Author Topic: Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week (Read 19291 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #50 on:** April 06, 2012, 11:14:57 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Cupertino is not a theologian and should not play one on TV. Are you suggesting that you agree with his absurd suggestion that anything the Pope does is "From the Church" which is a condemned Modernism.

"The deposit of faith was not completed by the death of the last apostle" Condemned by Pope St. Pius X

What the CHURCH TEACHES is what the Church has always taught, nothing more nothing less, it is the Traditions handed down.

SJB · « **Reply #51 on:** April 06, 2012, 11:18:01 AM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: SJB
Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

"Safer course"?

C'mon, SJB, your own priest, Fr. Ramolla, uses the old Holy Week!

A "safe" course IS a sufficient norm, so if you brought up your "safer course" theory to him, Fr. Ramolla would have just one question for you:

http://movieclips.com/fMhF-marathon-man-movie-is-it-safe/

The safer course does not involve epieikeia or cessation, because it is not necessary.

Quote from: Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan

413. In its use epieikeia is at once lawful and dangerous.

(a) It is lawful, for it defends the common good, the judgment of conscience, the rights of individuals from subjection to a written docuмent and from oppression by the abuse of power;

(b) it is dangerous, for it rests on the judgment of the individual, which is prone to decide in his own favor to the detriment of the common good as well as of self.

415. The dangers of epieikeia also place limitations on its use.

(a) There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one's ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now.

(b) There is the danger that one may be in bad faith in deciding that the common good or justice requires the use of epieikeia; the motive in reality may be self-interest or escape from obligation. Hence, a person should not use epieikeia except in necessity, when he is thrown on his own resources and must decide for himself; and, even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness.

SJB · « **Reply #52 on:** April 06, 2012, 11:28:48 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: SJB
Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Cupertino is not a theologian and should not play one on TV. Are you suggesting that you agree with his absurd suggestion that anything the Pope does is "From the Church" which is a condemned Modernism.

"The deposit of faith was not completed by the death of the last apostle" Condemned by Pope St. Pius X

What the CHURCH TEACHES is what the Church has always taught, nothing more nothing less, it is the Traditions handed down.

Lord Phan, do you deny the indirect infallibility of the disciplines laid down by the pope? If you do, you have a very un-Catholic view of the disciplines prescribed by the Church.

Here is an approved theologian explaining:

Quote from: Monsignor G. VanNoort, Christ’s Church

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

LordPhan · « **Reply #53 on:** April 06, 2012, 11:52:30 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: LordPhan
Quote from: SJB
Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Cupertino is not a theologian and should not play one on TV. Are you suggesting that you agree with his absurd suggestion that anything the Pope does is "From the Church" which is a condemned Modernism.

"The deposit of faith was not completed by the death of the last apostle" Condemned by Pope St. Pius X

What the CHURCH TEACHES is what the Church has always taught, nothing more nothing less, it is the Traditions handed down.

Lord Phan, do you deny the indirect infallibility of the disciplines laid down by the pope? If you do, you have a very un-Catholic view of the disciplines prescribed by the Church.

Here is an approved theologian explaining:

Quote from: Monsignor G. VanNoort, Christ’s Church
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

Since when does VanNoort speak for the Church? It would appear he has overextended the use of infallibity of the Church PAST that which was defined in the first Vatican Counsil. Can you site this book, when it was issued and can you cite a source that says this from an Earlier date?

Diciplinary Commands have never been considered infallible, in fact I think he misunderstands what infallible means, if something is infallible then it cannot be changed. Diciplinary commands have always been changed or disregarded by New Popes?

By the way, there have been many approved theologians who have gotten things wrong. Some of them are Doctors of the Church. What they say isn't what you must believe to be a Catholic, what the Pope decrees Ex Cathedra is what you must believe.

To call me un-catholic in my view would be to call everyone in history who hasn't had that view un-catholic. Catholic by the way means universal, both in time and place.

The reason that the Pope is guarenteed infallibity when speaking Ex Cathedra is because he defines a Dogma which has always been believed(The Dogma itself is infallible because it comes from God) on pain of not being a Catholic.

The diciplinary acts of a Pontiff do not fall into this sphere and do not enjoy the chrism of infallibity.

I can cite Father Hesse Doctor of Thomistic Theology and Doctor of Canon Law to back up my statement.

