Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Hermes on August 03, 2021, 04:43:42 PM
-
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html?m=1 (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html?m=1)
-
If Christians could determine for themselves what Tradition is, its sources of extraction, how it is to be interpreted, when it is applied, how it ought to be formulated, and when it should be followed then what use is the Papacy? Eastern Orthodoxy would make more sense under this system.
The attempts to legitimize the Bergoglian reign of destruction and the preceding conciliar reigns of havoc have left many people with a thoroughly damaged understanding of ecclesiology such that these people are almost indistinguishable from Gallicans, Old Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox.
-
Yeah, this is all nonsense, made up to justify the R&R position. In actual Traditional Catholic theology, the Magisterium determines what is consistent with Tradition and what is not. This doesn't mean every single word that emanates from the merely-authentic Magisterium is infallible, but the Magisterium must be regarded as generally safe. If there are some minor mistakes that creep into the Magisterium, they must be respectfully challenged ... from within the Church.
This is not a question of infallibility but, rather, of indefectibility. If all we had was a problematic statement here or there in V2, that would be one thing. But we now have a completely corrupt Magisterium over 60 years which is leading souls to hell, and a public worship that is displeasing to God and harmful to souls.
-
Peter K needs to look at the basics on ultramontanism and realize that it was opposed by the likes of enemies of the Church in the 19th century.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on "ultramontanism":
For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it.
The latest Tradcast Express addresses these claims:
Listen to TRADCAST EXPRESS 137 by Novus Ordo Watch
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/Ycaao (https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/Ycaao)
-
Sedes seem to argue that we should not think and merely mindlessly follow whatever comes from the Pope. Of course they do not do that. They judge what comes just as R&R do. With the R&R saying the pope is mistaken and the sedes the pope is not the Pope. But the judgment is the same. Neither look to the papacy the way that the sedes demand the R&R do. For in that case, when the Popes started declaring that black was white and white was black in the sixties, the sedes would have conformed their judgment to Rome no matter what, as Saint Ignatius said the Jesuits should, and believe white is black and black is white, rather than thinking for themselves. For even if the pope was false, the lack of trust according to the sede model condemns them. What is the meaning of gaslighting? I want to use that word here but am not sure if it is proper.
Just a question. How can one trust the Pope absolutely as the sedes demand? If at any time the Pope could teach heresy and fall from his state unknown to all? So you can never know if the pope is real and his teaching is true, or if he is false and is teaching lies? The sedes even reject the Papacy of John XXIII who was accepted by the whole world and all Catholics and there weren't even traditional Catholics for six or seven years after he died, let alone sedevacantists. It would make sense to follow blindly if we knew that what happened today is impossible because God would not allow it. But it happened so that model is dead. I mean if a true Pope were elected tomorrow and was accepted by the sedes and he declared BOD was a heresy, they would reject the Pope again and declare a sede vacante again.
-
Sedes seem to argue that we should not think and merely mindlessly follow whatever comes from the Pope.
Strawman caricature of sedevacantism.
-
Where it comes to faith, there's one role that reason plays, as Vatican I taught, and that is whether or not we find the AUTHORITY behind Catholic teaching to be credible; these are known as the "motives of credibility". We've decided that this Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the True Church, and therefore we do not submit to its authority. Once you've decided that this Church speaks for Christ, then you have to submit and give internal assent. Now, that is the same as absolute assent, in that it's possible for the pope to err here or there, but not substantially. To posit a Magisterium, as R&R do, that is thoroughly corrupt and harmful, and a Public Worship of the Church that is offensive to God, that's a blasphemy against the Holy Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit, Who guides her.
THIS is all sedevacantism is rooted in:
Msgr. Fenton:
To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
-
Strawman caricature of sedevacantism.
I honestly don't think it is a strawman. I think it is what sedes say, but don't actually follow.
-
I honestly don't think it is a strawman. I think it is what sedes say, but don't actually follow.
Who cares if you "THINK" it is what they say -- PROVE it by citations, etc., or admit your representation is a straw man, inaccurate and unjust.
Thank you in advance.
