Topic: Is theosis possible for those in communion with Rome?

[Irish Hermit]

Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism. 

I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit here. I don't recall him ever calling it the greatest threat to Catholicism.

You are right....He wrote...
".....  the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy."

[Cavaradossi]

I wonder if we could all agree not to bring in any more new topics on this thread, in the hope that old matters could be settled?

Wishful thinking

[elijahmaria]

Yes, the Pope regulates RC teachings.  He is infallible when he chooses to speak ex cathedra, correct?  Therefore, he has the ultimate veto-power over RC doctrine.

No he does not have veto power.  

Please refer to the Code of Canon Law.  Nothing taught by any Council has any authority until the Supreme Pontiff ratifies it.  That is veto power.

You wrote out the canon and you still don't know what it means or what it says for that matter.

All you see is what you want to see.  You are still on your hobby horse.

[elijahmaria]

NO!  The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary.  

Yes, but only if the local biship is performing to the satisfaction of the Supreme Pontiff.

Twaddle!!

No...Only if the local bishop holds to the truths of revelation and guides his flock in accord with the laws of Christian morality, and Catholic faith.

[elijahmaria]

Personally I most appreciate the way that Arminian Catholics approach Primacy.  Follows a selection of texts from their saints and fathers.  A very different perspective:

http://www.stgregoryarmenian.org/the-armenian-church/primacy/

St. Gregory of Nareg(c. 950 – c.1010) articulated a marvelous and insightful ecclesiology and it is in that context that we must read his understanding of Peter’s primacy.

And his (Jesus Christ) companion of yoke (Cross) and of destiny
The first one, preceding all others and most honoured,
The foundation rock and cornerstone,
The renowned stone beautifully inscribed with the sevenfold confession,
Chosen one,
In the measure -begun and to be fulfilled-
Of sacramental time in this age,
And adorned with glory,
Kephas!
Declared blessed
By the lips of the giver of life,
Made alert and wise
By the beneficence of the Father most high.
Docile in the correct confession
Of the Spirit’s intellection,
He saw the timeless cause
Of the inscrutable birth,
And deservedly 127 was augmented
By the words of the uncreated:
“Blessed are you Simon, scion 128 of Jonah.”
And through him,
To those who hold his same covenant and office,
Was announced the same blessing
From the voice -indescribable gift-
Of the creator. (The Teaching of the Armenian Fathers, p. 385).

St. Nerses Shnorhali (1102-1173) proclaimed this very same Apostolic preaching in its integrity and genuine beauty. The obvious place to begin is his Commentary on Matthew.

Expounding on Peter’s response to his Master’s question, he writes:

Simon the head took the initiative in answering about the theology of the Head, so that no one else might say stupidly what is unfitting and leave an evil memory in this world. Indeed this was the very beginning of things to come and what was going to be said then would endure as constitution and canon to those who followed. This is the reason why the disciple of truth spoke the truth saying: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” (Teaching of the Armenian Fathers, p. 389).

Four points are stated in Christ’s investiture, explains Shnorhali. (Ibidem, p. 391-392). The first is Christ the Lord shows himself equal to the Father: “As the Father granted you to know me, similarly I constitute you Rock of the faith,” Secondly, “I shall build my Church on your confession of faith,” The Church, not only the physical building, but the one built from many peoples on the unity of faith as foundation, that is the Lord, and his Apostles. Thirdly, the power of evil -expressed by the image ‘gates of the underworld’-, that is temptations, shall never move this faith, “as the swells of the sea can not move the rock.” Shnorhali exclaims: “Look at the power of the Lord! He made a fisherman harder and firmer than all rocks! Even if the whole world will attack him he will not move.” Fourth, Christ promises to his Apostles the gifts granted to the prophets: the Father had said to Jeremiah “I put you as a pillar of iron, and as a wall of bronze” (Jer. 1:18). for his people; and the Son constitutes Peter the same for the entire world.

Shnorhali concludes with these words, “He elevated Peter to extremely high honour, because the disciple understood the highest things about Him and revealed His person to be the Son of God and promised him authority that belongs only to God, namely
remitting sins and keeping the Church unshakable through all the swells
breaking on her” (Ibidem, p. 391-392).

[elijahmaria]

Also, her response does not take into account the complete phrase 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction'.

And yours neglects the following:

The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary. 

