Schismatic Liturgy vs. Catholic Communion Service

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by bear06:

If you look at the example of a child…A child may not always like the disciplines that his parents set but he is not free to disagree with them. Of course, my children are technically “free” to disagree with me but it’s not a good idea!

Granted that the parent is not abusive and does not lead the child into dangerous behavior. If the parent is abusive in the creation or enforcement of certain disciplines, or if the parent leads the child into clear danger, then the child is free to disagree. Likewise, a pope who leads his spiritual children into a clear spiritual danger is not to be followed if what he proposes is clearly not in line with being a good father–even though he is still to be afforded the respect and otherwise consistent obedience given to one’s father.

For me, I place the integrity of the Faith before the Authority of the pope. But that’s me.

i’m not following you here. the pope is not impeccible. we owe him obedience, but not our intellect.

Politely, St. Igantius of Loyola would disagree with you. He once remarked half-seriously that (and i’m paraphrasing here), if the pope told him that something was one color while he himself saw the thing as a radically different color, he would trust the pope’s opinion over his own.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by oat soda:

the pope is not above the liturgy, or the bible, or the faith, but he serves them. i think much of the problems in the western church may be a result of blurring the distinction between the unchangeable infallible faith, and the pope who serves it. now we may disagree with how he serves the faith, but we can’t disagree with the faith itself, and neither can the pope. revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

I agree with you :yup:

Except with the note that only “public” revelation ended; private revelation continues, although it is not required to be believed for salvation.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by bear06:

You don’t have to agree with everything the Pope says or does. I’m not a Trad and I believe this too. That said, this document does show you where you owe the Pope obedience **and **submission.

Good. And I’m not implying that the official Catholic position is to agree with the pope on everything he says. However, I have noticed in my own personal experience that many “devout” Catholics feel as if they have to agree with everything that the pope says and does.

You have to admit that the pope today is a much more public figure than he used to be just several decades back. The pope is now a celebrity, not just for Catholics, but for the world at large. He is expected to make public appearances; he is expected to travel around the world and make visits at pilgrimages and youth days; he is expected to be in the lime light and to set the standard for what is Catholic and what is not.

Sometimes I think that the media inflates what the pope says at a speech or even offhand into what the Catholic Church officially teaches. And since many Catholics watch television and read the news more than they study the ecumenical councils, it is bound to happen that Catholics misunderstand the bounds of the pope’s infallibility.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Madaglan:

Good. And I’m not implying that the official Catholic position is to agree with the pope on everything he says. However, I have noticed in my own personal experience that many “devout” Catholics feel as if they have to agree with everything that the pope says and does.

But in the context of this thread, regarding a schismatic liturgy, you DO owe obedience to the Holy Father. That’s the context of the thread, not some theoretical disagreement.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by JKirkLVNV:

But in the context of this thread, regarding a schismatic liturgy, you DO owe obedience to the Holy Father. That’s the context of the thread, not some theoretical disagreement.

Sorry, I was led off track by someone’s digressive post on brainwashing of Catholics and how cats taste like chicken.

But in any case, I suppose that one who truly suscribes to the Western Church’s beliefs does owe obedience to the Holy Father in matters of the liturgy, which is the context of the thread.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry, I was led off track by someone’s digressive post on brainwashing and how cats taste like chicken.

But in any case, I suppose that one who truly suscribes to the Western Church’s beliefrs does owe obedience to the Holy Father in matters of the liturgy, which is the context of the thread.

I’ve already said sorry about that!

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by JKirkLVNV:

I’ve already said sorry about that!

Twice, in fact!

 

[allhers]

Anna Elizabeth:

I’d move.

Anna

me too, i would have made sure before I moved there that there was a Roman Catholic Church, loyal to Rome.

 

[bear06]

oat soda:

i’m not following you here. the pope is not impeccible. we owe him obedience, but not our intellect. these are matters outside of faith and morals and we are free to disagree with him, as a child may disagree with his parent, but the child owes his parent obedience. and even then, the child can’t submit to a sinful act no matter who tells them to.therefore, we are only subject to our conscience.

the pope is not above the liturgy, or the bible, or the faith, but he serves them. i think much of the problems in the western church may be a result of blurring the distinction between the unchangeable infallible faith, and the pope who serves it. now we may disagree with how he serves the faith, but we can’t disagree with the faith itself, and neither can the pope. revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

We owe him obedience and submission in discipline as well as in matters of faith and morals. Let’s look at more of Pastor Aerternus:

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.

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, 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.

Nobody else is above the Pope. He (or his successors) are the arbiters of the Faith. Not you, me, Marcel Lefebvre, etc. have the authority.

Let’s be concrete. What is the sinful act the Pope is teaching that we must do? What is the example you are trying to give when you say:

and even then, the child can’t submit to a sinful act no matter who tells them to.therefore, we are only subject to our conscience.

