Author Topic: Sharon Jane Ballatine (Read 49971 times)

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #195 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:17:24 PM »

Quote from: tradical

There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.

WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #196 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:19:22 PM »

Quote from: ParentsforTruth

Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.

Quote from: tradical

Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

Can't believe I'm citing this from 1976 :barf:, but it says what the Church has always believed in complete peace before regarding this issue.

Let me just give you a small excerpt.

A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.[7] It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed—especially in the canonical docuмents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.[8]

For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,[6] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.

6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.

7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.

So yes, Paul the sick made a statement on it in AAS already, and it's been WELL ESTABLISHED in Tradition that WOMEN CANNOT BE PRIESTS.

Read that closely: THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER HERSELF AUTHORIZED to admit women to priestly ordination.

It's not something the Church could even legitimately authorize. So it's redundant that JPII and Franny have said that there can't be, because the Church has already judged herself NOT AUTHORIZED to make such a concession.

Novus Weirdo · « **Reply #197 on:** September 18, 2013, 10:23:48 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: tradical
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.

WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?

Now you know his whole purpose here.

JPaul · « **Reply #198 on:** September 19, 2013, 07:50:47 AM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: tradical
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.

WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?

Yes, now you have it. That is his method of manipulation by which he hopes to place you within his semantic trap.
The more that one responds to him the more of this foolishness will issue forth.
And yes, a Pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #199 on:** September 19, 2013, 08:33:07 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: ultrarigorist
Quote from: tradical
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.

WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?

Yes, now you have it. That is his method of manipulation by which he hopes to place you within his semantic trap.
The more that one responds to him the more of this foolishness will issue forth.
And yes, a Pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline.

Hilariously and famously, this is what not only the CONcilliar church tries to do, mindbending Quo Primum, taking it from something dogmatic and absolute, not needing to be interpreted, reducing it to something of discipline because of semantics like this, conveniently reducing the Mass to something that can be changed whenever, because Quo Primum was (get this) "part disciplinary and part dogmatic." (I have yet to be shown the distinction between what is, and what isn't yet.)

By the way, the Church teaches that something written infallibly (i.e. An Apostolic Bull) IS WHAT IT IS, and does not need further interpretation. If it says "in perpetuity," then that's exactly what it means.

It's absolutely a trap, and it's sad that tradical, and others *coughs* (Fr. Themann) are caught inside this same CONcilliar trap.

They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.

tradical · « **Reply #200 on:** September 19, 2013, 07:44:21 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: ParentsforTruth

Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.

Quote from: tradical
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

Can't believe I'm citing this from 1976 :barf:, but it says what the Church has always believed in complete peace before regarding this issue.

Let me just give you a small excerpt.

A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.[7] It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed—especially in the canonical docuмents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.[8]

For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,[6] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.

6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.

7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.

So yes, Paul the sick made a statement on it in AAS already, and it's been WELL ESTABLISHED in Tradition that WOMEN CANNOT BE PRIESTS.

Read that closely: THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER HERSELF AUTHORIZED to admit women to priestly ordination.

It's not something the Church could even legitimately authorize. So it's redundant that JPII and Franny have said that there can't be, because the Church has already judged herself NOT AUTHORIZED to make such a concession.

First, I am surprised that you were unable to find a reference of a Pope making the statement that did not meet your 55 year limit.

Second, you will note that the reference you provided was issued by a congregation and within your own arbitrary time limit.

Third, I didn't see anywhere something similar to this:

Quote

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Fundamentally, when it comes to the level of authority - a docuмent issued by a congregation - even if signed by the Pope - is not irreformable. The above statement however, at a brief glance, does appear to meet the criteria for just such a command.

Fourthly, I owe you an apology.

I misunderstood you question ("Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far? ") as concerning commands that were binding since the council. After re-reading your post I now understand that you meant a command as to which the Sedevacantists or Resistance are disobeying that would have them suffer the implications of my statement ("If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith. ").

The theoretical command that I had in mind was a reigning Pope commanding Bishop Fellay to accept a regularization without compromise. (I think I know where you'll go with that last phrase ...)

Anyway I apologize for misunderstanding your question.

God Bless!!!!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #201 on:** September 19, 2013, 07:45:53 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.

I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.

or perhaps something more recent:

I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.

Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.

May God bless all who read these words!

Tradical, I'm still waiting for you to give a historical example of this unambiguous declaration of heresy. The Church has declared and excommunicated dozens upon dozens of heretics, so it shouldn't be difficult at all.

tradical · « **Reply #202 on:** September 19, 2013, 07:45:57 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: tradical
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.

WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?

I suspected someone would miss construe the word 'command'. For example, a Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action. Where did I say anything about binding belief etc?

You also seem to have missed this part:

Quote

Otherwise subsequent Pope's would not be able to condemn prior Popes inaction in the case of heresy spreading through the Church. Any non-infallible statement is as a consequence of not being infallible, by definition reformable.

I think this answers your 'challenge' quite well.

Next time, think twice before you jump off the virtual cliff.

God Bless!

tradical · « **Reply #203 on:** September 19, 2013, 07:47:58 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

.

They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.

What did he teach you about Catholic Obedience?

God Bless!

tradical · « **Reply #204 on:** September 19, 2013, 07:52:31 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.

I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.

or perhaps something more recent:

I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.

Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.

May God bless all who read these words!

Tradical, I'm still waiting for you to give a historical example of this unambiguous declaration of heresy. The Church has declared and excommunicated dozens upon dozens of heretics, so it shouldn't be difficult at all.

First, you need to be patient. I have not forgotten about your little request and if you as so anxious for it - go and look through the turbid writings of either Hans Kung or Martin Luther on your own.

