tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5265824221283023329..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Geach on authority and consistencyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86940390093941034732022-02-05T15:56:08.173-08:002022-02-05T15:56:08.173-08:00Yer a sore loser Gaius.
Where does Benedict in th...Yer a sore loser Gaius.<br /><br />Where does Benedict in that quote Unsay what Vatican I says or what Pius XII said? <br /><br />Nowhere.<br /><br />>No Father, Doctor of the Church, or Ecumenical Council says that the Pope can command something which is destructive of the faith.<br /><br />That statement is more ambiguous & subjective than anything Fr. James Martin or Hans Kung might say on a good day. It is meaningless to a scholastic mentality.<br /><br />>Abolishing an apostolic rite and replacing it with something made up in the 1960s is destructive of the faith, as is demonstrated both by Pope Benedict and by the history of the last fifty years. Therefore, etc.<br /><br />It was fine when St Pius V did it and or St Gregory the Great did it in their day when they revised the rites of the Mass. Sorry but it cannot be destructive to the faith. Ye get the same Jesus in the Eucharist & the St Paul VI Mass as you do in the St Pius V Mass and you do in the St James Mass etc and hundreds of other authorized rites.<br /><br />Also the Paul VI mass is not "new". If it was then charges of antiquarianism could not be leveled against it. It is based on the primitive pre-Gregorian liturgy. If it was good enough for our Catholic ancestors it is good for us.<br /><br />>Given the current Pope's celebrations of the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, shouldn't that be a good thing? <br /><br />What does that have to do with yer heterodox denial of Vatican I and Pius XII? <br /><br />>Wouldn't want to go against Pope Francis' clear pro-Lutheran teachings, now, would we? ;)<br /><br />I am a critic of Pope Francis these days except unlike you I am not a neo-Lutheran heretic. I accept Pius XII and Vatican I & II. You do not therefore you are a Protestant with Rosary beads. I have credibility when I criticize the Pope because I am orthodox. You do not since you spout heresy in denying the Pope is supreme in matters of discipline. He has the right to restrict to even abrogate the St Pius V Mass and that is binding till it is lose by his successor. <br /><br />That is how it has been for 2000 years. Get over it.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10577091297202410392022-02-05T05:47:27.610-08:002022-02-05T05:47:27.610-08:00Also Vatican I is an expression of the Extra Ordin...<i>Also Vatican I is an expression of the Extra Ordinary Magisterium so that trumps everything.</i><br /><br />I think I'll side with Pope Benedict here:<br /><br />"A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted any more about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today?"<br /><br />No Father, Doctor of the Church, or Ecumenical Council says that the Pope can command something which is destructive of the faith. Abolishing an apostolic rite and replacing it with something made up in the 1960s is destructive of the faith, as is demonstrated both by Pope Benedict and by the history of the last fifty years. Therefore, etc.<br /><br /><i>You might as well believe Luther.</i><br /><br />Given the current Pope's celebrations of the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, shouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't want to go against Pope Francis' clear pro-Lutheran teachings, now, would we? ;)Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51231519978730854672022-02-04T14:36:05.377-08:002022-02-04T14:36:05.377-08:00When did the Church pro-claim yer nonsense as the ...When did the Church pro-claim yer nonsense as the Ordinary Magisterium? <br /><br />NOWHERE! That is yer novelty.<br /><br /> Also isn't Pius XII clear teaching on this matter part of the Ordinary Magisterium? Well? Also Vatican I is an expression of the Extra Ordinary Magisterium so that trumps everything.<br /><br />I believe in Pius XII and Vatican I. You believe in the SSPX. You might as well believe Luther.<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48645862395356736372022-02-04T12:55:03.226-08:002022-02-04T12:55:03.226-08:00The burden of proof is on YOU TO PROVE the Popes p...<i>The burden of proof is on YOU TO PROVE the Popes positively & dogmatically taught they did not have the final word on the liturgy.</i><br /><br />So you reject the idea of the Ordinary Magisterium then?Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5881129713215247152022-02-04T11:08:06.666-08:002022-02-04T11:08:06.666-08:00Vatican One puts the lie to yer satanic claim Gaiu...Vatican One puts the lie to yer satanic claim Gaius.