Author Topic: Can the "Sede" question be discussed academically? (Read 61634 times)

McFiggly · « **Reply #310 on:** November 04, 2015, 07:41:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Exact or not, the pope is the supreme authority, the Vicar of Christ on earth and most of the world does not know or care, due in large part to the new faith, which stopped teaching it in order to adopt to the customs and mores of the day.

But you can't abandon the army just because you don't agree with or don't understand the general's strategy.

Quote

No, but it is an outward sign of respect and reverence in acknowledging God, whom we genuflect too, is in the tabernacle, in the most conspicuous place of prominence in the center of the altar.

The jist of it is - if you are going to compare the new faith to anything, you must compare the new faith to that which it replaced.

If you do this, you will be forced to accept the fact that the new faith is not Catholic - and it is this new faith that you are on board with.

So what is the difference between you and the Jansenists who were disobedient because they thought that the Jesuits in Rome were teaching a false doctrine on grace, or the Old Catholics who separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council because they thought that it preached a new faith?

McFiggly · « **Reply #311 on:** November 04, 2015, 07:49:15 AM »

For example, I don't see how the abandoning of the papal tiara is an abandoning of the faith. Christ did not crown St. Peter with that tiara. It is not a part of revelation. It was a sign of power and empire when there really was a Christian empire, a sign that Christ was the King of Kings above all the kings of Europe. That time is gone though. It's an anachronism, not a part of the eternal faith that will endure forever.

The successors of St. Peter will always be Christ's representative (vicar), but Christ does not always need to be represented as a monarch to attract admiration, respect, love. It made sense for Christ to be represented that way when kings ruled over the nations.

Stubborn · « **Reply #312 on:** November 04, 2015, 08:11:37 AM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Stubborn

Exact or not, the pope is the supreme authority, the Vicar of Christ on earth and most of the world does not know or care, due in large part to the new faith, which stopped teaching it in order to adopt to the customs and mores of the day.

But you can't abandon the army just because you don't agree with or don't understand the general's strategy.

No, I continue the battle, while the generals went awol by abandoning their duty in favor of adopting to the customs and mores of the enemy.

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Stubborn

No, but it is an outward sign of respect and reverence in acknowledging God, whom we genuflect too, is in the tabernacle, in the most conspicuous place of prominence in the center of the altar.

The jist of it is - if you are going to compare the new faith to anything, you must compare the new faith to that which it replaced.

If you do this, you will be forced to accept the fact that the new faith is not Catholic - and it is this new faith that you are on board with.

So what is the difference between you and the Jansenists who were disobedient because they thought that the Jesuits in Rome were teaching a false doctrine on grace, or the Old Catholics who separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council because they thought that it preached a new faith?

The difference is that the new religion is new, the way we know this is to compare it to that which it replaced. There is really no better way to discover this fact and no other way to be certain of this fact.

The modernist enemies who perpetrated the new religion knows this, which is why they compare the new religion to antiquity, which is what they have you doing.

Stubborn · « **Reply #313 on:** November 04, 2015, 08:27:43 AM »

Pope Pius XII explains it:

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

Mediator Dei

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circuмstances and situation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #314 on:** November 04, 2015, 08:32:54 AM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

Quote from: Stubborn
Either way, there is every possibility that one of the heretic cardinals could win the election because there is nothing to stop it.

This has actually happened some few times in Church history. The interesting thing is that each time it did, the person, despite a heretical past, nevertheless proved incapable of using their papal office to promulgate their favored heresies. Pope Calixtus I could not spread the modalistic Monarchianism of his friend and co-heretic Sabellius, though he had been a significant proponent of the heresy up until his election to the papacy. Pope Pius II could not spread his conciliarism once he was pope, though as mere cardinal he believed in it most fervently and openly. Vigilius reversed the wrong position regarding the "three chapters" he had previously taken as antipope (to Pope Silverius who was still alive gloriously reigning but in confinement) once he was Pope, and when Pius IX was elected the Freemasons all rejoiced to have at last "their man" on the papal throne, though that did them no good as whatever it was about Pius IX that had appealed to them ceased to be once he was Pope.
So for a papal election to have so failed as the recent and current ones have all failed to give the Church a real Pope (one whom Catholics can follow without having to vet all of his statements through some separate magisterial authority on the part of traditional clergy), SOMETHING ELSE needs to have gone wrong than merely even the election of a heretic. Either that, or the one so elected, truly and validly, must have somehow resigned - perhaps without people noticing - such that the Holy Ghost's protection of Popes would no longer apply to him. Papal infallibility is not like the sacrament of Holy Orders which a person will possess throughout history no matter whatever happens, but more like a juridical capacity which the Church gives and which can be subsequently lost.

Pope Paul IV had very specific reasons for the language he put in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio relating to some certain cardinal(s) who were heretical, and though the Holy Ghost would presumably have protected the Church from their heresies, it certainly is within the prerogative of a Pope to set as policy regarding the election of his successor the exclusion of anyone who was thus far a heretic. But by and large that does not appear to have been the policy, as recent papal election procedure docuмents show, and also as shown by the election of several heretics who nevertheless once elected served adequately as true Popes.

I was under the impression that a public heretic was not valid matter for the papacy, according to Divine Law, much like a potato chip is not valid matter for the Eucharist. A public heretic is not Catholic and cannot be elected to the Papacy. The above examples, if correct, would, I would think, that the false doctrines were not defined at the time, or were repented of before election.

See the below regarding Pius IX:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/calumny-against-pope-pius9.htm