Author Topic: A Defense of Pope Pius XII Against a False Allegation That He Taught Error (Read 12249 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #75 on:** November 14, 2013, 02:54:53 PM »

Quote from: GregorianChat

Quote from: Catholicism101
Quote from: GregorianChat
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.

Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:

Give me a break gregorianchant.

No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.

I would argue that they are of bad-will. :devil2:

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #76 on:** November 14, 2013, 03:23:06 PM »

I began to suspect that Catholicism101 and Allmonks were the same person. I'm not convince that they aren't, but they both joined CI just to chime in on this debate. I'm not sure what their angle is, but they're clearly Ibranyites or Dimondites (or possibly even the Dimonds themselves?!).

First of all, if what Pius XII taught in his address to the midwives is "heresy" then he doesn't get let off the hook for it. He loses his office because of it. So let's get that clear. He doesn't get to be a public heretic and the pope, the Church has NEVER, EVER recognized non-Catholics as being able to hold office. Ever.

Furthermore, they seem to be completely ignoring, as SJB said in another thread (the one bowler started as a distraction when he lost in this thread), the difference between a singular act which may be sinful and a continued course of actions which may be sinful.

I really have nothing else to say on this issue that I haven't already said. In Pius XII's address to the Midwives he taught:

1) He re-affirmed that artificial birth control was wrong; i.e., deliberate frustration of the marital act is intrinsically evil and a sin against nature (exactly what PXI taught in Casti Connubi).
2) Relations during periods of natural sterility are not sinful in this respect (again reaffirming Castii Connubi)
3) Since couples may lawfully forego the marital rite (i.e., abstain from relations) for a grave reason, it follows that they may also observe the marital rite during periods of natural sterility for a grave reason
3.1) This is understood to be a decision made after prayer, spiritual counsel and possibly even dispensation; also it is not something one is compelled to do, rather it can merely be licit if certain conditions are met, and if certain conditions aren't met, it is gravefully sinful (though it is not the same sin described in castii connubi as there is no frustration of the act)

Here's a question for bowler, C101 or Allmonks: why is sterility not a diriment impediment to marriage? The Church does not forbid persons who cannot generate children from marriage, they only forbid those who cannot perform the act suitable for generation from marriage.

So, for C101 and Allmonks, perhaps the sede vacante began in 1917?

Stubborn · « **Reply #77 on:** November 14, 2013, 04:35:19 PM »

Quote

First of all, if what Pius XII taught in his address to the midwives is "heresy" then he doesn't get let off the hook for it. He loses his office because of it. So let's get that clear. He doesn't get to be a public heretic and the pope, the Church has NEVER, EVER recognized non-Catholics as being able to hold office. Ever.

How is it that a true pope can teach heresy then lose his office when, according to sedevacantism, the Holy Ghost protects the true pope from teaching heresy?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #78 on:** November 14, 2013, 04:54:21 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote

First of all, if what Pius XII taught in his address to the midwives is "heresy" then he doesn't get let off the hook for it. He loses his office because of it. So let's get that clear. He doesn't get to be a public heretic and the pope, the Church has NEVER, EVER recognized non-Catholics as being able to hold office. Ever.

How is it that a true pope can teach heresy then lose his office when, according to sedevacantism, the Holy Ghost protects the true pope from teaching heresy?

I don't understand what you're asking, and I don't see what sedevacantism has to do with the Holy Ghost protecting a true pope from teaching heresy, the Catholic faith tells us this.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #79 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:01:57 PM »

Quote from: Catholicism101

Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.

Allmonks needs to recognize this.

However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.

Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.

No kidding, in fact, according to you, he's an anti-pope. Anyways, you'll need to go back a little further. If marital relations during periods of sterility are mortal sins and if to allow them is to teach heresy, then each pope since May of 1917 has been an anti-pope, because Canon Law allows sterile people to be married. This includes Pius XI, who, at this point, we might as well call a devious infiltrator while condemning birth control in one breath and allowing it in the next by allowing people who can't have children to become married and enjoy the marital rite. I'm not sure what the code taught prior to the Pio Benedictine (or should we say anti-pio Benedictine?) code, but you may have to even go further back. There's a nice little commune in New Mexico that might take you in, though, so don't worry.

