Author Topic: Dissenting from the pope (Read 2607 times)

hollingsworth · « **on:** September 28, 2013, 10:34:42 AM »

Charlemagne includes the following quote from Pius X on all of his posts, I think.

Quote

“If one loves the Pope, one does not raise discussions as to what he ordains or demands, or as to how far obedience must go and in what things obedience is due. When one loves the Pope, one does not say that he has not spoken with sufficient clearness, as if he were obliged to repeat to the ear of each person that desire which has been expressed clearly, so many times, not by word of mouth only but by letters and other public docuмents. One does not call into question his orders by resorting to the facile pretext of those who do not wish to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands but those who surround him. One does not oppose to the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, since these if they are learned are not holy, for those who are holy cannot dissent from the Pope.” -- Pope St. Pius X

How do most of you deal with this saint's remarks in light of the fact that all of the Conciliar and post-Conciliar popes have been modernists? Pius X chides those of us who "dissent from the Pope." He says that to do so indicates that we are not holy. How about it?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** September 28, 2013, 01:08:08 PM »

Strange. Not one comment yet. Are you all still thinking about it? Let me offer a hypothetical. Were Pius X's papacy to have followed the five Conciliar papal flounders who occupied the Chair just prior to his reign, would he have written this?

Quote

“If one loves the Pope, one does not raise discussions as to what he ordains or demands, or as to how far obedience must go and in what things obedience is due. When one loves the Pope, one does not say that he has not spoken with sufficient clearness, as if he were obliged to repeat to the ear of each person that desire which has been expressed clearly, so many times, not by word of mouth only but by letters and other public docuмents. One does not call into question his orders by resorting to the facile pretext of those who do not wish to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands but those who surround him. One does not oppose to the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, since these if they are learned are not holy, for those who are holy cannot dissent from the Pope.” -- Pope St. Pius X

Would he not have couched his words a bit more discreetly? Would he not have inserted a caveat or two? Would he have not provided a provisional way out for faithful Catholics, who in good conscience were unable to yield unquestioning obedidence to his five predecessors? Pius X wrote the above prior to 1910. I have a hard time believing that he would have written such after the 50 year plus nightmare of Concilar popes which we have experienced and are still living under.

Nishant · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2013, 02:18:54 PM »

The theologian Francisco Suarez said, “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him"

So this is an exceptional case where the Pope requires us to do or say something manifestly unlawful, like today to participate in false worship or acquiesce to indifferentism, where we reverently refuse. We must balance at the same time the due respect for the Vicar of Christ with the necessity under divine law never to obey a sinful command from any superior whatsoever.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2013, 02:42:14 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Would he not have couched his words a bit more discreetly? Would he not have inserted a caveat or two? Would he have not provided a provisional way out for faithful Catholics, who in good conscience were unable to yield unquestioning obedidence to his five predecessors? Pius X wrote the above prior to 1910. I have a hard time believing that he would have written such after the 50 year plus nightmare of Concilar popes which we have experienced and are still living under.

Well, the problem only exists if one insists that they absolutely must be Popes. Most people who feel morally uncomfortable about disregarding papal authority and who are also not comfortable with a fideist faith that admits being logically incoherent become sedevacantists. Or they spend their lives in strained denial of the obvious. Sifters/Recognise and resisters seem to always be seeking ways to dispense themselves from obedience, or else they downplay papal authority in a way St Pius X's quotation doesn't allow, etc.

Ambrose · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2013, 03:21:34 PM »

I will answer you. St. Pius X is teaching how we are to behave towards the Pope, and stating that if you do not treat the pope in the manner he describes it means that you are not holy.

Now, I do not believe that those who treat the Vatican II "popes" with contempt by ignoring them, exposing them for who they are, and warning Catholics to stay away from them are lacking holiness. That is how Catholics should treat heretic antipopes.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2013, 05:32:07 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Charlemagne includes the following quote from Pius X on all of his posts, I think.

Quote
“If one loves the Pope, one does not raise discussions as to what he ordains or demands, or as to how far obedience must go and in what things obedience is due. When one loves the Pope, one does not say that he has not spoken with sufficient clearness, as if he were obliged to repeat to the ear of each person that desire which has been expressed clearly, so many times, not by word of mouth only but by letters and other public docuмents. One does not call into question his orders by resorting to the facile pretext of those who do not wish to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands but those who surround him. One does not oppose to the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, since these if they are learned are not holy, for those who are holy cannot dissent from the Pope.” -- Pope St. Pius X

How do most of you deal with this saint's remarks in light of the fact that all of the Conciliar and post-Conciliar popes have been modernists? Pius X chides those of us who "dissent from the Pope." He says that to do so indicates that we are not holy. How about it?

