FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
EWTN's Father Mitch Pacwa Denounces Pachamamas - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: EWTN's Father Mitch Pacwa Denounces Pachamamas (/showthread.php?tid=85499)

Pages: 1 2 3


RE: EWTN's Father Mitch Pacwa Denounces Pachamamas - jovan66102 - 11-11-2019

(11-11-2019, 07:32 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: The idea of it being a negative charism is the only thing that seems possibly OK.  But I read a book by Adrian Fortescue - The Early Papacy to Chalcedon.  He tries to show supremacy from the beginning, but when you look at all of his examples the best it turns out is Primacy like the East states.

The Papacy was a final court of appeals yes, but not a global reaching power that placed all local bishops.  It just wasn't so.  That is a later development - much later than the idea of Sola Scriptura or the King James Bible.  Bishops for centuries were appointed locally.  

This makes it not the same issue as sexuality or marriage that have been clear from the time of Christ.

The Church says the supremacy is a divinely revealed dogma. If one divinely revealed dogma can be 'undone' why not others?As MM pointed out, destroy one dogma and you've destroyed the Faith.


RE: EWTN's Father Mitch Pacwa Denounces Pachamamas - MagisterMusicae - 11-11-2019

(11-11-2019, 07:32 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: The idea of it being a negative charism is the only thing that seems possibly OK.  But I read a book by Adrian Fortescue - The Early Papacy to Chalcedon.  He tries to show supremacy from the beginning, but when you look at all of his examples the best it turns out is Primacy like the East states.

Fr James Meagher wrote the book How Christ Said the First Mass was an effort to show that the Last Supper was effectively identical to a 19th century Solemn Pontifical Mass by to reference to supposed Jewish ceremonies. As I recall in liturgy class, at a traditionalist seminary, the priest teaching it said it was a very well-present book that was entirely wrong. It does not mean that the Traditional Mass is unconnected to the Jewish ceremonies, it simply means the Roman Mass was not some near-perfect replica of the Last Supper. In fact, it is pretty clear that the Roman form of Mass was a later development than some of the Eastern rites' original forms.

The point here is that just because a scholar tries to defend a doctrine, and attempts to do so with a novel theory he claims proof of using historical connections which miss their mark, this theory false, rather it makes it unsupported. Neither does an unsupported theory and the tenuous connection in one attempt at proof of it show that the underlying doctrine which was being defended is false.

I think that is probably the case with Fortescue here. He tries to prove Supremacy, but really only proves Primacy. That he does not manage to hit the mark does not mean that Supremacy was not believed. Either way, though, this does not touch on the charism of infallibility, which could hold whether Supremacy or Primacy is the better name for what we have in the Pope.

As I have noted, the dogma of infallibility has clearly been over-stated in the years since 1870 and today. This is especially the case in the early 20th century. The dogma is not this caricature, however. That is an ultramontanist exaggeration, which we are paying for today, and as said before and elsewhere, that was one of the major complaints of those opposed to the definition of Papal Infallibility—not that it was false, but that it risked over-exaggeration. I think that was exactly why Vatican II was swallowed as easily as it was. The Neo-Modernists did not believe in Papal Infallibility, but they did realize that people had learned to hang on every last word of the Pope as Gospel truth, and obey without question. 

That was not a traditional view of the Pope. In fact we have a word in English, pasquinade, an anonymous satirical lampoon of an authority figure, which comes from the Roman tradition of posting criticisms of the Popes on the somewhat-worse-for-wear Greek bust called the Pasquino in Rome. Other such "talking statues" have since become prominent.

The ultramontanist exaggeration was a reaction to the liberal and rationalist Catholics who were rightly condemned in Quanta Cura. Their revolutionary practices helped solidify this overreach of the view of the Pope, and that exaggeration was helped by a series of good Popes and also more non-Roman and non-Italian cardinals, who did not have that same Italian or Roman balance between fealty and pasquinadery.

The balance is to go back and see what the Church actually strictly defines, and not the simplification we make of it. I think this series of bad Popes will help restore some sanity to our view of the Papacy, at least by restoring the venerable custom of the Pasquinade, or perhaps the modern version of trolling the Pope.