2Vermont · « **Reply #80 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:03:46 PM »

Quote from: Catholicism101

Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.

Allmonks needs to recognize this.

However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.

Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.

So, which is it? Did he lose his office or was he just not a "great pope"?

2Vermont · « **Reply #81 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:10:57 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I began to suspect that Catholicism101 and Allmonks were the same person. I'm not convince that they aren't, but they both joined CI just to chime in on this debate. I'm not sure what their angle is, but they're clearly Ibranyites or Dimondites (or possibly even the Dimonds themselves?!).

This could be very entertaining....lol.

2Vermont · « **Reply #82 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:17:57 PM »

Quote from: Catholicism101

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Catholicism101
Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.

Allmonks needs to recognize this.

However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.

Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.

So, which is it? Did he lose his office or was he just not a "great pope"?

He lost the office in 1951. When he actually held the office (1939-1951), he was not a great pope for the reasons I just mentioned. Its really not that complicated.

Be more specific next time. It's really not that difficult to do.

2Vermont · « **Reply #83 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:26:59 PM »

Quote from: Catholicism101

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Catholicism101
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Catholicism101
Pius XII did in fact loose his office in 1951 by teaching birth control via rhythmn/nfp.

Allmonks needs to recognize this.

However, allmonks had some excellent quotes from Pius XI and at least five church fathers showing WHY nfp is not compatiable with catholic teaching.

Pius XII was not a great pope. He promoted Montini, allowed Roncalli John XXIII to remain in the teaching instruments of the church in a seminary in Turkey, appointed Bugini the head of a liturgical comission in 1947 that would later devise the novus ordo, and also his confessor was Augustin Bea, a crypto jew who was a horrible heretic responsible for Nostrae Atatae at Vatican II. These are not rumors but facts.

So, which is it? Did he lose his office or was he just not a "great pope"?

He lost the office in 1951. When he actually held the office (1939-1951), he was not a great pope for the reasons I just mentioned. Its really not that complicated.

Be more specific next time. It's really not that difficult to do.

In my post I clearly state he lost the office in 1951. Its common knowledge, for people familiar with church history, that Pius XII was not elected in 1951 but decades earlier in 1939.

So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #84 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:44:09 PM »

Quote from: Catholicism101

He wasn't a public manifest heretic in 1939. He later became one in 1951. When a Catholic, even the pope, is a public heretic he automatically looses membership in the church. If he held any office, its gone. Thats divine law. Ecclesiastical law only exists to support divine law.

Nestorius initially had an office in the church when he was ordained but lost it automatically when he became a public heretic by teaching the blessed mother wasn't God.

????

Anyways, we're getting off topic. What of the Code of Canon Law, accepted by every pope since 1917? It teaches that sterile couples may marry and exercise the marital rite. Your anti-papacy began a long time before Pius XII.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #85 on:** November 14, 2013, 06:34:44 PM »

Quote from: AllMonks

Quote from: GregorianChat
Quote from: Catholicism101
Quote from: GregorianChat
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.

Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:

Give me a break gregorianchant.

No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.

I believe he can be excused from heresy. But his teaching was still a heresy though.

One doesn't know from nature how children is made. One has to learn this from experience or being told or taught. So this is not a natural law in the same sense that: you shall not kill.

Anyway, if you accept his heresy just because you don't want to reject him, then don't reject him, but reject his heresy.

I am very confused about Pius XII and wonder how he could teach such an outstanding error while being a pope.

Or... accept what he taught because it is cogent with Catholic moral teaching on marital relations.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #86 on:** November 14, 2013, 06:49:38 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: AllMonks
Quote from: GregorianChat
Quote from: Catholicism101
Quote from: GregorianChat
Satan can quote the Church Fathers too.

Because satan really wants married couples to practice true chastity in marriage, be open to life, and stop using birth control........riiiiiiiight :rolleyes:

Give me a break gregorianchant.

No.
But I'm sure Satan wants some on this site to believe that Pope Pius XII was an antipope.

I believe he can be excused from heresy. But his teaching was still a heresy though.

One doesn't know from nature how children is made. One has to learn this from experience or being told or taught. So this is not a natural law in the same sense that: you shall not kill.

Anyway, if you accept his heresy just because you don't want to reject him, then don't reject him, but reject his heresy.