<br /><br />This is from Vatican One and it is Infallible. <br /><br />Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, <b>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 <i>not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church</i> throughout the world.</b><br /><br />Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.<br /><br />“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”END<br /><br />You are a liar Gaius. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49622871669957038802022-02-04T09:54:23.884-08:002022-02-04T09:54:23.884-08:00First you dodged the point. If yer argument is va...First you dodged the point. If yer argument is valid then not only must we reject what Pius XII said about the Papal Authority over the liturgy you must reject his authority to proclaim the Assumption of Mary as dogma.<br /><br />The burden of proof is on YOU TO PROVE the Popes positively & dogmatically taught they did not have the final word on the liturgy.<br /><br />Till you do, Pius XII has the final word on the matter and I do well to believe him over you Luther boi.<br /><br />Also Pius VI acted like he had final and sole authority over the liturgy vs the Jansenists.<br /><br />If yer right then Pius VI was wrong and Jansenists can claim the Consensus Patrum for their activities.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85654788924080823822022-02-01T12:40:10.474-08:002022-02-01T12:40:10.474-08:00You sound like a wee Baptist who complains "O...<i>You sound like a wee Baptist who complains "Oh nobody taught the Immaculate Conception till Pius IX! Oh nobody required belief in the Assumption for the past 2000 year till Pius XII."</i><br /><br />Not only did the Church for the first thousand years not teach that the Pope has the sole authority to modify the liturgy, but everyone acted in such a way as to make it clear that they didn't believe this, and no Pope ever contradicted them. For your analogy to work, you'd have to find an instance of a Pope requiring belief in something which was rejected by the Consensus Patrum -- which would, in fact, be a theologically problematic thing for him to do.Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68523590405957575772022-01-31T12:59:54.356-08:002022-01-31T12:59:54.356-08:00@Gaius
Who cares?
No Pope or Church Father teac...@Gaius <br /><br />Who cares?<br /><br />No Pope or Church Father teaches yer novel claims about the Pope not having supreme authority over Church discipline. <br /><br />>The notion that the Pope is the sole arbiter of the liturgy is completely alien to the attitude of the Church for the first thousand-plus years of her existence.<br /><br />Vatican I and Pius IX and Pius XII disagree with you son. Pius XII is rather clear" "The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. etc"<br /><br />You reject Pius XII & you have nothing to say to me. You are not a "Traditional" Catholic or any type of Catholic. You are no better than a modernist or Protestant. I WON'T HEAR YOU!<br /><br />>And of course, whatever the merits or demerits of giving the Pope complete authority over the liturgy, a power which nobody ever ascribed to the Pope for over a thousand years <br /><br />You sound like a wee Baptist who complains "Oh nobody taught the Immaculate Conception till Pius IX! Oh nobody required belief in the Assumption for the past 2000 year till Pius XII."<br /><br />Away with yer gobshite Protestant reasoning. <br /><br />You reject Pius XII clear teaching. You are a Protestant heretic. I believe Pius XII unto DEATH. You I reject him and thus reject Christ (he who hears you hears me)and I shake the dust from my feet as a testimony against you.<br /><br />Now get lost. I will NEVER SUPPORT THE SSPX OR SCHISM LIKE YOU!<br /><br />You reject Tradition.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18964038861666947942022-01-30T01:50:53.666-08:002022-01-30T01:50:53.666-08:00Tony
Did Christ definitely declare that only male...Tony<br /><br />Did Christ definitely declare that only males can be priests? No, he did not. <br />Christ also chose to only have Jewish priests. He had the power to choose a Romans or Samaritans, but he chose not to. Therefore, only males of jewish decent can be priests.<br /><br />Christ had the power to condemn slavery, but he chose not to.<br /><br />Technically, you are right, of course. If the club decides what you have to believe to be a member, then you should believe it, no matter how irrational this belief is. <br />But then I am afraid that there are only very few "good Catholics" left in this world, so the Catholic Church should be consistent and admit that it has become a quite insignificant minority cult instead of bragging that Catholic Faith is growing.