Seems like trads have a problem

[thessalonian]

Lester the doctrine Molester, I'm not going to go off on a tangent with you tonight. That issue has been addressed on many threads. Look them up. It's not what this one is about. Tah tah.

Edited August 19, 2005 by thessalonian

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I actually agree with littleles

[qfnol31]

The Church didn't actually change anything.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 18 2005, 09:56 PM']I actually agree with littleles
[right][snapback]689861[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Take it up in another thread.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 18 2005, 05:11 PM']Only Cardinals can elect a Pope. [/quote]

Can Cardinals elect other Cardinals?

[brendan1104]

traditionalists that are non-sedevacantists believes the pope is the pope and bishop of rome...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Aug 19 2005, 01:01 AM']Can Cardinals elect other Cardinals?
[right][snapback]690036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If by that you mean "can they appoint or 'make' other Cardinals" the answer is no.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 18 2005, 09:25 PM']it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the successor of St. Peter.  Traditional Catholic Teaching holds that only two things send a person to hell:

original sin
mortal sin

and for a mortal sin to be mortal, you must have three factors: 1) grave matter 2) full consent of the will 3) knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.

therefore, one condemns himself who refuses to submit to the Roman Pontiff.  that's what Boniface is saying. 

Vatican II is saying that IF (and that's a big IF) someone is ignorant that this is necessary through no fault of their own, then they have not condemned themself by refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
[right][snapback]689817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not at all. Read Pope Boniface's word. He is not making ANY exceptions as you are.

"...every human creature..." .

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”



"What the Pope really meant is....." Always fascinating to observe an apologist try to pretend that a major blunder in papal teaching really didn't mean what it clearly said.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Aug 19 2005, 12:01 AM']Can Cardinals elect other Cardinals?
[right][snapback]690036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

The original Catholic practice was to have the people elect their own bishops. And this appied to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as well. Then the Pope made the rule that only cardinals (appointed by him , naturally)could elect the pope. But it in no way is infallible, or even necessary, unless you believe that whatever a Pope says comes from God.

For example, Pope Innocent III (c 1200) "Every cleric must obey the pope, even if he commands what is evil, for no one may judge the pope."

Are "orthodox" Catholics still expected to believe that too?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 19 2005, 06:12 AM']RESPONSE:

Not at all. Read Pope Boniface's word. He is not making ANY exceptions as you are.

"...every human creature..."  . 

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"What the Pope really meant is....."  Always fascinating to observe an apologist try to pretend that a major blunder in papal teaching really didn't mean what it clearly said.
[right][snapback]690157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why Lester, are you debating Catholics again?

[Cam42]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 19 2005, 09:56 AM']Why Lester, are you debating Catholics again?
[right][snapback]690244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Because he doesn't get it.....

[brendan1104]

Well the councils of Florence and Trent, and the popes have said much, dogmatically, and irrevocably on salvation:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)"

[son_of_angels]

Aye, ancient practice allowed the election of bishops by the people or governments in that area, provided that those bishops were validly consecrated ONLY by another bishop with papal mandate (although the mandate only makes consecration licit, the consecration without mandate could still be valid but wouldn't convey the authority required of a bishop). In ancient times as long as a bishop's activities and doctrine were normative the papal approbation was assumed in some instances where the Throne to be filled was remote. Things were, admittedly, not as complex in terms of canon law as today.
However, as less and less things could be assumed, the simple acknowledgement of election by the Bishop of Ostia (who has the sole right to consecrate the Bishop of Rome) was changed into requiring the assent and obedience of the College of Cardinals so as to ensure succession, Cardinals then simply being clergy in Rome closely associated with the Pope.

So, yes, in some totally canonically removed theory a Pope could be elected by the people he serves, HOWEVER, A.) Canon law forbids the change of any canon law in the interregnum B.) the Pope is not the Bishop of the World but the Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of the West, for which he could only be elected by the Roman diocese and only a licit Western bishop would have the right to consecrate him.

SO THERE sedevacantists, here's a trad you won't be convincing (points to self)..

[brendan1104]

there isn't really sedevacantists on here...

i think everyone who's indult should say so.
same with sspx and sedevacantists.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Aug 19 2005, 10:39 AM']Well the councils of Florence and Trent, and the popes have said much, dogmatically, and irrevocably on salvation:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)"
[right][snapback]690362[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE: Yes indeed,. This was an infallible teaching that was infallibly wrong. Apologists try to pretend that it isn't really all encompassing, because an exception can be made for invincible ignorance.

But please note that such an exception is not made in this teaching.

And as I mentioned yesterday, Vatican II reversed this teaching. Actually, it had been reversed earlier but not "infallibly."

Strictly orthodox Catholics are probably quite put out by this change.

Of course, another more plausible objection might be made. If this was a Papal Bull issued separately from the Council of Florence, it might not be infallible. It might just be papal bull!