having been called to do so by the Bishops, without having received or requested the permission of the Magisterium, but motivated by an interior impulsion and by their apostolic zeal.' "We must, however, maintain on the contrary that there never was, there is not, and there never shall be in the Church a legitimate teaching authority of laymen separated by God from the authority, the guidance, and the vigilance of the Sacred Magisterium; moreover, their very refusal to be subject furnishes a convincing argument and a sure criterion: laymen who speak and act thus are not guided by the spirit of God and of Christ. Everyone can see what danger both of disorder and of error this 'lay theology' contains: the danger as well that such men, men wholly incapable and even deceitful and perfidious, begin to instruct others; men of whom St. Paul writes, 'For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine: but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned into fables.' " The Pope then continues that he certainly does not desire his warning to discourage laymen "from a more profound study of Christian doctrine." But they must not presume to solve the most difficult theological questions of all time and solemnly pronounce theological opinions on every issue after a bit of paging about in old books! The authoritative commentary on the Pope's allocution, published by L'Osservatore Romano on September 16, 1954, wisely remarks that "half-knowledge is sometimes worse than total ignorance." Let us consider a single example of the great delicacy with which the Church herself resolves theological controversies—the question of Anglican Orders in 1896. Pope Leo XIII was ultimately to declare in Apostolicae Curae that their invalidity "has been the common theological opinion—and one confirmed on several occasions by the pronouncements of the Church and by her consistent practice." So the question was already settled! And yet, the Pope did not hesitate, before issuing his bull, to submit it once again to a final examination, lasting several months, by a commission of eminent theologians and the Cardinals of the Holy Office. What a zeal for perfect accuracy and certitude, often so blatantly absent from the impassioned writings of our self-styled pseudo-magisteria! In the last two years, Catholics have witnessed an eloquent example of the diabolical perversity of such theological half-knowledge in the 'conspiracy' of calumny and canonical misreasoning of the writers in question against His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, himself a distinguished theologian, whose work for the preservation of the Catholic faith in pure fidelity to traditional principles Divine Providence has blessed and favored at every step. In questions of theological and canonical nature, let loyal Catholics trust the priests devoted to their service, whose theological formation, as the Osservatore Romano article recalls, "is particularly adequate and complete, both because of the time that is consecrated to it, and because of the sureness of the teaching of their instructors, and also because of their direct and continuous adhesion to the living and authoritative Magisterium of the Church." "Laymen generally speaking do not find themselves in the same favorable conditions."
True, this training has not prevented all priests from accepting the 'new religion.' But "if persons consecrated by their vocation and by their state of life to the quest of theological truth have sometimes fallen into errors, how much greater will not be the danger incurred by laymen when they have the pretentiousness to play theologian and to erect their teaching chairs in the bosom of the Church!" Catholics must realize that they have a duty NOT TO READ or support in any way the writing of such unqualified lay 'teachers,' not even "to keep abreast of what they are saying." And let them encourage all their fellow Catholics to do likewise. NO ONE may endanger his faith and salvation by confiding in such doubtful self-established 'popes,' devoid of all authority and of the necessary training. Once all loyal Catholics will have abandoned them to their lonely obsessions, they will ultimately disappear and be forgotten, and the great work of the salvation of souls will calmly continue with one less hell-bred hindrance. ________________________________________ Mr. Laudenschlager, a native of Emmaus, Pennsylvania, is a seminarian at the International Seminary of St. Pius X, Ecône. Source: www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=57Here we go by the authority argument again. How many times have we heard this before? Novus Ordo. Neo-SSPX. False Resistance. And now OLMC defenders. Authority cannot trump facts.
|
|