Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Obeying The Pope


HartfordWhalers

Recommended Posts

Guest JeffCR07

[quote]OK it seems clear no one here is willing to change on the issue of the wife's necessity of being submissive[/quote]

I do not appreciate the above comment. Everyone here is in agreement (I believe) with the fact that, in the order of authority, the wife is submissive to the husband. However, as have been saying, and as the excerpt from the article that I have posted above shows, John Paul II's writing is clearly dealing with regards to the order of charity, in which there is mutual subjection of one to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HartfordWhalers

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 6 2004, 11:08 AM']
I do not appreciate the above comment. Everyone here is in agreement (I believe) with the fact that, in the order of authority, the wife is submissive to the husband. However, as have been saying, and as the excerpt from the article that I have posted above shows, John Paul II's writing is clearly dealing with regards to the order of charity, in which there is mutual subjection of one to another. [/quote]
I am sorry. I did not mean that how I said it... I suppose I am bad with words. That has happened to me many times on this message board. I meant that no one was going to accept that the Pope is contradicting the previous Popes, not that the wife must be submissive (which you all agree on as far as I can tell for the most part).

However, how is it that this verse now addresses charity when in the past the Popes have made it clear that it addresses AUTHORITY. (I would prefer you answer this but AFTER you address the comment on the Pope's contradiction of all Popes of the past--except possibly Paul VI--regarding the Church's teaching of ALL ages that no Catholic can attend a non-Catholic service, for any reason, as Pope Pius XI made clear.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CreepyCrawler

isn't the original question on how far the pope's authority extended? if the Pope tried to make me eat broccoli, which i don't like, i could say no since that has nothing to do with religion or dogma. but if the Pope issues a papal bull or another ex cathedra (is that what you call it?) statement, i have to follow it since i'm catholic. is that what you're asking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HartfordWhalers

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Sep 6 2004, 03:30 PM'] isn't the original question on how far the pope's authority extended? if the Pope tried to make me eat broccoli, which i don't like, i could say no since that has nothing to do with religion or dogma. but if the Pope issues a papal bull or another ex cathedra (is that what you call it?) statement, i have to follow it since i'm catholic. is that what you're asking? [/quote]
I was speaking of things not ex cathedra. Many people here will claim that no Pope can contradict another on things not ex cathedra, but it is simply absurd, since I have just posted something that does just that (John Paul II vs. Pius XI & the rest of Popes in history on non-Catholic services).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]However, how is it that this verse now addresses charity when in the past the Popes have made it clear that it addresses AUTHORITY. (I would prefer you answer this but AFTER you address the comment on the Pope's contradiction of all Popes of the past--except possibly Paul VI--regarding the Church's teaching of ALL ages that no Catholic can attend a non-Catholic service, for any reason, as Pope Pius XI made clear.) [/quote]

About St. Paul, is it inconcevable that this scripture passage can address [i]both[/i] authority and charity? This is not contradiction - Scripture can address things on different levels at the same time. This has been Church teaching regarding Scripture. These Popes do not contradict one another. These Woods and Ferrari (or whatever his name is) characters are falling all over themselves to try to "prove" their devious thesis!

And you've never said specifically (with exact quotes, not just an accusation) what the Pope said about non-Catholic services that you find so offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HartfordWhalers

The fact that you can attend them! That is what is offensive. What's worse is what someone else quoted to "correct" someone who said you can't read at a non-Catholic service with what John Paul II wrote in 1992 (I think) saying you CAN read at a non-Catholic service... that is a direct contradiction, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(PedroX, yes indeed: reply coming soon)

I cannot figure out how to paste the website link, but here follows pertinent parts from [i]Mortalium Animos (On Fostering True Religious Unity[/i]), and it's on the Vatican's Webpage. It was written in 1928.

I've edited out quite a bit....otherwise no one'd read it. It's very short and of course should be read in its entirety.[i] I've [/i][b]also[/b] [color=purple]added[/color] emphasis...



2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, [i]they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life[/i].

[b]For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.[/b]

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy...

[color=red]3. ... some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians[/color].

[i]4. ... [b]All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion,[/b] ... These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify... [b]But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which [color=red]the foundations of the Catholic faith [/color]are completely destroyed. [/b]

6... Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race...

Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies ... although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: [color=green]but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.[/color] [/i]

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

[color=purple]10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it[/color]...

13... We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us:[color=purple] if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. [/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='XIX' date='Sep 5 2004, 04:22 PM'] Dude, the Pope isn't perfect.