<br /> <br />But, this is not the issue. The issue is that, only knowing some things about her husband, I have no idea what Mrs Feser's opinion on this matter is. It's not because Ed Feser is a "good Catholic" that Mrs Feser is also a good Catholic. Charity does not demand me to think she is or she isn't. Charity only demeads me to believe she has the capacity and the right to make up her own mind. <br />Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38855195081962556102022-01-29T14:17:12.906-08:002022-01-29T14:17:12.906-08:00A couple of liturgical scholars (sound ones, not m...A couple of liturgical scholars (sound ones, not modernists) to back up my point.<br /><br />First, Gregory Dix:<br /><br /><i>"There is remarkably little foundation for the [Anglican] idea which has been assiduously propagated of late years in England that 'the catholic priest. at least if he has any tincture of the true catholic and priestly spirit, would rather say the most jejune and ill-arranged rite, which was that imposed upon him by authority, than the most splendid liturgy devised by himself'. Either the whole church from the second century to the sixteenth was devoid of 'any tincture of the true catholic and priestly spirit', or such statements are comprehensively mistaken. ...<br /><br />" ... in every century every liturgy borrowed where it chose, without the intervention of 'authority' in the matter at all, till we come to the edicts of Byzantine emperors and Charlemagne. It is true that in every church the rite was from time to time codified in a revision by the local bishop -- a Sarapion, a Basil, a Gregory. But it is also true that their work never endures as they leave it. The same process of unauthorised alteration and addition and borrowing begins again ...<br /><br />"The proof is written in almost every liturgical MS in existence. The primitive bishop had control of the text of the prayers because their recitation was his special 'liturgy'; he was the normal celebrant. When he passed on that 'liturgy' to individual presbyters, in practice if not in theory the same control tended to pass to the new normal celebrant, however objectionable in principle the fact may now seem to us. The presbyter was largely ruled by tradition-- as the bishop had been. But I have a not altogether inconsiderable experience of ancient liturgical MSS. Setting aside mere copyists' errors, I do not remember any two professing to give the same rite which altogether agree on the text of the celebrant's prayers."</i><br /><br />And Hoher, on Anglo-Saxon service books:<br /><br /><i>"An existing liturgical manuscript is often, I should say usually, not the clean lineal descendant of the approved typicum of some edition, but copied from a "practical" book, based on some much older form of the text than the one it purports to represent. This will have been brought more or less up to date at successive recopyings by collating what was supposed to be a "good" text...<br /><br />Dom Deshusses's admirable dictum that each successive copy of a liturgical manuscript was "une petite édition critique" is liable, though I should hesitate slightly about the word critique, to be true down to the thirteenth century."</i><br /><br />The notion that the Pope is the sole arbiter of the liturgy is completely alien to the attitude of the Church for the first thousand-plus years of her existence. And of course, whatever the merits or demerits of giving the Pope complete authority over the liturgy, a power which nobody ever ascribed to the Pope for over a thousand years cannot be part of either the Church's constitution or the Deposit of Faith, unless we subscribe to a Protestantising doctrine of a true Church which is both invisible and completely different in doctrine and character to its visible manifestation.Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91668188844890407562022-01-29T09:53:01.453-08:002022-01-29T09:53:01.453-08:00Women could be priests (please note the subjunctiv...Women <b>could</b> be priests (please note the subjunctive there) if, and only if, Christ had instituted the priesthood so as not to be comprised of males only. Christ had the power to do so, but he chose not to. Because Christ is the one who instituted the sacraments, and who alone had the power to do so, (the Church does not institute sacraments), Christ alone and not the Church could have made it so women could be priests. <br /><br />Given the fact that Christ constituted the priesthood to have, as its proper subject, males only, women cannot be priests. The Church has definitively declared this, such as in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Because the Church has definitively declared this, nobody who speaks approvingly <i>even of the possibility, or open consideration of the possibility</i> that women should be ordained priests is not being a good Catholic - he is rejecting definitive teaching, which is a wrong behavior for a Catholic. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46430596894827599382022-01-28T11:00:49.352-08:002022-01-28T11:00:49.352-08:00You reject the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII.
