Decree of the Congregation for Bishops
CONGREGATIO PRO EPISCOPIS
By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: "We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much."
His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.
With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.
Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Showing posts with label Trad issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trad issues. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Vatican Removes Excommunication on Society of St. Pius X
On January 24th of this year it was reported that the sentence of excommunication imposed upon the Society of St. Pius X in July of 1988 was "lifted". An English translation of the decree was published by Rorate Caeli as follows:
Monday, August 13, 2007
Invincible Ignorance Does Not Save
Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance Neither Saves nor Damns a Person
by Father Michael Müller, C.Ss.R.
(excerpted from The Catholic Dogma)
"But, suppose", some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to Heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give Heaven to anybody, but, as He is just, He certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."
Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth, in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth4. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin," as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) "And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins", says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)
Moreover, a person who wants to go east, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going west, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes east. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to Heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to Heaven. God, in His infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to Heaven, if he corresponds to His grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:
"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?"
To this question we give the following answer:
"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Liberal Objections
S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance. From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam permissæ". To give an example. Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The True Religion and its Dogmas:
"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of Heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, Heaven will be his home for eternity."
We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely:
"This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX. In his allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: 'It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.' "
The True Teaching of Pius IX
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX teach quite the contrary in the following words:
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church -- which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord -- will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which He chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separate from Catholic unity ...
"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that He will throw down the wall of separation, that He will scatter the darkness of error, and that He will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."
Now does not Pius IX say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the "members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that, by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found."
And in his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX says: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command ... We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THlS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH and SALVATION.'' Now does not Pius IX teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, does not Pius IX most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? That the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? That she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands to shine in the kingdom of God? That the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX" To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."
If, in these words, Pius IX says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX thereby teach that such invincible ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation -- all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained?
Pius IX has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times", says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
Mark well, Pius IX uttered these solemn words against "certain men'', whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith, -- he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see?" The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX, from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions.
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.
Neither Saves nor Condemns
Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance", says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin". (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation, is another. To maintain the latter would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."
by Father Michael Müller, C.Ss.R.
(excerpted from The Catholic Dogma)
"But, suppose", some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to Heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give Heaven to anybody, but, as He is just, He certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."
Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth, in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth4. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin," as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) "And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins", says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)
Moreover, a person who wants to go east, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going west, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes east. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to Heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to Heaven. God, in His infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to Heaven, if he corresponds to His grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:
"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?"
To this question we give the following answer:
"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Liberal Objections
S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance. From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam permissæ". To give an example. Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The True Religion and its Dogmas:
"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of Heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, Heaven will be his home for eternity."
We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely:
"This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX. In his allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: 'It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.' "
The True Teaching of Pius IX
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX teach quite the contrary in the following words:
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church -- which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord -- will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which He chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separate from Catholic unity ...
"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that He will throw down the wall of separation, that He will scatter the darkness of error, and that He will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."
Now does not Pius IX say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the "members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that, by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found."
And in his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX says: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command ... We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THlS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH and SALVATION.'' Now does not Pius IX teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, does not Pius IX most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? That the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? That she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands to shine in the kingdom of God? That the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX" To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."
If, in these words, Pius IX says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX thereby teach that such invincible ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation -- all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained?
Pius IX has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times", says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
Mark well, Pius IX uttered these solemn words against "certain men'', whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith, -- he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see?" The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX, from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions.
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.
Neither Saves nor Condemns
Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance", says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin". (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation, is another. To maintain the latter would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bishop Louis Responds concerning Fr. Neil Webster
This a review of Vezelis' response from ForChrist Contra Mundum, a blog affiliated with the bishop Louis Vezelis in response to an interview posted at Most Holy Family Monastery with the Father Neil Webster on the bishop Thuc issue.
