OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 01:00:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope tells SSPX traditionalists they must accept Second Vatican Council  (Read 4804 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2013, 04:59:07 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2013, 05:04:53 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
But even if your conscience is not "aligned" with the Church (after having informed one's conscience with the teachings of the Church), the Catholic Church seems to say that you must follow your conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." CCC 1790
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #92 on: January 08, 2013, 05:09:43 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
But even if your conscience is not "aligned" with the Church (after having informed one's conscience with the teachings of the Church), the Catholic Church seems to say that you must follow your conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." CCC 1790

I don't read the Catechism as saying that one should follow an ill-formed conscience, though. We must follow our conscience, yes. But we must know that it is not trustworthy when not properly formed as a result of concupiscence.

If the Catechism is meaning to say that (which I agree it can be read that way from what you posted), then we have another example of deviation from prior Catholic teaching as such a teaching clearly falls into subjectivism and indiferentism. It smacks of modernism to me.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #93 on: January 08, 2013, 05:21:14 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
But even if your conscience is not "aligned" with the Church (after having informed one's conscience with the teachings of the Church), the Catholic Church seems to say that you must follow your conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." CCC 1790

Hmm....too deep for me at this time of day.  angel  But reading the paragraphs before and after the one you quote, for better context, seems to help clarify it.  At least in my work-befuddled mind  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #94 on: January 09, 2013, 09:57:10 AM »

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Choy is right in saying that the Pope could excommunicate the SSPX; but then, the Pope could excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility ... I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #95 on: January 09, 2013, 09:57:50 AM »

 Grin

I don't put any stock in rumors like thay. IIRC the followers of Medjugorje claimed something similar, that Pope JPII secretly supported them so don't pay any attention to those silly ol' official condemnations.

What's the appropriate sound effect for a can of worms being opened?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #96 on: January 09, 2013, 09:58:26 AM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #97 on: January 09, 2013, 10:10:25 AM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2013, 01:05:15 PM »

Good question.

Are we not discussing one in this very thread?  The meaning of ecumenism and the relationship of the Church to non-Catholics. Of course, the liturgical rites and their changes are sometimes raised to the level of dogmatic difference. Religious liberty versus religious tolerance is topical right now, but I concede that is somewhat related to the ecumenism discussion. Ecclesiology, as defined at Vatican II, was controversial even then (see the later-added explanatory preface).

From my experience, the SSPX believes in an essentially different religion than the "mainstream" Catholic Church. It is my belief, based on my research, that the SSPX "version" is more akin to Catholicism as it was believed and practiced prior to 1969. So, there is a very clear rupture there to be seen. In fact, many prominent people in the Church seem to proclaim that rupture as providential.
Exactly. Look at the anathemas of Trent and then look at what is said and done by the hierarchy today. Look at the Syllabus of Errors and then look at the hierarchy today

At any rate, I'm no expert. I was just sharing what caused me to start looking at Church history to see where the continuity could be found (because I reject the development of doctrine idea, at least as it is exemplified here).

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

From the papolatrous point of view, then I agree too. However, that is not the whole story. The Pope is bound by what has been taught before. He cannot invent new and contrary doctrine(as it now seems to me that the Popes have done since the Filioque, but that is another debate) As such, the Pope has an obedience to take into account as well. Vatican II was supposed to end clericalism and ultramontanism, but I believe that it actually made it worse in many areas. Today, the main argument against those who actually follow the pre-VaticanII teachings or at least take them seriously when trying to interpret what VII actually taught(the hierarchy even publically disagree what VII actually taught and it has taken more than 50 years to try to interpret it, to no avail) is precisely that they don't follow the Pope. Which Pope? If there is some sense in the Roman church, then at least one would reasonably be able to argue that popes have to be in conformity with previously defined doctrine and dogmatic definitions when they insist on obedience?

In addition, the vast majority of both Eastern Catholics and your average Novus Ordo churchman and laity don't follow the "mind of the Pope" at all.
 EOs often claim exemption from defined doctrine while NO'ers can believe what they want, including the right of homosexuals to marry, that Judaism is salvific for post-temple followers of this religion, cardinals proclaim that there is no impediment to ordaning women to the priesthood, 70% of laity don't believe in transubstantiation, etc, etc. Never are they threatened with excommunication nor discipline. That is only reserved for traddies. This is like in "the Last samurai", when the Emperor wages war on his most loyal subjects because they refuse to follow him in error.

