Papal Oath Not To Introduce New Ideas To The Rcc

[Bruce S]

[quote]Although John Paul II seems to escape censure by saying that Vatican II “perhaps” contained something new, or that he is only concerned with “points of doctrine” rather than “doctrine,” nevertheless, the mere suggestion that Vatican II taught something “new” in regard to doctrine (as opposed, for example, to teaching something new in regards to mere pastoral issues which would certainly be allowable), seems to contradict the very declaration of Vatican I against such possibilities. When one says “points of doctrine” it is normally understood as specific statements about doctrine, and certainly nothing outside of doctrine. Logic dictates that, if they are “new,” then they were not taught before. If they were not taught before, then they were not part of Tradition. It they are not part of Tradition, then they have the potential of being erroneous. Moreover, since “points” is used in the plural, it means that John Paul II interprets Vatican II as teaching a variety of “new” things. Whether his interpretation of Vatican II is correct or not is another issue, part of which will be addressed in this essay. Suffice it to say, however, John Paul’s statement in Ecclesia Dei is confusing and cause for concern as to what he really believes both about Vatican I’s decrees and the “continuity of tradition.”

Moreover, when we consider the specific and ominous language of the Papal Oath, which solemnly warns the pope against propagating any new teaching, we shudder at the mere thought that John Paul II might interpret Vatican II as teaching new doctrine. The oath which each pope is required to take states:



[color=blue][i]“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess; I swear to God Almighty and Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church.  I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”[/i][/color]

Not only is this language rather foreboding against any pope who would dare change or introduce something new into Catholic teaching, the italicized portions show that it is certainly a possibility that the pope himself could indeed disobey the oath and thus introduce new teaching, otherwise there would be no reason for him to take the oath if he were immune from such transgressions. Hence, our thesis is proved at the outset – the very oath required of the pope indicates that it is possible for the pope to err, and indeed, on the very issues of the faith he chooses not to protect under the domain of infallibility[/quote]

Comments?

[url="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/errs.htm"]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/errs.htm[/url]

[popestpiusx]

The oath against Modernism should never have been dropped. What I find interesting is that many priests took it. But after it was eliminated even the ones who took started acting like it had no binding force. They took the oath and are bound by it until death or until they are relieved from it by the Holy Father.

[popestpiusx]

Just to anticipate your comments, Bruce, this ommission of the Oath does not indicate a doctrinal change. The Holy Father was perfectly free to drop it. I think it was a horrible mistake, but he had the right to do it.

[Bruce S]

Errr...

Don't forget, I ALWAYS have maintained, and still do the COMPLETE right of the Catholic Church to manage her affairs in any way she deems fit to do so.

Remember, we Protestants are not hung up on the need to be right all the time, to us, squabbling is part of the FUN part of being a Christian.

Since NONE of us Protestants hold to any actions of men, outside what was reduced and accepted in scripture, as being binding, we don't worry about these so called infallibility issues, we more or less assume ALL of us are wrong so much of the time.

Edited April 6, 2004 by Bruce S

[the lumberjack]

hahahahaha

very true...very true.

[MagiDragon]

[quote]Since NONE of us Protestants hold to any actions of men, outside what was reduced and accepted in scripture, as being binding, we don't worry about these so called infallibility issues, we more or less assume ALL of us are wrong so much of the time. [/quote]

Now *that* sheds light on things.

I'd always assumed you considered yourself right about *everything.*

[Brother Adam]

What the heck kind of admission is that? lol

[popestpiusx]

Why would you believe something if you think you are probably wrong?????????

[Hananiah]

That isn't the oath against modernism which Sungenis is quoting. That's the Papal oath which was first taken by Pope St. Agatho in A.D. 681.

[mulls]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 6 2004, 03:37 PM'] Why would you believe something if you think you are probably wrong????????? [/quote]
God's right, we're screw-ups just trying to focus on Him to put us in our place.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Apr 6 2004, 08:15 PM'] That isn't the oath against modernism which Sungenis is quoting. That's the Papal oath which was first taken by Pope St. Agatho in A.D. 681. [/quote]
Ah, yes. Of course. I was not paying very close attention now was I? How very embarassing.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 6 2004, 01:36 PM']Errr...

Don't forget, I ALWAYS have maintained, and still do the COMPLETE right of the Catholic Church to manage her affairs in any way she deems fit to do so.

Remember, we Protestants are not hung up on the need to be right all the time, to us, squabbling is part of the FUN part of being a Christian.

Since NONE of us Protestants hold to any actions of men, outside what was reduced and accepted in scripture, as being binding, we don't worry about these so called infallibility issues, we more or less assume ALL of us are wrong so much of the time.[/quote]

Sorry Brucy, but as much as you question and come over here bashing the Catholic Faith you maintain nothing.

Are you board or what!

You need to show me in Scripture were it says follow the Bible alone!

I'll give you the rest of your life because you'll never find it!

I can show you tradition in Scripture in a heart beat. But I've noticed once you get the facts you kinda fade off in the backround.

Here is just one example 1 Cor 11:2 look it up, if you need more I got more.

God Bless
Jason

Edited April 8, 2004 by Jason

[Bruce S]

[quote]You need to show me in Scripture were it says follow the Bible alone![/quote]

I *NEVER SAID* nor do I believe that the Bible ALONE is the right way....grrr.

Don't erect a stawman against me, then ask ME to defend, something YOU think I believe.

I believe that scripture is the ultimate TEST for any belief and doctrine. If it is NOT there, such as the bodily assumption "theory" the Catholic Church has "evolved" one SHOULD be able to find it there.

For example, John, who wrote a Gospel, and Revelations, lived till 90-100AD, long past when one would expect Mary to have died. In his Gospel, we find NO mention of Mary being bodily assumed, IF that happened, it would be a MASSIVE miracle, and ALL the Christians would latch onto this and write about it, he did not.

That is pretty amazing, silence on Jesus's mother being bodily assumed into heaven.

So, this to me, indicates it is myth.

[Livin_the_MASS]

You don't know your Bible do you. People in the Old Testament were assumed into heaven

Gn 5:24 (Hb11:5)- Enoch taken to heaven without dying

2 Kg 2:11 -Elijah assumend into heaven in fiery chariot

Hmmm....

It happened in the Old Testament? Wow did you know that? So God can do whatever He wants.

Since you looked over the first Scripture I'll give you a little 1 Cor 11:2-"hold fast to traditions I handed on to you."

peace

[Livin_the_MASS]

[color=red](Please use Christian Charity, Bruce has done nothing wrong.)[/color]