What we have here is nothing but an ad hominum attack, we have no real reasons to suspect Fr. Webster or others involved in this interview other than the allegations of this bishop. Notice that he begins by denigrating a monastery by labelling them a "non-Catholic mini-sect", and he says that it is he who has been vilified; however, he does not bother to demonstrate this allegation. The interview was posted and probably made by MHFM to tell a story about an event that concerns many Traditional Catholics, and the validity of the sacraments they recieve. This is due to the fact that there are those who doubt the validity of the bishop on the grounds that he was somehow not mentally capable when he consecrated several bishops to the bishopric.
This interview from a first-hand witness goes to show, that these accusations are wrong.
First of all he comes in saying that he has been so maliciously maligned, then neglects to demonstrate this by pointing out why he thinks that he has been so denigrated, and then turns around and pretends that the whole world knows the facts of the matter already, and that anything untrue or falsely stated about him is done in full cognizence of matter, and thus wholly guilty of a grievous sin; a fallacious assumption. Why? Simply because of the fact that we would have no need of any interview if the facts were already plainly known and thus public, there, then, should never have been an interview at all, then. Since the facts are so concealed in this manner, the accuracy of this account is simply a matter of faith in the integrity of the priest who tells it, the bishop knows this and is why he is attacking the integrity of this priest, since there is no other account that can be consulted at this time. The bishop here does not add clarity, and is not offering to expound the facts of the situation, but rather, to turn this whole account into an ad hominum ad nauseam accusation against a character herein involved. He is not offering what he believes to be the truth, nor to explain why he thinks that he has been vilified.
This is a red herring, this is a distraction from the main issue at hand, which is Bishop Thuc. The bishop now continues with this ridiculous contention by accusing the Father of making it all up, but then they claim that the majority of the story is true, while only contesting the bit about their bishop, but then the bishop says it's all from a horror show. This is such a ridiculous and contradictory dispute.
Animosity? I detected that not in the interview, I heard a story of an event, not a bashing party for the bishop. This is absolutely preposterous, completely unfounded, and totally without substantiation.
It is clearly an ad hominum fallacious argument because of the fact that this is simply a whole denigration of the character of this priest, and it is a red herring because this bishop is spending all this effort attacking this priest, rather than addressing the issue that is being discussed, and that is the abduction and validity of Archbishop Ngo dinh Thuc.
So, rather than give us an account of the story, this bishop goes off on a tirade about Fr. Webster. He could've given us all an idea of why he thinks Fr. Webster's interview to be flawed in some way, but obviously he is more intersted in denigrating Fr. Webster's character. It is very interesting how Fr. Webser says something about Vezelis, and then Vezelis' group interprets this as detraction, while they say things that are nothing but an out right denigration and detraction of Fr. Webster, and it is not considered detraction by them; are we seeing a double standard?
They accuse him of detraction, deception, libel, obviously they think he needs some mental help, so they must think he is not mentally stable or something, distorting facts, and lying. Not one word of substantiation or consideration of the events that took place; but we get a comparison of the teller of this story to a snake. Obviously they are not being just, as they are making accusations without producing any evidence, and are not even volunteering any. So, what we see here is not a kind response and an account of the events that they claim happened, or did not happen, but rather, we see them attacking the character and mental capacity of the man who happens to disagree with them in an ad nauseam belligerent defamation of one's integrity. This simply emphasises the amount of insincerity on the account of the Vezelis faction, because if they had any sincerity to them at all, they would have produced their stories on how they claim it happened, and would then demonstrate to us why they believe that Fr. Webster is wrong. Now, if Fr. Webster were to counter this, by disclaiming everything that they say, we would all be left wondering, who's right, for the reason that we would have two conflicting accounts of two eye witnesses, who would not be able to agree on the facts, thus much of it would then be unreliable as to an accurate account.
These are the facts: Rather than having two accounts which we can compare and contrast, we have one account, and a set of accusations against that account.
So, whether the Vezelis clique likes it or not, the only facts we have come from the man whom they claim to be a liar, and a deceiver, ect. So what it all comes down to is this: Fr. Webster had provided us with his first hand account of the last days of Bishop Ngo Thuc, while Vezelis has left us with an ad hominum rant against his integrity; now plainly put, which is more credible, Vezelis' own denigration of Fr. Webster, or Webster's acount of the events? You decide.
