Obeying The Pope

[Donna]

Even changing of what really are disciplines was not done at the drop of a hat in the Church. Because it can sow confusion and possibly contempt among the faithful. And that latter, because the Catholic of good will really is docile to the Eternal Father, reigning in Holy Church.
_________________________________________________________________

I think even a cursory reading in a seminary library which may not yet discard its references of antiquity, would show that the canon of the [i]Latin [/i]Rite was in [i]Latin,[/i] - and since the [i]Latin canon [/i]is part of the [i]Latin Rite of Mass[/i], that the [i]Mass of the Latin Rite [/i]was, before Trent and the 1500's, [i]in Latin.
[/i]

Ditto, the Vulgate by St. Jerome. About the 5th century?

It is laudatory to show the wideness of the Church - to remind folks of the various rites and etc; It is something contrary to pretend the Latin Rite venerable in the Church really wasn't as big, or influential, or the just inheritance of her descendants.
________________________________________________________________

Is [i]Mortalium Animos [/i]"Triumphalism?"

Was "triumphalism" practiced -by the [color=green]Authentic Living Magisterium [/color]of its time- in the Church?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Donna' date='Sep 11 2004, 11:05 PM'] I think even a cursory reading in a seminary library which may not yet discard its references of antiquity, would show that the canon of the [i]Latin [/i]Rite was in [i]Latin,[/i] - and since the [i]Latin canon [/i]is part of the [i]Latin Rite of Mass[/i], that the [i]Mass of the Latin Rite [/i]was, before Trent and the 1500's, [i]in Latin.[/i] [/quote]
The Latin language only began to be used in the particular Church of Rome in the 3rd century. The first ecclesiastical writer to use Latin was Tertullian at the end of the 2nd and in the early 3rd century.

[Donna]

So that's only 17 centuries.



Ho hum.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Donna' date='Sep 12 2004, 11:09 AM'] So that's only 17 centuries.



Ho hum. [/quote]
Yes, just 17 centuries, and that's nothing to God, but of course the main point is that it does show that customs can change.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Donna' date='Sep 12 2004, 03:09 PM'] So that's only 17 centuries.



Ho hum. [/quote]
Yes they used the same language for 17 centuries because it was the venacular, however they did not use the same Mass.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 13 2004, 04:58 AM'] Yes they used the same language for 17 centuries because it was the venacular, however they did not use the same Mass. [/quote]
Substantially an identical Mass, actually..

And where, may I ask, was the Latin vernacular 50 years ago? Where 100 years ago? Where 1000 years ago? Where 1500 years ago??

Edited September 13, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 13 2004, 11:05 AM'] Substantially an identical Mass, actually..

And where, may I ask, was the Latin vernacular 50 years ago? Where 100 years ago? Where 1000 years ago? Where 1500 years ago?? [/quote]
The Ordo Missae of Paul VI is substantially the same as the Ordo Missae of Pius V, unless you are asserting that the order of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI is invalid. The substance of the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ rendered present under the species of the bread and wine. Whether one celebrates according to the ordo issued by Paul VI or Pius V, or through one of the Eastern rite prayers, it is one and the same Christ who acts as both priest and victim; thus, any one of the approved liturgies brings about the real and substantial presence of Christ and applies the merits of His once for all sacrifice upon the Cross to those worshipping and to those for whom the liturgy is specifically offered.

The language used to celebrate the liturgy is not a part of the substance of the sacrament, no matter what certain members of the Latin Rite think. The Universal Church has used many different languages in order to celebrate the Divine Mysteries, and she continues to do so. I'm a Ruthenian Catholic and we use the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, which we sing in the English language.

[White Knight]

Obviously it goes to the point where if the Pope does something that isn't Christ like, or something, like I dunno, saying "Its his Church" instead of Christ's then you can disgree with that, and blast him with the Truth.


After all, Its not the Pope's Church its Christ's Church, and we sould Obey God The Father, God The Son [b](Jesus)[/b], God The Holy Spirit, all the time, not the Pope. thats just how I feel. The Pope, is a Godly figure I think, but Hes not God, nor will he ever be.

[jasJis]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 14 2004, 01:15 AM'] Obviously it goes to the point where if the Pope does something that isn't Christ like, or something, like I dunno, saying "Its his Church" instead of Christ's then you can disgree with that, and blast him with the Truth.


After all, Its not the Pope's Church its Christ's Church, and we sould Obey God The Father, God The Son [b](Jesus)[/b], God The Holy Spirit, all the time, not the Pope. thats just how I feel. The Pope, is a Godly figure I think, but Hes not God, nor will he ever be. [/quote]
But...

If you believe in God, and His promises, you also have to recognize the fact He sends His Holy Spirit to us to work through us. This is especially true for the institution of the Church, of which, the Pope is more than just 'some person' by the sake of God's Grace. We have to recognize that the Holy Spirit will work through the Pope for the sake of His Church and His flock.

