CathInfo.com

SJB said:

Is the existence of the papacy of Pope Pius V a dogmatic fact? Is it "historically certain", as you put it?

Explain how it CANNOT be certain. cuм Ex Apostolatus isn't going to help you here.

I always write these long posts and get two-line smokescreen answers from you.

( 1 ) I was not the one who said that the legitimacy of a certain papacy is "historically certain."  That was Father Sixtus Cartechini who used that term, and you have used a variant of it yourself many times.

( 2 ) I asked YOU when this idea of the "historical certainty" of a Pope became common currency among theologians.  I am guessing it is a 20th century innovation.  You didn't address that.

( 3 ) During the Great Western Schism, it obviously was not theologically certain to St. Vincent Ferrer who the real Pope was.

( 4 ) If someone had an objection to Pius V the way they did to Honorius, then it would not be theologically certain that he is Pope.  Do you think Honorius' papacy was a theological certainty at the time when they were denouncing him as a heretic?  Yet when he was elected, he was unanimously accepted as Pope, was he not?  

Savonarola suggested that Alexander VI was not Pope, and no one called him a heretic.  Not because of that, anyway.  And he didn't have anywhere near the good reasons that someone questioning Pius XII might have.  Pius XII, manifestly, was paving the way for Vatican Council II, relaxing disciplines, changing the liturgy, etc.  

A true Pope cannot promote discipline that is harmful to the Church.  A very, very good argument can be made that NFP is incredibly harmful to the Church, looking at its fruits -- but the counterargument can be made that it is only abuses to NFP that are harmful, and that if people had stuck to Pius XII's "rigorous" guidelines ( excuse the sarcasm ) then we wouldn't be seeing these problems.  It's the same debate we hear over and over about the Novus Ordo:  Is it INTRINSICALLY harmful or is it just that it has been abused and perverted?  There are good arguments on both sides.  

So I leave this for the future restored Church to decide, until then accepting Pius XII's papacy.  I only say that Pius XII is not the hero that people think; not by a longshot.  The saintly image he has among trads is a joke.  He used the exact same double-minded, mind-control technique as Benedict.  There are countless examples:  Just to take NFP again, at one point he said it could only be used in an emergency, but then said the limits of its use are "indeed very wide."  So excuse me for blaming HIM for the confusion around NFP rather than the laity who abuse it -- because the fault lays with HIM and his completely unclear teaching. We are all tearing each other up but ultimately the leadership, for many years, has been either faulty or completely illegitimate.  

SJB said:

Quote

Is the existence of the papacy of Pope Pius V a dogmatic fact? Is it "historically certain", as you put it?

Explain how it CANNOT be certain. cuм Ex Apostolatus isn't going to help you here.

I always write these long posts and get two-line smokescreen answers from you.

( 1 ) I was not the one who said that the legitimacy of a certain papacy is "historically certain."  That was Father Sixtus Cartechini who used that term, and you have used a variant of it yourself many times.

( 2 ) I asked YOU when this idea of the "historical certainty" of a Pope became common currency among theologians.  I am guessing it is a 20th century innovation.  You didn't address that.

( 3 ) During the Great Western Schism, it obviously was not theologically certain to St. Vincent Ferrer who the real Pope was.

( 4 ) If someone had an objection to Pius V the way they did to Honorius, then it would not be theologically certain that he is Pope.  Do you think Honorius' papacy was a theological certainty at the time when they were denouncing him as a heretic?  Yet when he was elected, he was unanimously accepted as Pope, was he not?  

Savonarola suggested that Alexander VI was not Pope, and no one called him a heretic.  Not because of that, anyway.  And he didn't have anywhere near the good reasons that someone questioning Pius XII might have.  Pius XII, manifestly, was paving the way for Vatican Council II, relaxing disciplines, changing the liturgy, etc.  

A true Pope cannot promote discipline that is harmful to the Church.  A very, very good argument can be made that NFP is incredibly harmful to the Church, looking at its fruits -- but the counterargument can be made that it is only abuses to NFP that are harmful, and that if people had stuck to Pius XII's "rigorous" guidelines ( excuse the sarcasm ) then we wouldn't be seeing these problems.  It's the same debate we hear over and over about the Novus Ordo:  Is it INTRINSICALLY harmful or is it just that it has been abused and perverted?  There are good arguments on both sides.  

So I leave this for the future restored Church to decide, until then accepting Pius XII's papacy.  I only say that Pius XII is not the hero that people think; not by a longshot.  The saintly image he has among trads is a joke.  He used the exact same double-minded, mind-control technique as Benedict.  There are countless examples:  Just to take NFP again, at one point he said it could only be used in an emergency, but then said the limits of its use are "indeed very wide."  So excuse me for blaming HIM for the confusion around NFP rather than the laity who abuse it -- because the fault lays with HIM and his completely unclear teaching. We are all tearing each other up but ultimately the leadership, for many years, has been either faulty or completely illegitimate.  

Look Mike, I don't have time to type long responses nor do I need to write long responses. Yes, the papacy during a crisis such as this is not clear to say the least ... but WHY do you accept this dogmatic fact of Pius V and NOT accept it of Pius XI?

Do you guys hate me because I cannot be dogmatic about certain things IN A CRISIS??? Yet when I am dogmatic about something that was never disputed ... you get angry with me.

Please explain this for me in less that three paragraphs.