 

[bear06]

Granted that the parent is not abusive and does not lead the child into dangerous behavior. If the parent is abusive in the creation or enforcement of certain disciplines, or if the parent leads the child into clear danger, then the child is free to disagree. Likewise, a pope who leads his spiritual children into a clear spiritual danger is not to be followed if what he proposes is clearly not in line with being a good father–even though he is still to be afforded the respect and otherwise consistent obedience given to one’s father.

For me, I place the integrity of the Faith before the Authority of the pope. But that’s me

Actually, this seems at it would place faith in private interpretation before the authority of the Pope. This is why Pope Pius IX felt the need to address the topic of obedience and submission to the Pope. What you are suggesting is quite a parallel to the Jansenists (and no, I’m not calling Madaglan a Jansenist, so don’t even go there.) Just because we might think the Pope is wrong doesn’t make it so.

Sure, if the Pope told me to kill by sister, I’d know that this is sinful. The point is you better know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is telling you to sin. Now, I’m not a fan of altar girls but can anyone here actually tell me the Pope is sinning by allowing them? Did he tell me I, or my daughters, had to be one?

Not one place in Pastor Aeternus does it say that we can refuse submission if we think the Pope’s teachings on faith and morals or disciplines are bad. It does say that their is no higher authority than the Pope.

Politely, St. Igantius of Loyola would disagree with you. He once remarked half-seriously that (and i’m paraphrasing here), if the pope told him that something was one color while he himself saw the thing as a radically different color, he would trust the pope’s opinion over his own.

]

There are many other saints that have said the same thing.

 

[oat_soda]

Nobody else is above the Pope. He (or his successors) are the arbiters of the Faith. Not you, me, Marcel Lefebvre, etc. have the authority.

Let’s be concrete. What is the sinful act the Pope is teaching that we must do? What is the example you are trying to give when you say:

the pope is not God. only God is perfect, only him do we owe total submission to in all matters. the pope is the servant of the servants of Christ. he has a awesome charism as a teacher which prevents him from leading the faithful into error in matters of faith and morals. in this respect he is infallible and we are not to disagree with him.

in matters outside of faith and morals, we only owe him obedience according to our consceince formed by the morals and teachings of the church. there are examples of bad popes who used their authority for sinful purposes but they never altered the faith. now, this is an extreme senario and i doubt our current pope would ever ask you to do something morally wrong, but it is possible.

while i may disagree with certain aspects of the liturgy changed permited by Paul vi and JPII, i acknowledge their authority to do so and by his charism of infallibility, know that it can’t in of itself, be harmful to the faith, but implimented hastely or without proper catechisis could result in problems.
.

 

[bear06]

Good. And I’m not implying that the official Catholic position is to agree with the pope on everything he says. However, I have noticed in my own personal experience that many “devout” Catholics feel as if they have to agree with everything that the pope says and does.

I still think agree and disagree are the wrong words. Call me picky! I don’t have to agree with my husband to obey or submit to him. Shoot, I don’t even have to think he is right. I can obey and submit even if I think he’s making a big mistake as long as he is not telling me to sin. Right?

Sometimes I think that the media inflates what the pope says at a speech or even offhand into what the Catholic Church officially teaches. And since many Catholics watch television and read the news more than they study the ecumenical councils, it is bound to happen that Catholics misunderstand the bounds of the pope’s infallibility.

I hear ya. Yes, the Pope is human and he can make mistakes. Can you imagine how many other popes made mistakes that weren’t caught on film and transmitted around the world in 60 seconds flat. Sometimes being in the media age stinks. The one thing I’ve noticed is that the Pope has never told me to do these so called “mistakes”. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the kissing of the Koran was an out and out sin on his part. Did he tell you to do it? The joke of the whole thing on that little incidence is that it wasn’t apparently remembered by anyone but rad-Trads. When the WTC was knocked down, I don’t remember anyone saying that the muslim faith was OK because the Pope kissed the Koran.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by bear06:

Nobody else is above the Pope. He (or his successors) are the arbiters of the Faith. Not you, me, Marcel Lefebvre, etc. have the authority.

Unless one argues for conciliarism, in which no single person is given authority over the pope, you are correct.

Originally Quoted by bear06:

Let’s be concrete. What is the sinful act the Pope is teaching that we must do? What is the example you are trying to give when you say:

I can’t speak for him, but I find myself somewhat in agreement with his viewpoint. As an example: A number of years ago came out a movie called The Mission. The movie is about the historical Jesuits in South America during the 18th century. The Jesuits in the movie set up missions among the native people who are high up and in the jungle. If it weren’t for the Jesuit missions, the bordering Portuguese would capture the natives and sell them as slaves. At one point in the movie, a prelate sent from Rome threatens excommunication on the Jesuit priests if they do not leave the missions they established among the native people. The Jesuits cannot in good conscience do this, and they directly disobey the order of the prelate from Rome (who speaks for the interests of the pope) for them to abandon their converts. The Jesuits are massacred along with their converts.

