Jesuits in Rome looking to aliens to save humankind.
That's a good idea not to derail this thread, but allow me to post one more thing:
"cassini" Wrote:To compare it with the indisputable dogma of CHRIST being the sole redeemer of mankind is not on for it was never challenged unofficially by any pope.
So IF a future pope wrote so in his encyclical (using the modal 'may'), it would not make him a heretic officially, yes?
If there are alien life forms, and they find us-it bodes ill for our species. 
Rather than reveal a spirit of benevolence, they will enslave us, use us, experiment on us, etc.
Sorry, no free intergalactic lunch! :afraidsmiley:
[Image: color-nasa-alien-life-web.jpg]

The Arecibo message is a digital message sent to globular star cluster M13, and is a well-known symbol of human attempts to contact extraterrestrials.
[Image: 100px-Arecibo_message.svg.png]
It's not a missal; it's a cookbook!
(03-28-2014, 02:24 PM)Hiero of Syracuse Wrote: Though it would seem to me that the problem with your insistence that we are obligated to believe that the sun orbits the earth is the very same problem with the Second Vatican Council-and those who accept its validity, yet claim that it teaches error. It, to put it plainly, makes the ordinary magisterium of the Church a joke. If you can't trust the Pope, who Christ gave the Church to strengthen us in faith,  without wondering if obeying him and his pronouncement puts one's soul at risk, then our whole religion falls apart.

There are some fundamental misunderstandings of this particular council and of Catholic authority here.

Here is what Pope Paul VI had to say regarding the teaching authority of Vatican II: “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”  And he also stated in 1966: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”  And yet again in 1975: “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”)

Now, of course, the council never "openly declared" that it was teaching something binding.  Note also that by these peculiar qualifications declared by the pontiffs themselves this council has already made itself a complete enigma in the history of the Church - a completely unprecedented novelty.  (Incidentally, this is exactly where I see the protection of the Holy Spirit.  He prevented this council from teaching anything [new] authoritatively!  By the qualification there I refer to the fact that actually the majority of many of the documents of the council simply reiterated existing, binding Catholic doctrine and dogma.)

Vatican II Father Bishop Morris made this statement: "I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at or defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed." (Interview in Catholic World News, 9/27/1997.)

Yes, doctrine has to be "very carefully formulated", and, furthermore, by the simple rules of logic, it must be expressed in clear language, or there'd be no actual teaching.  Cardinal Kasper, that arch-modernist who constantly dissuades people from converting to Catholicism, astoundingly remarked that in the texts the "majority opinion" and "minority opinion" exist side-by-side, and thus the real intent or teaching can be difficult to discern:  “In many places, [the documents' authors] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction" (emphases are mine).

(Of course, this was by design, as admitted by the liberals after the council, and as documented extensively in seminal works such as The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber.)

Here we have a frank admission by a neo-modernist (at least if there is any such thing) of what has been the Traditionalist position all along.  Perhaps this is why even prelates quite outside the Traditionalist movement have began sharply criticizing the Council and calling for - finally after nearly 50 years - authoritative clarifications from the Holy See:

When reading the informal, pastoral, often intentionally unclear and self-contradictory documents of this red-headed stepchild of an ecumenical council, it is good to keep in mind the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, such as this infallible teaching of Vatican I: “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.")


Now, concerning the topic of "trusting the pope" - even neo-Catholics acknowledge (though perhaps they often don't practice what they preach) that it is entirely possible that popes can hold all kinds of errors, and speak in error as a theologian or as a Catholic.  The only time the supreme pontiff is protected from error is when he specifically and intentionally invokes the charism of infallibility in binding the Universal Church to a teaching of faith or morals.

Of course this does not mean that teachings of the ordinary magisterium do not generally merit assent - they do indeed.  But, when the private opinions of a pontiff are in conflict with Catholic teaching - or when the are so vague or non-committal that no clear meaning can be discerned - they bind no Catholic to them.

Here are a few comments from the popes themselves:

Pope St. Gregory the Great, speaking of Paul's public rebuke of the first pope, remarked that “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.”

