FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(01-24-2013, 10:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Error has no rights. Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Polls don't change that. Q.E.D.

Your opinion.
"I understood your question to be asking whether there was papal teaching after the Council that offered guidance about how the Mass should be done."

As far as the Mass, I was intending to ask how did Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II address irreverancies which flowed from the practice of the new missal after its implementation.  That is, where is an example of either of them saying no communion in the hand, kneel when receiving, do not remove altar rails?  What examples are there of either of them addressing specific irreverancies, speaking out and/or punishing bishops or other transgressors for irreverancies with the Eucahrist or otherwise with the Mass?


"I never claimed [Paul VI] was a good leader.  I was presenting evidence that his understanding of the Eucharist was orthodox."

Regardless of his words and documents, certainly he was warned that his missal would diminish the Eucahrist - the Real Presence - in people's eyes.  Yet he still bastardized the Mass and I have not heard of any instances where he addressed the common irreverancies I pointed out above which flowed from impressions created by the practice of the new missal.
"Communion in the hand was not specified as part of the new Mass.  It was something that various bishops had introduced without permission.  If he had firmly said "no more Communion in the hand" they would have ignored him.  Leaders know not to give commands that they cannot enforce.  He instead went for something that had some hope of compliance - telling them to do it more reverently.

None of this has anything to do with your original question about what guidance did the popes offer about how Mass should be celebrated.  This encyclical makes it clear that he taught against the abuses in the Mass."


So is it appropriate for a clergyman, a Pope, to not speak out about irreverancies to the Real Presence and practices endangering souls because some will ignore him?  I see no benefit, save perhaps vain prestige, in keeping silent and letting the irreverancies and soul-endangering practices continue because some will ignore him.  What was done or said in response to this has everything to do with my initial question.


"Others have made the point that these popes, having been present at the council, can give us some idea of the intent of the council.  According to that principle, the passages that I have sited show that the abuses of the Mass were not intended nor were they sanctioned.  While one might be able to make a case for poor leadership, the problem cannot be ascribed to bad Eucharistic theology."


The novus ordo IS the manifestation of "bad Eucharistic theology."
(01-24-2013, 10:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Error has no rights. Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Polls don't change that. Q.E.D.

I'll see your quote from Pope Pius XII and raise you a quote from the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican:

Man's right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person (and not in his subjective disposition) and this freedom ought to be a civil right (no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others.  Injury is done to the human person and to the very order established by God if the free exercise of religion is denied in society.  Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching or witness to their faith.  In addition, religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the speci value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.  The care of the right to religious freedom devolves upon... the Church...  All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion.
(01-25-2013, 01:42 PM)OldMan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Error has no rights. Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Polls don't change that. Q.E.D.

Your opinion.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.  Since Benedict XVI being the Pope is an established fact...
Adiós, Quanta Cura!

Ciao
(01-25-2013, 01:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:14 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 09:56 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.

Garrigou Lagrange was a brilliant theologian and a superb professor of metaphysics. He was not however a Canon Lawyer nor did he write any commentaries on Canon Law because he did not have the approval of the Legislator to do so. I think that having a forum open to this topic will help clarify who the real authorities are that we can look to for answering the core question.

If this is a question of what the Church teaches, and I believe that for all of us it is, then we need to look at only the approved commentaries on the Law:
"Officially binding interpretation of codified law is reserved to the Legislator or to those to whom he commits the authority to so interpret the law. 1917 CIC 17. Establishment of a pontifical interpretation commission was effected by Pope Benedict XV, m.p. Cum Iuris Canonici (15 sep 1917), AAS 9/1 (1917) 483-484, Eng. trans., CLD I: 55-57. In the course of its enforcement, the Pio-Benedictine Code experienced scores of authentic interpretations. Note that there do not appear to have been any authentic interpretations issued after 1952 until at least the end of the Second Vatican Council."
http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Those authentic interpretations are well known and can be readily sourced in most Catholic University Libraries (and Traditional Catholic Seminaries): http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_cites17.htm

He was a theologian, the issue is primarily theological, not canonical,  contrary to what you believe.

Nice - strong assertion, no supporting anything. Re-read the quote. The Church has addressed practically every moral and theological question that can arise. The ramifications of failing to uphold those teachings are fully contained in Canon Law. Interpretation is reserved to the Legislator and to those to whom he commits authority (Garrigou Lagrange is not a Canon lawyer or a designated authority for this question).

Are you afraid to look at the Law of the Church?
(01-25-2013, 07:56 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:14 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 09:56 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.

Garrigou Lagrange was a brilliant theologian and a superb professor of metaphysics. He was not however a Canon Lawyer nor did he write any commentaries on Canon Law because he did not have the approval of the Legislator to do so. I think that having a forum open to this topic will help clarify who the real authorities are that we can look to for answering the core question.

If this is a question of what the Church teaches, and I believe that for all of us it is, then we need to look at only the approved commentaries on the Law:
"Officially binding interpretation of codified law is reserved to the Legislator or to those to whom he commits the authority to so interpret the law. 1917 CIC 17. Establishment of a pontifical interpretation commission was effected by Pope Benedict XV, m.p. Cum Iuris Canonici (15 sep 1917), AAS 9/1 (1917) 483-484, Eng. trans., CLD I: 55-57. In the course of its enforcement, the Pio-Benedictine Code experienced scores of authentic interpretations. Note that there do not appear to have been any authentic interpretations issued after 1952 until at least the end of the Second Vatican Council."
http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Those authentic interpretations are well known and can be readily sourced in most Catholic University Libraries (and Traditional Catholic Seminaries): http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_cites17.htm

He was a theologian, the issue is primarily theological, not canonical,  contrary to what you believe.

Nice - strong assertion, no supporting anything. Re-read the quote. The Church has addressed practically every moral and theological question that can arise. The ramifications of failing to uphold those teachings are fully contained in Canon Law. Interpretation is reserved to the Legislator and to those to whom he commits authority (Garrigou Lagrange is not a Canon lawyer or a designated authority for this question).

Are you afraid to look at the Law of the Church?

The church has existed for 2000 odd years, the code for 100 or so. Garrigou lagrange and any weighty theologian is an authority for this question, we do not subscribe to solo canon law on this forum, moreover the canonical argument has been disproved elsewhere. I have little wish to get involved in this debate, suffice to say some theologians thought that the pope could retain jurisdiction while a heretic.
(01-25-2013, 01:42 PM)OldMan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Error has no rights. Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Polls don't change that. Q.E.D.

Your opinion.

It's my opinion that error has no rights?  Really? Wow, OldMan says error has rights. Huh.  Just how many and what type of rights are you willing to extend to error, pray tell?  Huh?
(01-25-2013, 08:37 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:42 PM)OldMan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Error has no rights. Sedevacantism is an error.  Therefore, it has no rights.  Polls don't change that. Q.E.D.

Your opinion.

It's my opinion that error has no rights?  Really? Wow, OldMan says error has rights. Huh.  Just how many and what type of rights are you willing to extend to error, pray tell?  Huh?

Judging by Oldman's posting history and habits, I'd take a wild shot in the dark and say he was referring that "SV is an error" is your opinion.  I'm sure he agrees that error has no rights.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35