Obeying The Pope

[cmotherofpirl]

John did not teach that as doctrine, so you are wrong.
Popes do not teach heresy.
That would mean the gates of hell have prevailed.

To call the Pope a heretic is define yourself as one.

Lack of Respect to the Religious- a post or comment by a Catholic that criticizes or shows lack of obedience to priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope, etc. Obedience demands that we voice these concerns in private--not in public (for obvious reasons, this doesn't apply to non-Catholics who are participating in interreligious dialogue)


Catholic vs Catholic Debate- a post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.


What part don't you understand?

Edited September 11, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:54 AM']"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"[/quote]
One is either a Catholic or not, and so there is no such thing as a "conservative" Catholic, or a "neo-Catholic." It is improper to apply political categories to the faith. A sectarian attitude is foreign to Catholicism.

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:54 AM']That was the first post. This is considering not whether a Pope can bind another but if a Pope can be out of line with Tradition in his actions.[/quote]
Pope's cannot teach things that are contrary to Tradition, and this is a [i]de fide credenda[/i] dogma of the Catholic faith. To say that a Pope can teach something contrary to tradition is to fail to grasp the teaching of the First Vatican Council.

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:54 AM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 06:37 PM']one must accept the directives of the reigning Pontiff as binding in conscience[/quote]
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 there 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.[/quote]
Please point out in the decrees of the First Vatican Council where the Fathers of the Council taught that one was allowed to dissent from the disciplinary directives of the Pope. Your statement here does not conform to the dogma of the Pope's universal primacy of jurisdiction, or to the teaching of the Papal Bulls [u]Unum Sanctum[/u] of Benedict VIII and [u]Execrabilis[/u] of Pius II.

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:54 AM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 06:37 PM']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.[/quote]
Neither of these are avoided at 99% of ecumenical services/talks, etc. The other 1% only one of them is avoided...[/quote]
This is your personal opinion, but I will follow the dogmatic teaching of the Church, which holds that the Magisterium cannot err in matters of faith and morals, and which also teaches that the governing authority of the Roman Pontiff is to be obeyed in matters of discipline even when he does not intend to bind the Church to a doctrine.

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 09:54 AM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2004, 06:37 PM']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]
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![/quote]
I find it amazing when a "Catholic" tries to promote a view which holds that John XXII was trying to bind the Catholic Church to error. Since the doctrine that a man who has no venial sins upon his soul can, after his particular judgment, enter into the Beatific Vision was only defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII, I don't see how you can argue that John XXII officially taught error. Moreover, as Bishop Gasser, quoting St. Robert Bellarmine, stated in his Relatio at the First Vatican Council, "It can be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." [Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on the Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], delivered at the First Vatican Council 11 July 1870] Now, although the view that the Pope cannot even be a heretic as a private person is not [i]de fide[/i] doctrine, it is a pious and probable opinion and as such it is a position preferable to that of those who want to accuse the present Pope of privately being a heretic.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 11 2004, 12:53 PM'] Pope's cannot teach things that are contrary to Tradition, and this is a [i]de fide credenda[/i] dogma of the Catholic faith. To say that a Pope can teach something contrary to tradition is to fail to grasp the teaching of the First Vatican Council.


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 there 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.[/QUOTE]
Please point out in the decrees of the First Vatican Council where the Fathers of the Council taught that one was allowed to dissent from the disciplinary directives of the Pope. Your statement here does not conform to the dogma of the Pope's universal primacy of jurisdiction, or to the teaching of the Papal Bulls [u]Unum Sanctum[/u] of Benedict VIII and [u]Execrabilis[/u] of Pius II.


Neither of these are avoided at 99% of ecumenical services/talks, etc. The other 1% only one of them is avoided...[/QUOTE]
This is your personal opinion, but I will follow the dogmatic teaching of the Church, which holds that the Magisterium cannot err in matters of faith and morals, and which also teaches that the governing authority of the Roman Pontiff is to be obeyed in matters of discipline even when he does not intend to bind the Church to a doctrine.


