Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
(10-13-2011, 05:43 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I'm coming into this a little late, so I am not sure if this has been answered, but popes can err in their theological opinions (non-de fide) and retain the papacy but they cannot err in the de fide teachings of the Church and remain visible members of the Church, to say nothing of retain the office of the papacy.

]According to St. Francis de Sales (Doctor of the Church), who also taught that a manifestly heretical pope would immediately lose the office of the papacy, John XXII did not lose the papacy because his erroneous opinion did not concern a denial of a de fide teaching of the Church. Until it was declared de fide, he was permitted to hold an opinion on the matter, as wrong as it may have been. Denying a dogma of faith necessary to maintain one's membership in the Church, however, is a completely different matter.

You're asserting, then, that even if a pontiff rejects a de fide teaching in a non-binding way he incurs excommunication and loses the papacy?  Is there a cut-off between public and private speaking?  In your opinion, If he denies the teaching in a darkened room to a high-ranking cardinal alone does he lose the papacy, or must it be in a public speech or encyclical (or something of an equally public nature)?

Reply
(10-12-2011, 07:07 AM)ggreg Wrote: I'll make one observation and then shut up.  The Trads I knew when I was 30 years younger, and I knew them from all over Europe, were less compromising than I was then or I am now.  I met Archbishop Lefebvre twice, spoke to him, met most of the original stalwarts of the SSPX.

In turn I am less compromising than most of you young Turks.

As a whole Traditionalists are slipping towards a detente or compromised position.  The fathers had fire in their belly.  The sons are worn down and want peace.  We see this in humans throughout history.

Which makes one wonder.  Is there an origin point (0, 0, 0) for Traditionalists from which we should not stray or is truth actually a little bit mutable.   Were Trads too hard line in the 1970s and have got the balance about right now or the other way around?

What were those Trads in the 1960s and 1970s asking for?  Catholicism as the remembered it, or Catholicism as they imagined it was or should be.  Were Trads just a bunch of wishful thinking idealists? 
 

Recent converts and reverts are not in any position to judge what the faith of Traditionalist Catholcis was like 20-30 years ago.  They only know that second hand.

But, Christ as my witness, I can assure you that hardly any Trads were as compromising as the bulk of people on this forum are today.  Compared the them I was liberal.   Compared to you I am conservative.

The term RAD trad and Ultra Trad should be dropped.  They're all dead.

But what actually constitutes 'compromise?' Is truth 'changing' if we accept that we can live in peace alongside Jews, or are we obliged to persecute Jews because there was an established Catholic tradition of doing so? There needs to be a clearer line drawn as to where exactly this 'immutable truth' resides. I think we can definately do somethings differently to how the Medievals did them without straying away from immutable truth, but as to where the line is drawn exactly, I don't really know.

Since you've got more life experience within the trad movement than most of us, I'd really like to see your answers to the questions you just put forth, because I often wonder about them. I also wonder if the general stereotype of the 'rad trad' is actually anything like the stereotype of a typical faithful and orthodox Catholic prior to the 1950's. I somehow suspect not. I'm only a teenager and a revert, so I really have no experience at all which allows me to answer these questions on my own.




Reply
Walty,
I cannot speak for INPEFESS, but if you don't mind, I would like to try and answer your questions.

"You're asserting, then, that even if a pontiff rejects a de fide teaching in a non-binding way he incurs excommunication and loses the papacy?"

Yes.  The rejection of de fide* teaching constitutes heresy.  The 1917 CIC reads thusly: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n. 4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith” (Can. 188.4).  And again: "Heresy consists in a pertinacious denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines" (Can. 1324).  "Any baptized person... who pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic" (Can. 1325.2).


"Is there a cut-off between public and private speaking?  In your opinion, If he denies the teaching in a darkened room to a high-ranking cardinal alone does he lose the papacy, or must it be in a public speech or encyclical (or something of an equally public nature)?"

It is my understanding that the Roman Pontiff (or any cleric, for that matter) ceases to be a member of the Church and loses office by public heresy.  Heresy is public when it is published, when it could easily be published (cf. Canonist Michels), or when spoken "in a public place or gathering with many persons present."  One example would be public journals (or books containing interviews with the Supreme Pontiff).  Heresy spoken in front of a crowd or published in authentic public documents, such as the Osservatore Romano or the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, is therefore public.  This would include apostolic constitutions, encyclicals, general audiences, apostolic exhortations, etc.


* The same goes for teachings with the following theological notes: de fide Catholica, de fide divina et Catholica, de fide ecclesiastica definita.  A sin against a doctrine which is de fide divina is a mortal sin directly against faith and is classified as "Error in faith," but it does not carry with it the loss of Church membership, as do the ones mentioned in the previous sentence.  See: http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html and also Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. III (The Sources of Revelation, Divine Faith), 6th Ed. [1961], p. 290.

