R&R discussion
#1
-From the optional mysteries thread-

Fully understand that, and had held fully to that idea. The issue though im starting to run into is statements like this from Pope Leo "Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."

It sounds like the pope is the one, not the laity (us) to decide what is in harmony with tradition and not, what are to be accepted and not. Basically, as Leo states, that the pope is to be the guide of the faith for all catholics. Thus the impression that one has to listen to what the pope teaches even if it contradicts tradition. The other hurdle along these lines is getting over the teaching that no one judges the pope.

“…Furthermore, if you do not listen to us [Rome], it remains that you be held by us as our Lord Jesus Christ enjoins us to hold those who refuse to hear the Church of God; especially since the privileges of the Roman Church confirmed in St. Peter by the words of Christ, ordained in the Church itself, observed from of old, proclaimed by the holy universal synods and ever venerated by the whole Church, can by no means be diminished, infringed, or altered, since no effort of man has power to remove a foundation which God has laid, and what God has established stands firm and unshakable….These privileges, then, were bestowed on this holy Church by Christ: they were not bestowed by the Synod but were merely proclaimed and held in veneration by them….it is immediately clear that the judgments of the Apostolic See, than which there is no greater authority, cannot be handled by any other tribunal, nor is it permissible for any to sit in judgement upon its decision…..”

(Pope Nicholas, Preposueramus Quidem, 865 AD, to the Emperor Michael, Epistle 8; Mansi xv. 196)


Thus according to Pope Nicholas, a decree of God's can't be diminished, infringed, or altered. The same though is bestowed on the church, judgments by the Holy See, and likewise the pope, can't be judged.

“The entire Church over the entire world knows that the Chair of Blessed Peter has the right to loose what has been bound by the sentences of any bishop whatsoever, as the See of Peter is entitled to jurisdiction over any Church, while no one is entitled to pass judgement on its decision, for the canons have permitted that appeals should be directed to it from all the world, but no one is permitted to appeal its decision….The Apostolic See has often had the freedom (facultas), without a Synod preceding it, to loose those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned, and also, if necessary, to condemn others without the convocation of a Synod….” (Patrologia Latina 59.66C, 67 B,C)

Reading this, it appears that the early church fathers believed that the pope can loose and bind any bishop, as the pope has jurisdiction over all the church, thus every Catholic.

My problem is this. We hold that the pope cant be judged by any man. We hold that the pope is also the final say on faith and morals. Thus, when we dont like a teaching (and what I mean by this is our opinion is that its counter to tradition and for me there is a long list such as the divorce remarriage, bad to spread the faith and convert others, the Eucharist to all that feel they should get it, a very long etc) we are holding the teachings of past popes and saints above that of the pope. We are in a sense judging the popes actions, and having a previous bishop (pope, saint etc) as grater then the See of Peter. We the laity are judging the actions of the pope, the sayings and teachings of the pope. Yes, it has very very apparent if not outright contradition. However, what I stumble on is, do we have that right as laity? Do we have the right to sit down and jduge the pope's actiosn in faith and morals, when previous popes have stated that the pope can't error here, even when its not ex cathedra? When tradition and many popes state, from the church fathers on, no one can judge the popes actions, no tribunal or even synod is greater then the pope?

We, in a sense, are putting ourselves above the pope by being the judge and jury of his actions and teachings. We decide that the pope is in error and contradicts tradition, and we decide to reject his teachings. Even when its apparent and no explanation given (as is common). My struggle is, isn't this wrong? We hold that we cant judge the pope, and yet we do just that by declaring that such and such a teaching is not in conformity with tradition (judging the teaching against tradition) and thus after jduging it in err, we then choose to reject or ignore it.

I know Paul and Peter went at it in the bible, but my understanding it was a matter of conduct, NOT teaching. Peter was not teaching that the gentiles should be ignored, was just doing that. When Francis teaches that (pick random thing, death penalty or even say the abrahamic declaration stuff) is right, since its a matter of faith and morals, according to pope leo in the previous post... he would be protected from error. Thus my problem. You are absolutely right Paul that God can't change His mind, He is consistent. What ten when we have this contradiction. On the one hand, you have Tradition. On the other, you have Francis. Tradition states that the pope can't err on faith and morals, even when not ex cathedra. It also says we can't judge the pope. Thus, the contradiction. To choose Tradition, you reject the Tradition that teaches the pope can't err on those things. To choose Francis, you reject the Tradition of 1900+ years. Either way, you are rejecting teachings of the Church it appears.