You have to take immediate and universal jurisdiction AND the non-replacement statement together and deal with the paradox before you can even begin to imagine how the hierarchy is to work...or not, sometimes.  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...Does that nullify God's ultimate authority?  Some non-Christians would say so.

[elijahmaria]

At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???

That's not my claim.  I made it pretty clear when I wrote it.

[elijahmaria]

I, for one and as a non-RC, would like to see the RCC return to its more ancient practices.  If we have any hope for reunion, it would be through a more and more traditional RCC.  If they were to progress all the way back to the era of the original schism, I think we could all find reason to overcome the chasm.

I am sure that when Orthodoxy does the same thing, we will watch with interest.  Perhaps even be inspired to respond...in some fashion.

M.

[elijahmaria]

Mary, I did not say that defying the pope nullified the power of the pope, but it does nullify one's good standing with the RCC.

I gotta tell you then, there's a boatload of bishops in the Catholic Church who ain't got the memo!!

[FatherGiryus]

So, why not just dump the whole notion of Petrine supremacy and declare all bishops be equal?  That seems to be the implication of what you are saying... 

Mary, I did not say that defying the pope nullified the power of the pope, but it does nullify one's good standing with the RCC.

I gotta tell you then, there's a boatload of bishops in the Catholic Church who ain't got the memo!!

[FatherGiryus]

Mary, how many new proclamations of dogma have arisen on the RC side since 1054?

I, for one and as a non-RC, would like to see the RCC return to its more ancient practices.  If we have any hope for reunion, it would be through a more and more traditional RCC.  If they were to progress all the way back to the era of the original schism, I think we could all find reason to overcome the chasm.

I am sure that when Orthodoxy does the same thing, we will watch with interest.  Perhaps even be inspired to respond...in some fashion.

M.

[FatherGiryus]

Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.

Also, her response does not take into account the complete phrase 'ordinary and immediate jurisdiction'.

And yours neglects the following:

The magisterium is not a corporate structure which requires a CEO.  If you can't get that straight then you have no possible framework for understanding immediate and universal ordinary jurisdiction.  That entire phrase is moderated by the statement in the apostolic constitution that the pope is NOT to replace the power and authority of the local ordinary. 

You have to take immediate and universal jurisdiction AND the non-replacement statement together and deal with the paradox before you can even begin to imagine how the hierarchy is to work...or not, sometimes.  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...Does that nullify God's ultimate authority?  Some non-Christians would say so.

[Peter J]

I wonder if we could all agree not to bring in any more new topics on this thread, in the hope that old matters could be settled?

Wishful thinking

True. But maybe repeating the questions will lead to them getting noticed. For example:

Hi elijahmaria. I'm glad to see the conversation has come back to created grace -- I was worried that you had missed or forgotten my question:

I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.

Torrell would agree with you.  I suppose what I was remembering was the text of a lecture where the instructor indicated that the phrase created grace was never used by St. Thomas without the explanation that is offered in Torrell's text below.  I went back and listened to the pertinent section of the lecture and found that I had conflated two ideas and drawn the wrong conclusion.  Nevertheless the notion of created grace is not what Orthodox believers generally say that it is in fact:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9s4qJ78nzW8C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Does+Aquinas+use+the+phrase+created+grace&source=bl&ots=rfgAVqHU82&sig=JdWlRNi-OYBUbDno6ITjxzUji4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QMcYT6O6JuHx0gGg2rjqCw&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Does%20Aquinas%20use%20the%20phrase%20created%20grace&f=false

I clicked on the link, but then I decided not to wade through several paragraphs. Perhaps you could tell us what conclusion you draw from that article. Does it support:

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.

?

[Peter J]

Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.

How so?

As for finding "CEO" in RC canon law, you won't. I think that's part of the point Mary was making.

[FatherGiryus]

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.

Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.

How so?

As for finding "CEO" in RC canon law, you won't. I think that's part of the point Mary was making.

[primuspilus]

Mary, please show me where in RC canon law I can find mention of 'CEO.'

Are you quoting yourself or an offical RC document?

I was quoting RC documents, since I am trying to square what you are saying with commonly-available RC sources.  This is the difficulty I have with you: you say things about the RCC that I can't ever independently verify and you often will not provide precise sources.  When you do provide sources, you say that they don't mean what they clearly say.

What's remarkable is how quick you are to denigrate so many RC bishops.

How so?

As for finding "CEO" in RC canon law, you won't. I think that's part of the point Mary was making.

One can be a CEO without calling oneself a CEO.

