INPEFESS
Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
Member
Gender: 
Personality type: Mostly melancholic
Posts: 10,836
† "If anyone love Me, he will keep My word." †
|
|
« on: March 12, 2009, 10:44:AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I n N omine P atris, E t F ilii, E t S piritus S ancti "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no. 9, June 29, 1896). “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time” (2 Peter 1:10).
|
|
|
INPEFESS
Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
Member
Gender:
Personality type: Mostly melancholic
Posts: 10,836
† "If anyone love Me, he will keep My word." †
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2009, 02:38:PM » |
|
QuisUtDeus,
Is there anyway I can email you? I can't find your email address. Thanks in advance and God bless...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I n N omine P atris, E t F ilii, E t S piritus S ancti "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no. 9, June 29, 1896). “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time” (2 Peter 1:10).
|
|
|
|
QuisUtDeus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2009, 02:54:PM » |
|
QuisUtDeus,
Is there anyway I can email you? I can't find your email address. Thanks in advance and God bless... Sure! quis at fisheaters.com |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
INPEFESS
Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
Member
Gender:
Personality type: Mostly melancholic
Posts: 10,836
† "If anyone love Me, he will keep My word." †
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2009, 09:35:AM » |
|
Quis,
Thank you for your help! I have posted the direct links to the photobucket pages rather than the inclusion of the pages directly onto the forum.
May God bless you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I n N omine P atris, E t F ilii, E t S piritus S ancti "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no. 9, June 29, 1896). “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time” (2 Peter 1:10).
|
|
|
CyberSaint
Member
Gender:
Posts: 250
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2009, 09:14:AM » |
|
All-
Is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Regards,
CyberSaint
Tempus fugit memento mori
Ad vivendum cotidie abeo
|
|
|
|
|
|
QuisUtDeus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2009, 09:31:AM » |
|
It is one man's opinion. That doesn't make it true. It just makes it one man's opinion.
Personally, I don't agree with most of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CyberSaint
Member
Gender:
Posts: 250
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2009, 12:02:PM » |
|
If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?
The writer of that article is therefore stating that the Pope and Magesterium are invalid.
How is this any different from what Martin Luther was saying in 1521?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Regards,
CyberSaint
Tempus fugit memento mori
Ad vivendum cotidie abeo
|
|
|
|
QuisUtDeus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2009, 02:11:PM » |
|
If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?
No, theoretically, if the Pope were able to promulgate an invalid Mass (which we are saying solely for the sake of argument), that would not cause a condition of sede vacante in and of itself. For the Pope to lose the throne, he must cease to be Catholic, and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic. I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that. Other things such as pernicious and blatant heresy would cause the Pope (or any person) to cease to be Catholic; that is based on sound theological principles. But discussing it any further would violate the rules of the forum. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lamentabili sane
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2009, 03:05:PM » |
|
If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?
No, theoretically, if the Pope were able to promulgate an invalid Mass (which we are saying solely for the sake of argument), that would not cause a condition of sede vacante in and of itself. For the Pope to lose the throne, he must cease to be Catholic, and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic. I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that. Other things such as pernicious and blatant heresy would cause the Pope (or any person) to cease to be Catholic; that is based on sound theological principles. But discussing it any further would violate the rules of the forum. The disciplines of the Church are subject to an indirect infallibility, because of the general infallibility of the Church. This is explained in all the pre-Vatican II theology manuals. The Pope cannot promulgate an invalid Mass, because this would be contrary to the mission of the Church. By this the Church would be leading souls into error, which is not possible. Here is an example: Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124: Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.
Proof:
1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.
2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)
Corollary
The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.
[15.] An example may help to clarify the matter. If the whole Christ were not present under the appearances of bread alone, the law forbidding lay people to drink from the chalice would offend against the faith. Or if the words increase and multiply (Gen. 1:28) constituted an ordinance binding every individual man, then the law of celibacy would be opposed to right morals. The same conclusion would hold if virginal purity were morally impossible for men.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 03:57:PM by lamentabili sane »
|
Logged
|
"One who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pain in Hell than anyone else, because this is the worst sin that there is" - St. Bernadine of Siena
“The faithful ears of the people are holier than the lips of the priests.” - St. Hilary
|
|
|
|
lamentabili sane
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2009, 05:55:PM » |
|
and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic. I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that. Nor is there any "time-honored theological principle' that suggests that there can be a "catastrophic failure of the Papal charism of infallibility". Vatican I says otherwise. We all admit the infallibility granted the Church cannot fail Her. You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail. I don't see any indication that this can be true. SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.
I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Concil. Vat., sess. iv., cap. 4).
II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.
The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.
From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.
III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—
1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.
2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.
3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.
4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.
Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order
Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt.
New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 06:37:PM by lamentabili sane »
|
Logged
|
"One who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pain in Hell than anyone else, because this is the worst sin that there is" - St. Bernadine of Siena
“The faithful ears of the people are holier than the lips of the priests.” - St. Hilary
|
|
|
|