Brief response to a diatribe.
By Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM, D.D.
The story is told of the sad experience of an opossum in being kind to a snake. It seems the snake was in a bad situation: Its tail end was pinned under a rock. An opossum came along and the snake said:
“Please help me. I cannot get out from under this rock.”
But the opossum said: “ I don’t know if I should help you.”
The snake answers with pitiful sobs: “Oh, please help me or I will be killed or die of hunger.”
So, the opossum, out of pity and kindness, moves the rock and frees the snake.
Now, you’d think the snake was grateful, wouldn’t you.
Then the snake said; “ I’m cold. Please let me get into your pouch just for a little while so I might warm up.”
The opossum was getting a bit uneasy, and said, “Oh, no. I can’t let you do that.”
To which the snake replied: “Oh, please. I’m so cold. Let me in your pouch just for a little while.”
Hesitatingly, the kind opossum agreed – but just for a little while. So the snake crawled into the opossum’s pouch. No sooner did he get in when he bit the kind opossum.
Painfully shocked, the opossum protested: “Why did you bite me?”
“Why did you let me in? You knew I was a snake.”
Unfortunately, although we can usually distinguish between a snake and opossum, it is not always that easy when dealing with people.
The non-Catholic heretical mini-sect operated by Mr. Fred Dimond and his brother featured an “interview” for the purpose of vilifying Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM, a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
What we have here is nothing but an ad hominum attack, we have no real reasons to suspect Fr. Webster or others involved in this interview other than the allegations of this bishop. Notice that he begins by denigrating a monastery by labelling them a "non-Catholic mini-sect", and he says that it is he who has been vilified; however, he does not bother to demonstrate this allegation. The interview was posted and probably made by MHFM to tell a story about an event that concerns many Traditional Catholics, and the validity of the sacraments they recieve. This is due to the fact that there are those who doubt the validity of the bishop on the grounds that he was somehow not mentally capable when he consecrated several bishops to the bishopric.
This interview from a first-hand witness goes to show, that these accusations are wrong.
What motivated this diatribe was the fact that Bishop Vezelis unmasked the Fred Dimond heretical religious sect operating under the guise of a Roman Catholic religious order.
First of all he comes in saying that he has been so maliciously maligned, then neglects to demonstrate this by pointing out why he thinks that he has been so denigrated, and then turns around and pretends that the whole world knows the facts of the matter already, and that anything untrue or falsely stated about him is done in full cognizence of matter, and thus wholly guilty of a grievous sin; a fallacious assumption. Why? Simply because of the fact that we would have no need of any interview if the facts were already plainly known and thus public, there, then, should never have been an interview at all, then. Since the facts are so concealed in this manner, the accuracy of this account is simply a matter of faith in the integrity of the priest who tells it, the bishop knows this and is why he is attacking the integrity of this priest, since there is no other account that can be consulted at this time. The bishop here does not add clarity, and is not offering to expound the facts of the situation, but rather, to turn this whole account into an ad hominum ad nauseam accusation against a character herein involved. He is not offering what he believes to be the truth, nor to explain why he thinks that he has been vilified.
For this “interview,” Mr. Dimond stumbled onto a strange character, member of the anti-American “John Birch Society” that styles itself as a kind of “mystical body” comparing itself to the Catholic Church. This fellow’s name is Neal Webster.More ad nauseam ad hominum attacks; we see here a denigration of Fr. Webster again, calling him a "strange character". Now we see that the bishop wants to denigrate the father because of a prior political association of which apparently Vezelis does not approve; is this the basis upon which this whole absurd argument is being waged?
Who is Neal Webster and what was his relation to the Franciscan Friars whom he pretends to “know” so well?
Actually, the Friars never heard of this fellow until he showed up with Rev. Fidelis McKenna, O.P. at the first anniversary of Bishop Vezelis’ consecration. That’s about twenty-four years ago. Only now does Webster surface with his horror script probably seen on some late show horror film.
