A
AlexV
Guest
How frightening for the Bishop of Rome to violate the rubrics of the Missal he promulgated by omitting a word from something as basic as the Nicene Creed.
- Status
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Here’s the circumstances of the Mass where John Paul II ommited the filioque.
It was December 1987. John Paul II was offering Mass. He was seated on one side of the altar and the schismatic heretic Patriarch Dimitrius was on the other. When it came time for the Creed, John Paul II the great ommited the filioque.
Now, we can either asume that he did this because he was also a heretic who believed that the filioque should not be part of the creed (which is unlikely since he usually said it), or we can assume he ommited it so as to not offend the heretic seated across from him. The second is the more charitable approach.
C
catharina
Guest
AlexV, Pax-Caritas:
How frightening and judgmental to assume anything.
Clearly you believe it is your “job” to judge the Pope.
How frightening and judgmental to assume anything.
Clearly you believe it is your “job” to judge the Pope.
C
catharina
Guest
A-V and P-C,
Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another? Terribly “funny” this is being stated in a Lefebvre thread. No surprise though.
Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another? Terribly “funny” this is being stated in a Lefebvre thread. No surprise though.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
According to what St. Robert Bellarmine called the most common and probable view:"the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."
[St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI].
This is what I meant with regard to it being impossible that the pope could be a heretic–pertinaciously believing something contrary to de fide dogmas of Catholicism, which can only come about through the grace of God. This is the traditional Catholic theology (although, not sententia certa, nor de fide definita), explicitly cited in the official relatio of Vatican I prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus.
In book II, chapter 30 of the same text, St. Robert says that **if **the pope does becomes a manifest heretic, he loses his papal office. St. Robert is right in book 2, and right in book 4. However, in book 2, he was engaging in a theological dispute against the contrary claim of Cardinal Cajetan. St. Robert really didn’t believe the pope could be a manifest heretic, as is seen from book 4 of the same text. Sedevacantists and others like to attribute a belief to St. Robert by quoting from book 2, leaving out what St. Robert affirms later, in book 4.
The pope can certainly sin, he can make mistakes, neglect the defense of the faith, harm the faithful through his “bad example,” etc. We are certainly called from time to time to “resists him” by giving him fraternal correction as St. Paul did with St. Peter, and St. Catherine did with St. Gregory. Likewise, Lumen Gentium exhorts the faithful to “manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the g**ood of the Church…always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. **The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.” (no. 37).
[St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI].
This is what I meant with regard to it being impossible that the pope could be a heretic–pertinaciously believing something contrary to de fide dogmas of Catholicism, which can only come about through the grace of God. This is the traditional Catholic theology (although, not sententia certa, nor de fide definita), explicitly cited in the official relatio of Vatican I prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus.
In book II, chapter 30 of the same text, St. Robert says that **if **the pope does becomes a manifest heretic, he loses his papal office. St. Robert is right in book 2, and right in book 4. However, in book 2, he was engaging in a theological dispute against the contrary claim of Cardinal Cajetan. St. Robert really didn’t believe the pope could be a manifest heretic, as is seen from book 4 of the same text. Sedevacantists and others like to attribute a belief to St. Robert by quoting from book 2, leaving out what St. Robert affirms later, in book 4.
The pope can certainly sin, he can make mistakes, neglect the defense of the faith, harm the faithful through his “bad example,” etc. We are certainly called from time to time to “resists him” by giving him fraternal correction as St. Paul did with St. Peter, and St. Catherine did with St. Gregory. Likewise, Lumen Gentium exhorts the faithful to “manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the g**ood of the Church…always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. **The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.” (no. 37).
C
catharina
Guest
, book 4, chapter VI].
This is what I meant with regard to it being impossible that the pope could be a heretic–pertinaciously believing something contrary to de fide dogmas of Catholicism, which can only come about through the grace of God. This is the traditional Catholic theology (although, not sententia certa, nor de fide definita), explicitly cited in the official relatio of Vatican I prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus.
In book II, chapter 30 of the same text, St. Robert says that **if **the pope does becomes a manifest heretic, he loses his papal office. St. Robert is right in book 2, and right in book 4. However, in book 2, he was engaging in a theological dispute against the contrary claim of Cardinal Cajetan. St. Robert really didn’t believe the pope could be a manifest heretic, as is seen from book 4 of the same text. Sedevacantists and others like to attribute a belief to St. Robert by quoting from book 2, leaving out what St. Robert affirms later, in book 4.
The pope can certainly sin, he can make mistakes, neglect the defense of the faith, harm the faithful through his “bad example,” etc. We are certainly called from time to time to “resists him” by giving him fraternal correction as St. Paul did with St. Peter, and St. Catherine did with St. Gregory. Likewise, Lumen Gentium exhorts the faithful to “manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the g**ood of the Church…always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. **The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.” (no. 37).
Excellent and excellent re Bellarmine AND Lumen Gentium.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Many Orthodox affirm is it congruent with the Catholic faith. Some do not. St. Maximus of Constantinople (d. 662), for example, defended the filioque. Clearly, it was a pre-11th century affirmation of the Church defended by a 7th century Eastern Father.
A
AlexV
Guest
It’s amazing how for some people it’s “slander” just to note 1) what a pope actually did and 2) to note that the rubrics did not permit what the pope did.
C
catharina
Guest
More amazing and remarkable still that you use the word “slander.”
A
AlexV
Guest
YOU used the word slander. Not I.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That’s good that you agree with the manner in which the living magisterium judges the monuments of the past more than being judge by them. Many traditionalists fail to understand this, and in fact many have rejected the term “living magisterium” as though it were some kind of Vatican II fabrication.
