W
Walking_Home
Guest
Correct—yet Council of Trent–could not have imagined—that in the future—others would use this–to basicly over turn what the Council had stated.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Correct—yet Council of Trent–could not have imagined—that in the future—others would use this–to basicly over turn what the Council had stated.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
If God punishes me for following St. Pius X, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena teaches regarding obedience to the Vicar of Christ, then so be it. I am always charged to take the safer course of action and to do the lesser evil or the greatest good. It has never been an act of holiness to reject the constitutions, decrees, and declarations of an Ecumenical Council. Never. The excuse that we live in unprecedented times is convenient excuse for sin. We may never do evil so that good may result. I must remain loyal to traditional Catholic teaching which states…
“There is no holiness in dissension with the pope.” (St. Pius X).
“Divine obedience NEVER prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father.” (St. Catherine).
“There are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power…Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him*** to do something wherein he is not subject to him***.” (St. Thomas Aquinas).
Unless I receive a command from God himself to do otherwise, I will obey the Roman Pontiff in all things religious.
“There is no holiness in dissension with the pope.” (St. Pius X).
“Divine obedience NEVER prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father.” (St. Catherine).
“There are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power…Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him*** to do something wherein he is not subject to him***.” (St. Thomas Aquinas).
Unless I receive a command from God himself to do otherwise, I will obey the Roman Pontiff in all things religious.
G
Genesis315
Guest
So the infallibility of the Council fo Trent only applies to a specific time because times are so different and they didn’t know what the future would be like? That’s pretty much textbook modernism.
Correct—yet Council of Trent–could not have imagined—that in the future—others would use this–to basicly over turn what the Council had stated.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Council of Trent, meeting IN council AS an ecumenical council and ratified by the Pope, was guided by the Holy Spirit. And no one is using Trent to overturn Trent (unless you’re attempting to say the Quo Primum is absolutely binding on Pope St. Pius V’s successors). Our friend Andreas Hofer dealt with that here. An interesting read:
Correct—yet Council of Trent–could not have imagined—that in the future—others would use this–to basicly over turn what the Council had stated.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2402054#post2402054
W
Walking_Home
Guest
So the infallibility of the Council fo Trent only applies to a specific time because times are so different and they didn’t know what the future would be like? That’s pretty much textbook modernism.
Actually—quite the opposite. It is using the Council of Trent --to try and justify modernism—that creates the problems.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I think the quotes above from saints and doctors shows that it is quite TRADITIONAL for Catholcis to obey the Roman Pontiff when it comes to his formal teachings, promulgated in his constitutions, decrees, declarations, encyclicals, as well as the approved ecclesiastical disciplinary norms for the universal Church, most especially canon law and liturgical norms.
The dubious claim, unprecedented in all of Catholic history, is that we can discard the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, disobey universal canon law, and the duly approved liturgical norms of the Latin Rite and still be considered a “good Catholic.”
Yet, that’s not what this thread is about, is it? It was about the rather dubious citation of St. Catherine of Siena in support of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff.
Can anybody quote one verifiable source from St. Catherine which supports the claim that obedience to the Roman Pontiff can sometime lead to eternal damnation? If not, then why do Lefebvrist apologist cling to such a claim?
The dubious claim, unprecedented in all of Catholic history, is that we can discard the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, disobey universal canon law, and the duly approved liturgical norms of the Latin Rite and still be considered a “good Catholic.”
Yet, that’s not what this thread is about, is it? It was about the rather dubious citation of St. Catherine of Siena in support of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff.
Can anybody quote one verifiable source from St. Catherine which supports the claim that obedience to the Roman Pontiff can sometime lead to eternal damnation? If not, then why do Lefebvrist apologist cling to such a claim?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Modernism is a heresy strictly defined by the Church. It isn’t simply the state of “modern” or “contemporary.” Whatever age the Church exists in is “modern” and “contemporary” for the Church at that time.
Actually—quite the opposite. It is using the Council of Trent --to try and justify modernism—that creates the problems.
