FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Do we have to listen to the Pope?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(01-07-2020, 10:43 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]Easy to say when the Pope is St Pius X.

But what does it mean to be united in mind and heart with Alexander VI? Are we supposed to think about how enjoyable it must have been for him to fornicate with his mistresses? If he's the Universal Teacher, are we to follow his example? Obviously not.

If the Pope is telling us that atheists go to heaven, and it's okay to worship idols, and adulterers who have no intent of stopping can receive Communion, ignore him. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." There have been plenty of bad Popes before, but I'm not sure we've seen one who's so bad doctrinally. Maybe John XXII, but even that was only one issue.

It's what Pope Saint Pius X was telling us to do.  Makes it even more of a conundrum.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying there's no good answer.  We're suppose to treat the Pope as "Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher", but can't do that when what he's putting out is contrary to doctrine.
(01-07-2020, 11:39 PM)jack89 Wrote: [ -> ]It's what Pope Saint Pius X was telling us to do.  Makes it even more of a conundrum.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying there's no good answer.  We're suppose to treat the Pope as "Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher", but can't do that when what he's putting out is contrary to doctrine.

St Pius, in his most horrific nightmares, could never have imagined a Pope spewing heresy like Francis. He also said, in Notre Charge Apostolique:

[Image: quote-the-true-friends-of-the-people-are...-73-89.jpg]

Francis is not only a heretic, he's a revolutionary and an innovator.

(01-07-2020, 11:39 PM)jack89 Wrote: [ -> ]It's what Pope Saint Pius X was telling us to do.  Makes it even more of a conundrum.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying there's no good answer.  We're suppose to treat the Pope as "Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher", but can't do that when what he's putting out is contrary to doctrine.

Not everything a Pope says is infallible, or to be taken absolutely literally, and this has to be one of them. We have to use some common sense here, and there's nothing Pope Francis is doing where he's telling everyone they have to be bound by what he says. If we take St Pius X literally, then we have to admire the example of Alexander VI, as a father, and John XXII, when, as Universal Teacher, he taught that the dead do not immediately enjoy the Beatific Vision.

And, unpopular opinion time, but the more I think about it, the less I think St Pius X's doings were as good as people, particularly traditionalists, think. I'm not saying he had any bad intentions, but nevertheless paved the way for the modernists he worked to suppress to do what they did. Statements like the one you've brought up are a great view of the Pope when he's a holy man like Pius X, but this view of the Pope, combined with the newly-declared dogma of papal infallibility made it possible for the reforms of Paul VI and ultimately the cries of 'schism!' whenever someone criticises Pope Francis. It's almost papolatry, and the liberals/modernists have exploited this view of the papacy to great success. His reform of the Breviary, radically changing the traditional Psalter, also opened the way for the later reforms, and encouraging Communion at every Mass has led to people equating Mass attendance with reception, and the great confusion over whether one can receive, with now everyone going to Communion and nobody going to Confession.

Maybe he never foresaw any of that. But he knew Modernism was a danger, and perhaps it was not the best time to be making changes. I'm sure he's up there praying that we have a way out of this mess. But it's hard to not see the things he did as contributing to it, even if unintentionally so.
(01-08-2020, 12:33 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]His reform of the Breviary, radically changing the traditional Psalter, also opened the way for the later reforms, ....

When St Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Breviary, he affixed an Apostolic Constitution, similar to Quo primum, called Quod a nobis, to it (which unfortunately, I can't find online). It used the same sort of language, threatening dire punishment to anyone who would alter what he was promulgating. I have never heard of any Traditionalist arguing that St Pius X was a destroyer of the Liturgy because he 'violated' Quod a nobis as they do about Paul VI 'violating' Quo primum.
(01-08-2020, 12:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2020, 12:33 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]His reform of the Breviary, radically changing the traditional Psalter, also opened the way for the later reforms, ....

When St Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Breviary, he affixed an Apostolic Constitution, similar to Quo primum, called Quod a nobis, to it (which unfortunately, I can't find online). It used the same sort of language, threatening dire punishment to anyone who would alter what he was promulgating. I have never heard of any Traditionalist arguing that St Pius X was a destroyer of the Liturgy because he 'violated' Quod a nobis as they do about Paul VI 'violating' Quo primum.
Ohh lost...so lost here! Have no idea what all this is!
Stick around. There's a lot for all of us to learn and between the website and the forum, I can't think of a better place to learn than FishEaters. I've been studying Church history and theology for 50+ years and I still learn something new every day, here on the forum.
I just watched the video of Pope Francis launching the global educational alliance, it was mentioned in another thread.

This line can't be ignored:
"We need a Global Compact on Education aimed at developing a new universal solidarity and a new humanism."

I did watch the whole thing.

