For traditional minded Catholics

[Athanasias]

Here is food for thought for my traddies that are not radical but traditional minded in the Catholic Church like myself. I discovered something interesting. It is common knowledge that ordinarily when a canon is defined with an anathema at the ecumenical council it has infallible authority behind it. Well this is disturbing. Listen to this canon:

"Canon 2. If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both major and MINOR[17] by which, as by certain steps, advance is made to the priesthood,[18] let him be anathema."(session XXIII Session IV Canon 2 of the Council of Trent.)

Now remember that in the 60's Pope Paul VI took away or dissolved the minor orders(Exorcist, porter, Subdeacon etc). Is he anathema? How can he overturn an infallible canon? Here is one inconsistency of several in Vatican II. Luckily for us Vatican II has no canons and did not teach any infallible dogmatic declarations as even Paul VI admitted. This I think is how Christ saved the Church there from error formally. So hopefully these orders will be restored by a future Pope.

Here is Vatican I on holding to Trent: "Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned "(Vatican I Session 2)

If you want to understand the crisis the Church today is going through in faith, liturgy and morals then you need to read this book. Its has been endorsed by Archbishop Vigano (he knows a bit about the abuse scandal) and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Infiltration

 

[DamianWarS]

so what are thinking is infallible? the former or the latter? or are both failable? At the peak of the reformation in the mid 16th century, the council of Trent could be said to be more agenda-driven or reactionary but I'm not a part of a Catholic community... what are your thoughts?

 

[Athanasias]

so what are thinking is infallible? the former or the latter? or are both failable? At the peak of the reformation in the mid 16th century, the council of Trent could be said to be more agenda-driven or reactionary but I'm not a part of a Catholic community... what are your thoughts?

Well it is commonly taught in Catholic theology that any council that is ecumenical and issues canons with anathemas are infallible. So Trent was infallible in those canons. Vatican II however was not infallible and Pope Paul VI even said so because it had no canons and was a "pastoral ecumenical council"(whatever that meanas). To me this means there are many things that can be in error from Vatican II and this issue of minor orders is clearly one of them which may be reversed by a future pope(though not anytime soon). At least that is my view. And the view of many traditional Catholics.

 

[DamianWarS]

Vatican II however was not infallible and Pope Paul VI even said so

maybe a bit like Paul saying "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)..." then "...To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)

 

[Athanasias]

Found a great answer to my querry from my seminarian theologian friend. Its good and makes sense.

Here is what he says:

There is only two ways a contradiction can happen between documents.
1: Discipline
2: Conflict bn. statements

In the case you cited, note that the minor orders from historical evidence from Card. Vanvoye were that minor orders later
created around the 3rd-4rth Century; At least that is what he argued from what we have from historical evidence in documents. No mention of the minor orders existed prior to that period. SS notes only deacon, priest, and bishop. That doesn't mean that couldn't have existed, but there seems to be a stronger argument that it was a later development in the history of the Church. There can be development in ST as you note that can be incorporated into the faith. The other thing about the canon you sent me was this point: "which, as by certain steps, advance is made to the priesthood";

In the Tradition of the Church people have been made priests, bishops, and even Popes in 2 ways:

A: Per saltum ----> [means through the jump as you could in Latin]
B: Cursus honorum ------> [means progress of honors or order of honors]

Cursus honorum meant that one gradually progressed to the priesthood through grades of minor to major orders. First starting off as porter, then lector, then exorcist, then acolyte, then subdeacon, then deacon, then priest.

But a person in the past [ie St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, etc.] would JUMP "Ambrose for Bishop" and thus skip the minor grades. We know for sure that this happened historically even for Popes who jumped from deacon to Papacy:

• Pope’s have been ordained from deacon without ordination of presbyterate: Liberius, Felix II, Damasus, Siricius, Leo I (the Great);

Here is the Point: Trent was cracking down on disciplinary abuse and unworthy men being ordained to the priesthood. Thus I'm not convinced that this canon isn't necessarily a disciplinary canon. The 'anathema' was also attached to disciplinary canons as well. Here are some examples:

Canon ii. If any one shall say, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced by just causes and reasons to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerks when not consecrating; let him be anathema.

Canon iv. If any one shall say, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

The above canons are 'anathemas' for disciplinary abuses not for doctrine. Thus it appears to me that the canon you cited was a disciplinary not a doctrinal canon. You could be cut off from the Church for disciplinary abuses and 'anathematized';