The way you phrased it you seemed to imply that being obedient to the “pope” meant that you had to somehow synthesis everything popes have written, as if Adrian has some lingering authority as pope. It that was not what you meant, that clarifies things a bit.
The monuments of the past are not the norm used by laity for judging the orthodoxy of teachings of the living magisterium. Instead, the living magisterium authentically interprets Sacred Scripture and Tradition, judging the monuments of the past to discern what is truly traditional from that which contains an admixture of error.
Catholic ecclesiology is not dependent upon the subjective interpretation of the laity on the monuments of the past. The only authentic interpreter of Traditon and Scripture, including ecclesial and papal texts, is the living magisterium vested in the current pope and the college of bishops in communion with him. The monuments of the past have authority only insofar as they are authentically interpreted by the living magisterium.
What I contend against is quoting what St. Robert affirmed in one book apart from what he affirmed in another book. In my view, St. Robert is correct in both books.
I disagree. I’ve contended instead is the inconsitency of the SSPX appealing to tradition as though it supports their sinful disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. I contend against disobedience when the virtue of obedience is manifestly due, and contend against dissent when assent is manifestly due in accordance with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Chruch and the Code of Canon Law.
I understand you want to compare apples to oranges in order to make the SSPX look less sinful, but its not very convincing. They are nothing more than the opposite side of the same disobedient coin of modernism, adapting the same misuse of “probabilism” when they think it suites their agenda.
A
AlexV
Guest
An individual or an individual act can be objectively or subjectively sinful.
It’s inaccurate and sloppy moral theology to declare the “SSPX is sinful”.
Nor can we say any individual person is a sinner. We can say that an action is objectively sinful, but for personal sin there needs to be more than the presence of an objectively sinful act alone.
It’s inaccurate and sloppy moral theology to declare the “SSPX is sinful”.
Nor can we say any individual person is a sinner. We can say that an action is objectively sinful, but for personal sin there needs to be more than the presence of an objectively sinful act alone.
C
catharina
Guest
To impute evil to the motivations of another’s actions and to spread that idea is to approach/announce slander.
CCC, 1853: … The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.” But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
A
AlexV
Guest
This is getting funnier by the minute.
ALL I said was John Paul omitted the word Filioque at a Roman Rite Mass, and shouldn’t have done it.
End of story.
No “evil”, no “slander”, no need to jump up and down in hysterics.
ALL I said was John Paul omitted the word Filioque at a Roman Rite Mass, and shouldn’t have done it.
End of story.
No “evil”, no “slander”, no need to jump up and down in hysterics.
C
catharina
Guest
Honey (hope you don’t mind the familiar term but I see you’re the age of my son), you’re the one jumping up and down in hysterics. What you CAN say with certainty is that in your opinion, he shouldn’t have done it. Have you ever been Pope? Did I miss that?
Are you the current Pope? Did I miss that too?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
If a non-incardinated priest defies Catholic order, he is sinful. In that sense the SSPX are indeed sinful.
According to Msgr. Ronald Knox (1888-1957), who wrote in his 1929 book The Church on Earth - The Nature and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Place of the Pope Within it:
I doubt MSgr. Knox’s book is well received among the SSPX.
A
AlexV
Guest
Yes, “Catharina”, I object strenuously to the patronizing salutation “Honey”.
No, it’s not mere “opinion” to say the Pope should recite the Creed AS WRITTEN in the Missal.
It’s fact, objective and absolute.
Where’s the line to be drawn, Catharina? What if the pope left out the word “Virgo” before Maria? Is that okay just because he’s pope?
No, of course not.
The pope omitted the Filioque more than once, at a ROMAN Rite Mass. That was wrong, objectively. I don’t speculate as to his intentions. I simply state that you read the Creed as published in the Missal. Not as you wish to rewrite it. Pope or not.
My view is Catholic. Not idolatrous.
No, it’s not mere “opinion” to say the Pope should recite the Creed AS WRITTEN in the Missal.
It’s fact, objective and absolute.
Where’s the line to be drawn, Catharina? What if the pope left out the word “Virgo” before Maria? Is that okay just because he’s pope?
No, of course not.
The pope omitted the Filioque more than once, at a ROMAN Rite Mass. That was wrong, objectively. I don’t speculate as to his intentions. I simply state that you read the Creed as published in the Missal. Not as you wish to rewrite it. Pope or not.
My view is Catholic. Not idolatrous.
A
AlexV
Guest
Sorry Dave, but if a priest did that, he would be committing an objectively sinful act, but we can’t say HE’S “sinful”. That pronouncement is not within our competence, since we do not know if the conditions for sin are present in his soul. The act is objectively sinful; the person may well be innocent.
C
catharina
Guest
Now, now dear, I’m sure you might have the very best of intentions. Do your best to calm down. Do you understand how profoundly disrespectful and patronizing and it is to accuse a WOMAN who is about twice your age of “jumping up and down in hysterics?” My guess is that NOW you do.
As to the Holy Father’s actions, my point remains: since there is absolutely no way to judge his intentions or even his deliberateness in the action, to accuse him of “wrong-doing” is WRONG - and to attempt to spread such a notion acc to your opinion is, ya’ know, sounding a bit slanderous, defamatory, ETC… Ya’ know, honey?
Perhaps your smirking amusement will now fade away. (Or not.)
C
catharina
Guest
Marvelous. You can think after all.
- Status