This man is godless. And I realized I can't be part of this anymore. I can't consider myself Catholic anymore. He's speaking as Pope, not off the cuff in some unrecorded interview, not in some private journal somewhere, he is intending to lead Catholics and the world down this road. 
I'm pretty sure there's no way to speak of humanism in such a way that one is actually saying "Christ centered".

I can't do away with God, He'll exist whether I believe in Him or not. I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. I can't do away with God but I can't be Catholic. I can't continue to contort myself so that this mess makes sense. I feel schizophrenic, there is too much contradiction. 
The Bishop of our diocese said, "How much more can the people of God take?"
I have had enough.
(01-08-2020, 01:47 AM)Missbeliever Wrote: [ -> ]He's speaking as Pope, not off the cuff in some unrecorded interview, not in some private journal somewhere, he is intending to lead Catholics and the world down this road.

And as has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, he IS NOT SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA IN ANY WAY THAT REQUIRES US TO BELIEVE. We have had heretic Popes before and the Church has survived. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside which their is no salvation, will survive Popes who are immoral (the Pornocracy and the Renaissance), Popes who are heretics (John XXII and Francis come to mind), and Popes who are more interested in the world than in saving souls (again, some of the Renaissance Popes and Francis).  The Church will always remain and those who leave it, leave it at the peril of their immortal souls!

I will be praying for you.
(01-08-2020, 12:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]When St Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Breviary, he affixed an Apostolic Constitution, similar to Quo primum, called Quod a nobis, to it (which unfortunately, I can't find online). It used the same sort of language, threatening dire punishment to anyone who would alter what he was promulgating. I have never heard of any Traditionalist arguing that St Pius X was a destroyer of the Liturgy because he 'violated' Quod a nobis as they do about Paul VI 'violating' Quo primum.

I'm not saying St Pius X didn't have the authority to do what he did. I think the Quo primum argument against the new Mass is a bad one; Paul VI had the same authority as Pius V, but that's been discussed here before.

There had been talk about Breviary reform since at least the 1700s, and something probably needed to be done, since the Sunday psalms were said on all Double and Semidouble feasts, leaving most of the Psalms to be said only a few times a year. The better solution would probably have been to prune the calendar, especially by 1911, and leave many of the feasts of various Italian confessors for the dioceses in which they had lived, leaving those who actually had universal devotion. But the Breviary in 1911 was basically the same as that of 1602, except for new feasts, a few new lessons on a couple days, some rubrical changes eliminating the transfer of Doubles and Semidoubles, and, of course the hymns of Pope Urban VIII. But the Psalter is the heart of the Breviary, and Pius X's new scheme, especially including divided psalms, was completely untraditional to the Roman rite, and even eliminated things that went back to the Apostles, such as praying Psalms 148-149-150 together. The reform definitely established the principle that the Pope is the master of the liturgy, rather than its guardian, and the reformers of Vatican II used that to their full advantage.

And don't forget that Pius X's breviary only lasted about 40 years. Pius XII reformed it further, and then we got the gutted 1960 version which turned Sunday into essentially what before would have been a Simple feast of three Lessons. Maybe if the reforms had stopped in 1911, the new Breviary wouldn't be so bad. Except it didn't stop there.

I don't think St Pius X intended to destroy the liturgy, and there's much more room for reform in the Breviary than in the Missal. (For that, my preference would be the 1920 edition, the last typical edition before the later tinkering in the 1950s, with the later saints added and maybe the Common of Popes. There are plenty of suggestions out there on reforming the traditional Mass, but I don't see any need to touch the Missal. But it's not up to me.) But it got the whole liturgical reform moving, and if the traditional Roman Psalter could be replaced wholesale, what couldn't? They wouldn't replace the Canon, would they?

If the liturgy is something for each new generation to leave its mark on, and just one more work of man, then why not the new Mass? Priests are too busy to pray 18 Psalms on Sunday; revise it. People are too busy to sit through Mass; shorten it and give them more to do. If the Office was too much of a burden on the average parish priest, leave the obligation on the monks and nuns, and require Lauds, Vespers, and Compline for secular clergy. The Little Office of the BVM, the Office of the Dead, and the Penitential Psalms used to be obligatory, but that was changed. No reason why the obligation to recite all the Hours couldn't be, with the option of doing so if you were able to. For that matter, it's not even a requirement that a priest has to say Mass every day, so why should he have to recite the entire Office? Of course, we're looking at this with 100 years of hindsight, seeing what's been lost and what's been imposed, and judging it from that perspective. But if the liturgy is something to be passed down, having been pretty much perfected centuries ago, then it's better to keep it intact, even if it's used less often, and pass it down as a whole.
(01-08-2020, 02:11 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying St Pius X didn't have the authority to do what he did. I think the Quo primum argument against the new Mass is a bad one; Paul VI had the same authority as Pius V, but that's been discussed here before.

I agree with your entire post.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5