Posted on 5/3/2006, 9:03:34 PM by pravknight
"With this as departure point, we can also realize the earliest meaning of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop .... It merely signified that the Roman Bishop of the sedes Sancti Petri [seat of St. Peter] was the central point of orientation in the unity of communion ....
"The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology. This means .... that Rome incarnates the true communio and, therefore, is the determining point of the horizontal relationship, without which a community cannot remain truly ecclesia"
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in I Grandi Temi del Concilio, Rome: Paoline, 1965, pp. 154-155).
Could have been written by Martin Luther now couldn't it have. Damn schismatics.
I guess you probably are the type who prays to the Pope in the morning.
Catholics know the limits of papal infallibility.
However, they also know that the Holy Ghost guides the Church byond specific and circumscribed ex cathedra statements and that Catholics should have more loyalty to the Holy Father and more openness to listening to his advice than to following their own whims and prejudices.
Tuttle creates a straw man to justify his carping, schismatic attitude.
Let Tuttle be a traditionalist Protestant continually second-guessing and one-upping the man whom the Holy Ghost has selected as Vicar.
I'll stay Catholic.
What a moronic comment - it sounds unsurprisingly parallel to the comments typically made by Protestants who deny the Communion of the Saints.
I'm not sure if most Catholics know about papal infallibility, or it's limits. I'm not sure most bishops know, at least in this country.
After all, what is the point of (1) posting a 5 year old article and (2) accusing a fellow Catholic of worshipping the Pope - a crude, stupid anti-Catholic slander?
The only purpose is to foment discord and stir up strife.
In a phrase, to promote schism.
Which was exactly my point in the first place. What they advocate is a grave and serious sin, in the same way the Protestant Reformers wounded Christ by rebelling against His Church. Its a focus on what "I" want and what "I" think the Church should be, as if to say that Christ got it wrong.
I guess all that you have is ad hominem attacks to throw around.
Secondly, you setup a strawman because I believe in the Communion of Saints. Lutherans do too.
It would seem that you ascribe infallibility to every papal act just as the heretical ultramontanes did.
Every bishop is a vicar of Christ, not just the Pope of Rome.
Okay, where is the strawman in his arguments? Show me?
You mean the way the Scholastics made the Western Church, not the way Christ made it.
The Early Church was ecclesiologically more akin to what still exists among the Eastern Orthodox, which is reflected in my quote from the then Fr. Ratzinger.
No..what I mean is Christ gave HIS Church authority...not you. And what Christ asks of you is obedience to His Church not rebellion. If you rebel against His Church you are no better than the Protestants and you wound Christ again. You might not agree with everything about the Church, but instead of rebelling use the most powerful weapon you have....prayer. Use the examples of the Saints who were always obedient to the Church even when they disagreed with the Church or were being suppressed by the Church.
* A neologism invented by a schismatic rag and used by schismatics to attack Faithful Catholics. Such a word does not exist in Tradition.
But, the neo-trads are liberals. They submit to no authority if that authority opposes their personal predelictions, proclivities, prejudices. They are functionally protestant and woe betide that Faithful Christian who laughs at their presumptions, haughtiness, pride, arrogance, heresies and inanitites.
It is hysterically funny to read poorly-catehized and poorly-informed, laity (who publish from a basement) accusing such Saintly Theological genuises as Johannes Paulus Magnus of malign intent, poor theology and heretical actions.
But, birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and schismatics gotta attack Divinely-Constituted authority to justify their perfidy.
The Oath of Modernism appikes to thse clowns in spades
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM ... Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910. To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church...
The Remnant should just publish their Creed on its masthead.
The Schismatic Creed
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
OBEDIENCE IS HERESY
SCHISM IS FIDELITY
POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)
"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."
(Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
"[Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the East. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious
doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)
ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)
CARDINAL AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required.... Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man's person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls or troubled the state (turbanti rempublicam) and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)
St. Francis De Sales
"And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church (In matters of Liturgy,his edicts only affect the Western half of the Church, thus he is not infallible); for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example."
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope14.html
You mean heresies such as your own, that is, every utterance of the Pope is infallible and above reproach.
Criticizing the Pope when he causes a scandal or sows confusion among the faithful is not pride, but justice. So you support JP2's kissing of the Qur'an or the Assisi events with pagans who should be converted, not prayed with.
The pope has no authority to alter Tradition, nor can he change one iota of revealed truth.
I guess then you should take a look at the mess JP2 left the Catholic Church. The decline in Mass attendance, tolerance of the sex abuse scandals, rampant Modernism, the refusal to discipline liberal bishops, sanctioning of the Neo-Protestant Charismatic Movement, etc.
JP2's actions contributed to the situation with the Traditionalists because he could have welcomed them with open arms and allowed them the privilege of saying the Old Rite whenever they wanted to.
You twist words here calling Traditionalists liberals, considering the Popes of the Vatican II era have all embraced the same sort of Liberalism that Pius IX condemned a century before.
Gotta love your ad hominem attacks.
Papolatry=the extreme veneration of papal authority to the point of saying he can do no wrong.
Who's in rebellion here? Criticizing papal actions isn't the same as going into schism. I attend a Byzantine rite Catholic Church, not an unapproved location.
I have a fondness for the Old Roman Rite, and even the current pope has, in the past, criticized the implementation of Vatican II's liturgical decrees.
Paul VI erred, period.
I guess then I'm in good company.
Papal infallibility is NOT absolute, and you are the heretic if you think otherwise.
Meant to say BXVI criticized the implementation of Vatican II's liturgical decrees as Card. Ratzinger. Guess I'm in good company.
Ping to read later.
Are you aware that Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as head of CDF, condemned Ultramontanism as a heresy?
"14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed.
This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.)."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM
Ultramontanism ascribes infallibility to every one of the pope's actions including his private ones.
Perhaps if you read Card. Ratzinger's explanation of the Roman Primacy, you will see, it is you who are mistaken.
Maybe you should repent of you Ultramontane heresy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.