-
This is not a question of infallibility but, rather, of indefectibility. If all we had was a problematic statement here or there in V2, that would be one thing. But we now have a completely corrupt Magisterium over 60 years which is leading souls to hell, and a public worship that is displeasing to God and harmful to souls.
This ^^^^
-
Sedes seem to argue that we should not think and merely mindlessly follow whatever comes from the Pope. Of course they do not do that. They judge what comes just as R&R do. With the R&R saying the pope is mistaken and the sedes the pope is not the Pope. But the judgment is the same. Neither look to the papacy the way that the sedes demand the R&R do. For in that case, when the Popes started declaring that black was white and white was black in the sixties, the sedes would have conformed their judgment to Rome no matter what, as Saint Ignatius said the Jesuits should, and believe white is black and black is white, rather than thinking for themselves. For even if the pope was false, the lack of trust according to the sede model condemns them. What is the meaning of gaslighting? I want to use that word here but am not sure if it is proper.
Just a question. How can one trust the Pope absolutely as the sedes demand? If at any time the Pope could teach heresy and fall from his state unknown to all? So you can never know if the pope is real and his teaching is true, or if he is false and is teaching lies? The sedes even reject the Papacy of John XXIII who was accepted by the whole world and all Catholics and there weren't even traditional Catholics for six or seven years after he died, let alone sedevacantists. It would make sense to follow blindly if we knew that what happened today is impossible because God would not allow it. But it happened so that model is dead. I mean if a true Pope were elected tomorrow and was accepted by the sedes and he declared BOD was a heresy, they would reject the Pope again and declare a sede vacante again.
Well said.
And to me, that's why I now believe that why Sedeism tends toward evil. The sedes and sedewhatevers will never themselves do what they, in their severeness and excessiveness, hold R&R to. They absolutely demand a standard from R&R that they will never themselves adhere to, and cannot adhere to. And they want everyone else to be the same way, but some of us still want to be honest, and will not go down the road of treachery which is Sedeism.
-
If Christians could determine for themselves what Tradition is, its sources of extraction, how it is to be interpreted, when it is applied, how it ought to be formulated, and when it should be followed then what use is the Papacy? Eastern Orthodoxy would make more sense under this system.
Catholic traditions, like the faith, have been well established over the life of the Church to the point that for the most part, these things only need to be handed down and reinforced so that children are raised in the faith and traditions of the Church. This means that as children, we learn our religion from our parents, catechisms, sermons, Catholic school and so on - the pope is not in this picture. Any questions were asked to parents or other Catholics, then to parish priests, not the pope.
-
Well said.
And to me, that's why I now believe that why Sedeism tends toward evil. The sedes and sedewhatevers will never themselves do what they, in their severeness and excessiveness, hold R&R to. They absolutely demand a standard from R&R that they will never themselves adhere to, and cannot adhere to. And they want everyone else to be the same way, but some of us still want to be honest, and will not go down the road of treachery which is Sedeism.
You make a lot of bold accusations and presumptions about the motivations of what sedes do and do not desire. Perhaps you need to check your own eye before you start pointing out the specks in the eyes of others.
-
Catholic traditions, like the faith, have been well established over the life of the Church to the point that for the most part, these things only need to be handed down and reinforced so that children are raised in the faith and traditions of the Church. This means that as children, we learn our religion from our parents, catechisms, sermons, Catholic school and so on - the pope is not in this picture. Any questions were asked to parents or other Catholics, then to parish priests, not the pope.
What led to them being well established if not for the Popes, councils, and OUM?
In Catholic ecclesiology, your system does not work.
-
What led to them being well established if not for the Popes, councils, and OUM?
In Catholic ecclesiology, your system does not work.
The Ordinary magisterial teachings are the usual day to day teachings of the Church, taught to her members through parents, priests, nuns, teachers, catechisms, hierarchy etc,. The Church's Universal Magisterium is merely, as PPIX puts it, "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith". Councils are relatively rare yet their place as regards the UM cannot be over stated.
Deo Gratias they've all done their job, how else could we know V2 is wrong? Yet 1000 - 2000 years ago souls were saved without the Council of Trent, V1 and many other Councils, how did they do it? How do we do it? - resort back to my previous post here.