Pope Innocent III: "The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because 'he who does not believe is already judged.' (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'" (Sermo 4)

Pope Adrian  II: "We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches, but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings." (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)

Pope Adrian VI: "If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)." (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

Venerable Pope Pius IX: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Pope St. Pius X, in Pascendi, speaking of battling the modernists within the Church: "One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the Deposit of Faith delivered to the Saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words, and the gainsaying of knowledged falsely so-called... We may no longer keep silent, lest we should seem to fail in our essential duty."  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)

St. Pius X's words here directly imply that it is possible for a pope's faith to fail.  Indeed, if that were not the case, there would be no reason to pray for the pope.

Along with the popes themselves, the theologians, saints, and doctors have also gone on-record in numerous instances stating not only that popes can err (which is basic and self-evident Catholic teaching!) but that they should be resisted, publicly, when they are in error publicly.

St. Thomas says: "To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St. Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal... We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public."

And also: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”

And: "There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith."

All quotes are from the Summa.

Saint and Doctor of the Church Bellarmine writes: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De Romano Pontifice)

Suarez: “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

Torquemada, from his Summa de Ecclesia:  “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.”

St. Paul: "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

Cardinal Newman, speaking of the general failure of the magisterium during the Arian crisis, from his workThe Arians of the Fourth Century: "I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of Our Lord's divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the Ecclesia docta [the laity] than by the Ecclesia docens [the clergy/magisterium]; that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism... I say that there was a temporary suspension of the functions of the Ecclesia docens.  The body of bishops failed in their confession of the faith.  There was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion... extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church."

(It is true that Cardinal Newman had some views on primacy of conscience that on some level may seem juxtaposed with ecclesiastic authority, but his observations regarding the Arian situation are difficult to ignore given that it is acknowledged that the vast majority of the hierarchy fell away from the true faith.)

St. Catherine: "Alas, Most Holy Father!  At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation."  (Letter to Pope Gregory IX in 1376)

Concerning the oft-leveled neo-Catholic charge that Traditionalists engage in "private judgement" (which they clearly believe to be forbidden and "Protestant" in every sense), an observation: Implicit is each of these quoted passages is the expectation that good Catholics use their God-given sense of reason to evaluate statements and actions of prelates that do not fall under the umbrella of binding teaching.  To assert otherwise devolves the faith into a nonsensical form of strict clericalism.  In reality, the Catholic is not only not forbidden from but required to exercise the judgement of his properly-formed conscience throughout his life.
Don't you think that if the mankind was to meet nextly an intelligent form of extraterrestrial life, the Scripture would already have prophetized this in a clear way so that the Church would know what to do and to teach in the case it will happen?
In my opinion, very probably an extraterrestrial life exists in a very remote part of the Universe, so remote that we never will be aware of it and much more unable to reach it.
In addition, an extraterrestrial life does not mean it is an intelligent one.
Considering since how long the Earth shelters the Life, about 500 millions years, and how short is the time an intelligent life is dwelling on it, about 2 millions years, and still shorter this intelligent life was able to become apparent to somebody outside the solar system, let's say the last 100 years, the probabilty that we may at least detect, not speaking about encounter  intelligent aliens looks to be infinitesimal.
So in my opinion the jesuits are wasting their time and the christendom's money.  They would be better employed in proclaiming the
(03-29-2014, 12:51 AM)Bourbon Apocalypse Wrote: It's not a missal; it's a cookbook!

Hahaha! That totally cracked me up LOL

I will be frank in saying that hinging one's case on the fact that the Second Vatican Council is pastoral is of no use. As for the rest of your points it would seem to me that you are not being consistent here. We are not talking about some off the cuff remark, but rather the fact that the Pope in his official pronouncements has said that heliocentricism does not contradict the faith. These statements have been made in encyclicals which are intended to instruct the Church. This is not clericalism at all, we depend on the Pope to give us direction and if we have to background check his official statements to make sure we are not going to Hell then we have no real certainity about anything. Where do we draw the line? It is one thing to use one's brain and another to justify one's schizophrenic adherence to a magisterium that they think is in error on the technicality that it not binding. But do you not see how absurd this is? Basically you have the Vicar of Christ stating, in an official document meant to instruct the faithful, that evolution and heliocentricism may be entertained without putting one's soul in jeopardy--yet you say that one cannot do that or they would be doing exactly that, that is putting their soul in jeapordy. It does not matter if the Pope has not made it an officially binding teaching-he says as a matter of belief that one is permitted to hold these beliefs and if you can't obey him then why have a Pope at all?

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)