FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
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
(06-16-2018, 03:23 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't 'misunderstand' anything. You said, 'There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council.' That is a document of the Sacred Oecumenical Council of Nicea. Which is it? 'There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council', or 'Only those documents of an Oecumenical Council that Papple defines as binding are binding'?
 
This is not rocket science. There is Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law....both must be followed at any moment in time. At the moment the Council of Nicaea was promulgated, it was to be considered entirely binding and no one could dare pick it apart or challenge any of it. If later the Church were to slightly modify exactly when someone should kneel and when someone should not, this is not Divine Law but Ecclesiastical Law, which the Church can adjust if she wishes because this is not considered a change to faith and morals. If the Church in later centuries wanted to slightly modify when to kneel, the Church has that option, and then that modification of Ecclesiastical Law would again be binding on all.
(06-16-2018, 09:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 01:33 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Who says?

What if I were to say that I thought it does touch on Faith and Morals since it concerns the Mass and this is the primary act of our worship, thus our Faith.

Were I to say that I could then assert this is a binding, and infallible decree of a General Council. Thus the fact that the Latin Church kneels at Mass constitutes heresy and the Pope that allowed such undermining of the Faith must clearly not have been Popes (including the one that called Vatican I, thus in fact those "Fathers of Vatican I" you keep quoting are actually not Catholics).

Pabbie, you're playing the Protestant here. You're picking and choosing what you have decided "pertains to faith and morals" -- this does, but this is just a "rubric".

But a liberal could claim the exact same thing.

Unless we have a clear arbiter, namely the Church, who decides what belongs to faith and morals, and what constitutes a harm to such faith and morals, we're left in Protestantville, deciding what the Faith is on our own, based on our on evaluation. That's not a Catholic attitude. Full stop.
 
You are mistaken. See my other reply just now. When to kneel at Mass is not found in Scripture, so it is not considered part of Divine Law. That's why the Church has created Ecclesiastical Laws regarding it. Whatever Ecclesiastical Law is in effect at the current moment is what is binding on all.
(06-17-2018, 11:33 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-16-2018, 09:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 01:33 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Who says?

What if I were to say that I thought it does touch on Faith and Morals since it concerns the Mass and this is the primary act of our worship, thus our Faith.

Were I to say that I could then assert this is a binding, and infallible decree of a General Council. Thus the fact that the Latin Church kneels at Mass constitutes heresy and the Pope that allowed such undermining of the Faith must clearly not have been Popes (including the one that called Vatican I, thus in fact those "Fathers of Vatican I" you keep quoting are actually not Catholics).

Pabbie, you're playing the Protestant here. You're picking and choosing what you have decided "pertains to faith and morals" -- this does, but this is just a "rubric".

But a liberal could claim the exact same thing.

Unless we have a clear arbiter, namely the Church, who decides what belongs to faith and morals, and what constitutes a harm to such faith and morals, we're left in Protestantville, deciding what the Faith is on our own, based on our on evaluation. That's not a Catholic attitude. Full stop.
 
You are mistaken. See my other reply just now. When to kneel at Mass is not found in Scripture, so it is not considered part of Divine Law. That's why the Church has created Ecclesiastical Laws regarding it. Whatever Ecclesiastical Law is in effect at the current moment is what is binding on all.

So why cannot the Church then change something like "religious liberty"? (BTW, I don't think the can, but you are making the argument here).

You would of course say "because it is about faith and morals", but who gets to judge that? If it is just you or I, then it's just a from of Protestantism that you're professing. If you say "the Church" then there is no reason to assert that a Pope's alleged heresy does not need also to be identified officially by the Church for there to be any canonical effects.

Pabbie, you've backed yourself into a corner here. Either you judge what is "of faith and morals" or the Church does. If the former, then it's not a Catholic notion, if the latter, then it undermines the Sedevacatist argument you've presented.

I'll let you choose which you want, retort or clarify.
(06-17-2018, 11:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-17-2018, 11:33 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-16-2018, 09:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 01:33 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Who says?

What if I were to say that I thought it does touch on Faith and Morals since it concerns the Mass and this is the primary act of our worship, thus our Faith.