Second, you seem to have be labouring under a misunderstanding of a heretic that has been 'declared' or judged heretical vs one that was simply manifest. If the Church has to go through and examine writings, the odds are that it wasn't manifest but more subtle.

God Bless!!!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #205 on:** September 19, 2013, 08:03:08 PM »

Good point, sit tight while I go research and prove YOUR claim FOR you.

...

You claim that anything less than an unambiguous heresy (e.g., 'I, N, declare there will be womenpriests) will not suffice. Suffice to what? Presumably to resist him, whether in the fashion of the Resistance or the Sedevacantists.

I'm just wondering what unambiguous 'declarations of heresy' were made by the major heresiarchs (again, you have plenty to choose from) that justified the resistance of those Catholics who refused to follow them as they waited for Rome to definitively rule on the issue.

Or, perhaps had you lived then, you would kiss Luther's shoe?

tradical · « **Reply #206 on:** September 19, 2013, 08:05:28 PM »

Sufficienct for a Pope to be a manifest heretic and then to attempt to make use of the thoughts of St. Bellarmine et al.

Also my claim is not proved by anyone other than a Pope making the statement. As far as I know not one has since St. Bellarmine et al discussed the issue.

So ... good luck finding a Pope (btw I don't mean any of the 12 or 13 sede 'Popes').

What you need to find is the reference that I lost that backed up my affirmation.

With regards to 'resist' a Pope in such a situation - I don't know. What I do know is that the Pope's since V2 haven't made such statements and therefore it is 'simply', since the Pope is Pope, a matter of relying upon the principle of Obedience found in the Summa.

God Bless!

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #207 on:** September 19, 2013, 08:21:10 PM »

Quote from: tradical

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: ParentsforTruth

Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.

Quote from: tradical
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

Can't believe I'm citing this from 1976 :barf:, but it says what the Church has always believed in complete peace before regarding this issue.

Let me just give you a small excerpt.

A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.[7] It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed—especially in the canonical docuмents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.[8]

For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,[6] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.

6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.

7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.

So yes, Paul the sick made a statement on it in AAS already, and it's been WELL ESTABLISHED in Tradition that WOMEN CANNOT BE PRIESTS.

Read that closely: THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER HERSELF AUTHORIZED to admit women to priestly ordination.

It's not something the Church could even legitimately authorize. So it's redundant that JPII and Franny have said that there can't be, because the Church has already judged herself NOT AUTHORIZED to make such a concession.

First, I am surprised that you were unable to find a reference of a Pope making the statement that did not meet your 55 year limit.

Second, you will note that the reference you provided was issued by a congregation and within your own arbitrary time limit.

Third, I didn't see anywhere something similar to this:

Quote

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Fundamentally, when it comes to the level of authority - a docuмent issued by a congregation - even if signed by the Pope - is not irreformable. The above statement however, at a brief glance, does appear to meet the criteria for just such a command.

Fourthly, I owe you an apology.

I misunderstood you question ("Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far? ") as concerning commands that were binding since the council. After re-reading your post I now understand that you meant a command as to which the Sedevacantists or Resistance are disobeying that would have them suffer the implications of my statement ("If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith. ").

The theoretical command that I had in mind was a reigning Pope commanding Bishop Fellay to accept a regularization without compromise. (I think I know where you'll go with that last phrase ...)

Anyway I apologize for misunderstanding your question.

God Bless!!!!

You'll note that the letter you cited was also what I cited, the AAS of Paul the sick. Now, he's reiterating a position that was ALREADY HELD by the Church, and stated, once again, that the CHURCH had NO AUTHORITY, and NEITHER DOES HE, to make women priests. So that's a tautology, really.

"I can't do this because I have no authority to do it." Well, neither did his predecessors, and NEITHER do his successors. So really, what good did it do JPII to come out and say the exact same thing? We already KNEW by what the Fathers of the Church have stated on the matter that it wasn't possible. And by their own admission, the Church doesn't have the authority to make such a concession, as I said before. So... the citation I presented UPHELD already existing Church teaching on it. If Paul the sick didn't have the authority to make women priests, because the Church Herself didn't have authority to do it in the first place, then his statement, in reality, doesn't really matter at all. Neither his successors nor his predecessors could have made a statement to the contrary.

It should also be noted that "this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles."

THIS IS THE KEY. So that's all.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #208 on:** September 19, 2013, 08:35:55 PM »

Quote from: tradical

Quote from: parentsfortruth
.

They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.

What did he teach you about Catholic Obedience?

God Bless!

:smile:

I'm glad you asked!

"We've had stupid popes in the past, and I'm sure we'll probably have some in the future. We have had terrible popes in the past that have made horrible mistakes. But we don't follow their mistakes!"

Take a listen to the sermon where he spells it out very neatly a week before his death.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/rZLc7OTdjuk?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

tradical · « **Reply #209 on:** September 19, 2013, 08:36:40 PM »

Quote

You'll note that the letter you cited was also what I cited, the AAS of Paul the sick. Now, he's reiterating a position that was ALREADY HELD by the Church, and stated, once again, that the CHURCH had NO AUTHORITY, and NEITHER DOES HE, to make women priests. So that's a tautology, really.

The letter I cited was BJP2 not Paul VI.

What I read was the Paul VI wrote a letter to the Anglicans, then had the congregation issue a docuмent.

This wasn't good enough for the extreme mods and it fell upon BJP2 to make a formal binding statement.

This is a clear difference in the levels of authority. As noted your argument could be used in criticizing the declaration of the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate conception. Both of these were generally held and could be considered binding under Universal and Ordinary. The Pope saw that it was necessary to make it formally binding.

Perhaps I'm missing something ...

God Bless!