In may not work in your idea of Catholic ecclesiology, but in reality that's the way it is.
-
And they want everyone else to be the same way, but some of us still want to be honest, and will not go down the road of treachery which is Sedeism.
:laugh2:
Your grasp of what SVs actually think -- versus what the anti-SV propaganda says and which people like you, Matto, et alii just mindlessly parrot -- is as tenuous as your grasp of reality.
-
The Ordinary magisterial teachings are the usual day to day teachings of the Church, taught to her members through parents, priests, nuns, teachers, catechisms, hierarchy etc,. The Church's Universal Magisterium is merely, as PPIX puts it, "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith". Councils are relatively rare yet their place as regards the UM cannot be over stated.
Deo Gratias they've all done their job, how else could we know V2 is wrong? Yet 1000 - 2000 years ago souls were saved without the Council of Trent, V1 and many other Councils, how did they do it? How do we do it? - resort back to my previous post here.
In may not work in your idea of Catholic ecclesiology, but in reality that's the way it is.
You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.
(Bull cuм Postquam; Denz. 740b (http://denzinger.patristica.net/denzinger/#n700))
Moreover if what you said were true then there would be no debates in Traditionalist circles on issues such as “Feeneyism,” NFP, Mary’s role in salvation, and the plethora of moral issues we are faced with today.
A church that teaches major doctrinal error, heresy, pernicious moral guidance, and blasphemies/sacrilege in discipline and liturgy is not the church of Christ, but a false and phony church; faker than your local Pentecostal congregation.
Catholic ecclesiology, by necessity, requires a living magisterium and an orthodox one that does not substantially change. Otherwise defection has occurred.
-
I get it, the Church's enemies tended to be anti ultramontanists, while the Popes of Vatican I and post Vatican I were fervent ultramontanists.
But there's no way any of them wanted that to mean "if you get a irreconcilable contradiction just say these guys aren't popes."
That which shouldn't be possible has in fact happened and we're all trying to figure out how to deal with it.
-
You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.
(Bull cuм Postquam; Denz. 740b (http://denzinger.patristica.net/denzinger/#n700))
Moreover if what you said were true then there would be no debates in Traditionalist circles on issues such as “Feeneyism,” NFP, Mary’s role in salvation, and the plethora of moral issues we are faced with today.
A church that teaches major doctrinal error, heresy, pernicious moral guidance, and blasphemies/sacrilege in discipline and liturgy is not the church of Christ, but a false and phony church; faker than your local Pentecostal congregation.
Catholic ecclesiology, by necessity, requires a living magisterium and an orthodox one that does not substantially change. Otherwise defection has occurred.
The Magisterium is living and can only but live, Our Lord said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass."
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
-
I get it, the Church's enemies tended to be anti ultramontanists, while the Popes of Vatican I and post Vatican I were fervent ultramontanists.
But there's no way any of them wanted that to mean "if you get a irreconcilable contradiction just say these guys aren't popes."
That which shouldn't be possible has in fact happened and we're all trying to figure out how to deal with it.
It has far more to do with a Pope merely contradicting himself and everything to do with the indefectibility of the Church preventing grave error and heresy being taught to the faithful.
-
:laugh2:
Your grasp of what SVs actually think -- versus what the anti-SV propaganda says and which people like you, Matto, et alii just mindlessly parrot -- is as tenuous as your grasp of reality.
One thing is for sure, you can talk the true religion all day long with sedes and agree on everything, but once "popes" enter into the subject, it's like trying to converse within the Tower of Babble.
-
It has far more to do with a Pope merely contradicting himself and everything to do with the indefectibility of the Church preventing grave error and heresy being taught to the faithful.
Do you agree that the Church and Christ are one? That the Church is Christ?
If so, what's the point of being even the least bit concerned about the Church's indefectibility?
-
Do you agree that the Church and Christ are one? That the Church is Christ?
If so, what's the point of being even the least bit concerned about the Church's indefectibility?
Because her indefectibility is explicitly tied into the universal ordinary magisterium and the papacy?
-
Because her indefectibility is explicitly tied into the universal ordinary magisterium and the papacy?