PP

[Peter J]

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

I don't know what was said on that other thread, so I'll limit my comments to the issue of Mary saying
"Bishops can and do defy the pope."
You're reading this saying that it's common, but in fact she only said that it does happen (which is really stating the obvious).

[primuspilus]

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

I don't know what was said on that other thread, so I'll limit my comments to the issue of Mary saying
"Bishops can and do defy the pope."
You're reading this saying that it's common, but in fact she only said that it does happen (which is really stating the obvious).

True, but the way she stated it, and in its context, it seemed, at least to me that she was intimating that it was permissable to do so with no repercussions. Now I could be wrong, but that is how I took it.

PP

[J Michael]

Er, yes.

He's taking a sentence completely out of context and making of it a non-truth.  It certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and pot-stirring.  

This sentence of mine which is fuelling discussion.... would someone please quote it.  I haven't the foggiest idea what sentence we are discussing.  

I may be guilty of a) being confused, and b) causing further confusion because of that.  If so, please accept my most humble apologies.

What happened was this:  You (Fr. Ambrose) quoted Mary in reply #381 as saying there is "no magisterium as an office..." and said by way of reply that "The Code of Canon Law certainly speaks of the Magisterium.  Canon Law speaks of its acts and it requires submission and obedience to its teachings and decisions."  In reply #391, I quoted this and wrote, "Did anyone say there was *not* a Magisterium?"

Then, it just went downhill from there, I'm afraid   .  What can I say...I'm a man and am therefor inherently incapable of multi-tasking   , which is what I was doing attempting to do when I read/wrote all of that.  I'll try to be more careful in future  .

I think the point that I was trying to make was that yes, there *is* a Magisterium, and *no*, it does not exist in a physical space with a door, walls, a phone, email, windows, etc., which, it seemed to me, someone, somewhere was trying to imply by way of misunderstanding just what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is and how it functions.  Phew...!

I hope I've cleared up that little mystery  .  And, again, apologies for my own confusion and any I may have caused!

[FatherGiryus]

That's what it looked like to me, too.

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

I don't know what was said on that other thread, so I'll limit my comments to the issue of Mary saying
"Bishops can and do defy the pope."
You're reading this saying that it's common, but in fact she only said that it does happen (which is really stating the obvious).

True, but the way she stated it, and in its context, it seemed, at least to me that she was intimating that it was permissable to do so with no repercussions. Now I could be wrong, but that is how I took it.

PP

[elijahmaria]

Well, he should...

I don't think anyone wants to see this as the face of the Roman Catholic Church.








PS- I'm not posting this to embarrass RCs, but to underline the importance of maintaining the sacredness of what is sacred.

Pope Benedict believes that it is the Mass which poses the greatest threat to Catholicism. 

I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit here. I don't recall him ever calling it the greatest threat to Catholicism.

You can't embarrass us, Father.  This is not the normative face of the Novus Ordo.  There are places where I live where the liturgy is chanted facing east and in Latin by monk-hermits.  If there are bishops in the United States where this was the norm then God bless them all.   But I looked for another face of the Church and found it.  I would guess you've never looked.

M.

[elijahmaria]

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

This is how you understood it.  This is not at all what I was saying.  But I think the clarification should happen in another thread.

But I repeat:  What you have said here is NOTHING that I would say or think about in any way.  

It is clearly a moment where you missed my message entirely and replaced it with one which makes sense in the way you've constructed your image of the Catholic Church.

We do not exist in the image and likeness you construct for us...sad to say...

[elijahmaria]

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.

Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

 

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary

[xariskai]

At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???

[/size]
That's not my claim.

M.

So you're not saying the pope wasn't responsible (quote above)

...just that it was not implemented by the papal office? (quote below)

The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church...

M.

"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do."  -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Cf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

Given this, in what way are we to suppose (quoting you from the same original post) "The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world..." in the case of Novus Ordo?

[biro]

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not. 

[Irish Hermit]

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not. 

Probably I heard.  I was at a restaurant last month with two RC priest friends and a close lay friend who was the chairwoman of the now defunct diocesan liturgical commission.  It was the topic of conversation.  But I do believe I had read a lot about it previously, while it was in the pipeline.  Grief,  If I look under this pile of books, I think I have a copy!   

[FatherGiryus]

Mary, I'm too young to use the word 'twaddle.'  Never used it, never will. 

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.

Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

 

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

Mary, I'm too young to use the word 'twaddle.'  Never used it, never will. 