Historically, God always works through imperfect people. What prophet perfectly followed God? None that I can think of. Did their imperfections thwart God's mission. Not at all. We have to keep an open mind and open heart and always be quick to heed God's call to personal holiness (for ourselves). Should we dismiss Moses as a prophet because after he received the Commandments he got ticked off and threw them on the ground? What's the lesson there for us?

[White Knight]

That is correct to a degree and such, but I still dont agree with the Pope, on everything, call me a bad person if ya want to for saying that, but I still rather follow of Christ tells me, rather than what the Pope tells me.

[Socrates]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 14 2004, 01:15 AM'] Obviously it goes to the point where if the Pope does something that isn't Christ like, or something, like I dunno, saying "Its his Church" instead of Christ's then you can disgree with that, and blast him with the Truth.


After all, Its not the Pope's Church its Christ's Church, and we sould Obey God The Father, God The Son [b](Jesus)[/b], God The Holy Spirit, all the time, not the Pope. thats just how I feel. The Pope, is a Godly figure I think, but Hes not God, nor will he ever be. [/quote]
[quote]That is correct to a degree and such, but I still dont agree with the Pope, on everything, call me a bad person if ya want to for saying that, but I still rather follow of Christ tells me, rather than what the Pope tells me.[/quote]

Whiteknight, you seem to have a faulty understanding of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ and the Pope are not in conflict for the headship of the Church. Christ, of course, is the invisible, true Head of the Church on Earth. No pope has ever denied this, or has claimed to be God. Christ gave the Pope (beginning with St. Peter, the first Pope) a special teaching authority He gave no other human being.

"Thou art Peter [Rock] and upon this Rock I shall build My Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The Pope is the Visible Head of the Church on Earth, and teaches the truth of Christ infallibly on matters of Faith and Morals. He cannot teach in conflict with Christ.

A Catholic cannot say "I will follow Jesus, but not the Pope," because the two cannot be in conflict. We look to the Church, under the authority of the Pope, to properly interpret the teachings of Christ. The idea that we can just ignore the Pope and do "what Jesus tells us" is a Protestant idea. That's why we have so many protestants (and schismatic "Catholics"), all in disagreement with one another, all claiming to be following "Jesus" rather than the Church.

What specifically do you think Christ tells you that is contrary to what the Pope tells you?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 11 2004, 01:27 PM']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.

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]
[quote]The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.[/quote]

[quote]In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.[/quote]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 17 2004, 02:08 AM'] The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church. [/quote]
Well, then. I should always follow the Pope. If he's still Pope, he's not a heretic. If he's a heretic, then he's not Pope, and so I wouldn't have to follow him. But as long as he's Pope, he's not a heretic, therefore, I should always listen to him and obey him in as far as his authority reaches (which is pretty far).

[White Knight]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 14 2004, 09:14 PM']

Whiteknight, you seem to have a faulty understanding of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ and the Pope are not in conflict for the headship of the Church. Christ, of course, is the invisible, true Head of the Church on Earth. No pope has ever denied this, or has claimed to be God. Christ gave the Pope (beginning with St. Peter, the first Pope) a special teaching authority He gave no other human being.

"Thou art Peter [Rock] and upon this Rock I shall build My Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The Pope is the Visible Head of the Church on Earth, and teaches the truth of Christ infallibly on matters of Faith and Morals. He cannot teach in conflict with Christ.

A Catholic cannot say "I will follow Jesus, but not the Pope," because the two cannot be in conflict. We look to the Church, under the authority of the Pope, to properly interpret the teachings of Christ. The idea that we can just ignore the Pope and do "what Jesus tells us" is a Protestant idea. That's why we have so many protestants (and schismatic "Catholics"), all in disagreement with one another, all claiming to be following "Jesus" rather than the Church.

What specifically do you think Christ tells you that is contrary to what the Pope tells you? [/quote]
Yes I knew this, I know Peter was given a Special Authority, as the first Pope, in Matthew 16:18, but I just dont like it when people proclaim the Pope more than the Lord Jesus Christ, it gets very annoying when some people seem to treat, the Pope as God, when hes NOT God. I know some people like this unforunately, I however am not one of them, I said it before and I'll say it again, I rather obey Jesus Christ our LORD, rather than the Pope.

I have great Respect for the Pope, dont get me wrong, Jesus gave Peter, a wonderful authority I think, I just dont like it when alot of people, seem to praise the Pope, as opposed to Jesus.

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 17 2004, 02:17 AM'] but I still dont agree with the Pope, on everything


I said it before and I'll say it again, I rather obey Jesus Christ our LORD, rather than the Pope.
[/quote]
White Knight,

I love you lotts bro but you're still not getting it, you can't rather follow Jesus than the pope. You either do [b]both[/b], or [b]neither[/b]. No true catholic confuses the pope with God, but all good catholics recognize how God teaches through the pope. I wish I could remember who but one of the saints said something to the effect of you're more likely to be right if you stand with the pope on all matters, not just faith and morals, than if you stand against him on anything.

one thing that might be helpful to you, is take those areas where you disagree with the pope and see if Christ agrees with him, i'd encourage you to bring them here too as your brothers and sisters can help you understand what's really being said.