FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "To believe in a Church is to believe in the Pope"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07...ve-in.html

I say the Pope is the heir of the Ecumenical Hierarchy of the fourth century, as being, what I may call, heir by default. No one else claims or exercises its rights or its duties. Is it possible to consider the Patriarch of Moscow or of Constantinople, heir to the historical pretensions of St. Ambrose or St. Martin? Does any Anglican Bishop for the last 300 years recall to our minds the image of St. Basil? Well, then, has all that ecclesiastical power, which makes such a show in the Christian Empire, simply vanished, or, if not, where is it to be found?

I wish Protestants would throw themselves into our minds upon this point; I am not holding an argument with them; I am only wishing them to understand where we stand and how we look at things. There is this great difference of belief between us and them: they do not believe that Christ set up a visible society, or rather kingdom, for the propagation and maintenance of His religion, for a necessary home and a refuge for His people; but we do.

We know the kingdom is still on earth: where is it? If all that can be found of it is what can be discerned at Constantinople or Canterbury, I say, it has disappeared; and either there was a radical corruption of Christianity from the first, or Christianity came to an end, in proportion as the type of the Nicene Church faded out of the world: for all that we know of Christianity, in ancient history, as a concrete fact, is the Church of Athanasius and his fellow Bishops: it is nothing else historically but that bundle of phenomena, that combination of claims, prerogatives, and corresponding acts, some of which I have recounted above. There is no help for it then; we cannot take as much as we please, and no more, of an institution which has a monadic existence. We must either give up the belief in the Church as a divine institution altogether, or we must recognize it at this day in that communion of which the Pope is the head. With him alone and round about him are found the claims, the prerogatives, and duties which we identify with the kingdom set up by Christ. We must take things as they are; to believe in a Church, is to believe in the Pope.

And thus this belief in the Pope and his attributes, which seems so monstrous to Protestants, is bound up with our being Catholics at all; as our Catholicism is bound up with our Christianity. There is nothing then of wanton opposition to the powers that be, no dinning of novelties in their startled ears in what is often unjustly called Ultramontane doctrine; there is no pernicious servility to the Pope in our admission of his pretensions.

Bl. John Henry Newman
Letter to the Duke of Norfolk
1875



Good find but let us not forget what Bl. John Henry Newman also spoke of regarding the Holy Father's position,

In a sermon on the subject, the eminent 19th Cardinal John Henry Newman quoted a Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of Switzerland that received the approval of Blessed Pope Pius IX. The letter was on the subject of Papal Infallibility, and what a Pope may or not teach. The Swiss Bishops clearly stated:

  "It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the Divine law, and by the constitution of the Church . . ."

[Taken from a sermon by Cardinal Newman published in Lead Kindly Light, The Life of John Henry Newman, Michael Davies (Neumann Press, Long Prairie, 2001) p. 184.]

He also cited Cardinal Juan de Torquemada's comment,

"Were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or Divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands he is to be disregarded." [Summa de ecclesia (Venice: M. Tranmezium, 1561). Lib. II, c. 49, p. 163B. Translation from J.H. Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation, Source found here http://archive.org/stream/a628789300newmuoft#page/52 on page 52


In light of what Newman cited and Torquemada wrote, let us disregard what the post conciliar Popes have taught that is contrary to law of which they have maintained that conversion is not necessary for salvation and have maintained a systematic destruction of the Church by throwing out tradition in which violates their Coronation Oath that binds them by law to uphold the traditions received.
Thank you TS.
What a wonderful post!
(07-17-2012, 03:16 AM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]In light of what Newman cited and Torquemada wrote, let us disregard what the post conciliar Popes have taught that is contrary to law of which they have maintained that conversion is not necessary for salvation and have maintained a systematic destruction of the Church by throwing out tradition in which violates their Coronation Oath that binds them by law to uphold the traditions received.

But let's first of all cultivate an attitude of obedience to the Holy Father, as a matter of principle.

When I read things that sound un-Catholic or contradictory coming from the pope, I just assume that the message behind his words is no different from what popes were saying 100 years ago, just much less clear. Of course, I think the situation is problematic because well-intentioned Catholics are being led astray by false interpretations, but I'm Joe Catholic and not competent to censor papal writings. All I can do is ground myself in clear, sound catechesis, and help others to do the same.
(07-17-2012, 11:14 AM)Richard C Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2012, 03:16 AM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]In light of what Newman cited and Torquemada wrote, let us disregard what the post conciliar Popes have taught that is contrary to law of which they have maintained that conversion is not necessary for salvation and have maintained a systematic destruction of the Church by throwing out tradition in which violates their Coronation Oath that binds them by law to uphold the traditions received.