I brought the word in in message 435.

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.

Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

 

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary

[/quote]

[FatherGiryus]

You mean she can't tell us apart?!?  What do you mean, we all look the same?!?   

Mary, I'm too young to use the word 'twaddle.'  Never used it, never will. 

I brought the word in in message 435.

Mary and I have had discussions before.  In our previous dialog, she maintained that RC bishops went along with temporal indulgences even though they did not believe in them, which I took as an insult upon RC bishops for being deceptive.  Now, she is claiming that lots of RC bishops disobey the Pope.  This is a troubling pattern: even I do not insult RC bishops the way she feels free to.

In this case, I was quoting official RC sources and Mary quoted herself.  She is not a source.  I don't have to look at her statements as evidence of their own accuracy, especially when we are all reading official RC sources that say something very different from what she is saying.  If her answer departs from the obvious meaning of official RC documents, written by learned men well-schooled in the English language, then it is up to her to square her responses with the common meaning of the official documents that conflict with her stance.

When asked to explain herself, she refuses and either says that the documents say something other than what they obviously say, or she engages in ad hominem attacks.

I do not have hatred for the RCC, nor her bishops.  I do not agree with its doctrines in certain cases, and I state those disagreements plainly.  That is not the same as hatred.  Clarity is not hatred.

The documents quoted by Fr. Ambrose are clear, and they contradict some of what Mary has said.  It seems that Mary has a number of dissenting opinions as a RC, and that is fine so long as she acknowledges them as such.  The problem is that she appears to present her opinions (and I call them as such because of the lack of references to official documents or a departure from the common meaning of those documents when quoted) as official teachings of the RCC.

When it comes to a discussion about the RCC, I am more interesting in official and commonly-held beliefs rather than one woman's opinions.  I may also be interesting in Mary's opinions, but only so long as I first learn the official teaching of the RCC first.

I hope this makes sense.

Given the way you have of dictating meaning to suit your own presumptions,  very little in this part of the discussion is making much sense.

I gave Pope Benedict's words on the matter of the papacy and was told it was twaddle.  Since you now intimate that what I say is twaddle...I consider myself to be right square in the company I need to keep.

 

Perhaps some day you will open your mind on these issues. 

Till then I will continue to present the twaddle that I perceive is the meaning of the texts you like to quote.

Mary

[/quote]

[stanley123]

  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...

I know that some bishops have been excommunicated from the RCC. But
which RC bishops today defy the pope and defy God and still are in good standing in the RCC?

[FatherGiryus]

That was my question, too.  She never responded.  I assume that a RC bishop who defies the pope is subject to canonical sanction.

  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...

I know that some bishops have been excommunicated from the RCC. But
which RC bishops today defy the pope and defy God and still are in good standing in the RCC?

[elijahmaria]

At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???

[/size]
That's not my claim.

M.

So you're not saying the pope wasn't responsible (quote above)

...just that it was not implemented by the papal office? (quote below)

The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church...

M.

"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do."  -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Cf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

Given this, in what way are we to suppose (quoting you from the same original post) "The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world..." in the case of Novus Ordo?

There's so much here that's confusing.

In the first place the ENDORCEMENT [from above] was NOT a mandate for every jot and tittle that came to us as the Novus Ordo and rubrics.  Most of the things that were most distressing to all were things that came out of committee's of bishop's delegates.

If you don't get that much then the rest of what I might say to your out-of-line comments will also fall on closed ears...

[elijahmaria]

That was my question, too.  She never responded.  I assume that a RC bishop who defies the pope is subject to canonical sanction.

  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...

I know that some bishops have been excommunicated from the RCC. But
which RC bishops today defy the pope and defy God and still are in good standing in the RCC?

Ahhh...y'all are so familiar with the way things run in RCRO...why don't you quote the appropriate canons detailing the various orders of the pope and the penalties for not hewing to the letter of the law...

I am sure if there's the kind of control that you are all talking about, there are going to be canons to REGULATE it...right?

Sure...so show me!!

[xariskai]

At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???

[/size]
That's not my claim.

M.

So you're not saying the pope wasn't responsible (quote above)

...just that it was not implemented by the papal office? (quote below)

The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church...

M.

"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do."  -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Cf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

Given this, in what way are we to suppose (quoting you from the same original post) "The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world..." in the case of Novus Ordo? [/size]

There's so much here that's confusing.

