B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Have another go Rau … the quoting system is different from the old CAF.
Last edited:
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Many things are different, not all for the better! Some things are unchanging though Blue.
Last edited:
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Indeed. Indeed Indeed. Indeed
(Sorry for repitition, the 20 char requirement makes pithy repartee difficult.)
(Sorry for repitition, the 20 char requirement makes pithy repartee difficult.)
R
Rau
Guest
Just needs experience to circumvent. It may come with time Blue.
R
Rau
Guest
There you go !
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Its all in the quote and a few dots.
You could “like” my post if you like…
BTW did you notice the politically correct skin tone choices for the emoji’s … you insensitive colonial white person you with your yellow?! hands.
You could “like” my post if you like…
BTW did you notice the politically correct skin tone choices for the emoji’s … you insensitive colonial white person you with your yellow?! hands.
Last edited:
U
Usige
Guest
Actually I hold no opinion on the subject either way. It is purely an academic exercise for me. See my first post.
The only exception I took was you dismissing a Doctor of the Church as somehow foolish and not to be considered simply because of a completely unrelated matter. I don’t take kindly to ad hominem attacks on Saints and Doctors of the Church. Your initial argument that Saint Robert Bellarmine cannot be trusted because he supported geocentrism is a genetic fallacy which attacks the person and not the argument. Popes Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII all declared heliocentrism as opposed to Sacred Scripture, so using your argument they should not be trusted on maters of faith either? Of course not.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
The very simple point is that Bellarmine is a lone voice and has no tradition behind him.
I get tired of people trotting him out as their pin up boy as if he alone constitutes a tradition.
He doesn’t , there is none…other than the opposite…that no one has the authority to declare a Pope a heretic.
Storm in a teacup.
You clearly have an axe to grind re the present Pope.
Just own it and argue from there instead of hiding behind alleged authority figures like the 1P5 crowd do.
I get tired of people trotting him out as their pin up boy as if he alone constitutes a tradition.
He doesn’t , there is none…other than the opposite…that no one has the authority to declare a Pope a heretic.
Storm in a teacup.
You clearly have an axe to grind re the present Pope.
Just own it and argue from there instead of hiding behind alleged authority figures like the 1P5 crowd do.
Last edited:
U
Usige
Guest
Actually you are the one that brought Saint Robert Bellarmine up… to dismiss him as a some type of lunatic. You still belittle him and apparently refuse to acknowledge that the Church holds him as Doctor of the Church. Yes he was mention in the article by Dr Peters, but I never advocated for his position. I am presenting information, nothing less.
If you want to argue that he is mistaken on the basis of the dogma of infallibility, then I’d probably agree with you, but you tried to invalidate what he thought by attacking him for geocentrism. If you are going to argue then argue on the merits of his position and not belittle him unless you also have an “axe to grind” against the 3 popes that held the same beliefs.
Speaking of axes to grind…
Where in the world do you get I have an axe to grind against Pope Francis? I would have answered the same way under any Pope. I have no idea who the 1P5 crowd refers to.
And for the last time, the Church, the very Church you are trying to defend, does hold Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, to be an authority. He is not allegedly an authority any more than St John of the Cross or St. Albertus Magnus are “alleged authorities”. All three were declared Doctors of the Church by Pope Pius XI. If you have an issue with that then take it up with him after you die.
Last edited:
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Thats your 2nd last time now …Blue_Horizon:
Actually you are the one that brought Saint Robert Bellarmine up… to dismiss him as a some type of lunatic. You still belittle him and apparently refuse to acknowledge that the Church holds him as Doctor of the Church. Yes he was mention in the article by Dr Peters, but I never advocated for his position. I am presenting information, nothing less.
If you want to argue that he is mistaken on the basis of the dogma of infallibility, then I’d probably agree with you, but you tried to invalidate what he thought by attacking him for geocentrism. If you are going to argue then argue on the merits of his position and not belittle him unless you also have an “axe to grind” against the 3 popes that held the same beliefs.
Speaking of axes to grind…
Where in the world do you get I have an axe to grind against Pope Francis? I would have answered the same way under any Pope. I have no idea who the 1P5 crowd refers to.
And for the last time, the Church, the very Church you are trying to defend, does hold Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, to be an authority. He is not allegedly an authority any more than St John of the Cross or St. Albertus Magnus are “alleged authorities”. All three were declared Doctors of the Church by Pope Pius XI. If you have an issue with that then take it up with him after you die.
