OUR LADY OF FATIMA
CATHOLIC CHURCH
|
|
OUR LADY OF FATIMA CATHOLIC CHURCH |
|
Perpetual Succession in the
Primacy
(We will always have a Pope)
With the death of Pope John Paul II the Catholic Church entered upon a period of Church life where we are without a Pope for a few weeks – the chair is vacant or in Latin sede vacante. For a number of years we have had some Catholics so upset with the decisions and policies of the Popes since the Second Vatican Council that they have gone so far as to say that these men were not in fact Popes for one reason or another. Unfortunately for these people their beliefs contradict a dogma of faith which states that there will always be successors in the primacy:
[Canon]. If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema. [Denz 1825] (My emphasis).
Sedevacantists in their defense cite passages like the following:
Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions— opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suárez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church.
Dogmatic Theology - Volume II Christ's Church,
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Mercier Press,
Here Monsignor Van Noort (a Doctor of Sacred Theology) writes about the theological opinion that a pope might possibly fall into error. He clearly shows that the theologians are in dispute about such a possibility and that the “big gun” theologians like Suarez and Bellarmine hold God “never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic.”
Sedevacantists
maintain that a Pope can become a heretic (as some theologians hold) and, by
advancing what they claim are examples of heresies taught by Paul VI and John
Paul II, conclude that these men were not Popes. The problem is that a
theological opinion is now declared to be a fact, nay even a dogma. Some
of those who hold extreme forms of this opinion declare those in union
with these Popes to be outside the Church with them ! Fortunately opinions do
not become dogmas, especially where they are contradicted by de
PROPOSITION 2: It was Christ's will that the primacy, begun with St.
Peter, should continue forever.
It is true that the primacy can be called in a certain sense the personal prerogative of St. Peter, since it was conferred on him alone rather than on the other apostles. But it is not a personal prerogative in the sense that when Peter died, it died with him; it is a permanent office which must, in accordance with Christ’s will, go on forever, as long as the Church itself continues to exist.
This thesis is a dogma of faith. The Vatican Council declared: "If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself or of divine right that St. Peter has an everlasting line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church, let him be anathema” (Constitution De ecclesia Christi, chap. 2 DB 1825).
Proof:
1.From the nature and purpose of the primacy, assuming as proven the Church’s indestructibility.
Primacy by its very nature is a permanent or ordinary office, for it is connected, not with the establishment of the Church, but with its conservation and government. Besides, it is intimately bound up with the very constitution of the Church, and this constitution was certainly not to be changed once the apostles had died.
The purpose of primacy, as can easily be proved by the words of our Lord in Matthew 16, is to secure and preserve the Church’s unity. But this purpose must always be pursued; after the apostolic age its realization is harder because charisms have ceased and the Church is more widespread. The conclusion is evident.
2. From the words of Christ. The whole question can be summed up as follows: When Christ promised and conferred the primacy, did He address His words to Peter as to an individual who was soon to die, or to that same Peter as to a man who was to go on living in an unending line of successors? Not the former but the latter alternative is definitely the one to he maintained.
a. The words of promise. Peter is to do for the Church what a foundation does for a house. But the foundation supports a house not only when it is first built, but continuously: as long as the house lasts. In like manner, Peter is to support the Church by his authority as long as the latter shall last. But Peter as a physical person cannot do this; so he must do it as a juridical person living on in his successors.
Again, by his authority, Peter is to make the indestructibility of the Church a reality; for the words, and “the gates of hell shall not prevai1 against it” are joined in a causal relationship with the preceding words. But it is impossible for anyone to make a society indestructible simply through the influence of his rule, unless he unceasingly exercises that influence.
b. The words of bestowal. Peter is charged with the duty of feeding Christ’s lambs and sheep, and this means all His lambs and sheep. But the faithful and the bishops of succeeding generations certainly belong to the flock of Christ just as truly as those who were living at the time of the apostles And so, Peter is to feed them too, by living on in his successors .
(...)
PROPOSITION 3. Peter’s primacy lives on in the Roman pontiff.
The object of this proposition is to determine precisely where the primacy, once conferred on Peter with a view to its perpetual continuance, is now factually preserved.
Strictly speaking, the primacy could have been preserved without being
tied to an episcopal see, in such a way, for example, that the whole business of
selecting a successor in the primacy, each time that this should prove
necessary, would be the task of the whole episcopal college. But such a
procedure, aside from the fact that it would be quite awkward, is in fact not
followed. As matters actually stand, the primacy is connected with a particular
see, that of
The present proposition has often been defined by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. For example, the Vatican Council asserted: “If anyone says that the Roman pontiff is not St. Peter’s successor in the same primacy [as was his], let him he anathema’ (Constitution De ecclesia, chap. 2; DB 1825; see the Council of Florence, DB 694).