...You reject the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. <br /><br />The funny thing about SSPX sympathizers and their fellow travelers is they reject the very tradition they claim to follow.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59888667855165772642022-01-28T04:08:03.498-08:002022-01-28T04:08:03.498-08:00@ Son of Ya'Kov:
Your problem is that you hav...@ Son of Ya'Kov:<br /><br />Your problem is that you have a weird dualist outlook, whereby the concrete circumstances of somebody's life have no impact on their spiritual life. So a person's religious practices can be in continual flux without it affecting their spiritual lives, or they can be in an environment where the Blessed Sacrament is continually insulted, including by priests in good standing with the Church, without it affecting their belief in or devotion towards the same. You deny the incarnational nature of the Christian religion, and reject the body-soul union (taught by St. Thomas, whose thought Pope Leo XIII held up as worthy of special regard) for a mess of Cartesian potage.Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36424029829681368042022-01-28T01:07:22.752-08:002022-01-28T01:07:22.752-08:00I have no idea who "van Acker" or "...I have no idea who "van Acker" or "Yakov of Yakov" is, but the only person to judge what Mrs Feser thinks or believes is Mrs Feser.<br />The rest is speculation.<br />And yes, the Catholic Church is overcounting its members, so it may have the authority to say who are Catholics in good standing, but it uses this authority to declare various people Catholic whenever it fits its purposes. <br />Serious authority is consistent, Catholic authority isn't, so it should not be taken seriously.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29577430940371973152022-01-28T00:54:16.903-08:002022-01-28T00:54:16.903-08:00grodrigues
"In 2017, German bishop Gebhard F...grodrigues<br /><br />"In 2017, German bishop Gebhard Fürst supported the ordination of women to the diaconate.[104] In October 2019 German bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck said many Catholic people don't understand why women are unable to be deacons or priests, which he thinks should be changed.[105] German bishop Georg Bätzing supported women ordination.[106] In August 2020 German archbishop Stefan Heße supported ordination of women in Roman Catholic Church.[107] Catholic theologians call for the ordination of women to be discussed in the Synodal consultations initiated by Pope Francis"<br /><br />Out of thin air?Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33329430761028432962022-01-27T16:37:39.231-08:002022-01-27T16:37:39.231-08:00@Gaius
>Sacrosanctum Concilium thinks that the...@Gaius<br /><br />>Sacrosanctum Concilium thinks that the liturgy is rather more important than you do:<br /><br />This would apply to any liturgy even the St Paul VI. Sorry I have been to the St Pius V Masses a few times and found them disappointing. The Eastern Liturgies are so much better but personal aesthetics is not spirituality. They are a means not ends in themselves.<br /><br />>As I showed above, the effects of receiving Communion vary depending on your interior disposition, and your interior disposition is affected by, among other things, the liturgy you're attending.<br /><br />Nope! Grace is what makes the liturgy good. Any High Church Traditonal Anglican Mass looks externally as beautiful as a St Pius V Mass. Except they have mere bread and wine and no real Priest.<br /><br />>It's not that the Pope might run the Church badly. It's that the mere fact of the Pope having these powers would make the Papacy an inherently destabilising force in the Church, even if the Pope refrained from using his powers.<br /><br />Sorry but the Pope does have the power to act lawfully and stupidly. Matt 16:18 and Vatican One and Infallibility don't prevent that.<br /><br />>Even if they never actually did these things, the fact that they could would mean that you could never be secure..<br /><br />We have no lasting city here. Get over it. No assurance the Pope isn't gonna f word up. None at all. But who cares? The Church will be preserved by Christ's promise and divine providence.<br /><br />Worst things can happen then loosing yer fav liturgy. <br /><br />>That's a very vague statement, so I'll be clearer:<br /><br /><br />Hypocrite. You have done nothing but cite vague statements. I cited the clear words of Pius XII pre Vatican II and you rejected them.<br /><br />I can do nothing for you. <br /><br />>Did Our Lord give Peter and his successors the sole authority to regulate the liturgy?<br /><br />More like the final authority.<br /><br />>If yes, why did no Pope claim this authority for the first ~1800 years of Church history?