FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I owe some of you an apology..
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(09-24-2011, 04:03 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]I think that if benefit of doubt should be given to the pope, then the same benefit of doubt should be extended to anyone who would find a problem with what he says based on the information available to that person at the time.

The presumption shouldn't be that such a person is trying to defame someone lest such an accusation commits the same offense it tries to excuse.

I haven't accused anyone here of attempting to defame the Pope. Although, I do think it rather obvious that whoever translated the Pope's thoughts on Eucharistic adoration was attempting to make the Pope look heretical.

But that's what the context of this conversation is all about: ggreg not knowingly using a bad translation. You said:

At the time, I was only responding to Vakarian's comment.

(09-24-2011, 04:03 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Ggreg was the one who was using the bad translation to "label the Pope an heretic."

But it (presumably) didn't involve defamation because there is no clear indication that he intended to do so.

Well, even the translation Ggreg was using would not be clear proof of heresy. So, using it to claim that the Pope teaches error does strike me as presumptuous.
(09-24-2011, 04:13 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 04:03 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]I think that if benefit of doubt should be given to the pope, then the same benefit of doubt should be extended to anyone who would find a problem with what he says based on the information available to that person at the time.

The presumption shouldn't be that such a person is trying to defame someone lest such an accusation commits the same offense it tries to excuse.

I haven't accused anyone here of attempting to defame the Pope. Although, I do think it rather obvious that whoever translated the Pope's thoughts on Eucharistic adoration was attempting to make the Pope look heretical.

But that's what the context of this conversation is all about: ggreg not knowingly using a bad translation. You said:

At the time, I was only responding to Vakarian's comment.

(09-24-2011, 04:03 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Ggreg was the one who was using the bad translation to "label the Pope an heretic."

But it (presumably) didn't involve defamation because there is no clear indication that he intended to do so.

Well, even the translation Ggreg was using would not be clear proof of heresy. So, using it to claim that the Pope teaches error does strike me as presumptuous.

O.K. No hard feelings. I certainly don't think you were trying to do anything malicious. I simply wanted to show you why you were receiving the criticisms of papalotry, which is why I responded to your response to Vakarian rather than your earlier response.

Pax tecum.
(09-23-2011, 07:23 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]Yes we do. That's not the issue here your papalotry  is
big difference

Interesting. Here's a snip from Fr. Wathen's: "Who Shall Ascend?"

The Papacy and Catholic Morality

"Popolatry"

Just as it is licit to resist the (Roman) Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (St. Robert Bellarmine: De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, c. 29.)

Among "conservatives" there are those who may properly be thought of as falling within the phylum of "Popolators."  More properly, they should be thought of as "unitarians," for they seem to have one, single, all-comprehending, and  all-saving belief, and that is that the pope is infallible, untouchable, and can do no wrong.  Their one moral obligation is to prove that, despite all appearances to the contrary, the reigning Pontiff has not erred, and any one who says otherwise is anathema.  "If we must argue away all the other doctrines of the Faith, and deny the reality of the very cosmos, we will hold to this one dogma."  During these post-Conciliar years, their faith has been severely tried, but they have held on.  While they may ulalate the horrors of the age, they logicize that if they refuse to acknowledge that the leading perpetrators of the crimes against the Church and the Faith have been the Conciliar Popes, they will have preserved the Doctrine of Infallibility and, by so doing, grant the Church a few more months or years of existence.

Some, to avoid this terrible conclusion, have devised a simple solution, "Sedevecantism" (from the Latin canonical formula, sede vacante, "the Chair being vacant," which refers to the Chair of St. Peter when it is empty due to the death of a supreme pontiff).  Thus, they argue, we have no pope!  We have had no popes since the death of Pope John XXIII.  They who have been in the place of the pope have been anti-popes.  Therefore, we may conclude whatever we wish about the words and actions of the Conciliar "Popes" without fear for the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

In our view, this "unitarianism," or "Popolatry," like "Sedevecantism," should be recognized more as a syndrome than as a serious theological thesis.  Its adherents are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits.  The disorder which the Conciliar Revolution has brought on the Church is too tragic a thing for them to bear psychologically, so that they have had to develop this subterfuge.  Were it possible to communicate with them, we would say to these benighted souls:  If you truly believe that the Church and the pope are infallible, why must you always be proving it?  If the Church is indefectible, it will be so without any dialectic of yours.  If these are the doctrines of the Church, the only One Who will prove them true is Christ the Lord.  Therefore, as in all other circumstances in which you find yourselves as Catholics, and in which you find the Church, these two doctrines are not meant to serve as a kind of escape mechanism, but rather as supports to your faith.  We mean, to use the Doctrine of Infallibility to justify or to validate acts of papal malfeasance and/or incompetence is to undermine the Doctrine, rather than is it to explain the patent reality, or to solve the problem thus created.

We submit that the simple truth lies between the escapism of both the "Popolators" on one side, and the "Sedevacantists," on the other.  Let it be granted that the Conciliar Popes have strained the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility to the limit.  Among all the scandals of this incredible generation, surely the heterodoxy of the Popes has been egregious, along with their radical rejection of that majestic authoritarianism which the Good Shepherd imparted to their office.

Catholics who understand what the Church has defined in the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, can easily observe that the Popes here spoken of have done nothing which even raises the question of whether they have encroached upon it.  Those who have neither the intellectual power nor the intestinal robustness to deal with these issues should devote themselves to the work of their own salvation, the interior life, and let the Lord Jesus Christ take care of the Church in His own way.  They do not need to solve theological questions.  They most certainly should not write books and articles for the instruction of others, whose Catholic instincts will guide them much better.................
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12