But let's first of all cultivate an attitude of obedience to the Holy Father, as a matter of principle.

When I read things that sound un-Catholic or contradictory coming from the pope, I just assume that the message behind his words is no different from what popes were saying 100 years ago, just much less clear. Of course, I think the situation is problematic because well-intentioned Catholics are being led astray by false interpretations, but I'm Joe Catholic and not competent to censor papal writings. All I can do is ground myself in clear, sound catechesis, and help others to do the same.

Well-said.  This is a very traditional Catholic attitude.
(07-17-2012, 11:14 AM)Richard C Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2012, 03:16 AM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]In light of what Newman cited and Torquemada wrote, let us disregard what the post conciliar Popes have taught that is contrary to law of which they have maintained that conversion is not necessary for salvation and have maintained a systematic destruction of the Church by throwing out tradition in which violates their Coronation Oath that binds them by law to uphold the traditions received.

But let's first of all cultivate an attitude of obedience to the Holy Father, as a matter of principle.

When I read things that sound un-Catholic or contradictory coming from the pope, I just assume that the message behind his words is no different from what popes were saying 100 years ago, just much less clear. Of course, I think the situation is problematic because well-intentioned Catholics are being led astray by false interpretations, but I'm Joe Catholic and not competent to censor papal writings. All I can do is ground myself in clear, sound catechesis, and help others to do the same.

Of course, Torquemada said as much in that link at the end I posted  ("although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command things which not must be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not . . it is said in the Acts of the Apostles 'One ought to obey God rather than man;"), but to the issues that we know full well that are in violation of the law, "he ought not to be obeyed."
(07-17-2012, 11:14 AM)Richard C Wrote: [ -> ]When I read things that sound un-Catholic or contradictory coming from the pope, I just assume that the message behind his words is no different from what popes were saying 100 years ago, just much less clear.

:doh:

No...sorry,the above manifest confusion is quite bizarre.Here's the thing about truth,it's objective and we can objectively point to a new theological word view that is currently promoted by modernists (heretics) that confounds and contradicts that which was always taught before.Assume away but your assumptions would appear to be glaring and belligerent blindness.This is precisely the attitude which compounds and perpetuates the current crisis and allowed the whole sorry affair to start in the first place.

Your viewpoint is Anti-Traditional despite what others round here might claim.
Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. Absolutely.
I'll never forget this anecdote that Gerard mentioned:
(In fact I have it on my main Youtube page. With credit to Gerard, naturally):



It seems from reading an article, "no one may judge the Pope" but if they judge the Pope in a positive light, they let that slide.

I've often imagined a confession scenario like this:

Penitent: "Bless me Father for I have sinned....I sat in judgment of the Pope."

Priest;" What did you say?"

Penitent: "I said the Pope was doing a great job in ecumenical affairs."

Priest:" Well, that's not judging the Pope"

Penitent: " You mean the Pope only gets credit for leading the Church well and bears no responsibility when things go wrong? That's a sweet deal."

Priest:" Well...."

Penitent" "So St. Paul sinned when he blasted St. Peter?"

Priest:"Well..."
(07-17-2012, 01:41 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2012, 11:14 AM)Richard C Wrote: [ -> ]When I read things that sound un-Catholic or contradictory coming from the pope, I just assume that the message behind his words is no different from what popes were saying 100 years ago, just much less clear.

:doh:

No...sorry,the above manifest confusion is quite bizarre.Here's the thing about truth,it's objective and we can objectively point to a new theological word view that is currently promoted by modernists (heretics) that confounds and contradicts that which was always taught before.Assume away but your assumptions would appear to be glaring and belligerent blindness.This is precisely the attitude which compounds and perpetuates the current crisis and allowed the whole sorry affair to start in the first place.

Your viewpoint is Anti-Traditional despite what others round here might claim.

Richard holds the view that was traditionally held by Catholics.  Traditionalism holds that people can ignore the pope if they claim that he is going against Tradition.  So it is fair enough to describe Richard's view as anti-traditionalism.
Quote:Traditionalism holds that people can ignore the pope if they claim that he is going against Tradition.

Not necessarily. But still, just because Benedict XVI wears a white cassock and lives in the Vatican doesn't mean I should imitate him and walk into a mosque, shoes removed, and face Mecca with an imam praying next to me.
Pages: 1 2 3