I am not the one who feels the need to pray especially at this time that the Pope is not removed. Its a silly notion.
You are getting worked up about nothing if you cannot accept that Card Bellarmine adds next to no weight on this topic.
There’s nothing more to say really.
Last edited:
U
Usige
Guest
Given that you to have as yet to say anything useful…
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
That sort of revision, it seems to me, would violate the general principle that no one can be a judge in his own case. The Rota is the Pope’s tribunal. So, just as no bishop can be tried before his own tribunal, neither can the Pope be judged by a tribunal which he sets up. Besides that, yes, I’d say that papal primacy, specifically, makes such an arrangement impossible.acanonlawyer:
I was hoping you’d find your way here, @acanonlawyer (formerly known as @dans0622).
While I’m not advocating it, is there anything preventing a Pope from abolishing Canon 1404 and then including the First See under 1405§3?
I guess I’m just wondering if 1404 is purely a matter of ecclesiastic law or does Papal Primacy underpin it to the point that one could not support the theology and allowing the Pope to be judged by the Rota at the same time.
Dan
U
Usige
Guest
Thanks. That all makes sense and firms up the general direction of my thoughts. As always I truely appreciate your responses.Usige:
That sort of revision, it seems to me, would violate the general principle that no one can be a judge in his own case. The Rota is the Pope’s tribunal. So, just as no bishop can be tried before his own tribunal, neither can the Pope be judged by a tribunal which he sets up. Besides that, yes, I’d say that papal primacy, specifically, makes such an arrangement impossible.
Dan
C
commenter
Guest
(Wikipedia): "Pope Leo II’s letter of confirmation of the Council interprets the council as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for “imprudent economy of silence”. Leo’s letter states: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, … and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius”. (end Wikipedia)
Just to be clear, that Honorius I was sanctioned later not for his actions, but for his inactions, his failure to respond to a challenge. The nature of the challenge, and its ramifications, was probably much clearer in hindsight than at the time.
Last edited:
S
Saxum
Guest
Nobody really has answers to this question because it is unprecedented. In our age of mass media and instant communication, I think the Church needs to develop a legal mechanism to correct heterodox Papal statements.
Pope Francis and his many ‘off the cuff’ statements have caused great confusion in the Church and we need an official method of damage control. In his recent book-length interview, Pope Francis contradicted Church teaching by saying that it is acceptable for homosexuals to enter into civil unions and he also called sexual sins ‘minor sins.’ There have been so many troubling statements that it’s hard to keep track. Then there are the very serious issues about Amoris Laetitia. In my honest opinion, the pontificate of Pope Francis has demonstrated that the Church desperately needs a way to help the Pope maintain his doctrinal orthodoxy when he speaks in a personal capacity.
Pope Francis and his many ‘off the cuff’ statements have caused great confusion in the Church and we need an official method of damage control. In his recent book-length interview, Pope Francis contradicted Church teaching by saying that it is acceptable for homosexuals to enter into civil unions and he also called sexual sins ‘minor sins.’ There have been so many troubling statements that it’s hard to keep track. Then there are the very serious issues about Amoris Laetitia. In my honest opinion, the pontificate of Pope Francis has demonstrated that the Church desperately needs a way to help the Pope maintain his doctrinal orthodoxy when he speaks in a personal capacity.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
This is a troubling judgement/statement coming from a layman with no theological or pastoral education or experience saying that of the leader of the Catholic Church is at odds with the deposit of faith.
Yes he is at odds with the official practical political directives provided to lay Catholic politicians and voters some years ago. So what?
That is hardly “teaching” in the doctrinal sense.
This happens all the time as has happened recently with practical applications of unchanging principles whether that be the validity of other religions/worship, Divorce (which was similarly banned with excommunication universally up until the early 1900s), the need for circumcision, usury and many other rules.
The latest is AL.
It seems likely enough you cannot accept this new teaching either?
Last edited:
S
Saxum
Guest
In Poland, divorced and remarried Catholics can’t receive Communion; in Germany and Malta, divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion. There is confusion about the exact meaning of AL. This is proven by unanswered dubia and the many petitions. I love Pope Francis and pray for him daily, but there is no doubt that AL has caused chaos. I pray every day that this crisis will be resolved and that Pope Francis will reaffirm the constant teachings of the Church as expressed by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio.
S
Saxum
Guest
It still represents an unfortunate rupture in teaching at a time when many of us - myself included - are battling to save the traditional meaning of marriage.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
…Bingo!
- Status