Hence the wrench in my R&R stance. To recognize and then resist (read that more of recognize and ignore) I am passing judgment on the pope and rejecting the teachings that say I can't do judge him (setting myself as the one who knows tradition better then the pope who is supposed to be protected by God Himself in these matters), as well as rejecting the teachings that state the pope can't err in faith and morals. Lottery tickets yes, but not teaching faith and morals. Thus my conundrum and confusion.
Reply
#2
I was in the R+R camp for a while, a long while, before I finally decided to take a look at the honest sedevacantists, not the Dimond brothers. Your concerns and worries are all well warranted and they were the same concerns I had before examining Sede claims more. 



Perhaps this video will be of help to you, His Excellency Bishop Sanborn is certainly the primary reason why I accept the position, his arguments are very good.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#3
(04-28-2021, 11:21 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: I was in the R+R camp for a while, a long while, before I finally decided to take a look at the honest sedevacantists, not the Dimond brothers. Your concerns and worries are all well warranted and they were the same concerns I had before examining Sede claims more. 



Perhaps this video will be of help to you, His Excellency Bishop Sanborn is certainly the primary reason why I accept the position, his arguments are very good.
Nice. That's the same video that set me on the path to sedevacantism.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bataar's post:
  • Memories_in_Rain
Reply
#4
I'm not as sympathetic to sedevacantist as others in this forum; however, when a sedevacantist [or any variant thereof] dissents, they aren't doing this with the understanding that it's their opinion against the Pope. A catholic who dissents on something like abortion is doing this, but a sedevacantist, not necessarily.

They have no choice but to pin tradition against Tradition. I find their position wrong and untenable, but I try to be more precise and not lump them in with the dissident modernist. To me, they don't differ all that much from Eastern Orthodox. 
Reply
#5
(04-28-2021, 04:20 PM)Adventus Wrote: I'm not as sympathetic to sedevacantist as others in this forum; however, when a sedevacantist [or any variant thereof] dissents, they aren't doing this with the understanding that it's their opinion against the Pope. A catholic who dissents on something like abortion is doing this, but a sedevacantist, not necessarily.

They have no choice but to pin tradition against Tradition. I find their position wrong and untenable, but I try to be more precise and not lump them in with the dissident modernist. To me, they don't differ all that much from Eastern Orthodox. 
I mean, I wouldn’t exactly say that the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council are the pinnacles of tradition... 

And where the Eastern Orthodox disagree because they want to maintain their heresy, we disagree because we want to maintain the Catholic Faith of the pre-conciliar Church, strengthened continually by Tradition.
Reply
#6
This is my personal view:
(04-28-2021, 10:48 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: -From the optional mysteries thread-

Fully understand that, and had held fully to that idea. The issue though im starting to run into is statements like this from Pope Leo "Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."

It sounds like the pope is the one, not the laity (us) to decide what is in harmony with tradition and not, what are to be accepted and not. Basically, as Leo states, that the pope is to be the guide of the faith for all catholics. Thus the impression that one has to listen to what the pope teaches even if it contradicts tradition.
It is true that we must not be quick to criticise the statements and actions of the Pope. It is not what most laity should be doing. We should always try to interpret his statements charitably, although we may feel tired of often hearing strange things.

Yes, Catholics have to listen to what the Pope teaches. Ordinarily, when the teaching concerns things not otherwise known (such as previously defined doctrine) we are to accept what the Pope says. We know that even the Pope may err when the conditions for infallibility are not met, but God wants us to accept his judgment rather than use our private judgement, because that is how He has constituted His Church. Sometimes the Pope may say something (regarding faith or morals) that we suspect is false. Then we are to give him the benefit of the doubt. Other times it may even happen that he says something we know to be false, because of previous infallible teaching. Then of course God wants us to believe the previously infallibly taught doctrine, not the present non-infallibly taught doctrine. If we do not know about the previously infallibly taught doctrine, we will probably just accept what the Pope says. Provided this is a matter that we are not morally bound to know, God will excuse us for following the Pope into such an error. The Pope will be held responsible for that.