And Christ, what about Christ?
-
And Christ, what about Christ?
He promised that the faith would not fail Peter, and that whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven.
The mere fact that heresy and error came forth through the post-conciliar Magisterium and these "Popes" is an indication that the Holy Spirit is not with them, that faith has in fact failed the successors of Peter, and that Christ is fine with contradictions being bound by this authority. All of which go against the indefectibility of the Church, therefore showing that either the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ or that the hierarchy is false.
The mere existence of a traditional movement is an indicator of this fact.
-
The mere fact that heresy and error came forth through the post-conciliar Magisterium and these "Popes" is an indication that the Holy Spirit is not with them, that faith has in fact failed the successors of Peter, and that Christ is fine with contradictions being bound by this authority. All of which go against the indefectibility of the Church, therefore showing that either the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ or that the hierarchy is false.
The mere existence of a traditional movement is an indicator of this fact.
Ok you are missing the point though. Since you said nothing to my previous question, I am guessing that you agree that Christ and the Church are one and the same. As such, what reason can there be to be concerned about the defection of the Church, which is Christ, as that is something that can never happen.
I reworded your above reply your to make it agreeable: The mere fact that heresy and error came forth through the post-conciliar teachings of the conciliar popes, is, in all trad's observations, indeed an indication that the Holy Ghost is not with them, that they've lost the faith and have in fact failed in their duties as the successors of Peter. But Christ is not fine with any of that.
-
Ok you are missing the point though. Since you said nothing to my previous question, I am guessing that you agree that Christ and the Church are one and the same. As such, what reason can there be to be concerned about the defection of the Church, which is Christ, as that is something that can never happen.
I reworded your above reply your to make it agreeable: The mere fact that heresy and error came forth through the post-conciliar teachings of the conciliar popes, is, in all trad's observations, indeed an indication that the Holy Ghost is not with them, that they've lost the faith and have in fact failed in their duties as the successors of Peter. But Christ is not fine with any of that.
Twisting my words into your own means nothing to me.
You can continue in your errors, that's your choice. But I am stepping out of this discussion.
-
Twisting my words into your own means nothing to me.
You can continue in your errors, that's your choice. But I am stepping out of this discussion.
I made your words make sense is all. I guess per your above reply, it's safe to say that to you, Christ and the Church are not one, which would help explain your concern for the Church's indefectibility being at risk, or having already defected.
-
One thing is for sure, you can talk the true religion all day long with sedes and agree on everything, but once "popes" enter into the subject, it's like trying to converse within the Tower of Babble.
It isn't even about any individual pope; it is about a counterfeit church created via V2.
-
:laugh2:
Your grasp of what SVs actually think -- versus what the anti-SV propaganda says and which people like you, Matto, et alii just mindlessly parrot -- is as tenuous as your grasp of reality.
Do you think if sedes would actually answer questions honestly, or at least give actual answers at all, that we'd all have a true grasp of what they actually think, vs the impression their attitude leaves us to think?
-
It isn't even about any individual pope; it is about a counterfeit church created via V2.
I agree, yet somehow, "the pope" always manages to work it's way in there.
-
Do you think if sedes would actually answer questions honestly, or at least give actual answers at all, that we'd all have a true grasp of what they actually think, vs the impression their attitude leaves us to think?
This forum is FULL of clear, oft-lengthy, honest answers and commentary from SVs (and it is but one source of many). You may not like or agree with or understand said comments/answers, but that is an entirely separate matter. Good day :)
-
Do you agree that the Church and Christ are one? That the Church is Christ?
If so, what's the point of being even the least bit concerned about the Church's indefectibility?
The Father and Christ are one. The Church and Christ are not one.
Christ is Christ. The Church is the Church. Christ is not the Church. The Church is not Christ.
The Church is in a mysterious way the Body of Christ, not actually, not literally but in a figurative sense.
