Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11

Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope?  (Read 1224 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #45 on: Today at 02:05:03 AM »
Quote from: SoldierofCtK on Yesterday at 10:09:59 PM
Who do you think pushed for the council? The same Modernists condemned by Pope St. Pius X, you dunce.

I actually dont know where to begin with such a stupid remark.
Logged

Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #46 on: Today at 02:07:51 AM »
Quote from: InNomineDomini on Yesterday at 07:07:36 PM
Eusebius of Dorelayum was a layman in Constantinople, he was present in the Haiga Sophia when Nestorius went to the pulpit and preached heresy for the first time. He also later challenged Eutyches for monophysitism. If you remember, it took Rome years to condemn Nestorius, but Eusebius recognized heresy instantly and challenged him from the congregation. He didn't sit in the pew twiddling his thumbs saying "ooh I can't fink he's a hewetic, I gotta wait till he's decwaired wone fwom Wome."


Secondly, Modernism is Modernism, it is the same heresy that Pope Pius X condemned, if what came from V2 is not a heresy, and Leo XVI is teaching it, you can't judge as a layman as you said, and you must submit.

More dogmatic sede low IQ remarks. This is almost too easy.

My friend, despite all your sneering, there is a reason that the Church formally condemns heresy.

And no "modernism is modernism" is not true. JThere was semi arianism etc. Look it up. Do you know anything about the history of heresies?

please go get a basic education on these topics and come back to me.
Logged

Online DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #47 on: Today at 02:17:25 AM »
Quote from: Angelus on Yesterday at 02:14:37 PM
You are conflating instructions relevant for the period BEFORE the age of the Church with the period AT THE END of the age of the Church. When Jesus spoke of the Chair of Moses, he had not yet founded His Church.

After its foundation, His Church's doctrine is infallible, as are the true Successors of Peter when teaching ex Cathedra. The High Priest and Pharisees were not graced with the charism of infallibility. They simply had authority. Their teachings were obviously perverse.

So, do you understand the conflation you are making?

And Peter and Paul, acting AFTER the Church was founded, did not submit in anyway to the authority of the High Priests or pharisees. They were imprisoned and persecuted and executed because they refused to submit to those false authorities.

No one is disputing the infallibility of the pope speaking ex cathedra, so what are you talking about? You, I, everyone here, none of us are rejecting an ex cathedra teaching of a pope.

There has been no change in the people of God with respect to those in the seat. Israel was commanded to obey the high priest, as we are commanded to obey the pope:

Quote
Dt 17:10  And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee

The same exceptions of obedience also apply under the New Covenant. Or are you saying we should obey commandments of popes/bishops which "transgress the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3)?


Quote
And Peter and Paul, acting AFTER the Church was founded, did not submit in anyway to the authority of the High Priests or pharisees. They were imprisoned and persecuted and executed because they refused to submit to those false authorities.

Yes, Peter did not obey the commandment of the high priest and Sanhedrin when he was told not to preach of Christ:


Quote
Acts 5:28-9  Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.

You say the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and we agree.

You say Peter did not obey the high priest or the pharisees, and I agree - as Scripture clearly tells us, when commanding contrary to God.

What incident regarding Paul are you talking about? I gave an incident: where he called the high priest a "whited wall," and when struck by a guard, responded, effectively, "sorry, I didn't know he was the high priest":


Quote
Acts 23:2-5  And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth.  3 Then Paul said to him: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and contrary to the law commandest me to be struck?  4 And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God?  5 And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people.

So what's your point?
 


Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #48 on: Today at 05:34:06 AM »
Quote from: Angelus on Yesterday at 12:40:20 PM
No, the root of the problem is the SSPX's duplicity. Take this quote from the OP:

The SSPX says that it "refuses obedience of anything that tends towards the destruction of the Church." But what did the SSPX actually do?

The Society refused obedience to the Code of Canon Law requirement that new bishops receive a papal mandate prior to their consecration.

How does the requiring a papal mandate (assuming a true Pope) "tend towards the destruction of the Church." In normal times, when you have a true Pope, a papal mandate promotes order in the Church for the common good. So upon what principle does the SSPX claim a necessity to refuse obedience to a law that has been on the books since the 1950s?

Is the necessity that there are no other active Catholic bishops? Apparently this is not what the SSPX claims. For example, they think Athanasius Schneider is a real bishop, and they see him as their traditional ally.

Is the necessity related to a problem with the new rites of Ordination or Consecration? Apparently this is not what the SSPX claims. They think that many, if not most, of the currently bishops are real priests and bishops.