The same goes for the commands of the Pope, and other ecclesiastical superiors. We are to do what they say unless we know we would sin by doing so.

We are not supposed to "do the Pope's job" by trying to "check" everything he says. Ordinarily, as laity, we are to obey our confessor, who is to obey his superiors and so on until we arrive at the Pope. The ordinary principles of obedience to a superior apply. We obey in all lawful things, that is, whenever we are not certain that obeying the superior would be against God, that is, that we would commit a sin in obeying.

Personally I think the Pope at the moment says more things than can reasonably be expected to be read by each layman. I am content to read what the bishop says, and I trust he will let the faithful know if there's something they need to know.
Quote:The other hurdle along these lines is getting over the teaching that no one judges the pope.

“…Furthermore, if you do not listen to us [Rome], it remains that you be held by us as our Lord Jesus Christ enjoins us to hold those who refuse to hear the Church of God; especially since the privileges of the Roman Church confirmed in St. Peter by the words of Christ, ordained in the Church itself, observed from of old, proclaimed by the holy universal synods and ever venerated by the whole Church, can by no means be diminished, infringed, or altered, since no effort of man has power to remove a foundation which God has laid, and what God has established stands firm and unshakable….These privileges, then, were bestowed on this holy Church by Christ: they were not bestowed by the Synod but were merely proclaimed and held in veneration by them….it is immediately clear that the judgments of the Apostolic See, than which there is no greater authority, cannot be handled by any other tribunal, nor is it permissible for any to sit in judgement upon its decision…..”

(Pope Nicholas, Preposueramus Quidem, 865 AD, to the Emperor Michael, Epistle 8; Mansi xv. 196)

Thus according to Pope Nicholas, a decree of God's can't be diminished, infringed, or altered. The same though is bestowed on the church, judgments by the Holy See, and likewise the pope, can't be judged.
We cannot judge the Pope, he has no superior on Earth. However we do have the ability, inasmuch as concerns ourselves, to observe that a certain statement we read is a denial of an infallibly taught doctrine. If this were not the case, studying Catholic doctrine would be useless (because that would be equivalent to saying we cannot determine whether any given teaching is in agreement with the doctrine we study).
Quote:“The entire Church over the entire world knows that the Chair of Blessed Peter has the right to loose what has been bound by the sentences of any bishop whatsoever, as the See of Peter is entitled to jurisdiction over any Church, while no one is entitled to pass judgement on its decision, for the canons have permitted that appeals should be directed to it from all the world, but no one is permitted to appeal its decision….The Apostolic See has often had the freedom (facultas), without a Synod preceding it, to loose those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned, and also, if necessary, to condemn others without the convocation of a Synod….” (Patrologia Latina 59.66C, 67 B,C)

Reading this, it appears that the early church fathers believed that the pope can loose and bind any bishop, as the pope has jurisdiction over all the church, thus every Catholic.
Yes, but I really don't see how this would pose a problem.
Quote:My problem is this. We hold that the pope cant be judged by any man. We hold that the pope is also the final say on faith and morals.
The Pope can settle questions of faith and morals definitely, but he doesn't always do so. Sometimes he just comments on it as any private theologian, in a more or less informal way. We are not bound to accept such a comment the same way we have to accept a definitive judgment.
Quote:Thus, when we dont like a teaching (and what I mean by this is our opinion is that its counter to tradition and for me there is a long list such as the divorce remarriage, bad to spread the faith and convert others, the Eucharist to all that feel they should get it, a very long etc) we are holding the teachings of past popes and saints above that of the pope.
It would be a disorder if we were to prefer our personal opinion to what the Pope says. However, the things you mentioned are not mere opinions, they are matters that were settled long before we were born, often even explicitly in Sacred Scripture, or in the canons of Ecumenical Councils.

We don't have the right to pick a favourite historical Pope or bishop and prefer his judgment to that of the Pope, simply because we think he was more virtuous. However, we do have a right to prefer a doctrine in a certain magisterial act to that of the current Pope, because of the higher character of this particular magisterial act, compared to that of the current Pope.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • jovan66102, The Tax Collector
Reply
#7
(04-28-2021, 04:41 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: I mean, I wouldn’t exactly say that the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council are the pinnacles of tradition... 