SJB · « **Reply #54 on:** April 06, 2012, 11:59:58 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: LordPhan
Quote from: SJB
Isn't this why it makes more sense? If you believe Pius XII was a true pope ... It is the safer course.

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
Unfortunately, anytime you have a true pope approve of a liturgical practice, even tacitly, it is considered to be approved by "the Catholic Church". That is the holiness of the Catholic Church. Either the Novus Ordo liturgy is from the Church and perfectly good, or else the man approving of it is not a true pope.

Cupertino is not a theologian and should not play one on TV. Are you suggesting that you agree with his absurd suggestion that anything the Pope does is "From the Church" which is a condemned Modernism.

"The deposit of faith was not completed by the death of the last apostle" Condemned by Pope St. Pius X

What the CHURCH TEACHES is what the Church has always taught, nothing more nothing less, it is the Traditions handed down.

Lord Phan, do you deny the indirect infallibility of the disciplines laid down by the pope? If you do, you have a very un-Catholic view of the disciplines prescribed by the Church.

Here is an approved theologian explaining:

Quote from: Monsignor G. VanNoort, Christ’s Church
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

Since when does VanNoort speak for the Church? It would appear he has overextended the use of infallibity of the Church PAST that which was defined in the first Vatican Counsil. Can you site this book, when it was issued and can you cite a source that says this from an Earlier date?

Diciplinary Commands have never been considered infallible, in fact I think he misunderstands what infallible means, if something is infallible then it cannot be changed. Diciplinary commands have always been changed or disregarded by New Popes?

By the way, there have been many approved theologians who have gotten things wrong. Some of them are Doctors of the Church. What they say isn't what you must believe to be a Catholic, what the Pope decrees Ex Cathedra is what you must believe.

To call me un-catholic in my view would be to call everyone in history who hasn't had that view un-catholic. Catholic by the way means universal, both in time and place.

The reason that the Pope is guarenteed infallibity when speaking Ex Cathedra is because he defines a Dogma which has always been believed(The Dogma itself is infallible because it comes from God) on pain of not being a Catholic.

The diciplinary acts of a Pontiff do not fall into this sphere and do not enjoy the chrism of infallibity.

I can cite Father Hesse Doctor of Thomistic Theology and Doctor of Canon Law to back up my statement.

Fr. Hesse is a post Vatican II figure. Here are two well-know pre-Vatican II theologians, Herve and Tanqurey:

Quote

Canonicus J.M. HERVE, S. Th. Dr., In majore Seminario Briocensi professor

Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae
VOL. I De ReveIatione Christiana — De Ecclesia Christi ; De Fontibus Revelationis
EDITIO DECIMA OCTAVA, PARISIIS, APUD BERCHE ET PAGIS, EDITORES 69,via dicta de Rennes, 69
(Omnia jura vindicabuntur)

p.515, 516

OBJECTUM INDIRECTUM INFALLIBILITATIS

4) DE REBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS

518. Status questionis. — Res disciplinares intelligimus leges ecciesiasticas, quibus homo, ad Deum rite colendum et ad vitam christianam bene instituendam, dirigitur et ordinatur.

Solas autem leges,pro universa Ecclesia editas, ad magisterium infallibile pertinere contendimus, eo quidem sensu quod nil, unquam verae fidei aut bonis moribus oppositum continere possint.

Assertio : Ecciesia infallibilis est in decretis disciplinaribus universalibus. Theol. Certum. (Cf. Trid. 22. can. 7; Synod. Pist, prop. 78, Denzinger, 954, 1578.).
519. Haec thesis statuitur contra Iconoclastas, Pseudo-reformatores, praesertim Calvinistas, Modernistas, Rationalistas et omnes qui cultum Ecclesia et leges impugnant.

Probatur: 1) Ex Ecclesic natura et fine. — Si Ecelesia enim, pro suprema sua auctoritate, omnibus fidelibus praeciperet aliquid contra fidem aut bonos mores, practice erraret, et eo ipso a vera fide deficeret; sancta esse cessaret et homines a salute averteret, viam falsam edocendo, nimirum vera Christi Ecciesia esse desineret et sub potestate diaboli constituta inveniretur.

Ergo.