In the first place the ENDORCEMENT [from above] was NOT a mandate for every jot and tittle that came to us as the Novus Ordo and rubrics.  Most of the things that were most distressing to all were things that came out of committee's of bishop's delegates.

If you don't get that much then the rest of what I might say to your out-of-line comments will also fall on closed ears...

That's also the way I understand it. But your wording seemed to suggest otherwise, viz. you did not write:

(A) Many of the changes following Novus Ordo were not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council,    

Rather, you wrote:

(B) "Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church..."  -M.

So according to the wording of (B) the papal office iw not responsible for Novus Ordo or the changes which came in its wake, which proposition -if I understand you correctly in your last post- you are willing to deny is actually true (i.e. that (B) is inaccurate whereas (A) is accurate). If all you are affirming is (A) that is just fine.

Although we agree the papal office is not responsible directly for all of the changes which came in the wake of Novus Ordo I would say that the papal office is still responsible in the sense of opening a door that the Orthodox would never have opened which allowed such drastic change to transpire, to the considerable harm of the Roman Catholic Church according to many, many Roman Catholics.  

[FatherGiryus]

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope.  After all, there are no sanctions for disobeying a papal instruction, right?

That was my question, too.  She never responded.  I assume that a RC bishop who defies the pope is subject to canonical sanction.

  Bishops can and do defy the pope.  They defy God...

I know that some bishops have been excommunicated from the RCC. But
which RC bishops today defy the pope and defy God and still are in good standing in the RCC?

Ahhh...y'all are so familiar with the way things run in RCRO...why don't you quote the appropriate canons detailing the various orders of the pope and the penalties for not hewing to the letter of the law...

I am sure if there's the kind of control that you are all talking about, there are going to be canons to REGULATE it...right?

Sure...so show me!!

[ChristusDominus]

I Agree With.....
Jah777  He said it better than i could...He's Right ,Our Holy Orthodox Fathers Know Best ......

There he is! See, I knew sooner or later he would turn up!!  

That's o.k..... he'll just spend a little more time in purgatory 

[xariskai]

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope.

Fascinating.

Ahhh...y'all are so familiar with the way things run in RCRO...why don't you quote the appropriate canons detailing the various orders of the pope and the penalties for not hewing to the letter of the law...

I am sure if there's the kind of control that you are all talking about, there are going to be canons to REGULATE it...right?

Sure...so show me!!

The fact that CONTROL is a pivotal and ubiquitous element of how the RC church is run is not obvious to you?

[Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves] "Congar wrote in his journal: "The Holy Office presides over the entire church and curbs everyone with its interventions: this supreme, inflexible Gestapo whose decisions cannot be questioned." He was quoted in a later article in the French press as saying, "I am not a man of the tragic, but it is painful to be the victim of stupidity." -Dominican Thomas O'Meara, in a February 1994 issue of America magazine

Congar had been forbidden by the Holy Office to write or teach and served a protracted period of "intellectual exile" in Cambridge, England, and Jerusalem.

[Peter J]

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope.

Fascinating.

Fascinating, or at least very interesting.

I've come to the conclusion that this thread is really a game of some sort. If there isn't enough evidence in just the last 20 posts to support this, then you might also consider the fact that I still haven't gotten any response to my question:

True. But maybe repeating the questions will lead to them getting noticed. For example:

Hi elijahmaria. I'm glad to see the conversation has come back to created grace -- I was worried that you had missed or forgotten my question:

I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.

Torrell would agree with you.  I suppose what I was remembering was the text of a lecture where the instructor indicated that the phrase created grace was never used by St. Thomas without the explanation that is offered in Torrell's text below.  I went back and listened to the pertinent section of the lecture and found that I had conflated two ideas and drawn the wrong conclusion.  Nevertheless the notion of created grace is not what Orthodox believers generally say that it is in fact:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9s4qJ78nzW8C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Does+Aquinas+use+the+phrase+created+grace&source=bl&ots=rfgAVqHU82&sig=JdWlRNi-OYBUbDno6ITjxzUji4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QMcYT6O6JuHx0gGg2rjqCw&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Does%20Aquinas%20use%20the%20phrase%20created%20grace&f=false

I clicked on the link, but then I decided not to wade through several paragraphs. Perhaps you could tell us what conclusion you draw from that article. Does it support:

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.

?

[biro]

It is not a game so much as an anomaly in space and time.

[Peter J]

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope.

Fascinating.

It is not a game so much as an anomaly in space and time.

