Pope St Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.
#21
(11-19-2012, 08:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Don't forget Fr. Adrian Fortescue:
Quote:Centralization grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?


Here's the rest of his quote:
Quote:By the way are Martindale and Plater and Jalabert and those fellows going to take the oath? I suppose so. We are so well disciplined. Anyhow, I think, let us stick on as long as we possibly can and pray for the happy accession of Leo XIV. Otherwise it is the desert.

I think the fact that he said this during the reign of the last canonized pope, St. Pius X, to be quite telling.
Reply
#22
(11-20-2012, 01:46 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 08:47 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
First Vatican Council, Dz. 1836 Wrote:The See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord

There is the divine promise of Our Lord and then there is the propaganda of men that try to glom onto it and extend it to cover their agendas and desires.  The trial of  the corpse of  Pope Formosus and ruling by Pope Stephen on him and the subsequent reversals should be a sobering lesson to anyone who is taken in by romanticizing the papacy into something it is not. 

Yeah, but we aren't talking about that. We're talking about allegedly modernist popes, something that is an impossibility.
Reply
#23
(11-20-2012, 01:53 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 01:46 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 08:47 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
First Vatican Council, Dz. 1836 Wrote:The See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord

There is the divine promise of Our Lord and then there is the propaganda of men that try to glom onto it and extend it to cover their agendas and desires.  The trial of  the corpse of  Pope Formosus and ruling by Pope Stephen on him and the subsequent reversals should be a sobering lesson to anyone who is taken in by romanticizing the papacy into something it is not. 

Yeah, but we aren't talking about that. We're talking about allegedly modernist popes, something that is an impossibility.

Even Popes Benedict IX and Alexander VI, both of whom were decried to have thoroughly enjoyed the sins of the flesh, were chronicled to have been doctrinally orthodox.
Reply
#24
(11-20-2012, 01:53 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Yeah, but we aren't talking about that. We're talking about allegedly modernist popes, something that is an impossibility.

They are still men with free will.  They are not impeccable.  A Pope can hold a heresy.  What a Pope can't do is universally bind the Church to a heresy. 

Pope Benedict does not hold the same faith that I do.  He doesn't believe in original sin or Adam and Eve or anything Incarnational in the way I do. 

The demand for impeccability in the nature of the Pope is a romantic notion, nothing more.  It's unfortunate that people leave the Church or lose the faith or lose their common sense in order to maintain that notion.
Reply
#25
(11-20-2012, 01:57 AM)Christknight104 Wrote: Even Popes Benedict IX and Alexander VI, both of whom were decried to have thoroughly enjoyed the sins of the flesh, were chronicled to have been doctrinally orthodox.

But Pope John 22nd preached that no one was going to see the Beatific Vision until after the Final Judgment.  He held that view right up until shortly before his death. 

And Stephen's rulings on Formosus were so-called "universal laws" about the validity of Formosus' ordination.  Stephen was later overruled by a subsequent Pope who was overruled by another and overruled by another. 

We have Popes who were full of personal errors and sins of the flesh as well as Popes who held theological errors and made judgments on sacramental validity and Church governance as the Supreme Pontiff that were wrong. 

There is only a very narrow slice of the papacy as we know it today (or within the last century) that is protected by God.  A saint like Pius X or Pius V (only 3 in the last thousand years)  will get extra help and be able to do extraordinary things because he's saintly, less so than because he's Pope. 

Padre Pio and St. Pius X could both perform miracles, but it was because of their sanctity, not their jobs that enabled them to do it. 
Reply
#26
(11-19-2012, 10:15 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: Yes, that quote from Fr. Fortescue is quite rude.

Well, it was in a private letter; I doubt he would have expressed himself that way publicly. The general opposition to centralization is really what I wanted to point out, though.

(11-20-2012, 01:50 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 08:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Don't forget Fr. Adrian Fortescue:
Quote:Centralization grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?


Here's the rest of his quote:
Quote:By the way are Martindale and Plater and Jalabert and those fellows going to take the oath? I suppose so. We are so well disciplined. Anyhow, I think, let us stick on as long as we possibly can and pray for the happy accession of Leo XIV. Otherwise it is the desert.

I think the fact that he said this during the reign of the last canonized pope, St. Pius X, to be quite telling.

Trads said some pretty outrageous things during the reign of the last beatified pope. Compared to some of their public rhetoric, Fr. Fortescue's private comments are quite mild. At any rate, the fact that Pius X would later be made a saint does not mean that everyone who criticized certain trends that were active at the time of his papacy was wrong. Some of us here believe Pius IX to be a blessed, but that does not mean that we have to approve of his claim to be tradition. Or, take Pope St. Celestine V. Someone who criticized certain of his policies as pope would not have been wrong in doing so.
Reply
#27
(11-20-2012, 02:15 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Trads said some pretty outrageous things during the reign of the last beatified pope. Compared to some of their public rhetoric, Fr. Fortescue's private comments are quite mild.

Firstly, I don't know why you say "trads," and not some trads, a few trads, "we," "rad trads," etc.

I don't know why you'd cite John Paul II as an example, since most trads here either soundly or unsoundly doubt or reject his beatification. Just see this:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...655.0.html

or this:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...002.0.html
Reply
#28
(11-19-2012, 08:59 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 08:13 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: With Papal Infallibility and the Papal office reaching its highest levels of respect and deference after Vatican I, no one except maybe Cardinal Newman saw the danger of this backfiring when bad Popes emerged.

Don't forget Fr. Adrian Fortescue:
Quote:Centralization grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?

Fortescue was a Modernist.  When you find yourself relying on Modernists like Fortescue to put your case, you have already lost the debate.
Reply
#29
(11-19-2012, 08:13 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: Let's not forget that St. Pius X never dreamed that the papacy itself would fall to Modernism. St. Pius X never could have imagined that the heresy of Modernism he fought so hard to defeat during his pontificate, would ever be adopted by future Popes.

That was the weakness of the post Vatican I Church. They were not intellectually prepared for the emergence of bad Popes. With Papal Infallibility and the Papal office reaching its highest levels of respect and deference after Vatican I, no one except maybe Cardinal Newman saw the danger of this backfiring when bad Popes emerged. The Church was then not prepared to defend the faith in the confusion of a papal idolatry that emerged because Papal Infallibility has never been adequately explained since Vatican I.   

This.
Reply
#30
Just as an aside what do you think Pope Pius IX would have thought of JPII's Assisi relativism festivals in 86' and 2002'. I would guess not to highly of them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)