P
ProdigalSun
Guest
THis post is silly, The Pontiff is not teaching anything infallible here. You are misunderstanding the role of AL.
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
There was no infallible declaration by the Pope that contradicted the Faith in St. Athanasius’ time. The entire principle of Infallibility relies on visible, consistant authority. Without that Infallibility falls apart, which means Councils err, which means the Catholic Faith is not the Faith of Christ.
I’m not saying that the Pope has done this, mind you. I’m simply pointing out that those who argue that Infallibility allows for such changes are mistaken.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Hear, hear!
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
It’s a disaster of our time.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
The Pope infallibly taught orthodoxy in Athanasius’ time, as he has done in every time, and always will, until our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ returns.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes. If the Pope teaches the “footnote interpretation” of AL ex cathedra, however, it would prove Papal Infallibility, and therefore Councils, to be fallible.
He hasn’t done thus yet, and I have Faith that he can’t, but some are arguing that Papal Infallibility will somehow smooth over the problems presented by the teachings coming on the heels of AL when in fact such a Papal declaration would destroy the foundation of the Church’s Magesterium.
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
OK… but the Pope does not teach infallibly at all times on every subject he talks or writes about. AL is not an infallible declaration!
Sheesh:shrug:
G
Ginny89
Guest
What was infallibly defined in St. Athanasius’ day that contradicted previously infallibly taught teaching?
Like I have been saying and others have been trying to bully us from saying, if the church contradicts herself, she will have by her own testimony testified to NOT being THE church. If the church today contradicts the church of the past she is confessing to have been in error at least once in her history. Either today through the new teaching or in the past through the old teaching. Either way, the church will have PROVED that she is NOT infallible and thus have absolutely no claim to anyone’s obedience.
People who say that catholicism is whatever the current pope says no matter if it contradicts what the church has taught in the past are teaching a radically different religion than has been heretofore proclaimed by the Catholic church. The Church herself has rejected such an interpretation of papal infallibility from the start in practice and since Vatican I in explicit terms. Asking people to believe in that is asking them to submit to a personality cult rather than TRUTH.
J
JPUSC
Guest
What was infallibly defined in St. Athanasius’ day that contradicted previously infallibly taught teaching?
Like I have been saying and others have been trying to bully us from saying, if the church contradicts herself, she will have by her own testimony testified to NOT being THE church. If the church today contradicts the church of the past she is confessing to have been in error at least once in her history. Either today through the new teaching or in the past through the old teaching. Either way, the church will have PROVED that she is NOT infallible and thus have absolutely no claim to anyone’s obedience.
People who say that catholicism is whatever the current pope says no matter if it contradicts what the church has taught in the past are teaching a radically different religion than has been heretofore proclaimed by the Catholic church. The Church herself has rejected such an interpretation of papal infallibility from the start in practice and since Vatican I in explicit terms. Asking people to believe in that is asking them to submit to a personality cult rather than TRUTH.
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
E
Ender
Guest
Well said. Despite what others believe, the church has no illusions about the nature of the papacy.“Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthen its foundations.” (Bishop Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent*)
**The Pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it expedient. Such a modern, voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy. The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)Ender
P
PluniaZ
Guest
Melchior Cano was never canonized and was in direct conflict with Pope Paul IV, who called him a “son of perdition.”
Catholics should not be listening to anything he has to say about the papacy.
G
Ghosty
Guest
It is worth pointing out that Pope Honorius was posthumously anathemized by an Ecumenical Council for supporting, though not explicitely confirming the teaching of, Monothelites.
Honorius wrote letters to Mobothelite bishops backing them up, and refused to publically clarify orthodox doctrine. I’m not saying that Pope Francis should or will be anathemized, nor even saying that he supports heresy. I merely bring this up to point out that this type of confusion, even at the level of the Papacy, is not without precedent.
The Church survived, and it did not tarnish infallibility.
Honorius wrote letters to Mobothelite bishops backing them up, and refused to publically clarify orthodox doctrine. I’m not saying that Pope Francis should or will be anathemized, nor even saying that he supports heresy. I merely bring this up to point out that this type of confusion, even at the level of the Papacy, is not without precedent.
The Church survived, and it did not tarnish infallibility.