2) Ex verbis Christi. — Nam, ex assistentia Christi perpetua et quotidiana << non minus infallibilis exhibetur Ecclesia in concreta et practica interpretatione revelationis, quam in ejus interpretatione dogmatica: <<docentes eos, aiebat Dominus, servare omnia quaecuмque mandavi vobis, et ecce ego vobiscuм sum...>> (Mt. xxviii. 20). Quod sane verum non esset, si per Ecclesiae leges possent aliquando amoveri fideles a rectitudine regulae evangelicae. >> (Billot, th. 22)

Absolute etiam promisit Christus ligatum fore in caelo, quidquid in terra ligaverit Ecllesia (Mt. xvi, 19; xviii, 18). Atqui nihil a Deo ratihaberi posset, quod, contra jus divinum, quocuмque modo praescriptum fuisset. Ergo.

3) Ex praxi Ecclesiae. — Ecclesia suam in rebus disciplinaribus infallibilitatem nonnunquam diserte aut impticite affirmavit (Act. xv, 28; Denzinger, 626, 856, 1578.). Quinimo doctrinam, ipsa Ecclesiae praxi universali consecratam et confirmatam, semper ut veram habuerunt non solum Patres et theologi, sed Pontifices et Concilia (S. Steph, I, ep. ad Cypr.; Conc. Nic. II, act. 7; Denzinger, 46, 302; S. Aug., serm. 294, 2, 2; S. Leo I M., ep. 114, 2, 119, 3; Journel, 1525, 2185, 2186.). Ergo.

Quote

SYNOPSIS THEOLOGIIE DOGMATICAE FUNDAMENTALIS
DE RELIGIONE REVELATA IN GENERE
DE CHRISTO DEl LEGATO
DE VERA CHRISTI ECCLESIA
DE CONSTITUTIONE ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE
DE FONTIBUS REVELATIONIS.

Auctore AD. TANQUEREY
EDITIO VICESIMA QUARTA, QUAM PENITUS RECOGNOVIT ET DE NOVO REDEGIT
J. B. BORD, Dogmaticae theologiae Professor.
Typis Societatis Sancti Joannis Evangelistae, DESCLEE ET SOCII, PARISIIS — TORNACI (BELG.) — ROMAE, 1937.

p.625

DE OBJECTO INFALLIBILITATIS IN ECCLESIA

5 DE LEGIBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS.

[Paragraph] 932. — (i) Leges disciplinares, de quibus agitur, eae sunt quae ad Dei cultum et vitam christianam dirigendam pro universali Ecciesia sunt statutae; differunt ergo a praeceptis, statutis et legibus particularibus.

2) Ecclesia est infallibilis in legibus disciplinaribus universalibus. Certum.

EXPLICATUR. Haec infallibilitas consistit in eo quod EccIesia, doctrinali judicio nunquam legem universalem statuet, quae fidei, moribus et saluti animarum adversetur. Ut patet, ejusmodi infallibilitas optime componitur cuм mutabilitate disciplinarum legum; et distinguitur ab earumdem apportunitate: nam nullibi Ecciesiae promittitur summus prudentiae gradus ad optimas leges pro omnibus temporum vel locorum circuмstantiis ferendas.

PROBATUR. (a) Ecciesia infallibilitate donata est ad Christi doctrinam tuto conservandam, ut fideles secure ad salutem dirigantur. Sed, si in rebus generalibus disciplinaribus erraret, vera Ecciesia non esset doctrinae revelatae fidelis custos, nec fideles in sanctitatis viam duceret. (b) Quapropter Pius VI, ut ”ad minus erroneam “, judicat hypothesim juxta quam “Ecciesia disciplinam constituere posset periculosam, noxiam... (D.B., 3578.)

Hinc Ecclesia pariter infallibilis est quando definitive et sollemniter approbat constitutiones alicujus Ordinis religiosi, quatenus approbare nequit instituta quae fidei et moribus sunt contraria, propter eamdem rationem ac supra; sed non est infallibilis quoad opportunitatem talis vel talis reguIae pro variis adjunctis loci et temporis. (Cf. Pesch, op. cit. n. 545)

Conclusio. Ex his omnibus merito infertur Ecclesiae infallibilitatem, ex una parte, res mere profanas non attingere; ex alia vero, sese applicare non solum iis quae revelata sunt, sed etiam iis quae ita cuм revelatis connectuntur ut, si in eis falleretur, error perniciosus in rebus ad fidem spectantibus induci posset.