Liberal Catholic Conspiracy Theory

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jul 5 2004, 04:02 PM'] Hi Zach,

Popes can be private heretics.  What they can't do, however, is teach heresy [i]ex cathedra[/i].  No Roman Pontiff has done so in 2,000 years.  That says something.

God bless,

Jennifer [/quote]
Although it was left an open question by the Fathers of the First Vatican Council as to whether the Pope could personally be a heretic or not, it is a pious opinion, and one held by many at that Council to be probably true, that the Pope cannot even personally be a heretic. But prescinding from that question, as a public person it is not possible for the Pope to teach heresy, and this is a [i]de fide credenda[/i] Catholic dogma. As to the question of Pope Honorius I, and whether he was a heretic, I would like to point out that he was not a heretic. If you read the letters he issued on the topic of monothelitism, which was the heresy that taught that Christ only had a divine will and no human will, you will see that he clearly asserted diothelitism, which is the orthodox doctrine of two wills and energies in Christ, one divine, the other human. Now, when Honorius spoke in his letters about there being only "one will" in Christ, he was not referring to the unity of His person, but to His human nature alone. What he was teaching is that in Christ's human nature, unlike that of any other man since the fall of Adam, there is but one will, i.e., an unvitiated human will; or in other words, Pope Honorius I was teaching that Christ is not subject to the foams (i.e., concupiscence) in His human nature as other men are. Therefore, Christ is perfect man. This teaching is fully orthodox, in fact to deny it is to fall into heresy, but many Monothelite heretics excised portions of Pope Honorius' letters in order to make it appear that he favored their theological error. Pope John IV, who had been Honorius' personal secretary before becoming Pope, wrote a letter defending Honorius and pointing out the true nature of his doctrinal teaching. It is only anti-Catholic authors who continue to promote the false notion that Honorius taught error or was at least equivocal in his presentation of the truth.

Edited July 5, 2004 by Apotheoun

[BeenaBobba]

Thanks for clarifying, Apotheoun. I always learn something reading your posts.

I would say that it would be possible for a Roman Pontiff to be a private heretic in the sense that it wouldn't be going against Catholic dogma/doctrine if this was so. But, I really don't think any of the past popes were personal heretics. Bad men? Some of them. Heretics? Probably none.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 5 2004, 01:17 PM']

3.) no, the Church has specifically said the containers MUST BE MADE OF PRECIOUS METAL. Glass and stuff is unacceptable.

[/quote]
Part of the reason is because some materials made of stone are porous and would absorb the blood. Glass can break and we don't want to splatter the blood.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jul 5 2004, 09:34 PM'] Thanks for clarifying, Apotheoun.  I always learn something reading your posts.  

I would say that it would be possible for a Roman Pontiff to be a private heretic in the sense that it wouldn't be going against Catholic dogma/doctrine if this was so.  But, I really don't think any of the past popes were personal heretics.  Bad men?  Some of them.  Heretics?  Probably none.

God bless,

Jennifer [/quote]


I agree.

In my original post I didn't mean to imply that a Pope had ever taught heresies, because I know that's false. I agree, however, that there probably weren't any sho were heretics in private.

What that should say in my original one was "if there were," they didn't leave any trace.


Todd, I'm in agreement with you concerning Pope Honorius. I believe that St. Bellarmine actually wrote on him and why he couldn't be.

I wish I could go back to edit my orginal post...

Thanx for :wub: me!

Edited July 6, 2004 by qfnol31

[dUSt]

All I know, is if the ultra-liberals don't like the pope, and the ultra-conservatives don't like the pope, you gotta figure he's doing something right. haha

[RemnantRules]

hahaha . keeping it the straight and narrow.(i'm talking about the pope)

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jul 6 2004, 01:32 AM'] All I know, is if the ultra-liberals don't like the pope, and the ultra-conservatives don't like the pope, you gotta figure he's doing something right. haha [/quote]
Word.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='RemnantRules' date='Jul 6 2004, 01:37 AM'] hahaha . keeping it the straight and narrow.(i'm talking about the pope) [/quote]
Yep!

God bless,

Jen

[qfnol31]

LoL, my last edit to my last post changed the page that Jason's post ended up on...strange.

[Sinner]

[quote]1.) Female alter servers and communion in the hand have been supported by the Holy Father and the vast majority of the Magisterium. To believe that they are illegitimate borderlines very much on heresy, for we are to believe not just in word and deed, but in a total, humble conversion of mind, that which is taught by the Church.[/quote]

--[b]HERESY?[/b] Easy now Tiger!...Let's keep an eye on those Phorum Guidelines!! They are not illegitimate, and my post never says they are.... they are tolerated--not supported, it is obvious the Pope prefers male Altar Servers as evidenced by the strong wording of the recent document Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding the Eucharist. Also, it is my understanding that Communion on tongue is the norm... hand is allowed by special indult...probably due to the fact that so many Americans had already been told it was the "official Vatican preference" to take it in the hand by their so-called liturgists.... so JP2 finally gave in (my opinion).