If you’re arguing that liberals, radical feminists, and gay activists et al are using Trent to justify their stances, I’d be glad (and shocked and surprised!) to read where they’re quoting that particular council. If you’re arguing that those who are defending the concept of obedience to the Church, the Pope, the Council, the Mass, etc., are modernists, then I’d like to see how your definition of modernism compares to the Church’s.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Modernism is a heresy strictly defined by the Church. It isn’t simply the state of “modern” or “contemporary.” Whatever age the Church exists in is “modern” and “contemporary” for the Church at that time.
If you’re arguing that liberals, radical feminists, and gay activists et al are using Trent to justify their stances, I’d be glad (and shocked and surprised!) to read where they’re quoting that particular council. If you’re arguing that those who are defending the concept of obedience to the Church, the Pope, the Council, the Mass, etc., are modernists, then I’d like to see how your definition of modernism compares to the Church’s.
I have defended the papacy in many threads–what I will not do is use the Council of Trent to defend what is not infallible. The Pope is infallible in very narrow circumstances. Outside of this—a Pope can make mistakes. It is extending that infallibility outside that range—that can cause “obedience” to have negative effects.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
And in what instances is obedience to a pope having a negative effect? And what do you regard as being NOT infallible that is being defended as infallible?
I have defended the papacy in many threads–what I will not do is use the Council of Trent to defend what is not infallible. The Pope is infallible in very narrow circumstances. Outside of this—a Pope can make mistakes. It is extending that infallibility outside that range—that can cause “obedience” to have negative effects.
G
Genesis315
Guest
In both civil and ecclesiastical authority, we acknowledge that that authority comes from God. To disobey either would be to disobey God–unless they exceed their authority. This would only happen if they commanded to do something openly repugnant to the natural law or the divine law or if they exceed their sphere of authority.
The Pope is protected from commanding us to hold to falsehoods (the dogma of papal infallibility). He has supreme authority concerning doctrinal matters as such.
He also is given by God supreme authority over Church government. Therefore, if he says, don’t ordain bishops, you don’t–even if you disagree that it’s a good idea. Likewise, according to Trent, the Church has the authority to change the rites as she sees fit–in subsequnet magisterial texts we explicitly taught that the has final say concerning such changes. If he says use this rite instead of that one, we must obey.
However, if the Pope exceeds his authority he could be resisted without sin. For example, if he told you to sleep with your friend’s wife, you would be right to say no–since he has no authority to command sin. Likewise, if you were the king of some country, and the pope told you not to build a certain highway, you would not have to obey since temporal matters such as that are outside his sphere of authority. Or if he told you to change the drapes on your house, you wouldn’t have to either.
But, if he is acting within his sphere of authority–which is all things doctrinal and ecclesiastical, we must obey.
Likewise, if the state said we had to also ordain married men, we would be right to resist, since the state would be acting outside it’s sphere. Same if it made us use a certain liturgical book–that’s not in its sphere of authority (although, Charlemagne basically suppressed the Gallican rite, but he had the Pope’s approval).
The Pope is protected from commanding us to hold to falsehoods (the dogma of papal infallibility). He has supreme authority concerning doctrinal matters as such.
He also is given by God supreme authority over Church government. Therefore, if he says, don’t ordain bishops, you don’t–even if you disagree that it’s a good idea. Likewise, according to Trent, the Church has the authority to change the rites as she sees fit–in subsequnet magisterial texts we explicitly taught that the has final say concerning such changes. If he says use this rite instead of that one, we must obey.
However, if the Pope exceeds his authority he could be resisted without sin. For example, if he told you to sleep with your friend’s wife, you would be right to say no–since he has no authority to command sin. Likewise, if you were the king of some country, and the pope told you not to build a certain highway, you would not have to obey since temporal matters such as that are outside his sphere of authority. Or if he told you to change the drapes on your house, you wouldn’t have to either.
But, if he is acting within his sphere of authority–which is all things doctrinal and ecclesiastical, we must obey.
Likewise, if the state said we had to also ordain married men, we would be right to resist, since the state would be acting outside it’s sphere. Same if it made us use a certain liturgical book–that’s not in its sphere of authority (although, Charlemagne basically suppressed the Gallican rite, but he had the Pope’s approval).
W
Walking_Home
Guest
And in what instances is obedience to a pope having a negative effect?