Don't tell me I've wandered into another Star Trek convention!

[biro]

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope.

Fascinating.

It is not a game so much as an anomaly in space and time.

Don't tell me I've wandered into another Star Trek convention!

It is a black hole that absorbs all light.

[Peter J]

It is a black hole that absorbs all light.

Well that's one possibility. I was thinking more of an anomaly that warps things out of shape.

[xariskai]

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope.

Fascinating.

I've come to the conclusion that this thread is really a game of some sort. If there isn't enough evidence in just the last 20 posts to support this, then you might also consider the fact that I still haven't gotten any response to my question

It is not a game so much as an anomaly in space and time.

Don't tell me I've wandered into another Star Trek convention!

It is a black hole that absorbs all light.

[elijahmaria]

Although we agree the papal office is not responsible directly for all of the changes which came in the wake of Novus Ordo I would say that the papal office is still responsible in the sense of opening a door that the Orthodox would never have opened which allowed such drastic change to transpire, to the considerable harm of the Roman Catholic Church according to many, many Roman Catholics.  

The abuses and the more questionable decisions about rubrics were not a part of the papal mandate.  I thought I had made that clear but it appears I did not.

The idea that the changes in Orthodox liturgies over the centuries amount to nothing is silly...but I will leave that for some other thread.  Also the idea that priests and bishops don't make personal choices in the movements of local liturgies is also silly.

So I believe my point holds and I do not believe that Orthodoxy has liturgical purity to the extent one hears claimed on the Internet.

M.

[xariskai]

At any rate, M., can you document your apparent claim that the pope was not responsible for Novus Ordo???

[/size]
That's not my claim.

M.

So you're not saying the pope wasn't responsible (quote above)

...just that it was not implemented by the papal office? (quote below)

The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church...

M.

"Neither the persistent entreaties of distinguished cardinals, nor serious dogmatic points raised about the new liturgy, nor urgent appeals from around the world not to make the new Missal mandatory could stop Pope Paul VI - a clear indication of his own, strong personal endorsement. Even the threat of a new schism - the Lefevre case - could not move him to have the traditional ritus Romanus at least coexist with the new rite - a simple gesture of pluralism and inclusiveness, which, in our day and age, certainly would have been a politic thing to do."  -Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993), p. 100. This work was endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Cf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

Given this, in what way are we to suppose (quoting you from the same original post) "The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world..." in the case of Novus Ordo? [/size]

[/quote]

There's so much here that's confusing.

In the first place the ENDORCEMENT [from above] was NOT a mandate for every jot and tittle that came to us as the Novus Ordo and rubrics.  Most of the things that were most distressing to all were things that came out of committee's of bishop's delegates.

If you don't get that much then the rest of what I might say to your out-of-line comments will also fall on closed ears...

That's also the way I understand it. But your wording seemed to suggest otherwise, viz. you did not write:

(A) Many of the changes following Novus Ordo were not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council,    

Rather, you wrote:

(B) "Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church..."  -M.

So according to the wording of (B) the papal office iw not responsible for Novus Ordo or the changes which came in its wake, which proposition -if I understand you correctly in your last post- you are willing to deny is actually true (i.e. that (B) is inaccurate whereas (A) is accurate). If all you are affirming is (A) that is just fine.

Although we agree the papal office is not responsible directly for all of the changes which came in the wake of Novus Ordo I would say that the papal office is still responsible in the sense of opening a door that the Orthodox would never have opened which allowed such drastic change to transpire, to the considerable harm of the Roman Catholic Church according to many, many Roman Catholics.  
[/quote]

=============================

The abuses and the more questionable decisions about rubrics were not a part of the papal mandate... I thought I had made that clear but it appears I did not.

To the contrary: yes, you did make that clear (that is my position as well, to an extent, and always has been); but you also made a statement that contradicted what actually happened as if the papal office was not responsible for instituting Novus Ordo which, as worded, is simply false.

The idea that the changes in Orthodox liturgies over the centuries amount to nothing is silly...but I will leave that for some other thread.
M.

The changes in Orthodox liturgy do not amount to nothing, as you said, but I'm not sure in what universe they come even within light-years of the excesses and chaos which followed in the wake of Novus Ordo, instituted by the pope to the great harm of the Roman Catholic faith according to many thoughtful Roman Catholics.  

So yea, much calmer and unified over here in that dept.

I'm actually very grateful to God that your church has recently reversed that longstanding debacle.