-
Stubborn, don't ask sedevacantists, ask the infallible and extraordinary magisterium of the Church of Our Lord:
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
We are "bound to submit to" the Roman pontiff "by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
-
This forum is FULL of clear, oft-lengthy, honest answers and commentary from SVs (and it is but one source of many). You may not like or agree with or understand said comments/answers, but that is an entirely separate matter. Good day :)
No way GV, in many other threads, one recent, I could not get even one of the sedes to answer. I got everything but answers, same o same o. Check DL's post in this thread, it's is a case in point, it's typical. Ask a question having nothing to do with popes, get a reply whose main context is about the pope.
-
Stubborn, don't ask sedevacantists, ask the infallible and extraordinary magisterium of the Church of Our Lord:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
We are "bound to submit to" the Roman pontiff "by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
Note that V1 states we owe the pope *true obedience*, yet this is impossible unless we always maintain the highest of all principles in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man". Leaving it at that, we come to a full stop, period. Sedes cannot stop there, they have some need to insist popes are not popes, as if that opinion is their religious obligation.
-
Note that V1 states we owe the pope *true obedience*, yet this is impossible unless we always maintain the highest of all principles in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man". Leaving it at that, we come to a full stop, period. Sedes cannot stop there, they have some need to insist popes are not popes, as if that opinion is their religious obligation.
One arrives at a contradiction, if it is not possible to obey God and the Pope at the same time. Consequently, there is some error in the assumptions. One possibility: the Pope is not the Pope.
Do you know of any other possibility?
-
The Father and Christ are one. The Church and Christ are not one.
Christ is Christ. The Church is the Church. Christ is not the Church. The Church is not Christ.
The Church is in a mysterious way the Body of Christ, not actually, not literally but in a figurative sense.
Sorry but Christ and the Church are one and the same. So says St. Paul, many popes and saints etc,. You can look it up if you want. To say otherwise is to admit that Christ is not the Head of the Church. The Church is Christ's Mystical Body (head included) of which we (Catholics) are members. We are not the body of Christ, we are members of His Body (head included). Christ and the Church are one.
No one can believe in Christ, and at the same time not believe in His Church. As Pope Pius XII said referencing St. Paul, Christ and the Church are one: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself" and this has been repeated throughout many papal teachings, St. Augustine also taught that you can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one.
At any rate, you can investigate on your own, the bottom line is, the indefectibility of the Church is not our concern, it is our foundation.
-
Sorry but Christ and the Church are one and the same. So says St. Paul, many popes and saints etc,. You can look it up if you want. To say otherwise is to admit that Christ is not the Head of the Church. The Church is Christ's Mystical Body (head included) of which we (Catholics) are members. We are not the body of Christ, we are members of His Body (head included). Christ and the Church are one.
That's pure nonsens!
1.) Please, go ahead and quote the Apostle and some Popes and Saints!
2.) Being the head of the something surely isn't the same as being that something.
3.) The Church is not "Christ's Mystical Body (head included)", but rather head not included
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
One arrives at a contradiction, if it is not possible to obey God and the Pope at the same time. Consequently, there is some error in the assumptions. One possibility: the Pope is not the Pope.
Do you know of any other possibility?
Yes, the popes have corrupted themselves, became modernist heretics and have lost the faith, while at the same time believing they're under the Holy Ghost's protection so whatever they teach can never harm the faithful or the Church, and they are always infallibly safe to follow.
I know, I know - Enter V1's teaching that quotes Our Lord praying that St. Peter not lose the faith....this divine revelation from Our Lord has not been in any way compromised or otherwise infringed upon, because it is a revelation from Our Lord Himself. this is because Our Lord was referring to when the pope engages his papal infallibility. I cannot remember which if the Fathers taught this, but will look it up when I get the chance, or you can when you get the chance.
At any rate, as regards the Church's infallibility and indefectibility, words of wisdom.....
"If these two Doctrines be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try". - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
-
Yes, the popes have corrupted themselves, became modernist heretics and have lost the faith, while at the same time believing they're under the Holy Ghost's protection so whatever they teach can never harm the faithful or the Church, and they are always infallibly safe to follow.
I know, I know - Enter V1's teaching that quotes Our Lord praying that St. Peter not lose the faith....this divine revelation from Our Lord has not been in any way compromised or otherwise infringed upon, because it is a revelation from Our Lord Himself. this is because Our Lord was referring to when the pope engages his papal infallibility. I cannot remember which if the Fathers taught this, but will look it up when I get the chance, or you can when you get the chance.