Were I to say that I could then assert this is a binding, and infallible decree of a General Council. Thus the fact that the Latin Church kneels at Mass constitutes heresy and the Pope that allowed such undermining of the Faith must clearly not have been Popes (including the one that called Vatican I, thus in fact those "Fathers of Vatican I" you keep quoting are actually not Catholics).

Pabbie, you're playing the Protestant here. You're picking and choosing what you have decided "pertains to faith and morals" -- this does, but this is just a "rubric".

But a liberal could claim the exact same thing.

Unless we have a clear arbiter, namely the Church, who decides what belongs to faith and morals, and what constitutes a harm to such faith and morals, we're left in Protestantville, deciding what the Faith is on our own, based on our on evaluation. That's not a Catholic attitude. Full stop.
 
You are mistaken. See my other reply just now. When to kneel at Mass is not found in Scripture, so it is not considered part of Divine Law. That's why the Church has created Ecclesiastical Laws regarding it. Whatever Ecclesiastical Law is in effect at the current moment is what is binding on all.

So why cannot the Church then change something like "religious liberty"? (BTW, I don't think the can, but you are making the argument here).

You would of course say "because it is about faith and morals", but who gets to judge that? If it is just you or I, then it's just a from of Protestantism that you're professing. If you say "the Church" then there is no reason to assert that a Pope's alleged heresy does not need also to be identified officially by the Church for there to be any canonical effects.

Pabbie, you've backed yourself into a corner here. Either you judge what is "of faith and morals" or the Church does. If the former, then it's not a Catholic notion, if the latter, then it undermines the Sedevacatist argument you've presented.

I'll let you choose which you want, retort or clarify.
 
It is actually you backing yourself into a corner here. The following quotes from Scripture condemn religious liberty because they condemn any religion that is non-Catholic. Scripture is DIVINE LAW and cannot be changed:
  • "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:15-16
  • "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." 2 John 1:10-11
  • "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Mat 10:33
 
So for Pope to say it is okay to be part of other religions when our Lord clearly stated non-Catholics are condemned, its manifest heresy without a single doubt.
(06-18-2018, 02:29 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]It is actually you backing yourself into a corner here. The following quotes from Scripture condemn religious liberty because they condemn any religion that is non-Catholic. Scripture is DIVINE LAW and cannot be changed:
  • "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:15-16
  • "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." 2 John 1:10-11
  • "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Mat 10:33
 
So for Pope to say it is okay to be part of other religions when our Lord clearly stated non-Catholics are condemned, its manifest heresy without a single doubt.

Is that why He told the disciples to take swords with them, to force people to convert?

If not, that's a form of religious liberty. They might be judged by God for their false beliefs and condemned to Hell, but that doesn't mean the state must do so here on earth.
(06-18-2018, 03:46 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Is that why He told the disciples to take swords with them, to force people to convert?

If not, that's a form of religious liberty. They might be judged by God for their false beliefs and condemned to Hell, but that doesn't mean the state must do so here on earth.

Nor to wholly disagree but Plus IX in the Syllabus of errors stated that it was an error to say
"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."
(06-18-2018, 04:41 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Nor to wholly disagree but Plus IX in the Syllabus of errors stated that it was an error to say
"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

That sounds disciplinary to me. Ideally, yes, all states should profess the Catholic religion, but is that really practical, especially after the 20th century? It's one thing to have a Catholic king keeping the state Catholic, it's another to have a secular republic do so after it's just overthrown that king. What's the Church going to do, declare war to force the state to remain Catholic? And what about places like Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states, which were around during the time of Pius IX? He couldn't have meant that they should be forced to be Catholic.

Seems to me like the statement is aimed at states which are already Catholic, and the modernists are seeking to repeal that and allow Protestant or other worship. By the time of Vatican II, there weren't many such states left, and even within them, the Church didn't force heretics to convert. It may be wrong to say Catholicism as the state religion should be abolished, but that's not the same thing as saying states which now have separation of church and state must be forced to establish Catholicism as the state religion.