I just feel the need to attempt to explain the behaviour and the injustices committed, because I was once among them.
It seems to me now that the RC actually IS about papolatry and that the SSPX as such is "wrong" even though they are doctrinally "right", if that makes any sense....
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #99 on: January 10, 2013, 01:22:58 PM »

^ Agree.

Which pope?  That is the question. The lack of consistency from one pope to the next (and the hope that the next pope will "fix it all") draws on the very similar logic put forth by the proponents of sola scriptura. The difference being the person of the sole interpreter.

One simply cannot reconcile the writings of, say Pope Pius X with Paul VI and JPII. That is to say nothing of the Catholic Church's apparent insistence on canonizing these popes.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2013, 01:38:48 PM »

^ Agree.

Which pope?  That is the question. The lack of consistency from one pope to the next (and the hope that the next pope will "fix it all") draws on the very similar logic put forth by the proponents of sola scriptura. The difference being the person of the sole interpreter.

1. One simply cannot reconcile the writings of, say Pope Pius X with Paul VI and JPII.

2. That is to say nothing of the Catholic Church's apparent insistence on canonizing these popes.

1.  Hmm...you can't reconcile all the writings of Pope Pius X with all the writings of Paul VI and JPII?  Or just some of them?

2.  "Insistence"?  Interesting choice of words.  Recognizing that it is actually God who makes saints and the Church makes a formal recognition of that through the process of canonization, can the Church canonize someone who is not, in fact, a saint?  (I'm not referring here, to the Orthodox Church, just the Catholic Church.)  Are there "saints" who ain't saints?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2013, 01:52:24 PM »

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Choy is right in saying that the Pope could excommunicate the SSPX; but then, the Pope could excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility ... I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'm not saying "could", I'm saying "should"  Wink
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2013, 01:53:44 PM »

^ Agree.

Which pope?  That is the question. The lack of consistency from one pope to the next (and the hope that the next pope will "fix it all") draws on the very similar logic put forth by the proponents of sola scriptura. The difference being the person of the sole interpreter.

1. One simply cannot reconcile the writings of, say Pope Pius X with Paul VI and JPII.

2. That is to say nothing of the Catholic Church's apparent insistence on canonizing these popes.

1.  Hmm...you can't reconcile all the writings of Pope Pius X with all the writings of Paul VI and JPII?  Or just some of them?

2.  "Insistence"?  Interesting choice of words.  Recognizing that it is actually God who makes saints and the Church makes a formal recognition of that through the process of canonization, can the Church canonize someone who is not, in fact, a saint?  (I'm not referring here, to the Orthodox Church, just the Catholic Church.)  Are there "saints" who ain't saints?

1. I apologize for my lack of clarity. As you note, I was intending to infer that there are portions of JPII's and Paul VI's writings that do not gel with other, earlier popes' writings. Just as there are portions of the VII documents that do not comport with prior Magisterial pronouncements. I can't go into detail on that right now because I'm posting from a phone (perhaps someone with an actual computer could help us out).

2. It is my understanding that canonizations are infallible (but I recognize some will debate that). My point being it is (1) unprecedented to canonize popes so quickly or with such frequency, and (2) odd to canonize men who are largely responsible for the incredibly terrible state of the Church in our times.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2013, 01:53:49 PM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

But isn't every dogmatic proclamation (such as Pastor Aeternus, the 2 Marian Dogmas, and every canonization of a Saint) are de facto infallible statements?  Its not like they can go back on those, they are "dogma" (or in the case of saints, "canon").
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #104 on: January 10, 2013, 03:23:02 PM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

But isn't every dogmatic proclamation (such as Pastor Aeternus, the 2 Marian Dogmas, and every canonization of a Saint) are de facto infallible statements?  Its not like they can go back on those, they are "dogma" (or in the case of saints, "canon").

