Pastor Aeternus

[bear06]

I’ve been meaning to post this for awhile but I know TNT has been really interested in discussing this one so I thought I’d get to it.

Here’s the link:
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

And here’s just one of the highlights!

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

and let’s not forget this:

1. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

Now please note that it doesn’t say that you have to like it or even believe it to be correct.

I’ve used this example before but how many of you men would consider your wife to be submissive if she said, “I’m very submissive to my husband but he does this wrong and this wrong, and this…?”

How does this differ with the way some people around these parts show their submission to the Holy Father? I’ve heard so many say “Oh I am submissive to the Holy Father but he has done this, that and the other thing which are bad.” However, these are things that fall under disciplines. Does this show submission to him?

I’m talking about DISCIPLINES not kissing the Koran so please don’t even bring it up. I’m talking about things like taking the St. Michael’s prayer in it’s long form out of the Mass (sorry, this was just the latest thing I saw). Yes, I realize that it was a different Pope but you can really apply this conversation to any Pope.

Some of you are sure to tell me that I wouldn’t have to be submissive to my husband if he was telling me to sin. Don’t bother with this line either because I’m just going to ask you where the Pope is telling us to sin and if you actually answer, I’ll probably ask you what your jurisdiction is in the matter.

Well, I just thought this would make for an interesting conversation.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

I’ve been meaning to post this for awhile but I know TNT has been really interested in discussing this one so I thought I’d get to it.

  Here's the link:
  [ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6](http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6)
  
 :thumbsup:

The PA lady hast returned with a vengence and mischief in thy heart…Wait til CrusaderNY and his sidekicks see this! Like cheese to mice.
I may end up in the SSPV for treatment.
Actually, we think alike. I was going to start a Thread this weekend called “Indiscriminate Obedience- True or False”**
So I’ll name my posts as such.
**

 

[bear06]

But once again, you’ve avoided answering my questions. My questions seem to kill threads. Methinks thou doth avoid them too much!

What do you consider indiscriminate obedience? If you’re talking about obeying someone that you know is commanding you to sin, then I’d agree with you.

 

[JimG]

Maybe I’m missing something, but I guess I don’t quite understand the question. The quotes are simply saying that we must be obedient to the Holy Father in matters of Faith and Morals as well as in church governance–matters of discipline. So what’s the problem?

Discipline is generally governed by canon law. And discipline can not only change, but can vary from country to country.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

But once again, you’ve avoided answering my questions. My questions seem to kill threads. Methinks thou doth avoid them too much!

What do you consider indiscriminate obedience? If you’re talking about obeying someone that you know is commanding you to sin, then I’d agree with you.

Not avoiding the question…I’ll be in tomorrow…have to get sleep.

 

[bear06]

So what’s the problem?

LOL! This is the question! If you look on the list we’ve got a wide spectrum of people. We’ve got those that rail against the Pauline Mass, the CCC, the latest Code of Canon Law, etc., etc., etc.

 

[bear06]

So what’s the problem?

LOL! This is the question! If you look on the list we’ve got a wide spectrum of people. We’ve got pleny that rail against the Pauline Mass, the CCC, the latest Code of Canon Law, the Pope’s encyclicals containing Faith and Morals, etc., etc., etc. They like to throw out the words “blind obedience” but will never actually explain why they think that they are not subject to these matters of discipline.

 

[bear06]

Wow! Where have all of the debators gone. I knew some would have trouble reconciling with PA but I thought they’d at least try!

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Wow! Where have all of the debators gone. I knew some would have trouble reconciling with PA but I thought they’d at least try!

Don’t look at me. I’m CLEANUP batter.
This is what you get for not using Latin in the Mass fo a whole generation. No one has a clue what a “pastor Aeternus” is on thread viewing.
Besides, VATII did away with all that old papal stuff. Had to to do with the “New Springtime” cleanout.
If no one shows up at yur party in the next 10 days, I’ll volunteer. :yup:

 As long as our 1 on 1 wrestling match has a referee of my choosing, of course.
 Fogney JLW Misericordia CrusaderNy RSiscoe MrS come to mind.