Proof:
1. Argument of exclusion: by a process of elimination. Since Christ decreed that Peter should have a never-ending line of successors in the primacy, there must always have been and there must still be someone in the Church who wields his primacy. But aside from the Roman pontiff, no one has ever seriously, or with any semblance of truth, put himself forward as Peter’s successor; and no one else has ever been acknowledged as such. Therefore one must admit either that the Roman pontiff wields Peter’s primacy, or else that this primacy, contrary to Christ’s will, has passed out of existence.
Dogmatic Theology - Volume II Christ's Church,
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Mercier Press,
In a
series of evening sermons at St Wilfred’s Church, Preston,
“The
Church on earth in a very true sense is also a body, a body politic. Moreover, it
is a visible body, and consequently it must have a visible head. To make
the Church a visible body without a visible head is to turn it into a
monstrosity. In the mind of Christ there was not only a double but a triple
foundation of the Church. The lowest and chief foundation is Christ Himself, who
is so by virtue of His Nature: He is, as we may say, the rock which supports the
whole erection. The secondary foundation is Peter, who holds this position not
by right of nature, but of appointment; he is a rock by participation of
Christ’s Infallibility freely bestowed upon him. The tertiary foundation is
that of the Apostles. “And the walls of the city had twelve foundations, and
in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” And
again: “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief cornerstone.” As the primary foundation, Christ is
independent. As the secondary foundation, Peter is dependent on Christ, and on
Christ alone. As the tertiary foundation, the Apostles are dependent both on
Peter and on Christ.
Christ, then,
is the invisible head. The Pope is the visible head. Christ is principal and
independent. The Pope is Christ’s Vicar, Viceroy, Plenipotentiary,
Representative. And I repeat that such a representative
is a sheer necessity. For as the
“Moreover, the argument developed in these Lectures proves the gift of Infallibility to have been conferred not on Peter only but also on Peter’s successors. For the prerogative of Infallibility in Peter was not a personal but an official gift. It was bestowed on Peter, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. It was attached to his office. For just as the Church from the beginning is morally one Body, so also the Popes who are the Head of that Body are morally one Head. Hence when Peter’s office passed on to his successors the Infallibility which accompanied that office also, passed on to his successors. And that such was the intention of our Lord is obvious even from a superficial consideration of the classical texts already quoted. For if we consider again the metaphor of the Rock or Foundation by which in St. Matthew Infallibility was symbolized, it is plain that the foundation of a building must last at least as long as the building itself; and as that building we call the Church will last to the end of time, so also must the gift of personal infallibility which - is its foundation remain- with Peter, in his successors, till the end of time. Again, in St. Luke, the solemn duty imposed on Peter of infallibly confirming his brethren in the faith, must endure for Peter in his successors, so long as there remain brethren to be confirmed, that is, to the end of time. Once again, turning to St. John and to our Lord’s metaphor of feeding the flock, it is clear that the task there imposed on Peter of infallible teaching must continue with St. Peter, in his successors, so long as there remains a flock to be fed, that is, to the end of time. And as with Peter so-with Peter’s successors; if a Pope as Pope could ever fail, the promises of Christ would fail also, the gates of hell would prevail, the Spirit of Truth would not abide in the Church for ever, the Church would not be the pillar and ground of the truth. Nay, I go further; and I say that if the gift of Infallibility was necessary to Peter himself for the preservation of unity in the infant Church which numbered comparatively few souls, unspeakably more necessary must that gift be to Peter, in his successors, for the preservation of unity in the adult Church, which numbers more than two hundred and fifty millions of every age and race and nation under the sun.
There must, therefore, always be somewhere in the true Church a successor of St. Peter who is supreme and infallible. Who is that supreme and infallible successor? Can he be determined or not? If not, then Christ the God of infinite wisdom has appointed for His Church a supreme ruler and infallible mouthpiece that can nowhere be found. If not, then contrary to the express promise of Christ, the visible Head of the Church has vanished utterly from the Church! Who, I ask again, is that infallible successor? From the earliest times the great Fathers and Councils of the Church in a long list have declared that successor to be the Bishop of Rome. For nineteen centuries the Catholic world has declared that successor to be the Bishop of Rome. For nineteen hundred years the Bishop of Rome has claimed to be that successor, and none other has made that claim. If then, the Bishop of Rome be not Peter’s successor, who is? No one can answer that question. From the beginning of Christianity even until the present day the government of the whole Church by the Pope has existed, and at this hour exists, as the only form of true ecclesiastical government which is realized as a substantive fact. (…) Therefore, if evidence means anything at all, the Pope of Rome has been in the past, is now, and will be to the end of the world, the infallible mouthpiece of the Catholic Church.”
Where
is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J.,
Catholic Truth Society, 1900 pp 86 & 87
The requirement that the Church must always have a Pope by virtue of her Divine constitution “upon this rock…” is sufficiently proved and those that say the contrary have tacitly admitted that Our Lord lied to us when he said the “gates of hell will not prevail”; or, since the primacy must exist until the end of time with perpetual successors, then time itself has ceased and the General Judgment has already been held !
  
|
Copyright© Our Lady of Fatima Spring Hill, |
|