This is a red herring, this is a distraction from the main issue at hand, which is Bishop Thuc. The bishop now continues with this ridiculous contention by accusing the Father of making it all up, but then they claim that the majority of the story is true, while only contesting the bit about their bishop, but then the bishop says it's all from a horror show. This is such a ridiculous and contradictory dispute.
Ok, so now we see this guy dislikes the bishop McKenna even, so who does this man favour? And now Fr. Webster, according to Vezelis, is ungrateful; now let us all keep in mind the fact that this Vezelis still has not given us his account, so we are still in the dark as to what is and is not true in this man's mind.
Webster was outfitted in the traditional garb of the Dominican Order and from this it was assumed that his Novice Master, Rev.McKenna, O.P. vouched for the authenticity of the man as a Roman Catholic. The Friars accepted this implicitly on the fact that Webster was dressed as a Domican Friar. We are not certain how long he was a “Dominican.” What can be attested is that McKenna was living like a mini-despot with “nuns running hither and thither from kitchen to table. Having eaten at the profuse table of this Dominican Friar, it is not difficult to see the difference reflected in the Franciscan Friars humble but healthy fare. But, we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s first find out something about our ungrateful guest.
Not long after first meeting this fellow, Webster, he appeared on the doorstep of the Friary located in Greece, NY. His story was that he had left Rev. McKenna because “he McKenna) tried to make me a Dominican nun.” We did not inquire into this strange avowal. The main point was that he had no where to go. Consequently, we invited him to stay with us as our guest until he decided where he would go.
Contrary to
Webster’s claims, HE WAS NEVER CONSIDERED AS A SEMINARIAN. HE WAS FREE TO DO AND GO WHEREVER HE WISHED AS OUR HOUSE GUEST. HE NEVER ATTENDED ANY RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS OTHER THAN TO PARTAKE OF OUR COMMUNITY MEALS.
Actually, we would not receive him as any kind of seminarian because of his bizarre behavior. He revealed to one of the Friars that he drank Lourde’s water so that he would not say anything wrong. Apparently, he must have run out of Lourde’s water ….How can we expect to get a fair view out of this man who apparently dislikes Webster and thus has a bias directed against him and his account, which is detectable through the above statement, and has no interest in telling the facts about the issue at hand, which is bishop Thuc; these sarcastic jokes are not a fair and accurate opinion or story.
He was never asked for any kind of financial reimbursement for the expense of his meals. Although he did not spend much time with the Friars, about two and a half months – it seemed like a rather lengthy time for him to make up his mind to do something.Those deciding to become a monk usually get around four years to make up their mind as to whether that is their desire; nowhere near two and a half months.
While staying with the Friars, Webster told them of his exploits in Bishop Musey’s “seminary’ conducted by the laicized Mr. Thomas Fouhy of New Zealand. According to Webster, Mr.Fouhy aka Rev. Fouhy became “like a madman, screaming at me because I wanted to leave.” Whether Fouhy did get excited about Webster’s decision to leave that “seminary,” may now be questioned in view of the erratic and unstable conduct of Webster.
Mr.Webster’s animosity towards Bishop Vezelis may have been triggered when the Bishop made the observation during one meal that “Catholics could not be members of the John Birch Society.” Whereupon, Webster rudely shouted: “Who said so?!” Observing the untoward emotional outburst, Bishop Vezelis simply confirmed his research into that organization by responding: “I said so.”
Animosity? I detected that not in the interview, I heard a story of an event, not a bashing party for the bishop. This is absolutely preposterous, completely unfounded, and totally without substantiation.
Webster seems to have such a high opinion of himself (A characteristic of most, if not all, members of this Masonic-instituted organization that subjects its members to brainwashing) and seems to consider whatever his undisciplined imagination suggests is therefore true. As far as objective reality is concerned, it is doubtful if this man is capable of distinguishing reality from his emotionally configured imaginings.
