Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2019 12:22:21 GMT
On the Condemnation of Error
[Adapted and translated via Google Chrome from here.]
The following article explains why error must be refuted (regardless of where it comes from), and also shows why the SSPX, which formerly fulfilled this duty, must rely more than ever today on it.
The Critical Ministry of Fraternity by Fr. François-Marie Chautard
n ° 239 of June 2008
[...] Left to work from the inside, can we not keep a respectful silence on the modern errors spread by the authorities while preaching the good doctrine?
To tell the truth, respectful silence is only morally possible to avoid a worse evil. The story of St. Pius X provides us with an example with the Action Francaise, when he felt that a conviction was inappropriate and would have resulted in many more inconveniences than advantages. In the present case [of silence in the face of the errors of Vatican II], however, the circumstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (negligence for the common good of faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of the error (the apparent mise en ban of the visible society of the conciliar Church).
The answer is therefore in one word: the good of faith. The good of faith today presupposes the condemnation of error for two reasons:
- it is not enough to preach the truth but also to condemn errors;
- prevent the fall of those who might be tempted to succumb to it.
Let us add the following arguments that weigh in the balance and show that a true love of faith can not be conjugated today with a respectful silence:
1. The truth demands the condemnation of error: "The preachers of the truth must do two things, namely to exhort according to a holy doctrine, and to overcome contradiction."1
2. The good of faith postulates this public condemnation of error even though authority would fall into i : " In case of necessity, where faith is in peril, anyone is bound to make known his faith, either to instruct or strengthen the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of the infidels"2
3. The truth is much better evidenced by the distinction from error and condemnation of it.4
4. The truth should not hide for fear of the critics that will always exist whatever happens: " It is better to cause scandal than to give up the truth."5
5. The policy of seeking only traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner that only detects traditional passages) is basically the same that supports ecumenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (for not to risk undermining an agreement that would promote rapprochement).
6. The rational foundations of our position rest on Rome's betrayal and abandonment of Tradition. To mention only the good sides of Rome would gradually lead us to forget the reasons for our struggle and to fall insensibly back into the errors we fought.
7. The best service we can render in Rome is not to be silent about conciliar errors and to remain firm. What would you say about a wife or children who would not tell their husband or father when he or she would go down a deadly path? Is not this not love, but servile and cruel cowardice?
8. This clarity of exposition and therefore this condemnation of errors is made more necessary because of the increased confusion in the Church and especially in traditional circles. This confusion can be explained by:
- The discord Ecclesia Dei, who more than 20 years later, does not stop realizing his goal: to irritate the convictions and to divide the forces.
- a more and more varied palette of doctrinal nuances and therefore a greater confusion of minds, minds that have difficulty in getting an idea, which was not the case when the two "camps" were well settled;
- a youth who did not know the veterans' fights, did not have to position themselves and therefore needs more precision;
- a loss in some of the habit of combat and with it to reflect on the reasons for it since the last crisis in 1988 had renewed beliefs.
9. To mention only the good sides of Rome would lead first to believe that the crisis is coming to an end, then in a short time, not to understand the refusal of the authorities of the fraternity to conclude an agreement with Rome, and therefore to mitigate this resistance force. That being said on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether the rallies have at least kept their starting positions. [...]
(1) St. Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, lesson 3, no. 72.
(2) St. Thomas Aquinas, Theological Summa, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.
(3) St. Thomas Aquinas, Theological Summa, II.II.q.33, a.4 , ad 2.
(4) It is the process of St. Thomas that raises objections, the affirmation of truth and the answer to objections.
(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezekiel.