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
(09-22-2011, 02:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.


Wow, that is an amazing response!! You seem extremely intelligent Vetus.. God gave you quite a gift!
I learned something new from that too, thanks!!

God Bless you and keep the faith man! :pray:
Who is the highest liturgical authority on earth, with the God given power, and authority, to alter the Liturgy?
(09-22-2011, 02:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Please, calm down.

I'm sorry, but it's just exasperating.

Quote: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.

Now see, this is a good reply, one I can understand.  Thank you.

Now yes, I think my conflict is based on a misunderstanding of the Church's infallibility.  I recognise certain expressions you have used here from an SSPX article I've just pulled up.  I'll read it and see.
alter the liturgy yes. change the religion NO. alter the liturgy whithin the framework of a catholic mass yes. create and force upon the faithfull a new faith along with a new mass which is NOT catholic
NO!
(09-22-2011, 02:35 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 02:27 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Father Ratzinger: says in his work entitled  Die Sacramentale Begründung der Christlichen Existenz
(1966):

“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.

What do you mean he is not present locally?  Christ is present in the sacrament.  Not the air or the wall of the Church in the same way.  Otherwise you could just lick the pew and receive communion.

Why would Father Ratzinger feel the need to point out that you did not ONLY need to go to Church to be in the presence of Christ.

Were the Churches full to overflowing in the early 1960s.  Did they have enormous heating bills because Catholics did not feel they could pray at home and had to be in the presence of God at Church like they were at some pagan shrine?  

Did Protestants and Rationalists reject Catholicism because they believed that Catholics thought Christ was restricted inside the sacred host like Zod in the Superman II movie.  No.  They did not.  Protestants and Rationalists rejected the idea of the real presence.  Because it is a mystery and they cannot rationalise it.  The real presence is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God.

Read what various protestant sects think about the real presence.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence

Now consider allowing, ney PROMOTING communion in the hand and all the abuses and sacrileges that leads to.  Consider that at many a new mass the priest refuses you the right to kneel and receive on the tongue.

Consider that the alter rails were removed in the 1970s from most churches to make it difficult to kneel.

What is more likely?  That Father Ratzinger was pointing out an "error" in a belief that nobody actually held, that they could only visit Jesus in the Church where he lived in a box.  That seems pretty pointless.

Or that in his modernist sneaky forked-tongue double-thinking way he was casting doubt on the real presence and putting people off going to Benediction and Eucharistic adoration because they were seen as "repugnant" to the serious thinking new-age rationalist and Protestant pals he was mutilating Tradition with.

Show me an example of where he points out that Catholics don't need to believe in the tooth fairy or that praying to the plaster statue like an idol was wrong and repugnant and I'll grant you that he might have been shooting down a straw man.  But to what purpose?  What would his motivation be to do this?

Why was Fr. Ratzinger on a watch-list suspected of Heresy?
"What do you mean he is not present locally?"

It has always been taught by the Church that Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is present substantially.
Locally, in the sense used, means He is only present at one place at one time in the exposed Blessed Sacrament.
While He is present there substantially He is also present in a monstrance 4000 miles away, so He is not present locally.

I believe this is what the then Fr Ratzinger meant.
(09-22-2011, 02:35 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 02:27 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Father Ratzinger: says in his work entitled  Die Sacramentale Begründung der Christlichen Existenz
(1966):

“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.

This is the classic "noxious device" of the modernist. (then Fr. Ratzinger) Run down a perfectly legitimate practice with a strawman argument. 

Take it apart bit by bit: 

1) “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.

Really? Why not?  Why must we not "think" of it in that way? A person cannot have a conversation with God in a Church? 


2)  This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined  way.

Is that actually true?  In order to worship God in the real presence in a Church, one MUST assume that God is somehow confined.  There is no alternative. 

3) To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God.

I would argue that to justify the assertion in point 2, a person shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries. 

4)This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God.

So, now we have the hammer come down and the insults hurled against the lie that is point #2.

5)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.”

And we expand the point to no longer include the inapplicable but not heretical qualifier of "confined way" but rather to condemn the whole practice of Euchraristic Adoration. 

THAT is how a modernist talks people out of belief.  Look at what they do with their words as much as what they say with them.
Has the Holy Father ever recanted of any of these statements?  I would also be curious as to whether they were contextually his words or was he expressing an opinion that was not his own?  (just to be fair) 

But if they are his opinions what are his real beliefs about the Eucharist?  What is he doing when he kneels before Our Lord on Corpus Christi?  Is his purpose something other than adoration before God's sacramental presence?

If that is true, it's due to his stubborn acceptance on pure faith of evolutionary thinking.  God is reduced so much by that and that agnosticism is cloaked over with references to "mysteries."  (a different use than that used by the Easterns or Latin Catholics with their heads screwed on right.)
Does anyone have the German of what Pope Benedict wrote? The only sources carrying this English translation (which must be unofficial, since the work has never been published in English) seem to be websites run by fruitcakes.

It's not that I don't trust sedevacantists to translate accurately the writings of a subtle German theologian for whom they harbour an intense hatred, but it'd be nice to see the original.
(09-22-2011, 02:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Vetus, you should stick to making posts like this and lay off the polemics about blue pills.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12