<br /><br />By that specious Protestant reasoning why didn't Peter declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma? Why wait for Pius IX? <br /><br />The Popes do claim that authority by virtual of the fact they had the final say on what liturgies to do and how they are to be done. Pope St Gregory the Great changed the liturgy that was done since the second and fouth century. St Pius V changed him and now St Paul VI. If Francis II or Benedict XVII doesn't change Francis someone will and my descendent will argue with some idiot who will be claiming the centuries Old St Paul VI Mass is being replaced by the liturgy of John Paul VIII. <br /><br />The Pope has always had the final authority over the liturgy. Pius VI rebuking the Jansenist shows that. If you are right then the Jansenist could have told him to screw off like ye bois in the SSPX.<br /><br />Now get lost. I will NEVER be a SSPX heretic.<br /><br />Death first which is better then going to Hell for the sin of schism and heresy.<br /><br />You deny the Pope who can bind can loose. Stop it!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58166388345874051932022-01-27T14:21:44.399-08:002022-01-27T14:21:44.399-08:00Sir if you never get to go to a St Pius V Mass aga...<i>Sir if you never get to go to a St Pius V Mass again in yer life because it is effectively banned there is NOTHING stopping you from still using the older devotions. I can't get to Eastern Rite Masses and haven't been to one in years. But I still have my copy of the Philokalia in my coat pocket.</i><br /><br />Sacrosanctum Concilium thinks that the liturgy is rather more important than you do:<br /><br />"10. Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord's supper.<br /><br />The liturgy in its turn moves the faithful, filled with "the paschal sacraments," to be "one in holiness" [26]; it prays that "they may hold fast in their lives to what they have grasped by their faith" [27]; the renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man draws the faithful into the compelling love of Christ and sets them on fire. From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, as from a font, grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way."<br /><br /><i>I get the same Jesus in every valid Mass regardless of rite.</i><br /><br />As I showed above, the effects of receiving Communion vary depending on your interior disposition, and your interior disposition is affected by, among other things, the liturgy you're attending. Maybe you're just so holy that you can summon up equal reverence in a Clown Mass celebrated in a McDonald's car park where Communion is handed out in a crisp packed, but most people aren't.<br /><br /><i>There is nothing in Church teaching that says God won't let the Pope run the Church badly. He is only infallible under a limited set of circumstances regarding teaching faith and morals & there are ways to oppose him without schism or adopting heretical views on authority like you are doing here confusing mere discipline with doctrine. Stop being a Lutheran wuss!</i><br /><br />It's not that the Pope might run the Church badly. It's that the mere fact of the Pope having these powers would make the Papacy an inherently destabilising force in the Church, even if the Pope refrained from using his powers. Trying to live as a Catholic would be like working for a boss who reserved the right to unilaterally rewrite your contract whenever he felt like it, or being married to a woman who openly said she might choose to walk out on you for any reason whatsoever, or living in a despotic country whose ruler could have you imprisoned or executed arbitrarily. Even if they never actually did these things, the fact that they could would mean that you could never be secure, because the rug might be pulled out from under you at any moment. That is, to be blunt, a toxic sort of environment to live in, and you'll never convince me that Our Lord wanted his Church to be toxic.<br /><br /><i>I have already been telling you Jesus Christ gave the Pope the power to bind and loose.</i><br /><br />That's a very vague statement, so I'll be clearer:<br /><br />Did Our Lord give Peter and his successors the sole authority to regulate the liturgy?<br />If yes, why did no Pope claim this authority for the first ~1800 years of Church history?<br />If no, when did the Popes acquire this authority, and why?Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69326650229629411172022-01-27T13:15:07.666-08:002022-01-27T13:15:07.666-08:00@Gaius