So what is it about Canon 1387 that "tends toward the destruction of the Church" so much so that the SSPX must resist the man that they call "the Pope."
Well, by concentrating on subject matter that the SSPX is not concerned with or in any way implies, you are giving an entirely different context to the matter at hand, one that has nothing whatsoever, absolutely zero to do with the matter at hand. Again, remember, the SSPX have no doubt that the pope is the pope - period. 

As for refusing obedience to canon law, read the OP, they covered this subject which ends with the highest of Catholic principles: "In summary, the Society's position is as follows: to recognize the Pope; to obey him insofar as his commands are not wrong; but not to follow the prescriptions that lead, in practice, to the ruin of the Church. It is therefore clear that the SSPX is not schismatic according to canon law, which speaks of a refusal of submission."  

You said: "Is the necessity that there are no other active Catholic bishops?..."  Is explained in the OP: "This is, for example, the crisis of Arianism, where a large number of the world's bishops fell into heresy, while the Pope excommunicated St. Athanasius...." Whether the bishops are valid or not, whether they could ordain trad priests or not - the NO bishops, like during Arianism, are all in error - the SSPX will have their own bishops, they are not going to depend on the NO.

I could go on, but the bottom line is they have everything covered that relates to the excoms in the OP, you just need to read and understand it for what it is. 
Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?
« Reply #49 on: Today at 02:00:04 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 02:17:25 AM
No one is disputing the infallibility of the pope speaking ex cathedra, so what are you talking about? You, I, everyone here, none of us are rejecting an ex cathedra teaching of a pope.

There has been no change in the people of God with respect to those in the seat. Israel was commanded to obey the high priest, as we are commanded to obey the pope:

The same exceptions of obedience also apply under the New Covenant. Or are you saying we should obey commandments of popes/bishops which "transgress the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3)?


Yes, Peter did not obey the commandment of the high priest and Sanhedrin when he was told not to preach of Christ:


You say the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and we agree.

You say Peter did not obey the high priest or the pharisees, and I agree - as Scripture clearly tells us, when commanding contrary to God.

What incident regarding Paul are you talking about? I gave an incident: where he called the high priest a "whited wall," and when struck by a guard, responded, effectively, "sorry, I didn't know he was the high priest":


So what's your point?
 



You brought in the quote about "the Chair of Moses" from the Gospel of Matthew, as if it applied wholesale to the situation we are considering with the false papal claimant, Bob. I was disagreeing with the use of that quote in our contemporary context.

I explained that instruction from Jesus related to the pre-Church era, not to the end times that we are currently living through. As an example of the difference between the two situations, I provided an example. Those sitting in the Chair of Moses in Jesus's time were not infallible. Those who are true Popes are infallible when teaching ex cathedra. Aquinas discusses this and agrees with what I say here:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Matt.C23.L1.n1832


The Chair of Moses quote conflates two distinct questions: submission of mind to Church teaching, and material obedience to lawful authority:

1. SUBMISSION OF MIND: I did not say anyone here was rejecting any ex cathedra teaching of a Pope. As I explained above, I brought up the dogma of papal infallibility simply to illustrate that the High Priests in Jesus's day were not infallible, unlike Roman Catholic Popes (who are in certain contexts).

But this point is very important beyond the illustration I was trying to make. If you believe that Prevost is a true Pope and he teaches something ex cathedra, then you are compelled to believe (to submit your mind to) what Prevost teaches. Do we agree on this or not? If he teaches something (ex cathedra) that you find problematic, you will either reject the dogma of papal infallibility or reject Prevost as a true Pope. Do we agree on this or not?

If we agree that that is the dilemma such a situation creates, I hope you can see the danger that Prevost presents. Maybe not to you because you know the Catholic Faith. But many Catholics (including attendees of traditional Catholic chapels) do not know their faith well enough to argue with the guy who they believe is the Pope.

Therefore, when "knowledgeable authorities" like SSPX bishops and priests insist that Prevost is the "true Pope," these poorly catechized, confused Catholics will be forced to choose between what the SSPX says and what "the Pope" says. Do you not see the problem there?

2. MATERIAL OBEDIENCE: On your point about "respecting those who sit in the seat." Yes, if they are lawfully sitting in the seat, then they should be respected as St. Paul showed in his example. A ruler with legitimate authority has POWER given to them by God. However, respecting commands related to order of the society is not the same as teachings about God. Jesus Himself submitted His Body but He did not submit His Mind to the High Priests. Same with Peter and Paul and the rest of the martyrs.

But to apply this to Prevost, who I believe is an illegitimate usurper, begs the question. If Prevost is not lawfully occupying the Chair of Peter, then no respect is due to him.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
« previous next »