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![/QUOTE]
I find it amazing when a "Catholic" tries to promote a view which holds that John XXII was trying to bind the Catholic Church to error. Since the doctrine that a man who has no venial sins upon his soul can, after his particular judgment, enter into the Beatific Vision was only defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII, I don't see how you can argue that John XXII officially taught error. Moreover, as Bishop Gasser, quoting St. Robert Bellarmine, stated in his Relatio at the First Vatican Council, "It can be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." [Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on the Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], delivered at the First Vatican Council 11 July 1870] Now, although the view that the Pope cannot even be a heretic as a private person is not [i]de fide[/i] doctrine, it is a pious and probable opinion and as such it is a position preferable to that of those who want to accuse the present Pope of privately being a heretic. [/quote]
No, a Pope can teach contrary to Tradition PRIVATELY. That is not a rejection on VAT I.

Do I need to quote to you from Vat. I? Or is the Church more than 100 years old? Look at history. What John XXII taught was error that was opposed to what is infallible. That is why the people all rose up against the idea of what he was saying. Although it was not formally and infallibly condemned, neither was the Assumption defined until 50 years ago! What do you think would have happened if, say 100 years ago, the Pope said it was not true? Absolute rebilion. But, according to you, that is against Vatican I. Also, I see you follow Unam Sanctam when it benefits you but not when it teaches outside the Church no salvation, interesting.

"I will follow the dogmatic teaching of the Church, which holds that the Magisterium cannot err in matters of faith and morals, and which also teaches that the governing authority of the Roman Pontiff is to be obeyed in matters of discipline even when he does not intend to bind the Church to a doctrine."

Yes, as long as it's not opposed to the Tradition of the Church, such as defined at Tren in in its catechism: non-Catholic worship is not pleasing to God and is a blasphemy.

And, by the way, if St. Augsutine isn't infallible, yes, that's right, neither is St. Robert Bellarmine (although he was a great reformer and propagator of the Traditional Latin Mass).

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]No, a Pope can teach contrary to Tradition PRIVATELY. That is not a rejection on VAT I.[/quote]

Correct, it is not a rejection of Vatican I, but it is a matter of personal opinion, and, moreover, it is a personal opinion that the majority of theologians do not hold to be true.

[quote]Yes, as long as it's not opposed to the Tradition of the Church[/quote]

As I have stated continually, Holy Tradition can only be interpreted authoritatively by the living Magisterium of the Church, which means the current Pope and those bishops in communion with him. If your personal interpretation of Trent is not in line with the interpretation of the Holy Father and his Bishops, then your interpretation is wrong.

[quote]What John XXII taught was error[/quote]

Yes, but at the time, what John XXII taught was also speculative theology, and there was much debate over it, nor did he ever purport his views to be official church teaching. Only after his death was there an official Magisterial teaching on the matter.

Your analogy with the Assumption is drastically flawed, because the laity is not bound to the personal speculations of the popes, but only in matters of faith and morals, as well as being bound to obey in matters of discipline.

If none of this is clear enough, the issue of John XXII is much more like that of John Paul II and capital punishment. His personal view (which may or may not be in error) is that it is never justifiable. We are not bounded to follow him here. But if the next Pope were to infallibly proclaim that capital punishment (because it is a matter of morals) is sometimes justifiable, that would not make our current pope a heretic, because it has not yet been defined.

[quote]Also, I see you follow Unam Sanctam when it benefits you but not when it teaches outside the Church no salvation, interesting[/quote]

We follow [u]Unam Sanctam[/u] as the Magisterium interprets it, not as we ourselves do.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited September 11, 2004 by JeffCR07

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:27 AM'] No, a Pope can teach contrary to Tradition PRIVATELY. That is not a rejection on VAT I.  Do I need to quote to you from Vat. I? Or is the Church more than 100 years old? Look at history. What John XXII taught was error that was opposed to what is infallible. That is why the people all rose up against the idea of what he was saying. Although it was not formally and infallibly condemned, neither was the Assumption defined until 50 years ago! What do you think would have happened if, say 100 years ago, the Pope said it was not true? Absolute rebilion. But, according to you, that is against Vatican I. Also, I see you follow Unam Sanctam when it benefits you but not when it teaches outside the Church no salvation, interesting.[/quote]
The quotation I provided from Bishop Gasser is from the First Vatican Council, and the Council Fathers, along with Gasser, held that it is a pious and probable opinion that the Pope cannot err even as a private teacher. That you disagree with the Official Relatio which explains the dogmatic definition [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u] is your own business, but I accept what Bishop Gasser said to the Fathers of the Council.