I said can have–but I will provide one instance: Pope Paul VI allowed communion in the hand----Pope John Paul II was aware of where this has led —yet he let it continue–since those who receive reverently take precedence.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
You’re changing the subject. Please address the inaccuracy of this statement, which is what I was addressing:The disciplines of the Church (into which category the liturgies of the Church fall) enjoy a negative infallibility per the Council of Trent, which clearly anathematized any who stated that those disciplines could lead the faitful into impiety. That’s not the opinion of one saint, that’s an act proposed by a Council of the Church and promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff.
That is false. A pope can lead the Church into error, and popes have done so.It’s also basic Catholicism that by virtue of the charism of his office, the Pope cannot lead the Church into error.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No one is saying that communion in the hand enjoys the infallibility that dogma or doctrine or a cannonization or Humanae Vitae, etc., enjoy. It is a discipline that could be prudentially wise or unwise. But if it is a discipline proposed or allowed by the Church, it enjoys that negative infallibility that has been spoken of, ie, it ISN’T, of itself, going to lead the faithful to impiety. Can the “faithful” commit an act of impiety employing this discipline of the Church? You bet! They certainly could have when communion on the tongue was the norm, but no one would ever imagine saying that communion on the tongue was thereby rendered wrong or ill-conceived.
I said can have–but I will provide one instance: Pope Paul VI allowed communion in the hand----Pope John Paul II was aware of where this has led —yet he let it continue–since those who receive reverently take precedence.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
The Servant of God John Paul II concedes, by the way, that there are those who rec. in the hand reverently. Therefore, there can be nothing ontollogically wrong or sinful by reception this way, unless it is forbidden by the proper authority.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Not in his dogmatic teaching to the whole of the Church if he intends to bind the whole of the Church and he invokes his charism as successor to Saint Peter. It is not off topic to mention that the disciplines he approves enjoy a negative infallibility (basic Catholicism, as you are fond of pointing out).You’re changing the subject. Please address the inaccuracy of this statement, which is what I was addressing:
That is false. A pope can lead the Church into error, and popes have done so.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
No one is saying that communion in the hand enjoys the infallibility that dogma or doctrine or a cannonization or Humanae Vitae, etc., enjoy. It is a discipline that could be prudentially wise or unwise. But if it is a discipline proposed or allowed by the Church, it enjoys that negative infallibility that has been spoken of, ie, it ISN’T, of itself, going to lead the faithful to impiety. Can the “faithful” commit an act of impiety employing this discipline of the Church? You bet! They certainly could have when communion on the tongue was the norm, but no one would ever imagine saying that communion on the tongue was thereby rendered wrong or ill-conceived.
The Servant of God John Paul II concedes, by the way, that there are those who rec. in the hand reverently. Therefore, there can be nothing ontollogically wrong or sinful by reception this way, unless it is forbidden by the proper authority.
While I agree–communion on the tongue will not offer 100% protection from sacriledge—it does greatly diminish the occurance. Now as to negative infallibility—it was our late Pope who connected — “However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species” to communion in the hand. That does shed a different light on “negative infallibility”.
A
AlexV
Guest
The same old tiresome oversimplification.
Popes are “infallible” in very narrow circumstances. Not everything a pope approves discipinarily is necessarily efficacious.
Paul VI allowed experimentation in the Mass. That’s a fact. He told the Consilium for implementing Vatican II that experiments could be conducted.
Did they lead to rather un-efficacious results? Certainly one could argue they did.
That’s because Paul’s decision to allow experiments in 1967 wasn’t infallible - positively or negatively.
Popes are “infallible” in very narrow circumstances. Not everything a pope approves discipinarily is necessarily efficacious.
Paul VI allowed experimentation in the Mass. That’s a fact. He told the Consilium for implementing Vatican II that experiments could be conducted.
Did they lead to rather un-efficacious results? Certainly one could argue they did.