I am very confused about Pius XII and wonder how he could teach such an outstanding error while being a pope.

Or... accept what he taught because it is cogent with Catholic moral teaching on marital relations.

Because rejecting what Pius XII taught leads to rejecting the 1917 code of canon law (which teaches that sterile couples may marry) which naturally leads to a rejection of every pope who accepted that law... including Pius XI, who is supposed to be the big hero who "refutes" Pius XII!

How can Pius XI be condemning what Pius XII taught (which is merely that couples may conditionally exercise the marital rite during periods of natural sterility while abstaining during periods of fertility) when the code of canon law which he enforced allows couples who are sterile (i.e., couples who, naturally speaking, are somehow incapable of having children perpetually or indefinitely) to marry and enjoy the same privileges as couples who are not sterile?

I don't know if those who reject Pius XII's teaching on this are just not paying attention, or have their own agenda, or what, but they need to stop and consider what he actually teaches, then consider the nature and properties of marriage according to the natural and supernatural law. There is no conflict or contradiction between Pius XII and Pius XI or any other pope or Father of the Church.

Ambrose · « **Reply #87 on:** November 14, 2013, 11:01:44 PM »

2Vermont wrote:

Quote

So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?

You are right. If a Pope publicly teaches heresy, guilt is presumed, as a Pope knows better, and by this he would fall from his office.

If Pope Pius XII or any Pope publicly professed heresy on a certain point of doctrine then it would automatically lead to a loss of membership in the Church and a loss of office.

But, the simple truth of the matter is this: Pope Pius XII's teaching was already being taught by the Scared Penitentiary going back to the 19th century for the use of confessors in guiding penitents. Secondly, it was taught on Casti Connubii, regardless of what these men are saying. The Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI two years after Casti Connubii was published explicitly taught the lawful use of the sterile times for those with an upright motive.

The position of these men is classic junk theology that preys on the simpleminded. Is it any wonder that the same people who are unable to make proper distinctions on this matter also are sloppy and simplistic in their thinking on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?

Do you see the pattern?

Stubborn · « **Reply #88 on:** November 15, 2013, 01:18:30 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

2Vermont wrote:
Quote
So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?

You are right. If a Pope publicly teaches heresy, guilt is presumed, as a Pope knows better, and by this he would fall from his office.

If Pope Pius XII or any Pope publicly professed heresy on a certain point of doctrine then it would automatically lead to a loss of membership in the Church and a loss of office.

This does not address the question 2V asked.

The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?

So for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.

OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.

There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.

Do you see the pattern?

That is the point 2V was wanting addressed.

2Vermont · « **Reply #89 on:** November 15, 2013, 04:12:28 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
2Vermont wrote:
Quote
So, here's the thing. If he taught heresy then how was he ever a pope? I thought true pope could not teach heresy. Isn't that what SV believes? If he was a true pope in 1939, how could he teach heresy later on in his pontificate?

You are right. If a Pope publicly teaches heresy, guilt is presumed, as a Pope knows better, and by this he would fall from his office.

If Pope Pius XII or any Pope publicly professed heresy on a certain point of doctrine then it would automatically lead to a loss of membership in the Church and a loss of office.

This does not address the question 2V asked.

The SV opinion is that a true pope cannot teach heresy - period. A true pope cannot lose his office by virtue of doing that which he cannot do, namely, teach heresy. The SV opinion is that if a true pope were able to teach heresy, that act of teaching heresy from a true pope would destroy the doctrine of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church - is this not so?

So for any SV who believes that PPXII is a true pope, they have no need or reason to question his teaching on NFP, rather, they are bound to "blindly" accept it completely, having full confidence that his teaching on NFP is guaranteed free from the possibility of error. End of story.

OTOH, SVs who question or otherwise believe that his teaching on NFP is heretical, should agree that since no true pope can teach heresy, that PPXII was never a true pope to begin with.

There can be no such a thing as a true pope "losing his office because he taught heresy" - either he was the pope and his teaching is true or his teaching is heretical and he was never a pope.

Do you see the pattern?

That is the point 2V was wanting addressed.

Yes, unless there is some other explanation. Or possibly I am misunderstanding SV thought (which may absolutely be the case here).