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:27 AM']Yes, as long as it's not opposed to the Tradition of the Church, such as defined at Tren in in its catechism: non-Catholic worship is not pleasing to God and is a blasphemy.[/quote]
Let me begin by saying that this comment is irrelevant since we are not talking about non-Catholic worship, unless you are trying to assert that the Ordo Missae of Paul VI is non-Catholic, in which case you are asserting that the Magisterium, which has officially promulgated the Roman Missal, is now promoting a heretical form of worship. But as I said before, you still have a defective understanding of the authority of the Magisterium. Even when the Magisterium does not teach infallibly one is to give a religious submission of mind and will, and as Cardinal Ratzinger has indicated, the Authentic Magisterium is not without divine assistance.

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:27 AM']And, by the way, if St. Augsutine isn't infallible, yes, that's right, neither is St. Robert Bellarmine (although he was a great reformer and propagator of the Traditional Latin Mass).[/quote]
Neither man was infallible, but Bellarmine was quoted at the First Vatican Council in support of the pious and probable opinion that the Pope cannot err even as a private teacher, nor can he be a heretic. That is the pious and probable opinion of Gasser and the Council Fathers; now the fact that your private opinion is different is irrelevant, I'll side with the Council Fathers. There is no such thing as the "Traditional Latin Mass" and to say that there is, is to hold, contrary to history, that the Mass was always in Latin, when that proposition is manifestly untrue. The Mass, even in the West, was originally in Greek. The Eastern Rites have never celebrated the socalled "Traditional Latin Mass"; and so, to refer to it in that way is to misunderstand the nature of [b][i]T[/i][/b]radition, and to confuse it with [b][i]t[/i][/b]radition.

God bless,
Todd

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/11 - Twenty-third Saturday

BTW, the Tridentine Mass is not the traditional Mass of the Latin Rite. If you really want traditional, look into the Dominican Rite; it's about the closest thing we have to an ancient Liturgy in the Roman Rite (Mozarabic and Milanese Rites were reformed in the 1980s). And if you can find someone still celebrating the Gallic Rite (whether anyone has in the past 500 years is doubtful), THAT is the Mass of the Ages.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Sep 11 2004, 07:23 PM'] JMJ
9/11 - Twenty-third Saturday

BTW, the Tridentine Mass is not the traditional Mass of the Latin Rite. If you really want traditional, look into the Dominican Rite; it's about the closest thing we have to an ancient Liturgy in the Roman Rite (Mozarabic and Milanese Rites were reformed in the 1980s). And if you can find someone still celebrating the Gallic Rite (whether anyone has in the past 500 years is doubtful), THAT is the Mass of the Ages. [/quote]
"There is no such thing as the "Traditional Latin Mass""

Those have become popular theories after the LIturgical revolution of Vat. II. I think it is an attempt to justify the clear break and completely re-writing of the Mass, whereas the Traditional Mass was written over time by the Holy Ghost... and by whose records was the Mass not always in Latin?? In Rome they spoke Latin, so I guess going back to the first century would NOT be going back to the vernacular, that is, if you think they didn't say Mass in Latin in the early Church, which is not true.

[cmotherofpirl]

Written by the Holy Ghost?

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 07:35 PM'] Written by the Holy Ghost?

[/quote]
I won't be as rude to be sarcastic, which I am editing out...

Edited September 12, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[littleflower+JMJ]

everyone needs to read thsi to know what is acceptable and permissable on this baord.

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules[/url]

God bless.

[HartfordWhalers]

Which rule, if I may ask, was broken?

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 08:03 PM'] Which rule, if I may ask, was broken? [/quote]
friendly reminder.

think i meant to post this in another thread but oh well. its still good.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='littleflower' date='JMJ+Sep 11 2004, 08:10 PM'] friendly reminder.

think i meant to post this in another thread but oh well. its still good. [/quote]
...lol

[cmotherofpirl]

The phatmass women are famous for their multitasking skills

[HartfordWhalers]