I know. But forgiveness of sins comes from a different quote which says, **"Whose sins you forgive, they are forgive,. Whose sins you retain, they are retained. " ** Two different quotes for two different topics.Which MOST folks perhaps mistakenly believe refers only to forgiveness of sins.
But I wonder how many people actually pondered and realized this?
All law, especially ecclesiastical law, must serve the Truth and moral teaching of the Church. A command cannot be obeyed which would offend truth or right conduct, even if the law cited in the command is ecclesiastical. Saint Robert Bellarmine put it this way:
Pray tell, what did the pope do that was against scripture or Gods revealed truth.
You’re serious, right?
Where does the Church teach that the statement or commentary of a Pope is binding on any and all future Popes forever?
The fact that Mr. Venari claims that Popes John Paul and Benedict XVI have embraced false ecumenism and a prepackaged modernism doesn’t make it so. Mr. Vernari has no more authority on the matter than the next scholar who writes the opposite.
I think perhaps you may have forgotten the line in scripture which confers the power of loosing and binding on the Holy Father… They can do this on discipline you know. Not infallible teaching.
Yah, what he said…The fact that Mr. Venari claims that Popes John Paul and Benedict XVI have embraced false ecumenism and a prepackaged modernism doesn’t make it so. Mr. Vernari has no more authority on the matter than the next scholar who writes the opposite.
The only authority that can challenge this is a Council of Bishops. This has not happened.
As to the encyclical by Pius X, no one has said that it is wrong. Pius X content is correct. The approach that a pope chooses to address these issues are proper to the pope in offic. Just as previous popes could not tell Pius X how to run the Church during his time, neither can Pius X do so today, nor would this holy man want to do such a thing.
Finally, St. Robert Bellarmine clearly says that a pope who errs do so when he makes pronouncements contrary to scripture, natural law, reason, moral law (if the law is still in effect), sacred tradition or dogma.
The content of Pius X encyclical and the pastoral plans of John Paul or Benedict XVI are not in conflict with any of the above.
Where is the problem with what these two popes have said or done in the area of ecumenism?
We need to be careful not to jump too eagerly on some writer’s train and dismiss the authoritative train of the Vicar of Christ.
JR
Where does the Church teach that an encyclical such as “Lamentabili Sane” may be trashed and ignored by later popes?
You love to bring up lines from scripture and apply them in the very narrowest sense. That is very misleading to many, and you should be aware of the misdirection that you are giving to others, that is a grave action on your part.
Because, due to Apostolic Succession, the “truth” is what the HMC says it is…
There were many things that were not taught to the Apostles. Where does it say that they knew about the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, transubstantiation, hypostatic union, homoousios, theotokos, mortal and venial sin, religious life, deacons, presbyters and the list goes on.
First, not everything they said was infallible. Therefore, not binding on their successors.
No, the “truth” is the very words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles. The pope can only confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change.Because, due to Apostolic Succession, the “truth” is what the HMC says it is…
That is very ambiguous…just like the modernists of Vatican II.First, not everything they said was infallible. Therefore, not binding on their successors.
Second, much of what they said has been worked into decrees and encyclicals by modern popes.
Third, no pope has ever trashed or discarded something said by a previous pope. They may have approached the same subject from a different perspective and have commented on it differently, because the perspective is different. They are really adding, not detracting.
JR
**"For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith [Tradition], and might faithfully set it forth."Then we would be limited only to the words that came from Jesus’ mouth, which would render “tradition” irrelevant.
From our Catholic Catechism:
Don’t confuse discipline with dogma. Dogmatic truths do not change. Binding discipline, which is not dogma, can be changed by popes. If you do not believe in this, ask yourself a simple question. Do you now eat meat on Fridays? it use to be a mortal sin, but that has been loosed, as it was discipline, not dogma.
If the successors of Peter cannot declare new dogmas, because they were not handed down by the Apostles, how do we explain dogmas that were declared centuries after the death of the Apostles, especially to those who are not Catholic?