Enjoy the pain. Offer it up. This will h...@Gaius<br /><br />Enjoy the pain. Offer it up. This will hurt and it is for yer own good. Like Sister with the ruler only worst.<br /><br />>Your counter-arguments are irrelevant. Even if you could completely overhaul someone's religious devotions without affecting their spiritual life<br /><br />Sir if you never get to go to a St Pius V Mass again in yer life because it is effectively banned there is NOTHING stopping you from still using the older devotions. I can't get to Eastern Rite Masses and haven't been to one in years. But I still have my copy of the Philokalia in my coat pocket. <br /><br />I get the same Jesus in every valid Mass regardless of rite.<br /><br /><br />>the Pope would still be acting as a force for instability in the Church, and you would still therefore be making our Lord into a liar.<br /><br />There is nothing in Church teaching that says God won't let the Pope run the Church badly. He is only infallible under a limited set of circumstances regarding teaching faith and morals & there are ways to oppose him without schism or adopting heretical views on authority like you are doing here confusing mere discipline with doctrine. Stop being a Lutheran wuss!<br /><br />>BTW, if you don't trust me, you could always see what the future Pope Benedict said in 1997:<br /><br />I don't trust you. Are we reading two different B16's?<br /><br />This reads like the Pope questioning the <b>prudence</b> of taking away the Old Rite. Not the authority to do so. It seems he presupposes Popes have the authority to do this but he councils it is gravely imprudent that they do so. I agree!<br /><br />Hello I said that above. Go up thread and read it yerself.<br /><br />> In other words, banning the Old Mass is objectively problematic for the coherence of Catholicism; this isn't just a false problem existing solely in the minds of rad-trads.<br /><br />No shite Sherlock! But the Pope has the authority to do it. Doesn't mean doing it is a good idea. A General may have the authority to promote the most slacker idiot enlisted man to an officer by a field commission. But just because he has the legitimate authority to do it doesn't mean it was smart?<br /><br />How do you not get this and hold to yer filthy Lutheran and Jansenist belief the Pope doesn't have supreme authority on discipline?<br /><br />What is wrong with you?<br /><br />>BTW, I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the Pope's powers are part of the Church's constitution.<br /><br />I have already been telling you Jesus Christ gave the Pope the power to bind and loose. You OTOH seem to believe the Pope may only bind and never loose. How is that part of the Church's Constitution? It is not.<br /><br />Yer the heretic and false trad here buddy. Cut it out! Be Catholic or bugger off!!! God forgive ye if you do the later in that last sentence.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90268217164494870522022-01-27T09:46:43.785-08:002022-01-27T09:46:43.785-08:00"The problem with this is that the Catholic C..."The problem with this is that the Catholic Church is all too eager to declare how many Catholics there are in the world and that Catholicism is growing, and in doing so, they count grodrigues' "heretics" as Catholics."<br /><br />The problem with this is that you keep misunderstanding and changing the terms of the discussion. Yakov of Yakov speaks "I doubt very much Mrs. Feser believes women can be Priests much less Popes." and you somehow manage to transmogrify that as "In my country Women are allowed to think differently than their husbands, so I do not know what Mrs Feser believes." What the heck? Yakov of Yakov speaks of "good Catholics", in the sense of Catholics faithful to the Magisterium, you blurt out "There are countless good Catholicd who do not agree that wormen cannot be priests, but of course only People who think like you are good Catholicd." which presumably means that "good Catholics" are the Catholics that according to van Acker, whose knowledge of Catholicism can charitably be counted as non-existent, are good, in whatever sense of "good" van Acker has in mind. I expound the sense in which "good Catholic" was to be understood, Talmid comments on it concurring that the Church has the authority to say who are the Catholics in good standing, and you respond hah but the problem is that the Catholic Church is overcounting its members including 'grodrigues' "heretics"'. Why are you trying this hard to pick up a fight? Whatever the answer, go pound sand.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88738463065675379092022-01-27T09:22:03.514-08:002022-01-27T09:22:03.514-08:00"That John Paul's teaching was really aut..."That John Paul's teaching was really authoritative is highly controversial. Lots of Catholic theologians dispute it."<br /><br />No, it's not "highly controversial", you are making stuff up out of thin air. It is simply a matter of reading the language of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85027897388477494442022-01-27T07:26:22.273-08:002022-01-27T07:26:22.273-08:00Another one from Benedict:
"For fostering a ...Another one from Benedict:<br /><br />"For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?"<br /><br />In other words, if we reject the Church's past, we have no reason to trust her in the present -- and if we have no reason to trust her in the present, why be Catholic?Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73119547665654872552022-01-27T07:21:46.705-08:002022-01-27T07:21:46.705-08:00One more comment, and then I think I'll bow ou...<i>One more comment, and then I think I'll bow out.</i><br /><br />Looks like I'm a glutton for punishment. Oh well...<br /><br /><i>Who cares? Whatever you are given is sufficient to salvation. God can allow this to happen. At best you can (& should) argue against this on the grounds of prudence but yer foul Protestant novelty the Pope is not supreme on the matters of liturgy is Lutheran to the core. It is not the way to answer something like this. Rather it is a concession to the false "Reformation" lies.</i><br /><br />Your counter-arguments are irrelevant. Even if you could completely overhaul someone's religious devotions without affecting their spiritual life (and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any spiritual writer who'd defend such a position), the Pope would still be acting as a force for instability in the Church, and you would still therefore be making our Lord into a liar.<br /><br />BTW, if you don't trust me, you could always see what the future Pope Benedict said in 1997:<br /><br />"A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted any more about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today?"<br /><br />Note that he says a community *is* calling its very being into question, not that it *seems to be* calling its very being into question. In other words, banning the Old Mass is objectively problematic for the coherence of Catholicism; this isn't just a false problem existing solely in the minds of rad-trads.<br /><br />But then, I'm sure Pope Benedict was just a crypto-Jansenist Lutheran. ;)<br /><br />BTW, I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the Pope's powers are part of the Church's constitution.Gaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683100808581061355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15622921604782553852022-01-27T01:21:21.971-08:002022-01-27T01:21:21.971-08:00Grodrigues
That John Paul's teaching was real...Grodrigues<br /><br />That John Paul's teaching was really authoritative is highly controversial. Lots of Catholic theologians dispute it.<br />Anyway, of course I don't think there will be a female Pope in the near future, just as I don't expect world peace, but that doesn't mean I think it would be a good thing if those things were really possible.<br />But, even if it were possible, I cannot vote for either Dr or Mrs Feser, and unless you are a Cardinal, neither can you.<br /><br />Talmid<br /><br />The problem with this is that the Catholic Church is all too eager to declare how many Catholics there are in the world and that Catholicism is growing, and in doing so, they count grodrigues' "heretics" as Catholics.<br />So, maybe <i>you</i> can decide who is part of your group, but the Catholic Church apparently can't.<br />Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49376415487235187402022-01-26T19:58:39.539-08:002022-01-26T19:58:39.539-08:00Never understood why some non-christians insist th...Never understood why some non-christians insist that there is no official definition of what a catholic is when there is literally dogma saying the criteria. <br /><br />I mean, can't we decide who is part of our group? Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58712716948552553502022-01-26T10:33:39.708-08:002022-01-26T10:33:39.708-08:00@Gaius
>One more comment, and then I think I&#...@Gaius<br /><br />>One more comment, and then I think I'll bow out.<br /><br />Good.<br /><br />>If the Pope has the power to abrogate an ancient liturgy and force everyone to celebrate a completely different liturgy, then the papacy wouldn't be a force for stability, but rather for instability, since no-one could have any certainty that Catholic praxis next year would be the same as it is this year.<br /><br />Who cares? Whatever you are given is sufficient to salvation. God can allow this to happen. At best you can (& should) argue against this on the grounds of prudence but yer foul Protestant novelty the Pope is not supreme on the matters of liturgy is Lutheran to the core. It is not the way to answer something like this. Rather it is a concession to the false "Reformation" lies.<br /><br />>Hence the papal maximalist position ends up turning Our Lord into either a liar ...<br /><br />No sir that would be yer evil novelty and heresy. Jesus gave Peter the Power to Bind and Loose. YOU demand Peter only bind and never loose....that is not Catholic. <br /><br />Yer not smarter than Jesus buddy. Nobody is...<br /><br />Now away with yer false Traditionalism. Yer doing nothing but making Francis look good!!!<br /><br />Oyi!<br /><br />No rational orthodox Catholic theologian teaches the Church dogmatically condemns vernacular liturgies. That is not a dogma or doctrine and is not taught anywhere least of all by Pius VI whom you slander.<br /><br />Repent!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com