Sorry, just ran across this thread.

You're listening to the words of a pope, when we actually HAD a decent pope. These popes of now, are popes of a NEW RELIGION.

Jerry · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2013, 05:47:24 PM »

At some point, people need to face the reality of the popes heretical departure from the Catholic faith.

Mabel · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:03:10 PM »

We need to treat the papacy and valid popes with reverence and not be on opposing sides, it is pretty simple.

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:44:53 PM »

Define Pope. It was defined in Vatican I before Pius x and so he was going on the definition of Pope, one who is catholic, and not against the Church that Christ founded.

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:47:39 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Define Pope.

Read here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:53:28 PM »

Yeah, I think the bottom line is: are we dealing with a valid Pope? If we are, then we must not dissent. If not, then we can dissent (and probably should).

Mabel · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2013, 07:29:58 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Yeah, I think the bottom line is: are we dealing with a valid Pope? If we are, then we must not dissent. If not, then we can dissent (and probably should).

Exactly. In all things, charity. Sometimes charity is standing up and saying "You are a heretic and I cannot follow you."

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2013, 08:10:38 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Define Pope. It was defined in Vatican I before Pius x and so he was going on the definition of Pope, one who is catholic, and not against the Church that Christ founded.

Because the definition of pope is subjective? What nonsense.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2013, 02:54:32 AM »

.

It seems you made a few boo-boos, hollingsworth:

Quote from: hollingsworth

Strange. Not one comment yet. Are you all still thinking about it? Let me offer a hypothetical. Were Pius X's papacy to have followed [any one of] the five Conciliar papal [flounderers] ~~who~~ [had they] occupied the Chair just prior to his reign, would he have written this?

Quote
“If one loves the Pope, one does not raise discussions as to what he ordains or demands, or as to how far obedience must go and in what things obedience is due. When one loves the Pope, one does not say that he has not spoken with sufficient clearness, as if he were obliged to repeat to the ear of each person that desire which has been expressed clearly, so many times, not by word of mouth only but by letters and other public docuмents. One does not call into question his orders by resorting to the facile pretext of those who do not wish to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands but those who surround him. One does not oppose to the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, since these if they are learned are not holy, for those who are holy cannot dissent from the Pope.” -- Pope St. Pius X

Would he not have couched his words a bit more [discretely]? Would he not have inserted a caveat or two? Would he have not provided a provisional way out for faithful Catholics, who in good conscience were unable to yield unquestioning obedidence to his five predecessors? Pius X wrote the above prior to 1910. I have a hard time believing that he would have written such after the 50 year plus nightmare of [Conciliar] popes which we have experienced and are still living under.

If that's what you had in mind, yes, I agree.

If that's not what you had in mind, no, I don't agree.

Keep in mind, that Bl. Pius IX caved in to the Liberals when he
wrote about "invincible ignorance" in an official capacity, and notice:
in all of St. Pius X's papacy, NOT A WORD about this menace of a
microbe. That should tell us something about 'invincible ignorance'!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2013, 03:27:23 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

I will answer you. St. Pius X is teaching how we are to behave towards the Pope, and stating that if you do not treat the pope in the manner he describes it means that you are not holy.

Now, I do not believe that those who treat the Vatican II "popes" with contempt by ignoring them, exposing them for who they are, and warning Catholics to stay away from them are lacking holiness. That is how Catholics should treat heretic antipopes.

Endemic in the principle that St. Pius X alludes to in the quote is
that the pope in question is acting as a good pope should act. He
was not a purveyor of any manner of false infallibility or papolatry
(which is a word that did not even exist in his day).

It is an error to presume that simply on the basis that
any particular pope does not ACT like a pope that he is therefore
not the pope, any more than when your father comes home drunk
he therefore ceases to be your father.

There is even Scriptural basis for this doctrine of the Church.

Respectfully resisting the false teachings of the pope is one thing
and contemptuous disrespect is quite another. But at some point,
the menace of misunderstanding creeps in, such that it behooves
a holy Catholic to say things like "the unholy Holy Father" or "John
XXIII of infelicitous memory" or "the abominable Paul VI" or "JPII
the InGrate," or "B16 the unclean." Such terms might wake up
the listener who would otherwise not be paying any attention.
The moral crimes of these men have exceeded the limits of
reasonable reservation and hope of redemption. But they are still
popes.