Regarding public heresy, I've quoted from these two articles: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10 and http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=12&catname=10  English translation of canons 1324 and 1325.2: http://www.saveourchurch.org/heresyapostduty.html

When I have time later this evening, I can double-check with my own English translation of the 1917 Code to ensure the accuracy of the translations I've provided here.
Reply
(10-13-2011, 11:19 AM)Raskolnikov Wrote:
(10-12-2011, 07:07 AM)ggreg Wrote: I'll make one observation and then shut up.  The Trads I knew when I was 30 years younger, and I knew them from all over Europe, were less compromising than I was then or I am now.  I met Archbishop Lefebvre twice, spoke to him, met most of the original stalwarts of the SSPX.

In turn I am less compromising than most of you young Turks.

As a whole Traditionalists are slipping towards a detente or compromised position.  The fathers had fire in their belly.  The sons are worn down and want peace.  We see this in humans throughout history.

Which makes one wonder.  Is there an origin point (0, 0, 0) for Traditionalists from which we should not stray or is truth actually a little bit mutable.   Were Trads too hard line in the 1970s and have got the balance about right now or the other way around?

What were those Trads in the 1960s and 1970s asking for?  Catholicism as the remembered it, or Catholicism as they imagined it was or should be.  Were Trads just a bunch of wishful thinking idealists? 
 

Recent converts and reverts are not in any position to judge what the faith of Traditionalist Catholcis was like 20-30 years ago.  They only know that second hand.

But, Christ as my witness, I can assure you that hardly any Trads were as compromising as the bulk of people on this forum are today.  Compared the them I was liberal.   Compared to you I am conservative.

The term RAD trad and Ultra Trad should be dropped.  They're all dead.

But what actually constitutes 'compromise?' Is truth 'changing' if we accept that we can live in peace alongside Jews, or are we obliged to persecute Jews because there was an established Catholic tradition of doing so? There needs to be a clearer line drawn as to where exactly this 'immutable truth' resides. I think we can definately do somethings differently to how the Medievals did them without straying away from immutable truth, but as to where the line is drawn exactly, I don't really know.

Since you've got more life experience within the trad movement than most of us, I'd really like to see your answers to the questions you just put forth, because I often wonder about them. I also wonder if the general stereotype of the 'rad trad' is actually anything like the stereotype of a typical faithful and orthodox Catholic prior to the 1950's. I somehow suspect not. I'm only a teenager and a revert, so I really have no experience at all which allows me to answer these questions on my own.

Well, basically I ask whether the truth was universally believed and taught as truth.

Virgin Birth.  Cannot change.  Mary cannot have been both a Virgin and not a Virgin.

Whether women can wear pants around the home?  This is not a fixed truth.  Fashions change.  Pants can be modest and women are not feminist because they wear pants.

Artificial Contraception.  I don't see how this could ever be allowed since it so clear leads to Abortion.

Belief in the theory of evolution, without God stepping in and ensouling two ape like creatures who then did not interbred with the rest of their tribe?  I don't see how polygenism is compatible with Original Sin.  You absolutely must have two parents to the human race for Original Sin to be real and actual and propogate down the generations.  No scientist who believes in Evolution suggests that there were an Adam and an Eve who mated with each other.  The genetic Adam and Eve were 90,000 years apart according to science.  Therefore evolution, as we understand it today and it is promoted today MUST be horseshit if Original Sin is true.  If Original Sin is not what we thought it was, then that SO UNDERMINES the credibility of Christianity that you can write the entire New Testament off as unreliable and join Dawkins.

That we can have dialogue and live peacefully with Muslims for another 1000 years?  Looks to me like we cannot.  Islam ad Christianity look to be on a path of war to me.  They are not "people of the book" and Allah is not God.  If the Vatican says they are, then not only does that contradict 1000 years of Catholic thinking but it also seems to contradict observable fact.

Basically I look at what was taught in the past, look at what is taught now and I question whether the Church has any credibility left after changing it's mind.  You cannot reconcile the unreconcilable.  If it does not I reject the now view on the simple basis that if the Church was ever right it was right in the past.  There is no possibility that the Holy Ghost came down at V2 and did 180' turns on the truth or revealled a whole new Gospel.  In fact the old Gospel specifically warns us to be on the look out for that and reject it when we see it.
Reply
(10-13-2011, 05:01 PM)ggreg Wrote: Well, basically I ask whether the truth was universally believed and taught as truth.

Virgin Birth.  Cannot change.  Mary cannot have been both a Virgin and not a Virgin.

Whether women can wear pants around the home?  This is not a fixed truth.  Fashions change.  Pants can be modest and women are not feminist because they wear pants.