Hey, Send that bunch a PM, letting them know that TNT is on the mat, and if they were not cowards, they’d come to the rescue?
Or, maybe insult them. Afraid to confront a helpless Mom with child. (don’t mention the Bear claws and fangs)

BTW:
There is a 5:00 TLM today not too far. None anywhere else. (not a Sun Vigil)
BUT it just happens to be at an SSPX Parish.
I want to attend a Mass today (and tomorrow) but no other TLM anywhere near on Saturday.
Is that OK?
Good, I’m goin to get ready.

 

[bear06]

Don’t look at me. I’m CLEANUP batter.
This is what you get for not using Latin in the Mass fo a whole generation. No one has a clue what a “pastor Aeternus” is on thread viewing.

Hey, I provided a link with quotes. What more do they want?

Besides, VATII did away with all that old papal stuff. Had to to do with the “New Springtime” cleanout.

Just keep telling yourself that T! Maybe someday it’ll be true.

If no one shows up at yur party in the next 10 days, I’ll volunteer. :yup:

Hey, why wait? Feel free to answer now. I’ve been killing a lot of threads lately with questions nobody will dare to answer - you included. I should start a thread called “how to successfully kill a rad-Trad thread”

As long as our 1 on 1 wrestling match has a referee of my choosing, of course.
Fogney JLW Misericordia CrusaderNy RSiscoe MrS come to mind.

LOL! I pick Cardinal Ratzinger.

Hey, Send that bunch a PM, letting them know that TNT is on the mat, and if they were not cowards, they’d come to the rescue?
Or, maybe insult them. Afraid to confront a helpless Mom with child. (don’t mention the Bear claws and fangs)

I thought that’s what my last post was doing. It was the nicest way I could say “Bawk, bawk, bawk!”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I agree with Pastor Aeternus. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

Although the pope may theoretically become a “manifest heretic” and thereby lose his office as pope. Catholic theologians have yet to satisfactorily explain how one can know with moral certainty that the pope has fallen into manifest or notorious (obvious) heresy. My theory is that, according to current Catholic theology, the only way his heresy can be obvious is if he himself judged his views and declared them to be heretical (thereby voluntarily removing himself from the papacy). For example, let’s say a future Pope John Paul XXXVI hypothetically is elected, but later publically renounces his assent to the Catholic dogma of Jesus’ divine nature, thereby becoming a “manifest heretic.” A new papal election would be in order. Nobody has judged the pope’s teachings but the pope and his only superior on matter’s doctrinal–God.

This solves the very hypothetical opinion that the pope can be a manifest heretic. Yes, he can. But nobody but his superior is competent to judge his doctrines as heretical.

What does these mean practically for Catholics?

Apart from hypothetical questions as to whether the pope can be a manifest heretic, St. Catherine of Sienna gives us the practical view of Divine obedience and its relation to obedience to the Holy Father:

“*** Divine obedience NEVER prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father***: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him MIGHT SEEM, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil*” *[St. Catherine of Sienna, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza]

 

[bear06]

Of course, Dave, I’m going to agree with you on all counts.

This dogmatic consitution was drawn up to try and avoid the baddens that came out of the Council of Trent, namely the Jansenists. It seems that sooooooo many on these forums want to skip this document which really is concerning since it makes it clear that

1. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

It seems that some feel they can rail on and on about things they don’t approve of by implying that they go against Church teachings but yet won’t come out and say where the heresy is. PA addresses the fact that they have no need to worry and yet they do!

If it’s a matter of discipline, the Pope has jurisdiction over it so where’s the submission?

Nowhere in this document does it say that we owe the Pope submission ONLY in areas in which we know him to be correct. Nowhere in this document does it say that we are free to not submit if we think that his teachings are going against a previous magisterium. It only says that he is the authority and we are to submit and to obey.

I have seen teaching from various saints that we are to follow the Pope in all things but sin. I don’t believe this line of reasoning, however, has been dogmatically defined - probably because it can’t happen.

 

[bear06]

Just for fun, I thought I’d try and resurrect this thread. Anybody have any feelings on this quote?

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

This says that the pope holds the jurisdictional power and we are bound to submit to this power in matters not only concerning faith and morals and disciplines and government. I’m still not seeing that it says we can disobey if WE think that he is going against Tradition/tradition.