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2013, 03:23:52 PM »

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Choy is right in saying that the Pope could excommunicate the SSPX; but then, the Pope could excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility ... I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'm not saying "could", I'm saying "should"  Wink

You can't say "should" without saying "could".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2013, 03:24:45 PM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

But isn't every dogmatic proclamation (such as Pastor Aeternus, the 2 Marian Dogmas, and every canonization of a Saint) are de facto infallible statements?  Its not like they can go back on those, they are "dogma" (or in the case of saints, "canon").

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?
It was a response to increasing secularization of the West.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2013, 03:28:05 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #108 on: January 10, 2013, 03:30:41 PM »

You can't say "should" without saying "could".

Remember that the Pope isn't bound by canon law so regardless of what constitutes one to be excommunicated as stated by canon law, the Pope can certainly excommunicate them on his whim.  Besides, there's enough evidence already to support excommunication.  "Could" isn't a question at this point.  As recently as a couple of years ago the Vatican said they should stop ordaining priest, yet they continued to do it.  There was no automatic excommunication at that point because there was no canon law against it (only against ordaining bishops).  But still, they went against the wishes of the Pope, that is justifiable reason there (at least by Catholic ecclesiology).
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #109 on: January 10, 2013, 04:18:14 PM »

You can't say "should" without saying "ould".

Corrected.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #110 on: January 10, 2013, 04:19:45 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2013, 12:05:37 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2013, 12:08:00 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?

Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra, which apparently makes you more comfortable with the Vatican I statement. Based on that comment, I am asking whether you think a pope has ever exercised the level of infallibility proclaimed at Vatican I...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2013, 12:23:41 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?

All of it.  Basically the Protestants said we don't need bishops, especially the Pope.  Pastor Aeternus basically says we all need the Pope to ensure the true faith, not only in faith and morals, but also in discipline and administration.  Papal Infallibility puts the Pope above Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, again countering claims that anyone can self-interpret the Bible.  And of course the parts that justify the Papacy through the establishment of the institution/office by Christ himself upon Peter is an apologetic against Sola Scriptura Protestants claiming that the Papacy is not needed and has no Scriptural basis.

Plus, above all, the timing of the introduction of the dogma points to the obvious.  If this belief has been dogmatic all along, why wait until the 1800s to define it?  Since Trent the RCC has been on counter Reformation mode.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2013, 01:15:40 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?

Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra,
No, read it again. I'm saying that Vatican I (which is the only dogmatic statement on the matter) didn't say one way or another.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2013, 01:17:47 PM »

Quote
Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra
Sure they have, its just that the Church, conveniently, has never said which time was ex cathedra. Lucky for them.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Justin Kolodziej
Party per fess argent and gules; in chief a Latin cross bottony sable between two lozenges azure; in base a wheel, or.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting
Jurisdiction: GOC-Kallinikos....one day
Posts: 293



« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2013, 01:21:46 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?

All of it.  Basically the Protestants said we don't need bishops, especially the Pope.  Pastor Aeternus basically says we all need the Pope to ensure the true faith, not only in faith and morals, but also in discipline and administration.  Papal Infallibility puts the Pope above Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, again countering claims that anyone can self-interpret the Bible.  And of course the parts that justify the Papacy through the establishment of the institution/office by Christ himself upon Peter is an apologetic against Sola Scriptura Protestants claiming that the Papacy is not needed and has no Scriptural basis.

Plus, above all, the timing of the introduction of the dogma points to the obvious.  If this belief has been dogmatic all along, why wait until the 1800s to define it?  Since Trent the RCC has been on counter Reformation mode.
There were also the last remnants of Gallicanism to deal with...essentially French Catholics who believed the State and/or the General Councils should have more power than the Pope over the local Churches. The idea spread some to other countries as it died out in France, Vatican I essentially ratified Ultramontanism, and condemned Gallicanism, and voila, the Old Catholics were born.

It's entirely possible that if Vatican I had happened in the 1700s, the results would have been quite different due to how influential the French Church was.
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2013, 02:40:51 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?

Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra,
No, read it again. I'm saying that Vatican I (which is the only dogmatic statement on the matter) didn't say one way or another.

Your point must be too subtle for me because I am unable to ascertain what you mean.

Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood.