Artificial Contraception.  I don't see how this could ever be allowed since it so clear leads to Abortion.

Belief in the theory of evolution, without God stepping in and ensouling two ape like creatures who then did not interbred with the rest of their tribe?  I don't see how polygenism is compatible with Original Sin.  You absolutely must have two parents to the human race for Original Sin to be real and actual and propogate down the generations.  No scientist who believes in Evolution suggests that there were an Adam and an Eve who mated with each other.  The genetic Adam and Eve were 90,000 years apart according to science.  Therefore evolution, as we understand it today and it is promoted today MUST be horseshit if Original Sin is true.  If Original Sin is not what we thought it was, then that SO UNDERMINES the credibility of Christianity that you can write the entire New Testament off as unreliable and join Dawkins.

That we can have dialogue and live peacefully with Muslims for another 1000 years?  Looks to me like we cannot.  Islam ad Christianity look to be on a path of war to me.  They are not "people of the book" and Allah is not God.  If the Vatican says they are, then not only does that contradict 1000 years of Catholic thinking but it also seems to contradict observable fact.

Basically I look at what was taught in the past, look at what is taught now and I question whether the Church has any credibility left after changing it's mind.  You cannot reconcile the unreconcilable.  If it does not I reject the now view on the simple basis that if the Church was ever right it was right in the past.  There is no possibility that the Holy Ghost came down at V2 and did 180' turns on the truth or revealled a whole new Gospel.  In fact the old Gospel specifically warns us to be on the look out for that and reject it when we see it.

Well said.
Reply
(10-13-2011, 01:06 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Walty,
I cannot speak for INPEFESS, but if you don't mind, I would like to try and answer your questions.

You did a very good job of answering the questions, SouthpawLink; thank you for doing so, for I would not have had the time to thoroughly answer the question.

Also, my reply would have been verbose and obtuse.

Qui nimis probat, nihil probat.
Reply
(10-13-2011, 06:54 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(10-13-2011, 05:01 PM)ggreg Wrote: Well, basically I ask whether the truth was universally believed and taught as truth.

Virgin Birth.  Cannot change.  Mary cannot have been both a Virgin and not a Virgin.

Whether women can wear pants around the home?  This is not a fixed truth.  Fashions change.  Pants can be modest and women are not feminist because they wear pants.

Artificial Contraception.  I don't see how this could ever be allowed since it so clear leads to Abortion.

Belief in the theory of evolution, without God stepping in and ensouling two ape like creatures who then did not interbred with the rest of their tribe?  I don't see how polygenism is compatible with Original Sin.  You absolutely must have two parents to the human race for Original Sin to be real and actual and propogate down the generations.  No scientist who believes in Evolution suggests that there were an Adam and an Eve who mated with each other.  The genetic Adam and Eve were 90,000 years apart according to science.  Therefore evolution, as we understand it today and it is promoted today MUST be horseshit if Original Sin is true.  If Original Sin is not what we thought it was, then that SO UNDERMINES the credibility of Christianity that you can write the entire New Testament off as unreliable and join Dawkins.

That we can have dialogue and live peacefully with Muslims for another 1000 years?  Looks to me like we cannot.  Islam ad Christianity look to be on a path of war to me.  They are not "people of the book" and Allah is not God.  If the Vatican says they are, then not only does that contradict 1000 years of Catholic thinking but it also seems to contradict observable fact.

Basically I look at what was taught in the past, look at what is taught now and I question whether the Church has any credibility left after changing it's mind.  You cannot reconcile the unreconcilable.  If it does not I reject the now view on the simple basis that if the Church was ever right it was right in the past.  There is no possibility that the Holy Ghost came down at V2 and did 180' turns on the truth or revealled a whole new Gospel.  In fact the old Gospel specifically warns us to be on the look out for that and reject it when we see it.

Well said.

I second that.
Reply
I can't help but laugh. I've been away for so long, and I come back and people are still talking about this guy like there are remaining questions.  Really guys?  REALLY?
Reply
(10-18-2011, 06:24 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: I can't help but laugh. I've been away for so long, and I come back and people are still talking about this guy like there are remaining questions.  Really guys?  REALLY?

Some consider him a saint.

Go figure.
Reply
This thread is an example of why traditional Catholics are sometimes called romanticists etc. Ggregg tries to open people's minds by taking them back to what it was "really like" a few decades ago, when a trad was a trad etc. Thanks for that. One of the most messed up periods in the Church's history, and we should be ashamed to call ourselves traditional Catholics if we don't speak in the same emotive language as the defenders of the Faith in that time. That's not opening people's minds, it's narrowing them. The Church and its relations with the world go back a fair way further than the 70s, or 60s, or 20s, or the 19th century. What JP2 did in whatever instance doesn't amount to much in the bigger picture. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)