qfnol31 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Oh! I forgot the main reason I bet he hasn't. The Pope knows how difficult of a time the Eastern Orthodox have with the Papacy. It's part of why he hasn't made any [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements. He doesn't want to drive them off any further. The Pope realizes, and dreams, that the Church should breath with both of her lungs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 I see, but that was where I was going with scandal. Is it not a scandal to compromise the Catholic Faith in order to be ecumenical? Also, did he not make an [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]statement in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] or is this simply a statement affirming a previous [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]pronouncement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 First to the [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statement it implies a definition, and he didn't use the word "define," unlike the first two times the statement was made by previous Popes. However, I would still argue his statement in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] is taught infallibly. This is more my personal opinion (and my Moral Theology professor's as well) but I can find good arguments for why he wouldn't want to and why he didn't. It would be wrong to go against the Doctrine of the Church, but I wouldn't think that to change the discipline some would be wrong, for that we owe very little to. Doctrine we either owe complete obedience (for infallibly taught stuff) or "ascent of mind and will" (as my Moral Theology professor said) to the non-infallibly taught/ defined stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 (edited) I see; I would think that to intentionally appease the eastern schismatics by failing to exercize (or failing to recognize) his authority in a certain way could be scandalous (in this case it is not explicit, so it would not be scandalous) and could be a type of false-humility (since humility was one of the reasons that arose earlier). In any event, in honor of our venerable Pontiff, we bestow our Apostolic (or Pontifical?) smilie: Edited October 29, 2004 by CatholicforChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I think he's awesome. The great thing about the Pope is that he realizes many of the Eastern thoughts are essential to the Church today (look at the Byzantines for example, they add so much richness to our Church, and actually help, and will help, the Liturgy, a necessity). I think the Pope knows how much we really need them, but to cut them off before dialogue can begin would hurt. Now to [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] because this actually helps the Pope out. No one knew whether or not Priest being men was doctrinal or disciplinary. This is something that was opened up for investigation, which is necessary, for something must be said with certainty for it to be taught infallibly, and for many years that may not have been the case (Bishops didn't say anything, they just kept going with it, without giving it much thought, supposedly). Well, anyways, knowing what problems it would cause, the Pope cut off everything in 1994, teaching (I would argue infallibly) that the Priesthood is reserved for men. This quick decision (normally, such a "research" would be given twice as long) helped the Orthodox from thinking that we were going to follow the Anglicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 [quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 29 2004, 04:24 AM'] I see, but that was where I was going with scandal. Is it not a scandal to compromise the Catholic Faith in order to be ecumenical? Also, did he not make an [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]statement in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] or is this simply a statement affirming a previous [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]pronouncement? [/quote] Do you think its a bit silly for you to sniff out scandal because the Holy Father doesn't use the royal we? Do you think he has a few more important things to think about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 what do you mean 'he wasn't crowned?' crowned as what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 Cmom, if you are not going to contribute anything, please don't post at all. Thanks. You did not address the issue as to why he does not use we (which was not established definitively as being the "royal we"--as I said, I thought it had to do with the guidance of the Holy Ghost; if he is intentionally not using this to appease schismatics, then it would seem he is intentionally down-playing the authority of the Papacy, which is mock humility, cf., St. Cyril of Jerusalem). Further, you simply discarded the entire discussion based on no evidence. I have no problem with you making comments, but please do not just take up space with empty words. Thanks, again. Creepy, the Pope being crowned refers the the Papal Coronation, which occurs once the next Pope has been selected. One of the Popes after Vatican II (or it might have been John XXIII, so that would be before Vat II) stopped the Papal Coronation. It might have just been this Pope, or it could have been Paul VI. I am pretty sure it was not John Paul I. In any event, this current Pope, at least, has not been crowned. By the way, does anyone know any details on how the Papal Coronation works? Who crowns him? Who was the first Pope to receive the coronation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Actually, I'm pretty sure it was John Paul I who started it. I'll look it up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 no it was definitely either Paul VI or John XXIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 (edited) [quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 29 2004, 02:16 PM'] Cmom, if you are not going to contribute anything, please don't post at all. Thanks. You did not address the issue as to why he does not use we (which was not established definitively as being the "royal we"--as I said, I thought it had to do with the guidance of the Holy Ghost; if he is intentionally not using this to appease schismatics, then it would seem he is intentionally down-playing the authority of the Papacy, which is mock humility, cf., St. Cyril of Jerusalem). Further, you simply discarded the entire discussion based on no evidence. I have no problem with you making comments, but please do not just take up space with empty words. Thanks, again. Creepy, the Pope being crowned refers the the Papal Coronation, which occurs once the next Pope has been selected. One of the Popes after Vatican II (or it might have been John XXIII, so that would be before Vat II) stopped the Papal Coronation. It might have just been this Pope, or it could have been Paul VI. I am pretty sure it was not John Paul I. In any event, this current Pope, at least, has not been crowned. By the way, does anyone know any details on how the Papal Coronation works? Who crowns him? Who was the first Pope to receive the coronation? [/quote] rofll You are taking up space looking for scandal on the Holy Father. You are judging the Holy Father by saying he is evidencing mock humility to apprease the trads. And you wonder why you got a phishy title? Edited October 29, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Cmom, where is CatholicforChrist looking for scandal? His post seemed complete curiousity to me more than anything. Nothing was condescending in his posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I think this is a great lesson in the spring time of evangelization. Looking at the Pope's methods is a good way to see Christ working through him. CforC thanks for the open attitude. I think Zachery has done an excellent job explaining the humility behind the actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Knight, La Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 [quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 29 2004, 12:16 AM'] Also, is that the appropriate time to be humble, when acting as the Supreme Head of the Church? [/quote] I figured someone else would point this out but as I missed it if anyone did... DUH!!!!!!! that's exactly the time when He needs to be humble. If he is anything but humble when acting in this capacity there would be much trouble for the church. Being head of the church isn't about his power, it's about being absolutely humble enough to rely on God for everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 yeah, you've heard what Jesus said to the Apostles about whoever was greatest among them would be the servant of all, right? That's why the Pope has had the traditional title "servant of the servants of God" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now