Maybe we are trying to make two different points here, so I apologize for not understanding yours.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2013, 03:13:25 PM »

Quote
Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood
Odd that Rome doesnt even state which statements are ex cathedra.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2013, 03:20:14 PM »

Quote
Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood
Odd that Rome doesnt even state which statements are ex cathedra.

PP

Ha!  Yes, well, they kind of do. There is particular phrasing used to indicate the Pope is speaking infallibly. In fact, popes until the last three did this all the time. Hence, there is a problem trying to reconcile those prior infallible pronouncements with more recent papal and conciliar statements. For example, it is a difficult task to reconcile the infallibly defined teaching of Mortalium Animos (a papal encyclical from Pope Pius XI) with the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio. Both deal with ecumenism. The are very different teachings.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 03:21:38 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2013, 05:44:10 PM »

I'm saying that Vatican I (which is the only dogmatic statement on the matter) didn't say one way or another.

Your point must be too subtle for me because I am unable to ascertain what you mean.

I guess I thought it was clear that I meant "... didn't say one way or another whether there have been ex cathedra statements (and, if so, how many)". Sorry if that wasn't clear. (Unless you're just making fun of me, in which case I'm unsorry.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #121 on: January 11, 2013, 05:48:23 PM »

I wasn't making fun of you.

Actually, I was making fun of myself because I didn't understand you. :-)
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #122 on: January 11, 2013, 09:10:49 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?

All of it.  Basically the Protestants said we don't need bishops, especially the Pope.  Pastor Aeternus basically says we all need the Pope to ensure the true faith, not only in faith and morals, but also in discipline and administration.  Papal Infallibility puts the Pope above Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, again countering claims that anyone can self-interpret the Bible.  And of course the parts that justify the Papacy through the establishment of the institution/office by Christ himself upon Peter is an apologetic against Sola Scriptura Protestants claiming that the Papacy is not needed and has no Scriptural basis.

Plus, above all, the timing of the introduction of the dogma points to the obvious.  If this belief has been dogmatic all along, why wait until the 1800s to define it?  Since Trent the RCC has been on counter Reformation mode.
There were also the last remnants of Gallicanism to deal with...essentially French Catholics who believed the State and/or the General Councils should have more power than the Pope over the local Churches. The idea spread some to other countries as it died out in France, Vatican I essentially ratified Ultramontanism, and condemned Gallicanism, and voila, the Old Catholics were born.

Not wishing to get too deeply into it, but was Gallicanism a Western phenomenon?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #123 on: January 11, 2013, 09:52:48 PM »

Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood. 
Some Catholic theologians say that the declaration against women priests does not meet the criteria for infallibility.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #124 on: January 11, 2013, 09:57:10 PM »

Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood. 
Some Catholic theologians say that the declaration against women priests does not meet the criteria for infallibility.

You're right about that. But, they are pretty clearly wrong in debating it.

Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 17, 2013, 01:08:42 PM »

Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in an interview Tuesday with the Italian religious news agency SIR slammed the followers of the renegade Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X for rejecting the Vatican II policy on Jews. It is only that small group, he said, who “do not accept ecumenical dialogue, relations with Jews and religious freedom.”

Koch questioned whether because of this, they could even be considered Catholic.
....
In the interview, Koch also reaffirmed reaffirmed the Vatican’s commitment to fostering positive relations with the Jewish world. His remarks came ahead of the Catholic Church’s annual Day of Judaism on Jan. 17.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #126 on: January 18, 2013, 11:27:49 AM »

Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in an interview Tuesday with the Italian religious news agency SIR slammed the followers of the renegade Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X for rejecting the Vatican II policy on Jews. It is only that small group, he said, who “do not accept ecumenical dialogue, relations with Jews and religious freedom.”

Koch questioned whether because of this, they could even be considered Catholic.

That makes sense, in a way; but if you accept that reasoning then there are also tons of other reasons that one could question whether this Catholic or that Catholic "could even be considered Catholic".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #127 on: January 18, 2013, 11:40:33 AM »

Of course, 70 years ago (and for the preceding 1,900 years or so) we would have questioned whether because of his view on this subject Cardinal Koch could even be considered Catholic.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.156 seconds with 65 queries.