That’s because Paul’s decision to allow experiments in 1967 wasn’t infallible - positively or negatively.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I didn’t say “off topic,” I said you’re changing the subject. You stated that a pope cannot teach error. Now you are apparently changing your statement, but why can’t you at least admit that you were wrong without changing the subject to make appear that you were right?Not in his dogmatic teaching to the whole of the Church if he intends to bind the whole of the Church and he invokes his charism as successor to Saint Peter. It is not off topic to mention that the disciplines he approves enjoy a negative infallibility (basic Catholicism, as you are fond of pointing out).
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The negative affect described above comes from NOT obeying the pope. The “deplorable lack of respect” does not come from those with “profound reverence and devotion” receive the Lord Jesus in the hand. Such reverent reception in the hand is described by St. John Chrysostom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/viewpost.gif
And in what instances is obedience to a pope having a negative effect?
I said can have–but I will provide one instance: Pope Paul VI allowed communion in the hand----Pope John Paul II was aware of where this has led —yet he let it continue–since those who receive reverently take precedence.
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…-cenae_en.html
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The negative affect described above comes from NOT obeying the pope. The “deplorable lack of respect” does not come from those with “profound reverence and devotion” receive the Lord Jesus in the hand. Such reverent reception in the hand is described by St. John Chrysostom.
It comes from the authority the Pope has given—that of allowing communion in the hand.
Now I am surprised —you – using the same type of approach—as those who are pushing for the “early church” model.
C
Creary
Guest
Perhaps, the so called quote, given in the original post, is not a quote (as many have successfully contested) but rather a paraphrasing (perhaps it’s better described as a mis-paraphrasing) of the following, taken from St. Catherine’s letter in To Gregory XI which was graciously provided by itsjustdave1988. [bold is my emphasis]
This paraphrase doesn’t seem to fit with what others have quoted from St. Catherine, but her actual words above, which seem to indicate that the shepherd-physician could cause others along with himself to fall into hell, must be taken into consideration. Shouldn’t it?
Now I don’t know if St. Catherine meant it this way but the above quote perhaps is the
Respectfully,
Brian
“For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel. All this is because he loves himself. Sometimes men like this want to get along with purely peaceful means. I say that this is the very worst cruelty which can be shown. If a wound when necessary is not cauterized or cut out with steel, but simply covered with ointment, not only does it fail to heal, but it infects everything, and many a time death follows from it.
I think the originator of the so call quote could pull the bolded items out of context and give them the meaning they want. That meaning would be that the Pope, who is the shepherd of the Church and thus the shepherd-physician of the faithful, could give no regard to what is right but only to what is pleasing and thus be as Christ says, a blind man guiding others into the ditch. That is, the sick, though they follow the prescriptions of the shepherd-physician, fall into hell with him (the physician). And that such a shepherd (i.e. Pope) would be devouring his sheep himself, for he would be the wolf.Oh me, oh me, sweetest “Babbo” mine! This is the reason that all the subjects are corrupted by impurity and iniquity. Oh me, weeping I say it! How dangerous is that worm we spoke of! For not only does it give death to the shepherd, but all the rest fall into sickness and death through it. Why does that shepherd go on using so much ointment? Because he does not suffer in consequence! For no displeasure visits one and no ill will, from spreading ointment over the sick; since one does nothing contrary to their will; they wanted ointment, and so ointment is given them. Oh, human wretchedness! Blind is the sick man who does not know his own need, and blind the shepherd-physician, who has regard to nothing but pleasing, and his own advantage–since, not to forfeit it, he refrains from using the knife of justice or the fire of ardent charity! But such men do as Christ says: for if one blind man guide the other, both fall into the ditch. Sick man and physician fall into hell. Such a man is a right hireling shepherd, for, far from dragging his sheep from the hands of the wolf, he devours them himself.”
This paraphrase doesn’t seem to fit with what others have quoted from St. Catherine, but her actual words above, which seem to indicate that the shepherd-physician could cause others along with himself to fall into hell, must be taken into consideration. Shouldn’t it?
Now I don’t know if St. Catherine meant it this way but the above quote perhaps is the
which bear06 was asking someone to provide in post #36. Or perhaps I have completly misunderstood St Catherine in this letter.“quote that says if we obey the Holy Father and he’s blown it that we are going to hell - one that’s not bogus”
Respectfully,
Brian
- Status
- Not open for further replies.