Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
(10-10-2012, 04:08 PM)kingofspades Wrote: Ooohhh you will probably better know than the Pope that our times are so 'particular' , that "the Catholicity of the Pope's doctrine is questionable".

a) Is it impossible for the pope to be wrong?  Has it never happened before?  Hint:  see Sts. Peter and Paul.
b) The pope has agreed with the SSPX that there is a crisis in the Church.  JP2 called it a silent apostasy.  He may not hold that our solution is legitimate, but he at least recognized there was a problem.

Quote:And since you know that so sure, you can hold your self-declared 'emergency' disobedience and rejection of magisterial teachings for OK.

It's more like, I HAVE to hold that position.  I mean, V2 says one has to act in conformity to his conscience, n'est-ce pas?  Don't let me catch you telling me to be disobedient to V2...

Look, when the pope calls the council a "Counter-Syllabus", I don't think I'm going all that far out on a limb in saying that one or the other didn't teach Catholic doctrine.  Which was it?  The Syllabus, or V2?

Quote:And that with the argument of acceptance of jurisdiction in eastern orthodox churches, which you in fact, of course, reject. Also because that is error, or? Tsk. Well, don't use erring arguments, if you are consistent in your theology...

Um, I'm having difficulty understanding just what you're trying to say here, but actually, I basically do admit that the Orthodox have jurisdiction.  Why?  Because Rome says so, and I really don't know any better.

Now, I think that jurisdiction does them basically zero good, since they're outside the Church, but I'm willing enough to grant that they have it.  As St. Augustine said, roughly paraphrased, one can do everything outside the Church-- one can celebrate the sacraments, sing alleluia, answer Amen-- but one cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church.

Quote:Don't blame me that I still call that protestant, nothing less.

I shall try to restrain myself from exercising my private judgment on this pontifical declaration...   ;)
Reply
(10-11-2012, 09:19 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I am interpreting your own words; and Protestants mean it to refer mainly to the Pope.

That's a very strange interpretation.  

Because the Pope tells untruths therefore, I'm calling him the Whore of Babylon.  

We can solve this simply.  Back that up.  

Prove that the Pope is incapable of telling untruths about Bishop Williamson and I'll retract everything I've said and never post on Fisheaters again.  

Reply
(10-11-2012, 09:27 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 09:11 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 02:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 11:43 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: It's always been a bit mysterious to me how they could be considered to be better off than the SSPX.

They went into schism with whole local churches in toto, bishops and flocks, maintaining a jurisdictional claim on their dioceses.  And further, there is a strangely continuous history of each side treating each others jurisdiction as somewhat meaningful (there is no Orthodox pretender to the See of Rome, never has been, and aside from certain key Sees and in the midst of the Crusades, rarely a Catholic bishop inserted into a place with an existing Orthodox hierarchy).  Well into the history of the schism, Franciscan and Dominican friars when missionaries in the Middle East, would treat the Orthodox bishops as their ordinaries.  Orthodox continued to admit that the Pope is the chief bishop, and Orthodox Patriarchs would make requests to Rome for priests to fill in shortages (that contact is how the Melkite Catholics got started, but it was slow).  But that original, continuing jurisdiction was key.  The Popes never denied that the Eastern Churches existed in continuity, and have always attempted reconciliation with their bishops rather than replacement,

The SSPX situation is very different; in some ways much better, in some ways worse off.  There is no continuing jurisdiction with the past, though there is with the Campos situation.

Thank you for that.

You are welcome; in spite of how it might appear lately, I really am sympathetic with the Society.  When I make a parallel to the Orthodox, I do it to express my fear of what could go wrong: the EO started as good Catholics resisting what they saw as authority abused.  I get really concerned when I see folks recreate Orthodox arguments without even knowing it: those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, and all that (on the other hand, history never repeats itself, though it often rhymes).

Does history ever rhyme with anything but mystery?
Reply
(10-11-2012, 09:19 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I am interpreting your own words; and Protestants mean it to refer mainly to the Pope.

Um, I think Gerard was right.  They consider the Church the Whore; the pope would have to be the Beast or sumthin'.
Reply
(10-11-2012, 09:41 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: Um, I think Gerard was right.  They consider the Church the Whore; the pope would have to be the Beast or sumthin'.

That is true; during my time as a fundamentalist, the Church as a whole was often referred to as the "Whore of Babylon" by anti-Catholic fundies, whereas the pope was oftentimes called the Anti-Christ.
Reply
(10-11-2012, 11:30 AM)Geremia Wrote: Fr. Cekada mentions that here, in which he discusses how a certain novel he read treated this theme:

Okay, that was an hour of nothing new, relevant or illuminating. (no offense to Stephen or Father C.)  I'm simply seeing and hearing the same neo-con premise on the extent of infallibility in the Church,  its typical expressions consist of essentially infallibility-creepage based on fallible theologians all basically adopting an Ultramontanist ideal of the papacy. Infallibility is conflated with impeccability, somehow the legal system of the particular Church of Rome carries the infallibility that Vatican I didn't include in its definition,  submission and obedience are broad brush absolutes instead of contingent realities.  There is always a HUGE blind spot when it comes to the behavior of Popes in their legislative roles in history.  eg. Pope Stephens rulings on Pope Formosus were legal acts that were either true or false and Popes have taken both sides of the rulings and turned them around and around.  