At any rate, as regards the Church's infallibility and indefectibility, words of wisdom.....
"If these two Doctrines be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try". - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
I'm not able to follow your reasoning.
I must somehow obey Our Lord first. To find out how to do that, I primarily use infallible teaching of the Church. E.g. the Vatican Council. I don't believe that there can be any contradiction between the Vatican Council and my duty to obey God first. Hence, it must be possible to obey God and obey any legitimate Pope at the same time.
-
That's pure nonsens!
1.) Please, go ahead and quote the Apostle and some Popes and Saints!
2.) Being the head of the something surely isn't the same as being that something.
3.) The Church is not "Christ's Mystical Body (head included)", but rather head not included
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Nonsense? It is a doctrine of the Church, as I already quoted PPXII saying: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself" - he was a true pope no?
There are plenty of other authoritative sources as well. Look it up.
-
Nonsense? It is a doctrine of the Church, as I already quoted PPXII saying: "The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself" - he was a true pope no?
There are plenty of other authoritative sources as well. Look it up.
Look at the whole text, Pius XII does not say "Christ, which is the Church", but "the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church". The text of the encyclical explains it: Christ is the Head, while the Church is the Body.
-
I'm not able to follow your reasoning.
I must somehow obey Our Lord first. To find out how to do that, I primarily use infallible teaching of the Church. E.g. the Vatican Council. I don't believe that there can be any contradiction between the Vatican Council and my duty to obey God first. Hence, it must be possible to obey God and obey any legitimate Pope at the same time.
There is no contradiction. All of the Church's teachings are infallible whether binding or not, whether defined ex cathedra or not. This is true because Christ is the Church, hence all teachings taught by the Church cannot be anything but truth, which is to say that truth is always infallible. The pope is not the Church, Christ is the Church. The pope is only a man, and outside of when he speaks ex cathedra, can teach errors and all manner or heresy as we've seen since V2 and even before.
When the conciliar popes want us to do or believe heresies or anything that offends God, we cannot accept those teachings because if we do, we offend God. In order to not offend God in this mess, we are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man.
-
There is no contradiction. All of the Church's teachings are infallible whether binding or not, whether defined ex cathedra or not. This is true because Christ is the Church, hence all teachings taught by the Church cannot be anything but truth, which is to say that truth is always infallible. The pope is not the Church, Christ is the Church. The pope is only a man, and outside of when he speaks ex cathedra, can teach errors and all manner or heresy as we've seen since V2 and even before.
When the conciliar popes want us to do or believe heresies or anything that offends God, we cannot accept those teachings because if we do, we offend God. In order to not offend God in this mess, we are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man.
You write as if you had forgotten all we've been talking about in the past hours. Wasting our time.
-
Look at the whole text, Pius XII does not say "Christ, which is the Church", but "the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church". The text of the encyclical explains it: Christ is the Head, while the Church is the Body.
Pius XII Humani Generis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html)
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
I could post more but have to do a little work at the moment
-
You write as if you had forgotten all we've been talking about in the past hours. Wasting our time.
You said there was a contradiction, and said: "Hence, it must be possible to obey God and obey any legitimate Pope at the same time".
There is no contradiction when the pope does not want us to do something that offends God. It is not a contradiction to not obey the pope if it offends God, it is simply not possible to obey the pope in those instances.
-
Pius XII Humani Generis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html)
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
I could post more but have to do a little work at the moment
Sure, the Church is (not Christ) but the Mystical Body of Christ. That's undisputed.
The encyclical Mystici corporis says that Christ is the Head and the Church is the Body. The Body does not include the Head. In #53 Pius says that "Christ in a certain sense lives in the Church, that she is, as it were, another Christ". But: not "the Church is Christ", rather "the Church is another Christ". And this must be understood correctly:
54. Nevertheless this most noble title of the Church must not be so understood as if that ineffable bond by which the Son of God assumed a definite human nature belongs to the universal Church; but it consists in this, that our Savior shares prerogatives peculiarly His own with the Church in such a way that she may portray, in her whole life, both exterior and interior, a most faithful image of Christ. For in virtue of the juridical mission by which our Divine Redeemer sent His Apostles into the world, as He had been sent by the Father, it is He who through the Church baptizes, teaches, rules, looses, binds, offers, sacrifices.