 

[bear06]

the pope is not God. only God is perfect, only him do we owe total submission to in all matters.

Come on now Oat! I didn’t say that we had to submit to the Pope in ALL matters. I said we have to submit to him in the matters that Pastor Aeternus lays out. Don’t you agree? It is a dogmatic constitution.

the pope is the servant of the servants of Christ. he has a awesome charism as a teacher which prevents him from leading the faithful into error in matters of faith and morals. in this respect he is infallible and we are not to disagree with him.

Agreed.

in matters outside of faith and morals, we only owe him obedience according to our consceince formed by the morals and teachings of the church.

So, are you saying that we only owe him obedience and submission to matters of discipline as far as we think they are right?

there are examples of bad popes who used their authority for sinful purposes but they never altered the faith. now, this is an extreme senario and i doubt our current pope would ever ask you to do something morally wrong, but it is possible.

I can’t debate without a real example. Who was the judge of this instance?

while i may disagree with certain aspects of the liturgy changed permited by Paul vi and JPII, i acknowledge their authority to do so and by his charism of infallibility, know that it can’t in of itself, be harmful to the faith, but implimented hastely or without proper catechisis could result in problems.

Where does the submission part come in?
.

 

[bear06]

Unless one argues for conciliarism, in which no single person is given authority over the pope, you are correct.

Sigh! I must be a bad communicator. What I am arguing is Pastor Aeternus. .

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by bear06:

Sure, if the Pope told me to kill by sister, I’d know that this is sinful. The point is you better know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is telling you to sin. Now, I’m not a fan of altar girls but can anyone here actually tell me the Pope is sinning by allowing them? Did he tell me I, or my daughters, had to be one?

“Kill by sister” Yeah, those religious sisters are quite the hitwomen.

I’m just saying that it is possible, though unlikely, for the pope to order someone to do something that is potentially sinful. Even when Igantius et al. formed the Jesuit Order and formed it around unfailing obedience to the pope and to their superiors, they made sure to mention that a Jesuit was allowed to circumvent that obedience when that obedience would clearly mean sinning for the Jesuit.

And I think this is interesting, because oftentimes one person will believe something through conscience to be sinful, whereas someone else sees it as perfectly all right. What is one to do if one is told by his or her conscience that such an action is sinful, whereas the figures in authority say that if one does not submit to this action, one is committing a sin? Can one really act against one’s conscience to fulfill obedience?

What has the Church said on this?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

David B:

I should clarify that the third option, " All Liturgies with the Eucharist (EX:former priest turned married Lutheran Minister)" simply means that you would attend a liturgy celebrated by a validly ordained priest, but might be more properly (or maybe unpolitically correct) as a heretic, such as the case of a priest that left the church to get married.

This might also apply to Anglican priests who were ordained by Old Catholic bishops.

But despite his ordination, such a heretic would still need the intent to do what the Church teaches in order to confect the Eucharist, therefore the odds of someone whose belief in the Real Presence has lapsed being able to confect the Sacrament seem relatively slim.

 

[oat_soda]

I said we have to submit to him in the matters that Pastor Aeternus lays out. Don’t you agree? It is a dogmatic constitution.

how can i disagree? the church has spoken and the issue is closed. of course i agree.

So, are you saying that we only owe him obedience and submission to matters of discipline as far as we think they are right?

no, in matters of discipline out lined in Pastor Aeternus, we owe obedience. but we may disagree with his decisions in as far as a better decision could have been chosen. the pope is only protected from leading the faithful into error, not making the best decision at the best time.

 

[muledog]

Petertherock:

I have in fact attended a communion service by a deacon on a Sunday. As I posted in another thread earlier, our normal priest was on vacation and our fill in priest was sick and couldn’t make it. So our deacon had a communion service. Our deacon stated that this service did indeed count as fullfilling your Sunday obligation. He also stated as we have fewer priests this is what we will be facing in the future.

Your deacon was wrong. Attendance at a “communion service” can never substitute for the Sunday Mass obligation. What he probably meant to say is, because you made every attempt to hear Mass on Sunday, no priest was available. In that case, there would be no obligation.

Things might be different, say, if there were another parish a mile or so down the road, and they had Mass scheduled throughout the day.

 

[bear06]

oat soda:

how can i disagree? the church has spoken and the issue is closed. of course i agree. no, in matters of discipline out lined in Pastor Aeternus, we owe obedience. but we may disagree with his decisions in as far as a better decision could have been chosen. the pope is only protected from leading the faithful into error, not making the best decision at the best time.

Obedience and submisssion. Gotta run. Going on a hike.