Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
#21
JPII's path to Sainthood will go no further, so no worries.
Reply
#22
oh
Reply
#23
Albino, what are you talking about?
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
#24
(10-10-2011, 11:16 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Albino, what are you talking about?

Albino "knows."

He works for Opus Dei.
Reply
#25
So what, they've un-beatified him?
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
#26
(10-10-2011, 08:11 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: If the Pope hadn't taken control of the canonization process back at the second millennium, we wouldn't have to worry about this.. Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta would already be saints by public acclaim, and all we'd do is be free to disagree with each other, not feel forced to abandon the church in good conscience.

Popes have been very good at piling on "little traditions" over the course of the centuries: the devil's advocate, the infallibility question, the appropriate waiting periods, the number of miracles required, etc) that have nothing to do with Sacred Tradition or the deposit of faith. The devil's advocate, for example, didn't come along until about 1600, and yet people act as if it's something handed down from the apostles. If you knew the history of the papacy, and the history of canonizing saints, nothing would shock you. A pope brought ALL of the above into existence, another pope can abolish all of the above, if he wants to.. I'm disillusioned too, but for different reasons.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.
Reply
#27
(10-10-2011, 11:33 AM)Scotus Wrote: But if there has been no valid Pope for the last 53 years then I would conclude that either (1) Christ has abandoned His Church, which is impossible or (2) that our religion has been built on a falsehood from the start, which I cannot accept.

I strongly advise you to reconsider the soundness of those conclusions as the only possible conclusions.

The institutions established by Christ are divine institutions; they endure even if men choose to abandon them for a time. The office of the papacy endures even without an occupant. The popes have been raised up by God to fill the office of the papacy so as to contribute to and actualize its unitive function. The office of the papacy was not established for the sake of the popes that they, of themselves, might single-handedly hold together the Church. Though such an extensive interregnum would undoubtedly be a great penance (and a terrible--yet just--punishment from God), I don't see how it would contradict the promises of Christ. Limiting the number of years we can be without a pope is like conditioning one's faith in the Church based on an arbitrary and subjective span of time.

After all, it was Christ Himself Who challenged the faithful as to whether the faith would exist on earth when He returned:
Luke 18:8 Wrote:“But yet, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?”

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, an noteworthy theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I, wrote after Vatican I that it would not contradict the teachings of the Church were God to leave the Church without a pope for (at least) 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417). Here is what he writes:
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly Wrote:“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.

In fact, on page 287 of the same book, Fr. O'Reilly continues with what could be likened to a prophetic warning:
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly Wrote:“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

Fr. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, p. 287.
Reply
#28
The problem with this is that few Catholics will tell you in advance how bizzaro it needs to get before their rational mind can no longer cope.  I don't doubt that 99% of priests 100 years ago  would have told you what we are experiencing now was impossible. And that to even consider it as a possibility was an act of despair and a mortal sin because the Church was indefectable and protected by the Holy Spirit.  Yet, here we are.

So whatever they thought indefectable meant, it didn't quite mean that.

When a prophet forecasts the end of the world and it fails to happen, then some followers say the prophet was wrong or a fraud. Some however make excuses and convince themselves that those who have departed lack faith. Even the Little Pebble has followers despite a criminal conviction for sex crimes.  His followers simply say he was falsely convicted by a world which does not understand him (like Jesus).

All this stuff about the papacy existing without a pope for 50 years seems too much of a stretch for me.  The Catholic Church has to retain some level of credibility and believability on a rational level.  If it is just faith, then it is not any different to other cults.
Reply
#29
(10-10-2011, 07:59 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-10-2011, 07:07 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(10-10-2011, 11:39 AM)Walty Wrote: Here's my take:

It doesn't matter whether a pope believes in infallibility or not.  If a bad doesn't speak any error ex cathedra then he remains pope, albeit a bad one who likes to say all sorts of stupid things.  Although the extent to which popes have said and done stupid things reached an apex with Paul VI and John Paul II, it's certainly not something which never happened before the Council.  Those popes which have acted similarly, even if only for a period of their papacy, are not considered to have been illegitimate or to have lost their office.

Five cardboard cut out Popes in a row?

Sorry, but that is taking the piss.

The First Vatican Council did not define how much time would have to pass for the line of perpetual successors to St. Peter to be broken...

Walty Wrote:The continual Catholic teaching has been that the error must be spoken with the full authority of the papacy, and not merely in public speeches or encyclicals.

I disagree.  The Roman Pontiff, while not subject to canon law, is still subject to divine law, and can fall into notorious heresy without necessarily making a false infallible definition (both Pontiffs and theologians make this point).  Remember also what Pope Pius XII said of the authority of papal encyclicals (Humani Generis, n. 20):  "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.  For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority... generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine."

I'm not saying that a pope can't fall into personal heresy.  What I'm saying is that the traditional teaching has always been that he only loses office if he makes that heresy binding on the faithful.  So far, that has not been done.

And your argument does not jive with history.  There have been popes who have personally believed in heretical notions (even so defined at the time), but they didn't cease to be pope nor are their names taken off the list.
Reply
#30
(10-11-2011, 07:08 AM)ggreg Wrote: The problem with this is that few Catholics will tell you in advance how bizzaro it needs to get before their rational mind can no longer cope.  99% of priests 100 years ago  would have told you what we are experiencing now was impossible. And that to even consider it as a possibility was an act of despair and a mortal sin. Yet, here we are.

When a prophet forecasts the end of the world and it fails to happen, then most followers say the prophet was wrong or a fraud. Some however make excuses and convince themselves that those who have departed lack faith. Even the little pebble has followers. All this stuff about the papacy existing without a pope for 50 years seems too much of a stretch for me. 

This is the question that I would pose to sedes.  Let's be honest, even the belief that valid popes should fall into heterodoxy for 50 years was thought to be impossible.  At least with this stance, however, the Church hierarchy remains in tact, as it did during other crises, and we can more easily hope for a return to the faith.

What are we to say of the belief that the true Church has fallen into emptiness, while a false church has taken its place?  How can the true Church regain the papacy?  How long can the Seat remain empty before we must logically question whether Christ's promise that Hell should never prevail has been broken?

To put it simply, there is a shelf-life, so to speak, on traditionalism and sedevacantism.  But that shelf-life has to at least be longer with the stance of non-sede traditionalism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)