Neither is a brain surgeon. But I sure as heck would rather trust him with my life than some teenage student who think he knows what he is doing. [/quote]
:rolling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting when people try to pit one Pope against another Pope. The disciplinary directives of a Pope cannot bind his successors, for it is a principle of canon law that "equal cannot bind equal." Now, this holds for all the disciplinary directives issued by the Holy See. So when one Pope discourages ecumenical activity, which is perfectly within his rights and powers as Supreme Pontiff, while another Pope encourages it, one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience. Do not confuse dogmatic and doctrinal decisions of the Pope, which are irreformable by definition, with disciplinary laws.

As far as it concerns ecumenism two things are to be avoided: (1) the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is as good as another; and (2) a triumphalism, which holds that the Church must not attempt to bring her errant children back into the fullness of truth that is found only in the Catholic Church, but must constantly condemn those outside the visible body of the Church. Moreover, the manner in which the latter activity is done, is for the supreme authority of the Church to decide, it is not a matter to be decided by the lay faithful. Vatican 1 defined as a dogma of Divine and Catholic faith the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and so no one is to dissent from his governing directives even in matters that are not [i]de fide[/i], for as the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], Chapter 3, no. 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 7 2004, 04:53 PM']Ap can you send that answer to the apologetics section?[/quote]
I don't actually know how to do that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HartfordWhalers

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 06:37 PM'] I find it interesting when people try to pit one Pope against another Pope. The disciplinary directives of a Pope cannot bind his successors, for it is a principle of canon law that "equal cannot bind equal." Now, this holds for all the disciplinary directives issued by the Holy See. So when one Pope discourages ecumenical activity, which is perfectly within his rights and powers as Supreme Pontiff, while another Pope encourages it, one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience. Do not confuse dogmatic and doctrinal decisions of the Pope, which are irreformable by definition, with disciplinary laws.

As far as it concerns ecumenism two things are to be avoided: (1) the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is as good as another; and (2) a triumphalism, which holds that the Church must not attempt to bring her errant children back into the fullness of truth that is found only in the Catholic Church, but must constantly condemn those outside the visible body of the Church. Moreover, the manner in which the latter activity is done, is for the supreme authority of the Church to decide, it is not a matter to be decided by the lay faithful. Vatican 1 defined as a dogma of Divine and Catholic faith the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and so no one is to dissent from his governing directives even in matters that are not [i]de fide[/i], for as the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], Chapter 3, no. 2] [/quote]
"They make a point that "conservatives" (name neo-Catholics) blindly follow all the Pope says, stating that everything the Pope says is "de facto" in line with Tradition. He goes ahead to point out places that this is not true"

That was the first post. This is consiering not whether a Pope can bind another but if a Pope can be out of line with Tradition in his actions.

"one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience"

Not if they are not in line with [b]T[/b]radition, or even if they are not in line with the [i]t[/i]radition of every Pope (except MAYBE one before him), then ther is NO obligation to follow what he says! Unless you claim that it's wrong to follow what every Pope in history has taught, save one or two.

"As far as it concerns ecumenism two things are to be avoided: (1) the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is as good as another; and (2) a triumphalism, which holds that the Church must not attempt to bring her errant children back into the fullness of truth that is found only in the Catholic Church, but must constantly condemn those outside the visible body of the Church."

Neither of these are avoided at 99% of ecumenical services/talks, etc. The other 1% only one of them is avoided...

"Vatican 1 defined as a dogma of Divine and Catholic faith the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and so no one is to dissent from his governing directives even in matters that are not [i]de fide[/i], for as the Fathers of the First Vatican Council said, "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], Chapter 3, no. 2]"

That doesn't mean NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. How about when John XXII said that there is no actual judgment? What were they to do then, submit without a peep? Of course not! Heresy is heresy no matter who its from, whether or not it's the Pope and whether or not he is a formal or material heretic. It is a HERESY to say there is no actual judgment. John XXII said there was none (then he rejected it on his death bed). So, that was regarding FAITH. This ecumenism is not even regarding Faith. Maybe John Paul II will reject it on his deathbed. What would you think then? And if he doesn't, how can you answer that if a Pope is outside of Tradition or tradition as taught throughout history, how can you say you must submit to that? As you can see, a Pope can personally teach and believe a heresy, just look at John XXII. If he can do that, then certainly his views on practices with non-Catholics can be completely wrong, as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...