The Vatican II statements on religious liberty are confusing, and they're meant to be. But even Archbishop Lefebvre signed Dignitatis humanæ, even though he voted against it. But there are only three possibilities: either it's ultimately orthodox, even if confusing and prone to (intentional) misinterpretation; it isn't infallible and therefore wrong; or the sedevacantists are right and Vatican II wasn't a valid Council. We can't just blindly accept what's being said now, ignoring everything the Church has taught for 2000 years, but it's also not our place to judge the validity of an Ecumenical Council.
(06-18-2018, 04:41 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-18-2018, 03:46 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Is that why He told the disciples to take swords with them, to force people to convert?

If not, that's a form of religious liberty. They might be judged by God for their false beliefs and condemned to Hell, but that doesn't mean the state must do so here on earth.

Nor to wholly disagree but Plus IX in the Syllabus of errors stated that it was an error to say
"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

That condemnation does not imply that the state must employ religious coercion.
(06-18-2018, 05:25 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-18-2018, 04:41 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Nor to wholly disagree but Plus IX in the Syllabus of errors stated that it was an error to say
"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

That sounds disciplinary to me. Ideally, yes, all states should profess the Catholic religion, but is that really practical, especially after the 20th century? It's one thing to have a Catholic king keeping the state Catholic, it's another to have a secular republic do so after it's just overthrown that king. What's the Church going to do, declare war to force the state to remain Catholic? And what about places like Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states, which were around during the time of Pius IX? He couldn't have meant that they should be forced to be Catholic.

Seems to me like the statement is aimed at states which are already Catholic, and the modernists are seeking to repeal that and allow Protestant or other worship. By the time of Vatican II, there weren't many such states left, and even within them, the Church didn't force heretics to convert. It may be wrong to say Catholicism as the state religion should be abolished, but that's not the same thing as saying states which now have separation of church and state must be forced to establish Catholicism as the state religion.

The Vatican II statements on religious liberty are confusing, and they're meant to be. But even Archbishop Lefebvre signed Dignitatis humanæ, even though he voted against it. But there are only three possibilities: either it's ultimately orthodox, even if confusing and prone to (intentional) misinterpretation; it isn't infallible and therefore wrong; or the sedevacantists are right and Vatican II wasn't a valid Council. We can't just blindly accept what's being said now, ignoring everything the Church has taught for 2000 years, but it's also not our place to judge the validity of an Ecumenical Council.
 
Christ founded a Church that all must belong to if they are to be saved. Unfortunately it's human nature for there to be false religions out there, so the Church has no choice but to tolerate them. The Church may tolerate them, but she still says they are erroneous and not means of salvation.

We can clearly see what was intended by the decrees on ecumenism and religious liberty by just looking at what's taking place in the local dioceses over the last 60 years. If people simply misinterpreted the decrees and started going down the wrong path, a true Pope would be guaranteed to step forward and make a clarification as to the true meaning people should be following. Not only have none of the Popes since Vatican II done so, but they are taking part in the errors themselves. True Popes cannot possibly lead the faithful into error like this.

What ultimately would invalidate an ecumenical Council is not having the stamp of approval from a true pope. All the illegitimate Councils in history were created this way.
(06-18-2018, 09:17 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]If people simply misinterpreted the decrees and started going down the wrong path, a true Pope would be guaranteed to step forward and make a clarification as to the true meaning people should be following.

Clearly you don't know much about Church History if you could say something as silly as this.

As noted before, true Popes (like John XXII) have preached heresy, identified and declared as heretical by their very successors and by the theologians of their own times. Clearly a "true Pope" can mislead the faithful and even teach grave error.

Even in the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius appears to have ascribed to an ambiguous Creed which could be interpreted to support Ariansism. So we even have Popes accepting promoting ambiguous formulas which could be interpreted as being against the Faith ... sound familiar.

(06-18-2018, 09:17 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]What ultimately would invalidate an ecumenical Council is not having the stamp of approval from a true pope. All the illegitimate Councils in history were created this way.

Earlier you claimed that many councils were later declared invalid because they were approved by a Pope who was declared to be an antipope. Which ones?

What "illegitimate councils" are you speaking of here?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21