Because there is no desire to waste time refuting the lies of this pitiful soul whose eternal damnation is assured because of his insidious detraction of a Roman Catholic Bishop, or anyone for that matter, it is deemed sufficient for any inquirer to know that this man has spun the wildest tales from innocent remarks all the way to outright falsehoods. It is safe to say that whatever this man, Neal Webster, has stated publicly is libelous detraction.Vezelis now says that Webster is going to Hell for not speaking favorably of Vezelis. Further, we still have no evidence that Webster's account is not what happened, so we can't really judge that Webster's account is not true. We don't have another account to which to contrast it with, thus, this being our only evidence, we can only operate based on the evidence at hand, thus, this is simply an absurd ad nauseam, ad hominum, red herring. It's ad nauseam because it is simply the restating of the allegation that Webster is maligning the bishop, without any substantiation.
It is clearly an ad hominum fallacious argument because of the fact that this is simply a whole denigration of the character of this priest, and it is a red herring because this bishop is spending all this effort attacking this priest, rather than addressing the issue that is being discussed, and that is the abduction and validity of Archbishop Ngo dinh Thuc.
The heart-breaking episode of the abduction of Archbishop Ngo is particularly painful to the Friars because Webster has so distorted the facts that the only possible conclusion of his falsehoods is that perhaps he needs psychiatric help. From beginning to end, Webster has presented himself as the “star performer” – the great “crusader” … a kind of Batman or Superman – or even as a kind of Spiderman, judging from the webs of deceit he spins - fighting the forces of evil wherever he decides to find them. Perhaps even a Don Quixote minus his donkey…..
It has been reported that someone has actually “ordained” the man. Whether this is true or not makes little difference because Neal Webster is not in the Roman Catholic Church.Now we have more baseless claims that Webster is not in the Church because he is not under the bishopric jurisdiction of Vezelis, who apparently thinks that he is the bishop of the US Catholic Church. This bishop is acting in a kind of Cult-like behaviour, as he believes that he is the bishop of the entire eastern US, and that the only Catholics under his "jurisdiction" are true Catholic, how can we expect a fair account from him?
We pray for this poor soul and hope that God will not permit him to lead unwary souls astray. The Friars do not seek revenge against this pitiable fellow for the ugly vilifications they suffer from the likes of Webster. But, they do expect that the Lord will settle matters: “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay!” And so we merely say: “Amen!”
So, rather than give us an account of the story, this bishop goes off on a tirade about Fr. Webster. He could've given us all an idea of why he thinks Fr. Webster's interview to be flawed in some way, but obviously he is more intersted in denigrating Fr. Webster's character. It is very interesting how Fr. Webser says something about Vezelis, and then Vezelis' group interprets this as detraction, while they say things that are nothing but an out right denigration and detraction of Fr. Webster, and it is not considered detraction by them; are we seeing a double standard?
They accuse him of detraction, deception, libel, obviously they think he needs some mental help, so they must think he is not mentally stable or something, distorting facts, and lying. Not one word of substantiation or consideration of the events that took place; but we get a comparison of the teller of this story to a snake. Obviously they are not being just, as they are making accusations without producing any evidence, and are not even volunteering any. So, what we see here is not a kind response and an account of the events that they claim happened, or did not happen, but rather, we see them attacking the character and mental capacity of the man who happens to disagree with them in an ad nauseam belligerent defamation of one's integrity. This simply emphasises the amount of insincerity on the account of the Vezelis faction, because if they had any sincerity to them at all, they would have produced their stories on how they claim it happened, and would then demonstrate to us why they believe that Fr. Webster is wrong. Now, if Fr. Webster were to counter this, by disclaiming everything that they say, we would all be left wondering, who's right, for the reason that we would have two conflicting accounts of two eye witnesses, who would not be able to agree on the facts, thus much of it would then be unreliable as to an accurate account.
These are the facts: Rather than having two accounts which we can compare and contrast, we have one account, and a set of accusations against that account.
So, whether the Vezelis clique likes it or not, the only facts we have come from the man whom they claim to be a liar, and a deceiver, ect. So what it all comes down to is this: Fr. Webster had provided us with his first hand account of the last days of Bishop Ngo Thuc, while Vezelis has left us with an ad hominum rant against his integrity; now plainly put, which is more credible, Vezelis' own denigration of Fr. Webster, or Webster's acount of the events? You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
