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

Thank you for the blockquote from a website which also champions Jansenism, sedevacantism, Feeneyism, and Nazism. Unfortunately, the version of history it offers is contentious - to put it mildly - and the vast majority of Catholic theologians do not concede that Honorius and Liberius, acting as Roman Pontiffs, taught heresy to the flock entrusted to them by Christ. Perhaps you've been spending too much time reading Gallican propaganda?

In the case of Liberius, I think you would struggle to find any significant number of Catholic theologians accepting that he was a heretic, still less that he taught heresy. Cardinal Newman, who accepted accounts that Liberius had put his name to a formula of dubious orthodoxy, asks:

Who would say that it would be a judgment of the Queen's Bench, or a judicial act of any kind, if ribbon-men in Ireland seized on one of her Majesty's judges, hurried him into the wilds of Connemara, and there made him, under terror of his life, sign a document in the very teeth of an award which he had lately made in court in a question of property. Surely for an ex cathedra decision of the Pope is required his formal initiation of it, his authorship in its wording, and his utterance amid his Court, with solemnities parallel to those of an Ecumenical Council. It is not a transaction that can be done in his travelling dress, in some hedge-side inn, or town-tavern, or imperial servants'-hall. Liberius' subscription can only claim a Nag's Head's sort of infallibility.

Baronius wrote that, assuming the signature took place and those were the circumstances, Liberius "is not at all on that account to be called a heretic". But did he even sign to that effect? For a thousand years, Liberius was honoured as a saint, and as the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer document on their Holy Pope Liberius site, there is reason to believe that the constant traditionalist badmouthing of Liberius has little foundation in the facts of history.

As for Honorius: the context of his ill-fated remark being a letter to another individual, it should be clear that he was not exercising his teaching authority - a point made by Newman during the controversies over the definition of papal infallibility in the nineteenth century. Whether the remark itself serves as evidence of his having been a heretic is disputed (as, according to some earlier Catholic theologians engaging the issue, is the authenticity of the conciliar proceedings condemning him). Robert Spencer wrote a good piece on the subject for This Rock magazine back in the 1990s which can be read here.


It is striking that, with some soi-disant traditionalists, one ends up defending the honour of the papacy and previous pontiffs from exactly the same attacks as are usually advanced by Calvinist and progressivist theologians.
(09-22-2011, 02:27 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Father Ratzinger: says in his work entitled  Die Sacramentale Begründung der Christlichen Existenz

“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined  way. To justify
such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to
church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”

Just private opinion according to you.  Nothing to worry about.

But the then-Father Ratzinger is right.. Christ is not present locally in the Most Holy Eucharist and he is not confined by the Sacrament.  This is not heresy.  If you are to accuse him of such you better accuse Aquinas of heresy as well.

I disagree with him though.  We can grow more closer to God due to His sacramental presence in Church and I think the then-Father Ratzinger showed far too much laxness here.

But that was 1966.  This is 2011.
(09-22-2011, 02:14 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]Okay help me understand this.. how can a Pope TEACH error, how can the Magisterium of the Church exercise its office of Teaching in teaching error.. and not have to either a) state the seat is vacant or b) the gates of hell have prevailed?  I very am likely in an either-or position as described in the quoted article but please.. help me understand how this is possible.  I beg you, write it out in clear and concise language.  What the f**k am I missing?

Please, calm down.

You can not base your faith on men. Rather, your faith must be rooted in God. It seems to me that the way you're understanding the office of the pope will make you lose your faith in a minute. At least it will be so, once you'll become better acquainted with past popes and what they did.

The pope is not infallible by the sole virtue that he is pope, or that he speaks as pope or acts as pope. That's nonsensical. The pope is not clothed in divine infallibility the minute he accepts the nominaton of the college of cardinals. He's not God. He's not impeccable.

So what is he? The pope - head of the visible militant church - is the final arbiter in matters of faith and morals, the last court of appeal in the Church, past priests, bishops, regional councils and ecumenical councils. God saw fit that His Church should have infallible certainty when deciding important matters of faith and morals and that's where papal infallibility actually kicks in. Surely, one must respect and accept the normal exercise of the pope's teaching capacity in his encyclicals and bulls but those things are not in and of themselves, that is, by virtue of being written and approved by the pope, infallible. They can certainly contain and have contained error in the past.

The pope is infallible only when, explicitly using his office of pastor and teacher of all christians, he decides a matter pertaining faith and morals and binds it to the whole church.

Therefore, that excludes most of what the recent popes have been doing. You don't have to square a circle and make up excuses for Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI, or put your faith in peril by accepting principles of mutable truths. No, the question is far simpler: these popes have simply been wrong and that's perfectly normal. It has been so in the past and the Church has managed to survive.

In fact, when you think about it, the Church would have certainly disappeared by now if the whole faith depended on every individual pope since St. Peter to have never erred in faith (or morals). The Church is stronger than that. It is the democracy of the dead: those who teach novelty will always be judged by the deposit of faith which is infallible and irreformable.
(09-22-2011, 02:16 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]aye there is no plm. its al dancing through the new church tulips.

Tulips aren't trad?  Oh no... I love tulips!  ;)
I'd say one of the big problems is the repudiation of authority.
The Holy Father teaches the Church throughout the world on Faith and Morals, the world ignores him and the Holy Father does not discipline correctly, apparently,
not in all cases, but in many.
jesse new church tulips i reckon arnet catholic nether is the new chruch or the new religion it is. but u can dance all u want with them. its your soul lad. clap clap paddy whack,
(09-22-2011, 02:43 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]jesse new church tulips i reckon arnet catholic nether is the new chruch or the new religion it is. but u can dance all u want with them. its your soul lad. clap clap paddy whack,

Pray tell, what are the differences between New Church Tulips and Traditional Tulips?  I want to make sure my garden isn't heretical!

(09-22-2011, 01:02 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]It's because your  a convert and u converted into the NO. U never were brought up seeing the awfull shit that ocoured  and the fsith trashed   and your family mocked for still holding to the true fsith. All u see is a happy NO church. U don't get the awfull  shit that want  down nor do u een ant to. How  to simple Catholics just trying to belive  the true fsith were treated. The hruch reckovated, tabernacles tossed ect ect
so u wag a finger and stomp your foot
and ignor the travesty and Injustice  that has happenend. The affront to Christ.
such is what I see
I am a cradle Catholic and was born before the NO Mass was promulgated and I think as Jayne does.
it was a figure of speech jesse.  but ill roll with it. new Church tulips are what the new religion uses to wipe its ass or dance through when it offers a protestant abominable bastard mass in imitation of the true one.
the other kind of tulip are CATHOLIC tulips. if you don't know what that means we should stop while we are a head
i was speaking to Jaynke. dave. last time i checked she wasn't one of your multiple personalities. though im starting to wonder
u may think as jayne does all u want so what? u want an atta boy? a pad on the ass? what? if anything yoru the worse kind as you claim to have seen the outrage yet dismiss it and offer ah well. jaynke never did.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12