Pope St Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.
#41
(11-20-2012, 10:44 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(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. 

Unorthodoxy = The word unorthodox, from Greek non-orthos ("not right", "not true", "not straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),[1] is generally used to mean the non-adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion.[2] In the narrow sense the term means "not conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church".

Which Pope/popes taught doctrines ex-Cathedra which are/were "unorthodox".......DOCTRINES that did not conform to the Catholic faith of the Fathers & what were/are  these DOCTRINES. And please leave out Assissi, Fatima, & all of the other issues that you (generic you) use as excuses for defamation of our Holy Fathers. The only ex-Cathedra doctrine proclaimed during the last 3 centuries, that I know of,  was the Assumption of Mary. If there are any other new DOCTRINES that you know of, please let me know.


Reply
#42
(11-20-2012, 11:51 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: 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. 

You do not seem to be using the term "ex cathedra" correctly.  Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on it:
Quote:Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
Reply
#43
(11-20-2012, 11:51 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(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. 

But if we look at e.g. Vatican II, all of its documents end with this authoritative language:
Quote:Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory... I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church

Everything, from Lumen Gentium to Nostra Ætate to D.H. ended thusly. 
Reply
#44
(11-20-2012, 08:36 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.

I agreed with St. Pius X, but you mentioned something that I did not say in the thread.

Yes, upon reading material such as this (although not only this) did I embrace my current stance, but that I don't see what you being sure he wouldn't agree with me (on exactly what as well) does as a response.
Reply
#45
(11-20-2012, 11:51 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: 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. 

I hope I don't take this thread too off course, but this idea of "only two" is one of the whose wide-spread things that doesn't pass the common sense test.  Why would St. Francis de Sales in the 17th century defend the dogma of papal infallibility (using the "cathedra" terminology at that), if it had never happened? For that matter, why were the Protestants attacking it? Why would an ecumenical Council deal with this if it had only happened once ever? Popes didn't realize they could pass definitive judgments on doctrines of faith and morals for over 1800 years? It doesn't pass the smell test.

In the relatio on papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, some bishops wanted to define a process for the Pope to follow when passing such definitive judgments.  The relator said that couldn't be done since already "thousands and thousands" of such judgments have been issued by the Pope without any uniform procedure.  Granted, he was speaking hyperbolically, but why would he say this if there was only one?

After the Council, the debate centered around the infallibility of secondary stuff which implied a doctrinal judgment(like the apporbation of religious orders), not really about past doctrinal judgments. For example, Cardinal Newman, who was definitely more conservative when it comes to extending the reach of papal infallibility, lists a whole slew of examples (not intended to be exhaustive) that took the form of lists of propositions definitively judged and condemed by the Pope to contrast them with the Syllabus of Errors, which he argued pointed to documents which had varying levels of authority.  St. Francis de Sales, in his defense of papal infallibility, listed Benedict XII's constitution issued to definitvely settle the beatific vision controvery.  In audience, John Paul II listed the Bull of Boniface VIII of having the same dogmatic value as definitions on the same topic in two ecumenical Councils.  In regards to the Trinity, until recently, the Tome of Leo was universally seen to fit the bill. The reason the Council of Chalcedon happened is because some opposed his definition and the Council was called so those opposing position could be refuted and the whole episcopate gathered together could solemnly assent to his judgment (cf. Letter 120 of St. Leo explaining this reasoning for the Council).  

I don't know when the idea of just two such definitions came about (it wasn't before, during, or immediately after the First Vatican Council). I'm guessing the extraordinary ceremonial fanfare accompanying the two most recent Marian definitions caused some to think all papal definitions must be like that.

Reply
#46
(11-20-2012, 01:10 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 08:36 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.

I agreed with St. Pius X, but you mentioned something that I did not say in the thread.

Yes, upon reading material such as this (although not only this) did I embrace my current stance, but that I don't see what you being sure he wouldn't agree with me (on exactly what as well) does as a response.

You may follow the letter of the law by not explicitly discussing your position, but it is a constant subtext of your comments.  I merely decided to use some subtext of my own.
Reply
#47
(11-20-2012, 08:36 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.

It bothered me only because someone adhered to what Pius X said.  Make no mistake about it, Jayne.  I'm not a sedevacantist.  This is something upon which you and I agree and which I often argue over with Phil.  But an assertion that one assents to what Pius has to say seems to be (mainly) just that.  I don't think it's a subtext to anything other than respect for what one of our saint popes had to say.

Reply
#48
(11-20-2012, 12:00 PM)JoniCath Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 10:44 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(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. 

Unorthodoxy = The word unorthodox, from Greek non-orthos ("not right", "not true", "not straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),[1] is generally used to mean the non-adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion.[2] In the narrow sense the term means "not conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church".

Which Pope/popes taught doctrines ex-Cathedra which are/were "unorthodox".......DOCTRINES that did not conform to the Catholic faith of the Fathers & what were/are  these DOCTRINES. And please leave out Assissi, Fatima, & all of the other issues that you (generic you) use as excuses for defamation of our Holy Fathers. The only ex-Cathedra doctrine proclaimed during the last 3 centuries, that I know of,  was the Assumption of Mary. If there are any other new DOCTRINES that you know of, please let me know.

Sorry, I forgot one "ex-Cathedra statement concerning Mary..........probably because it had been a Church teaching since the fourth century.........but wasn't formally declared  so until the 19th century.

Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854, and
Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary on November 1, 1950

(I personally remember the ex-cathedra definition of the Assumption because I was 9 yrs. old when it happened. School was dismissed for the day, a special dinner followed at my home & the next day the "children's Mass" was a solemn high Mass.  

I know that  Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, [b]in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".[2][/b] This was confirmed as Dogma during Vatican I, I believe.

NOTHING was defined as infallible at Vatican II. There were no ex-Cathedra statements, no "anathemas", etc. This was a pastoral council that defined no dogma.
Reply
#49
(11-20-2012, 01:33 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 01:10 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 08:36 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.

I agreed with St. Pius X, but you mentioned something that I did not say in the thread.

Yes, upon reading material such as this (although not only this) did I embrace my current stance, but that I don't see what you being sure he wouldn't agree with me (on exactly what as well) does as a response.

You may follow the letter of the law by not explicitly discussing your position, but it is a constant subtext of your comments.  I merely decided to use some subtext of my own.

Sure, I'll be straight up and say that's fair. However, in defending the conciliar popes, you've often argued that its difficult to know what they really mean, whether in word or deed. Thus, for you to claim to have some certainty in what St. Pius X, who lived 100 years ago, would have thought is a bit funny. Wouldn't you agree?
Reply
#50
(11-20-2012, 01:50 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(11-20-2012, 01:33 PM)JayneK Wrote: You may follow the letter of the law by not explicitly discussing your position, but it is a constant subtext of your comments.  I merely decided to use some subtext of my own.

Sure, I'll be straight up and say that's fair. However, in defending the conciliar popes, you've often argued that its difficult to know what they really mean, whether in word or deed. Thus, for you to claim to have some certainty in what St. Pius X, who lived 100 years ago, would have thought is a bit funny. Wouldn't you agree?

Many people, including myself, have commented that pre-conciliar papal writing tends to be clearer than that of recent popes.  So there is nothing strange about me being pretty sure about what St. Pius X believes on various issues.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)