And where the Eastern Orthodox disagree because they want to maintain their heresy, we disagree because we want to maintain the Catholic Faith of the pre-conciliar Church, strengthened continually by Tradition.
The Orthodox can say Latin liturgies in 2nd millennium(lacking an epiklesis and inserting the filioque) and the post-schism councils aren't pinnacles of tradition.  


The Orthodox see themselves as preserving the catholic faith of the pre-schism church, strengthened continually by Tradition.

At least they don't(with the exception of some groups) see all those in positions of authority as having dragged their entire church into heresy.
Reply
#8
(04-28-2021, 05:06 PM)MacPasquale Wrote:
(04-28-2021, 04:41 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: I mean, I wouldn’t exactly say that the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council are the pinnacles of tradition... 

And where the Eastern Orthodox disagree because they want to maintain their heresy, we disagree because we want to maintain the Catholic Faith of the pre-conciliar Church, strengthened continually by Tradition.
The Orthodox can say Latin liturgies in 2nd millennium(lacking an epiklesis and inserting the filioque) and the post-schism councils aren't pinnacles of tradition.  


The Orthodox see themselves as preserving the catholic faith of the pre-schism church, strengthened continually by Tradition.

At least they don't(with the exception of some groups) see all those in positions of authority as having dragged their entire church into heresy.
Yeah but they would be wrong and we’re right ;)

With all seriousness though, we are Catholic because we know the catholic faith from the pre-schism church is already preserved and traditional in the Catholic Church. That’s why we are Catholic, not Orthodox, because we know they are wrong in their diagnosis of Church History.

It’s hard to honestly say there hasn’t been a substantial and visible change from the Church before and after Vatican II and the implementation of the Novus Ordo. Cause... there has been. That can’t be denied.. it is why we are traditionalist Catholics.

The Eastern Orthodox, even if you are a just a FSSP-kind of traditionalist (let’s have our small chapel of tradition inside the Cathedral of the Novus Ordo), are much more heretical then Sedevacantists. To really say Sedes are in a worse spot than the Orthos is just plainly wrong. I don’t think those in the NO are in a worse spot than the Orthos.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
#9
(04-28-2021, 04:41 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: I mean, I wouldn’t exactly say that the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council are the pinnacles of tradition... 

And where the Eastern Orthodox disagree because they want to maintain their heresy, we disagree because we want to maintain the Catholic Faith of the pre-conciliar Church, strengthened continually by Tradition.

Tell me, do you genuinely believe the minority of sedes are the only ones doing this? What do you think the EO's are basing their claims on?.......that's right, tradition as well.

What about those modernist NO's?.......that's right, also tradition.

So now what?

At this point, do tell, how is this any different than, say, sola scriptura?

[-] The following 2 users Like Adventus's post:
  • Evangelium, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#10
Quote:Yeah but they would be wrong and we’re right ;)

With all seriousness though, we are Catholic because we know the catholic faith from the pre-schism church is already preserved and traditional in the Catholic Church. That’s why we are Catholic, not Orthodox, because we know they are wrong in their diagnosis of Church History
Once again, swap Catholic and Orthodox and you'll find many Orthodox making the same confident statement.  The history is more complicated than that(I'm not saying Orthodoxy is somehow in the right or not in schism, I just disagree with this being clear-cut).


Quote:It’s hard to honestly say there hasn’t been a substantial and visible change from the Church before and after Vatican II and the implementation of the Novus Ordo. Cause... there has been. That can’t be denied.. it is why we are traditionalist Catholics.
If true, it could just mean Catholicism is wrong.  That doesn't mean the Church can continue to exist without a functioning hierarchy(legally designated benchwarmers included).  

Quote:The Eastern Orthodox, even if you are a just a FSSP-kind of traditionalist (let’s have our small chapel of tradition inside the Cathedral of the Novus Ordo), are much more heretical then Sedevacantists. To really say Sedes are in a worse spot than the Orthos is just plainly wrong. I don’t think those in the NO are in a worse spot than the Orthos.

The point wasn't to say that Orthodoxy is somehow better and less heretical than Sedevacantism(I don't actually believe that).  Never said it was.  Though, I should probably note when I'm playing devil's advocate.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MacPasquale's post:
  • PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)