Not "the Church is Christ", rather "the Church is a most faithful image of Christ".
-
You said there was a contradiction, and said: "Hence, it must be possible to obey God and obey any legitimate Pope at the same time".
There is no contradiction when the pope does not want us to do something that offends God. It is not a contradiction to not obey the pope if it offends God, it is simply not possible to obey the pope in those instances.
You can't just ignore the facts:
1.) We're forced to obey God.
2.) We're forced to obey the Vatican Council.
3.) Given 2.) we're forced to obey the Pope. (Reply #33)
All these are always true. If I say: There is a Pope I can't obey, then I contradict 3.)
-
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
So, what is it? Is the undisputed Head thereof also the Head of the Catholic Church? If so, HOW is such an absurdity possible?
Thank you in advance for your unwavering simplicity, clarity and honesty.
-
Stubborn,
Do you agree that husband and wife are one, yet distinct?
Holy Church is the Mystical Body of Christ; He is the (presently-invisible) Head thereof. The Roman Pontiff is the visible head.
Holy Church is the Immaculate Spouse of Christ, not Christ Himself; similarly, my wife and I are two in one flesh, but we are not the exact same thing/person/etc.
If, as you assert, Christ IS the Church, please educate us on what the role of the Holy Ghost is? Why is the Third Person even involved, if the Second Person IS the Church? Perhaps Christ IS the Holy Ghost?
-
You can't just ignore the facts:
1.) We're forced to obey God.
2.) We're forced to obey the Vatican Council.
3.) Given 2.) we're forced to obey the Pope. (Reply #33)
All these are always true. If I say: There is a Pope I can't obey, then I contradict 3.)
Given #3 referencing reply 33, V1 teaches that as subjects of the pope, we are bound to submit to the pope in *true obedience.* V1 does not say "obedience", nor does it say blind obedience, V1 specifically teaches that as his subordinates, it is our duty to obey the pope with *true obedience*.
You've created a conundrum by eliminating "true obedience" and replacing it with either just plain old simple "obedience" or blind obedience, not sure which, perhaps both, I don't know.
Either way, our true obedience is owed to him in matters concerning faith and morals and regarding the disciplines/government of the Church - which because the conciliar popes are all hell bent on destroying the Church, in true obedience we cannot obey.
We would only be contradicting if the pope wanted to implement something Catholic or something not anti-Catholic into the faith/morals/discipline/government of the true Church but we rejected it, other than that, we do not and can never contradict the teaching by exercising and adhering to true obedience.
-
Sure, the Church is (not Christ) but the Mystical Body of Christ. That's undisputed.
The encyclical Mystici corporis says that Christ is the Head and the Church is the Body. The Body does not include the Head. In #53 Pius says that "Christ in a certain sense lives in the Church, that she is, as it were, another Christ". But: not "the Church is Christ", rather "the Church is another Christ". And this must be understood correctly:
Not "the Church is Christ", rather "the Church is a most faithful image of Christ".
The mystical body of Christ, is Christ, the whole Christ, head and all. It's been a long day so if you won't, I will find more authoritative sources in the morning.
-
So, what is it? Is the undisputed Head thereof also the Head of the Catholic Church? If so, HOW is such an absurdity possible?
Thank you in advance for your unwavering simplicity, clarity and honesty.
It's the anti-Catholic church. Your question I answered in another thread a few days ago.......
I said:
The link should start right at the mark, otherwise listen for about 2 minutes from about the 1:13:39 mark.
https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4419 (https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4419)
(https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4419)
-
Stubborn,
Do you agree that husband and wife are one, yet distinct?
Holy Church is the Mystical Body of Christ; He is the (presently-invisible) Head thereof. The Roman Pontiff is the visible head.
Holy Church is the Immaculate Spouse of Christ, not Christ Himself; similarly, my wife and I are two in one flesh, but we are not the exact same thing/person/etc.
