Author Topic: "No more anathemas" (Read 546 times)

Pelele · « **on:** December 19, 2013, 11:44:15 PM »

Did John 23 or Paul 6 really say this?

I know John 23 said the "mercy" mumbo-jumbo in the opening session of V2 but I haven't seen "no more anathemas" anywhere.

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2013, 07:00:54 AM »

I'm not sure I've actually read this precise quote, but I ask you: Have you seen any anathemas since 1960?

Even Vatican condemnations of tradition really aren't made in these precise terms. Bergoglio is the closest in his condemnations of tradition as he clearly hates anything connected with tradition.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:19:32 AM »

Wouldn't be surprised if Pope Francis did anathematize tradition, But, he isn't man enough to say anathama.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:43:53 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I'm not sure I've actually read this precise quote, but I ask you: Have you seen any anathemas since 1960?

Even Vatican condemnations of tradition really aren't made in these precise terms. Bergoglio is the closest in his condemnations of tradition as he clearly hates anything connected with tradition.

The popes since Pius XII have been practically anathema to anathema per se. John XXIII didn't practice it, and in the 4th year of his office, on October 11th, the day he opened the Second Council of the Vatican (which never re-convened the erstwhile adjourned Vat.I) was the day he announced there would be no more condemnation of error.

He said in that Most Regrettable Speech (M.R.S.) that instead, they would apply the "medicine of mercy," apparently forgetting the fact that mercy is not medicine. So it's all smoke and mirrors, with no substance. It shouldn't be of any surprise that these Modernists abhor the use of the very word, "substance" (they tried to remove it from the Nicene Creed but even that didn't work!).

I find it curious that these Modernists, who claim that no pope can bind any future popes in practical matters include in that the Mass of Quo Primum, then presume to act as though this nonsense of no condemnation of error can be demanded of future popes, nonetheless.

Theirs is a most fragile and tenuous holding hostage of the Church.

Two things regarding this:

Vatican II could be entirely rendered null and void if Vatican I were re-convened.

This idiocy of the pope not condemning error could end in one moment by a good pope simply condemning one error.

.

crossbro · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:49:21 AM »

Even if this Pope packs and leaves this afternoon, trads face an endless procession of his heretic quotes being shoved in faces for hundreds of years.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:05:24 AM »

Quote from: LoverOfTradition

Wouldn't be surprised if Pope Francis did anathematize tradition, But, he isn't man enough to say anathama.

I expect that you meant to say "Tradition," not "tradition." (As you misspelled "anathema" as well.) For the post-Conciliar Newchurch has its own "tradition" in Vat.II and the Newmass.

I propose that it would be impossible for a true pope to "condemn Tradition," because a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from error in his condemnation of error. That is, a true pope would be incapable of making a mistake in pronouncing anathema on any matter of faith or morals.

I'm not quite sure how it could become manifest, but one possibility is that at the appointed time when he is about to pronounce the erroneous anathema, he might find he cannot speak, and if he then attempts to do it by writing he might find he cannot write (Sister Lucia was unable to commit the Third Secret to paper for about 3 or 4 months, in about 1942), and if he has someone else draw up the docuмent and all he needs to do is stamp it with his ring, he might find that moving his ring close to that piece of paper is so incredibly painful that he cannot do it.

Short of that, he could fall into a coma on the spot, or worse.

If God does not want something to happen, it's not going to happen. But in any event, it seems to me that if Francis were to make such an announcement, it would at that point prove that he is not pope at all, because if he were pope he would not be able to condemn Tradition.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:28:36 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I'm not sure I've actually read this precise quote, but I ask you: Have you seen any anathemas since 1960?

Even Vatican condemnations of tradition really aren't made in these precise terms. Bergoglio is the closest in his condemnations of tradition as he clearly hates anything connected with tradition.

I agree that he seems to act in a way that is contemptuous of everything traditional, and he says things that are entirely unheard of in Tradition, nonetheless he has not formally denounced it in any principled way.

He speaks of principles but they are only esoteric, Newage-type principles, more closely related to Taoism than Catholicism or even Christianity. There is no question that he raises the ridiculousness of novelty to an entirely new level, beyond that of JPII, who was the standing 'champion' of novelty in the history of the Church, so much so that the likes of erstwhile Ratzinger was actually a RELIEF.

The reason that "Vatican condemnations of Tradition aren't made in these precise terms," as you say, TKGS, (but for the "T"), it seems to me, is that there are no more solemn condemnations of anything.

How can one solemnly condemn something when one can't solemnly condemn anything?

On the other hand, inasmuch as the now "longstanding" (!) hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI is accepted in Rome (shudder!) and inasmuch as the hermeneutic of continuity boils down to the denial of the principle of non-contradiction (anyone who has studied philosophy knows that means all intelligent thinking therefore ceases), perhaps there is a way that when they put all this together, the end product could be that the person who would be pope could somehow solemnly condemn Tradition, but if that did happen, it would at that moment be unquestionable that he is only ACTING AS IF he is pope but could absolutely not BE IN FACT pope, for the reasons I stated above.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:14:25 PM »

Quote from: crossbro

Even if this Pope packs and leaves this afternoon, trads face an endless procession of his heretic quotes being shoved in faces for hundreds of years.

While I sympathize with your concerns, crossbro, it seems to me there is a way out of this mess if God allows a restoration to take place, for then the simple consequence could be that the Church could like "draw a line" through everything from 1960 (for example) up to the present (whenever that is, in the future), and that would be our answer. We would say something like, "You're taking your quote from the black age, and all those things are condemned now," or some such words. It would be quite simple, it seems to me.

(Although in all the details, it might not be so simple, for the longer this nonsense is allowed to perpetrate, the more voluminous the work of purging the errors, for all the so-called canonized saints will have to be reviewed one-by-one, etc.)

The logical extension of this is, that were such a restoration to take place, and then in the future, the Church would again sink into corruption as it has post Vat.II, it would be as St. Thomas describes in his Summa (II-II Q.11 Art.4):

"On the contrary, The Decretal ... says that those who are found to have relapsed into the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the secular tribunal. Therefore, they should not be received by the Church... But when they fall again, after having been received [that is, the FIRST time], this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death."

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:53:32 PM »

.

In case a reader is confused, when St. Thomas says, "turned over (left) to the secular tribunal," he is saying that a condemned and obstinate heretic would be given over to the state for capital punishment, since the Church does not execute anyone "on death row."

In these latter centuries, this practice has been abandoned and now we have had popes such as JPII who promote the further departure from Tradition in having the state no longer execute pertinacious and hardened criminals, such as Charles Manson or Richard Ramirez, with the excuse that it would be part of "the culture of death" for the state to put them to death. Meanwhile, their own wayward leadership has had the effect of leading souls to hell, which is much worse than 'death' because it is the SECOND death.

.