Not one of my points ever gets addressed on this issue, they either get dismissed with the old wave of a hand act or the response is crickets.  

Here's what I wrote  from a previous thread;

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...215.0.html

(04-19-2012, 12:47 PM)Gerard Wrote: Very interesting, especially in regards to the ownership issues, but here's where my red flag went off.

Quote: "First, a real Catholic does not negotiate with the Roman Pontiff — he submits to the Roman Pontiff. It is an article of faith that this is necessary for salvation."

Abraham and Moses were both capable of negotiatin with God Himself. But the Pope is somehow above negotiation?   What about the Popes that have negotiated with Eastern rites that actually split off and returned? 

St. Celestine wasn't interested in negotiatin with Boniface at all. He just kept disobeying. 

To propose this as an absolute without pointing out the difference between proper and improper submission is simply a capitulation to the Protestant idea of the papacy. 

The Protestant misunderstand the Papacy and reject Catholicism.  The Neo-Catholics have the same misunderstanding and simply love it and reject common sense. 

The traditionalists that carry the same misconception simply reject the occupant of the Papal Throne in order to preserve the premise. 

But to paraphrase, real Catholics submit to the voice of Peter when he speaks with the voice of Peter and when he walks not uprightly or perverts the gospel, they resist him to the face. 
Last time I checked, St. Paul was a "real Catholic." 

Vatican I clearly had the qualifier in it's definition of papal supremacy that what was required was "true heirarchical obedience" not "absolute" obedience.  If it had said "absolute" either Catholicism would be false or Popes would be Immaculate and Impeccable outside of Infallibility as defined.

We have too many incidences in history where "submission" to a Pope was not the moral option whether it be the deacon providing answers for the trial of Formosus or the wife of the man that killed one of the Pope Johns.

If you follow the absolutist understanding it goes like this:

"He's Pope right or wrong and since he's Pope he can do no wrong and if you think he is wrong he's irresistible anyway"  But, if you have a shred of morality and intellect trying to wrap itself around an invalid absolute, you simply replace the subject matter.  "He's wrong so He can't be Pope so,because my understanding of the premise must be correct."

But, when a Pope behaves like an "Anti-Christ" or "Satan" in Peter's case,  well...the description fits.  Not because you can't get your way but because objectively the Pope is not impeccable in his functions as Pope and the description is apt. 

So, to call absurd LeFebvre's descriptions and dealiings with the mercurial Popes on a human level is demanding "SuperPope" where none exists.    It's reminiscent of Chesterton's criticism of G. Bernard Shaw in "Heretics"  In discussing Mankind he said Shaw  will never be satisified because the ideal he searches for has never existed and cannot exist.  Therefore he has no appreciation for what is and everything falls short. 

Hold Jesus to the same standard that you hold LeFebvre.  When the Pope said what he liked, "You are the rock."  When he said what he didn't like, "Get thee behind me Satan."    Was Jesus a case of  Praxis without Principles? 

Reply
Gerard!  Thank you for linking to that post you made to Fr C over the Summer when he was on true restoration.  I'd been looking for that thread to bookmark it, and particularly remember that exchange.  Thanks!
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
(10-11-2012, 09:33 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 09:19 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I am interpreting your own words; and Protestants mean it to refer mainly to the Pope.

That's a very strange interpretation.  

Because the Pope tells untruths therefore, I'm calling him the Whore of Babylon.  

We can solve this simply.  Back that up.  

Prove that the Pope is incapable of telling untruths about Bishop Williamson and I'll retract everything I've said and never post on Fisheaters again.  

Who said he is incapable?  But where has he done so?
Reply
(10-11-2012, 08:41 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 12:03 PM)Old Salt Wrote: "without a hint of a doubt that it's valid because Holy Mother Church has decreed it so."

Gerard,
How do you know this with absolute moral certainty?
[referring to SSPX absolutions being always valid]

Certitude is either absolute or moral.  Absolute certitude is not possible in this life, therefore, based on my best and honest discernment, I have moral certitude on the issue. 

And I didn't say they are always valid, because you still have to hear the proper absolution if you are suspicious of such things. 
You said "without a hint of a doubt".
This would obviously include absolute, and moral lack of doubts.
Without a hint...

You are not sure.
Reply
(10-12-2012, 09:47 AM)Old Salt Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 08:41 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-11-2012, 12:03 PM)Old Salt Wrote: "without a hint of a doubt that it's valid because Holy Mother Church has decreed it so."

Gerard,
How do you know this with absolute moral certainty?
[referring to SSPX absolutions being always valid]

Certitude is either absolute or moral.  Absolute certitude is not possible in this life, therefore, based on my best and honest discernment, I have moral certitude on the issue. 

And I didn't say they are always valid, because you still have to hear the proper absolution if you are suspicious of such things. 
You said "without a hint of a doubt".
This would obviously include absolute, and moral lack of doubts.
Without a hint...

You are not sure.

No. Moral certitude does not mean a person has doubts.  It means a person could objectively be wrong but can act in good conscience.  Absolute certitude means there is no possibility for error. 

Doubt isn't even relevant to the discussion except in my reference to its absence.  

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)