E
Ender
Guest
And the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger? Should we ignore that as well? How about this one? Should we distrust this source too?Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards whatever [the pope] may say, great as our duty of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is infallible, or that he must always be right. Much less do we dream of teaching that he is infallible, or in any degree superior to other men, when he speaks on matters that are scientific, or historical, or political, or that he may not make mistakes of judgment in dealing with contemporary events, with men and things.(Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val, *The Truth of Papal Claims)
*I note that you didn’t challenge the truth of Cano’s statement, only that we should ignore it because he was out of favor with Paul IV. As to his acuity as a theologian, however, the Catholic Encyclopedia, in commenting on his great work De Locis Theologicis said this:
*In the estimation of some critics this work marking a new epoch in the history of theology has made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas. *That’s about as high as praise comes.
Ender
P
PluniaZ
Guest
Some quotes from actual SAINTS:
"Please note what Saint John Bosco said to his spiritual sons as he was dying: “Do not ever forget these three things: devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, devotion to Mary Help of Christians, and devotion to the Holy Father.” Saint Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, has written: “Even if the pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our father is condemned, for that which we do to him we do to Christ; we honor Christ if we honor the pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the pope.”
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=304075&language=en
G
Ginny89
Guest
Actual SAINTS? Sure. Do you figure St. Paul is condendemned for daring to “raise up his head” against St. Peter in Antioch? Do you figure St. Catherine is? Do you figure the successor popes of Honorius who condemned him are? The ecumenical council that anathematized him?
P
PluniaZ
Guest
For an Apostle to rebuke the Pope to his face is in no way an example for us laity. The Sixth Ecumenical Council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius I was changed by Pope Leo II - that is one Pope rebuking another. Laity should not interpret the actions of Apostles and Popes as license for them to disrespect the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
If you would like to write a private letter to His Holiness Pope Francis I respectfully expressing your concerns, I think he would be grateful to receive it.
G
Ginny89
Guest
Pope Leo II still condenmed Honorius for confirming heresy. I see nowhere in church teaching where the laity are required to pretend they dont notice when an error is rapidly spreading under the watch of a pope. Pope Francis himself invited discussion on this matter to the laity when he opened it for debate. Discussions such as this contribute to defend orthodoxy, which is a right of all catholics and not just clergy.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
I agree that it is fine for the laity to discuss doctrine with each other. I just chimed in because I’m sick of people using that Melchior Cano quote to disrespect the Pope - which I’m not accusing you or anyone here of doing. I’m just pointing out that Cano was not canonized, I have not seen any saints or church documents cite his quote approvingly, and the tradition of the Church is one of reverent obedience to the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Peace be with you.
E
Ender
Guest
Are we to ignore the comment of BXVI because he has not been canonized? There is nothing in church teaching that limits truth solely to the saints. Cano’s comment is very much in line with the statements from Benedict and Cardinal del Val, as well as the obvious fact that, since we have had some really bad popes in the past, it can hardly be true that it is never appropriate to question the actions of a pope. Reverent obedience is one thing. Blind obedience is something quite different.
More significantly, none of this addresses the obvious problem that has been created over the question of communion for the divorced and remarried. The church now holds two contradictory positions, and which is applied to us depends entirely on the luck of the draw…in the form of the bishop in whose territory we reside.
In an article in First Things, the author describes a woman who was divorced and civilly remarried, lives in Portsmouth, England under Bishop Egan, who also has vacation property in Malta. If she follows the directions of her bishops, she may not receive communion while at home but is free to partake while she is on vacation. This is the substance of farce. How is this catastrophe to be resolved?
Ender
3
3_Dog_Night
Guest
How is this catastrophe to be resolved? There may be a number of correct answers.
**Answer #1 **-- It will be resolved 100 years from now when we are all deceased. Not to worry, the Church will get around to it someday, and is it really all that important?
Answer #2 – the woman should sell her home in England and move into her vacation home in Malta (based upon which Bishop’s accompaniment better meets her needs).
Answer #3 – the woman should keep her home in England and sell her vacation home in Malta (again based upon which Bishop’s accompaniment better meets her needs).
Answer #4 – the woman should follow the sage advice of, “When in England, do as the English do” and “When in Malta, do as the Maltese do.” (You know, it’s the when in Rome … or when in Vegas … thingy)
Answer #5 – the woman should convert to the Church of England since salvation can be found there too and essentially the Catholic Church has now become Protestant
Answer #6 – Francis should answer the four Cardinals’ dubai and reaffirm orthodox teaching (or confirm for the world that he is both a material and a formal heretic).
Yes, this is the substance of farce, and it is not becoming for the Church that Christ himself established.
- Status