It goes onto say:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that **he is the supreme judge of the faithful ** [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

This seems especially ditched by some who like to appeal to the council of Trent, etc.

Anyone?

 

[TNT]

I’ll help you scrape the mold of this thread.

1. On what point(s) are you proposing that someone on this forum is disobedient to a command or clear teaching on discipline from JPII.
2. It would be good to put in the part that declares:

Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, according to the dictates of time and circumstances, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils or asking the opinion of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes through particular synods, sometimes by using other means which divine providence supplied, defined those things which must be held and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith handed on through the Apostles. All the venerable Fathers and holy orthodox doctors venerated and followed their * apostolic doctrine; they knew full well that this See of St. Peter always remained unstained by all error, according to the divine promise which Our Savior made to the chief of His disciples when He said, ‘I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, having turned, strengthen your brothers.*’
For instance: I condemn Modern (post VATII) Ecumenism in the following:
Ecumenism: The destruction of internal unity for the false hope of external unity.
So, am I disobedient to JPII, Pius IX, Pius the XI, Leo XIII ?

Is Modern Ecumenism "** consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions" ?

**I believe it is good to be specific vs just a general declaration of unexamined obedience.

We should be able to apply it in the real world, not just some generality, right?

I believe that the NOM in Latin is True and proper, but in the perverted english it is not proper and is opposed to the Latin and the Pope’s home land Polish translation.
If the New ICEL ever gets published, I propose that some of this will be recognized by the very corrections that it contains. For if it is already the best translation in the eyes of God, then there will be no changes.
If this post doesn’t start a good warm fire, then you’ll just have to get some dry wood.
Happy now?

 

[bear06]

1. On what point(s) are you proposing that someone on this forum is disobedient to a command or clear teaching on discipline from JPII.

I would definitely say that some have a serious problem being submissive to the Holy Father in matters concerning the “Novus Ordo” Mass. Some have even gone farther than to call it a “Mess” and not the “Mass”. Don’t you think this true? Submission is a tricky thing. T, if I were you, I’d be questioning why you are just about the only person to answer this thread.

For instance: I condemn Modern (post VATII) Ecumenism in the following:
Ecumenism: The destruction of internal unity for the false hope of external unity.
So, am I disobedient to JPII, Pius IX, Pius the XI, Leo XIII ?

OK, perhaps you missed my saying repeatedly in most of our threads that the teachings of theologians only count when in union with the Holy Father. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

I would definitely say that some have a serious problem being submissive to the Holy Father in matters concerning the “Novus Ordo” Mass. Some have even gone farther than to call it a “Mess” and not the “Mass”. Don’t you think this true? Submission is a tricky thing. T, if I were you, I’d be questioning why you are just about the only person to answer this thread.

**It is VERY tricky since VATII. True.
My low IQ and trying to be accommodating to you causes me to answer and fall for your “trickyness”.
**

OK, perhaps you missed my saying repeatedly in most of our threads that the teachings of theologians only count when in union with the Holy Father. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

I only mentioned Holy Fathers. The definition I gave is copyrighted by …me. It is the best defintion I can come up with based on a summary of those Holy Fathers…without being “tricky”, of course.
So, am I disobedient to JPII, Pius IX, Pius the XI, Leo XIII ? (ALL Holy Fathers).
ps.
I would never “miss” what you say. I believe that would be a mortal sin…almost like missing Mass on Sun.
pps.
I’m trying to keep this thing alive. CPR is my next strategy. After that comes a provacative animated Icon. After that I pull the respirator.

 

[bear06]

I’m trying to keep this thing alive. CPR is my next strategy. After that comes a provacative animated Icon. After that I pull the respirator.

I appreciate the extreme measures you’re taking to keep this thread alive. I imagine that you’re wondering where your friends are, huh? It’s just super strange to me that they will comment on just about anything but this topic. I’m thinking that they realize that it’s a losing battle. The effects of Pastor Aeternus seem to be similar to the effects of Holy Water against demons! I just wish everytime the whole TLM vs. VII came up everyone would just type in Pastor Aeternus instead of bothering to debate. Then those threads would mercifully die!

Ah well, I can dream. Let’s move on.

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals (note it does not say infallibly defined doctrines of faith and morals), but also in those which concern the **discipline and government of the Church ** dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.