If, as you assert, Christ IS the Church, please educate us on what the role of the Holy Ghost is? Why is the Third Person even involved, if the Second Person IS the Church? Perhaps Christ IS the Holy Ghost?
I've been in front of this screen for +11 hours, I'm done for the day but will answer in the morning or tomorrow as I am able to.
The quick answer is that Holy Ghost's is the sanctifyer. The pope is the visible head, and is he going to get it when he meets Our Lord, always reminds me of...... "Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord." - Jer 23:1-2
-
The mystical body of Christ, is Christ, the whole Christ, head and all.
Above, I quoted the relevant parts of Mystici corporis contradicting what you say.
It's been a long day so if you won't, I will find more authoritative sources in the morning.
You would have to, to convince me.
-
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html?m=1 (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html?m=1)
I read several of the first paragraphs. Kwasniewski seems to be echoing Gregorius Hesse, though replacing the crimes of Montini by Bergoglio's motu proprio. Sounds like a typical Trad Inc gatekeeper to me.
-
Above, I quoted the relevant parts of Mystici corporis contradicting what you say.
You would have to, to convince me.
I must mention that I'm a bit puzzles that this doctrine apparently is something unknown or new to some, but PPXII explains it very well imo. The doctrine stated very simply is this: Christ and the Church are one.
There are more references out there I'm sure, but these were the most easily found, I bolded the points we're discussing......
Pope Pius XII (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html)
53. As Bellarmine notes with acuмen and accuracy, this appellation of the Body of Christ is not to be explained solely by the fact that Christ must be called the Head of His Mystical Body, but also by the fact that He so sustains the Church, and so in a certain sense lives in the Church, that she is, as it were, another Christ. The Doctor of the Gentiles, in his letter to the Corinthians, affirms this when, without further qualification, he calls the Church "Christ," following no doubt the example of his Master who called out to him from on high when he was attacking the Church: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" Indeed, if we are to believe Gregory of Nyssa, the Church is often called simply "Christ" by the Apostle; and you are familiar Venerable Brethren, with that phrase of Augustine: "Christ preaches Christ."
60. And now, Venerable Brethren, We come to that part of Our explanation in which We desire to make clear why the Body of Christ, which is the Church, should be called mystical. This name, which is used by many early writers, has the sanction of numerous Pontifical docuмents. There are several reasons why it should be used; for by it we may distinguish the Body of the Church, which is a Society whose Head and Ruler is Christ, from His physical Body, which, born of the Virgin Mother of God, now sits at the right hand of the Father and is hidden under the Eucharistic veils; and, that which is of greater importance in view of modern errors, this name enables us to distinguish it from any other body, whether in the physical or the moral order.
67. Here, Venerable Brethren, We wish to speak in a very special way of our union with Christ in the Body of the Church, a thing which is, as Augustine justly remarks, sublime, mysterious and divine; but for that very reason it often happens that many misunderstand it and explain it incorrectly. It is at once evident that this union is very close. In the Sacred Scriptures it is compared to the chaste union of man and wife, to the vital union of branch and vine, and to the cohesion found in our body. Even more, it is represented as being so close that the Apostle says: "He (Christ) is the Head of the Body of the Church," and the unbroken tradition of the Fathers from the earliest times teaches that the Divine Redeemer and the Society which is His Body form but one mystical person, that is to say to quote Augustine, the whole Christ. Our Savior Himself in His sacerdotal prayer did not hesitate to liken this union to that wonderful unity by which the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son.
77. This communication of the Spirit of Christ is the channel through which all the gifts, powers, and extra-ordinary graces found superabundantly in the Head as in their source flow into all the members of the Church, and are perfected daily in them according to the place they hold in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Thus the Church becomes, as it were, the filling out and the complement of the Redeemer, while Christ in a sense attains through the Church a fullness in all things. Herein we find the reason why, according to the opinion of Augustine already referred to, the mystical Head, which is Christ, and the Church, which here below as another Christ shows forth His person, constitute one new man, in whom heaven and earth are joined together in perpetuating the saving work of the Cross: Christ We mean, the Head and the Body, the whole Christ.
Eph 5:23
Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
Col 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy