Pope St Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.
#31
(11-20-2012, 03:50 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(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.

I didn't know that. Thanks.
Reply
#32
:LOL:

Well, it is interesting to know that some people will apparently believe anything posted to a message board.
Reply
#33
(11-20-2012, 03:50 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(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.

Your comments come as a shock, Mr. Lane! Mind explaining yourself further?

Thomas
Reply
#34
(11-19-2012, 01:46 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 01:06 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I agree 100% with St. Pius X.

I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't agree with you.

For all the harping you do on the forum rules you certainly like to bait others into breaking them.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that this post itself breaks forum rules.
Reply
#35
This exhortation is a good one, but I think it's important to not read more into it than is present.  St. Pius certainly is not implicitly condemning St. Paul or the other saints who have rebuked the Holy Father to his face.  He is not condemning those who rightfully rallied against the heretical homilies of John XII or the excommunication of Honorius I.

Papal respect, reverence, and adherence to every word and deed with the sole exceptions of sin and heresy is absolutely demanded.  But in a world where the commands and words of popes are not always perfect, one must be careful to place the greater emphasis on orthodoxy.

This is a very tricky topic, one that is steeped (or should be) in ecclesiology and nuances of theology.  Most want to make it as simple as "The pope is infallible in word and deed, therefore sedevacantism" or "....therefore neoCatholicism".
Reply
#36
(11-20-2012, 05:56 AM)Walty Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 01:46 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 01:06 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I agree 100% with St. Pius X.

I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't agree with you.

For all the harping you do on the forum rules you certainly like to bait others into breaking them.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that this post itself breaks forum rules.

If what went unspoken in my post was breaking the rules, then what went unspoken in Phil's post broke the rules.  That was actually the point I was making.  Everyone familiar with his posts knows what position he was implying with that comment.  In the exact same way, I implied my disagreement.  Perhaps you should think about why it only bothered you when I did it.
Reply
#37
(11-19-2012, 12:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Is this when those critical of the pope are treated the same way catholics are treated by militant gays

"They hate us. Why can't they accept us?"

Idk what yr pointt is old salt. If yr addressing a forum dynamic, then yr addressing a strawman. No one here hates the pope

Maybe not, but surely you can see that many here do not LOVE him, do not promote LOVE of the Pope. It is true that, like humanity in general, some Popes are easier to love than others, but what Pius X said is still true. I think that it's the definition of "love" that confuses. Love is not a noun, it's a verb. Love is not a feeling......it's a commitment.  On matters that do not deal with faith & morals we do NOT  have to agree with him, on matters that define faith & morals we do. To publicly criticize him, IMO., is wrong & NOT traditional.
Reply
#38
(11-20-2012, 10:37 AM)JoniCath Wrote:
(11-19-2012, 12:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Is this when those critical of the pope are treated the same way catholics are treated by militant gays

"They hate us. Why can't they accept us?"

Idk what yr pointt is old salt. If yr addressing a forum dynamic, then yr addressing a strawman. No one here hates the pope

Maybe not, but surely you can see that many here do not LOVE him, do not promote LOVE of the Pope. It is true that, like humanity in general, some Popes are easier to love than others, but what Pius X said is still true. I think that it's the definition of "love" that confuses. Love is not a noun, it's a verb. Love is not a feeling......it's a commitment.  On matters that do not deal with faith & morals we do NOT  have to agree with him, on matters that define faith & morals we do. To publicly criticize him, IMO., is wrong & NOT traditional.

Uh, it's precisely when the pope says something ridiculous in faith or morals that he MUST be criticized.  No one cares if the pope thinks Chinese food is better than Thai food or if he likes one soccer team over the other or likes the color red more than blue. 

There's nothing traditional about submitting to unorthodoxy.  Nothing.  NADA.  Never has, never will.  Zip.  Zilch. 
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
#39
(11-20-2012, 02:04 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(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.

The Church has NEVER called the Pope "impeccable" .  He is infallible in matters dealing with faith & morals when he makes an "ex-cathedra" statement.
Reply
#40
(11-20-2012, 11:27 AM)JoniCath Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 02:04 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(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.

The Church has NEVER called the Pope "impeccable" .  He is infallible in matters dealing with faith & morals when he makes an "ex-cathedra" statement.

What?  How is that even relevant?

Besides, there's only been two ex-cathedra statements, and neither of them have to do with Jesus being God or the Holy Trinity.  There's far more to the faith than the very rare instances of ex-cathedra. 
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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)