2.) Homilies.... we agree.


[quote]3.) It is my understanding that any container can be made "precious" through the blessing of a priest or bishop. Again, someone please double check.[/quote]

--From GIRM 2003:
328. Sacred vessels are to be made from [b]precious metal[/b] . If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.

329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and [b]do not easily break [/b] or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.

--Glass seems like it could easily break.........

[quote]4.) A person trained as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion can, in extreme cases that have been discussed in another thread, distribute the Blessed Sacrament. A blessing can only be given by a member of the clergy. If an EOMoHC is giving out blessings, please inform the person that this is a liturgical abuse. If the problem persists, please contact your parish priest or bishop.[/quote]
--Not only do they often do both, but they are often referred to in Church Bulletins as "Eucharistic Ministers"

So anyhow.........all of these things coincidence?.... hmmmmmmmmm

Edited July 6, 2004 by Sinner

[Aloysius]

it's not against the Phorum Guidelines to label an idea a heresy. it's against them to arbitrarily call someone a heretic.

Pax Amorque Christi

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thanks for the defense Aloysius, however, I would like to personally apologize to Sinner. I was not, in any way shape or form, accusing you of heresy. Rather, I was stating that if one were to claim those things as being illegitimate, that would, in fact, be heresy. You are correct to say that receiving on the tongue is the norm worldwide, and, as such (in my opinion) in the interest of unity among the faithful, should be practiced unless receiving in the hand is necessary (ie priest has bad eyesight and cannot safely place the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue).

I would also like to thank everyone for the correction on the issue of precious containers for the Eucharist. The explaination makes perfect sense.

[quote]Not only do they often do both, but they are often referred to in Church Bulletins as "Eucharistic Ministers"[/quote]

I believe the term "often" is relative in this instance. My home parish (sadly) is very heterodox, yet I rarely see an EMoHC give out a "blessing." As I stated before, if this occurs, it is a liturgical abuse and the member of the laity (if he or she understands the gravity of what they are doing) may be placing him or herself in a state of grave sin. Sadly, EMoHC are also referred to as "eucharistic ministers" in my parish as well. It is a practice that needs to stop.

Like you, I do not see these things as coincidence, but rather, as a societal trend. I do not, as I said before, see it as an organized "conspiracy."

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 6 2004, 10:06 AM'] Thanks for the defense Aloysius, however, I would like to personally apologize to Sinner. I was not, in any way shape or form, accusing you of heresy. Rather, I was stating that if one were to claim those things as being illegitimate, that would, in fact, be heresy. You are correct to say that receiving on the tongue is the norm worldwide, and, as such (in my opinion) in the interest of unity among the faithful, should be practiced unless receiving in the hand is necessary (ie priest has bad eyesight and cannot safely place the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue).

[/quote]
To deny an indult lawfully given by the Apostolic See would not be to fall into heresy, but if one openly disputed the legitimate right to use the indult, it would be an act of disobedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. So, Jeff is correct in emphasizing the necessity of hierarchical obedience to the authority of the Magisterium when it issues liturgical norms. Now, I don't believe that anyone here denies that the Holy See has given an indult permitting communion in the hand in the Latin Rite dioceses of the United States, and some other Western countries as well. Thus, where the indult is in force, communion on the tongue or communion in the hand is left to the discretion of the communicant. In addition, I sincerely doubt that anyone here denies that the universal norm of law in the Roman Rite is to receive communion on the tongue. Receiving on the tongue is the standard practice and custom of the Latin Rite and has been for more than a millennium, and as such it has a primacy over any indult given; but regardless, communion in the hand is lawfully permitted in those countries where the Bishops have applied for the indult permitting the practice, and where that application has received the 'recognitio' of the Holy See.

[Crusader_4]

Question in regards to blessings...i was under the impression taht anyone could bless anyone. If not thats fine i was just curious what the rubrics were for giving an individual a blessing.

[Sinner]

Jeff,
Thank you for your kind aplogy, but on looking back at your post and noting Al's point above..... I believe it is unnecessary. Methinks I doth protest too hard. I was posting late at night..... or early in the morning depending on outlook, and was being too thin skinned. And for that I am sorry.

I don't really know if there is a concerted liberal effort to change the Church or not..... But I [i]am[/i] certain the gov't is hiding something in Roswell. :transform: