Posted on 01/25/2021 7:56:53 PM PST by Its All Over Except ...
Concerning the Eucharist and how what was supposed to be the exception to the rule after Vatican II goes against previous councils, and against popes in agreement with those councils both during, before and after each, etc:
1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
Like books in a bookshelf, the first popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. It is modernism that says one only obeys the current pope. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either.
If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can override popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, and up until but not including the 1st one, St. Peter, thus a diminishing of the papacy after St. Peter which would put the Orthodox in the ascendancy after St. Peter. But there is neither an increase of the papacy in authority or power nor a decrease since Peter.
So he cannot override previous Popes, and by extension Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition, ovverride the previous councils building upon councils before up to Trent, and override all Councils before going back to Nicaea, and ultimately override Sacred Scripture.
And Pope Francis apparently invited idolaters, did not even try to rebuke or stop the Pachamama devotees, thus making him on par with Pope Honorious I who was exposed in his writings with Sergius and did not try to stop the adherents to monothelitism.
What is the answer?
We can impeach ex-pres Trump.
So, yes.
“No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. “
Huh?
So Pope Francis could say that there should be no attempts to convert Muslims, Jews, Gentiles, etc, and he could override all popes before him who disagree with him but agree with each other that we are to seek to convert them?
Francis statement that the Eucharist is not a “Prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” is a strawman as bringing up perfection does not undo the millenia of church tradition, councils, Saints’ teachings on adultrerers and adultresses and those in invalid marriages being barred from partaking in the Eucharist and it is a Red Herring argument from him.
He cannot overrule all of that or any pope can just toss aside all that goes back millenia, can he?
Francis has repeatedly said that non-Catholics, schismatics, protestants, etc, all have martyrs, which contradicts Pope Eugene IV AND the Council of Florence, and the centuries and centuries of precedentband church tradition they built upon then at this council, all of which overrides Francis as they have precedence before him and he is subject to councils before him, Nicean, Florence, Trent, doesn’t matter, right?
How the Eucharist is received is a matter of discipline, which can be changed by a subsequent pope.
I was just responding to your blanket statement which seemed a bit strange. I would not expect current day popes to agree with everything that previous popes said or did. There have been a lot of popes and many were not that good. So there’s that.
The subject is a bit more complicated than the simplistic manor in which you have framed it.
Canned reply from you.
At least 4 councils disagree. So was it only true for them then and not true now and thus relativism is in the ascendant with you?
If what those councils, and the popes who were in agreement with them when they were begun and ended, and the popes before and after who held true to Sacred Tradition are correct, then Vatican II is incorrect along with Francis.
If you were alive during Trent they would no doubt have told you that it was more cut and dry then you make it, that they are correct, that the popes and councils before them are correct and to hit the road along with Martin Luther.
“they would no doubt have told you that it was more cut and dry then you make it”
I doubt it.
Francis can and will do whatever he wants without earthly repercussions. Would not wish to stand in his shoes on judgement day however.
Martin Luther: I doubt that what you (and previous councils and popes who agree with you and you with them) say is pretty cut and dry!
Council of Trent: try me, heretic.
Schismatics like Francis find out the hard way.
I was alluding to the fact that there’s a major emphasis among the faith-plus-works folks that its necessary to give evidence of our salvation in the things we do. I don’t think we have to strive to make this happen. If we just follow the Holy Spirit’s counsel the good works will come automatically. The fact is we have to ignore the Holy Spirit’s advice and counsel to prevent it.
Also, by following the Holy Spirit’s direction we can be sure our “good works” are consistent with God’s will for us because those are the only ones that count. In John 15:5 the Lord said if we remain in Him we’ll bear much fruit but apart from Him, we can do nothing.
I was alluding to the fact that there’s a major emphasis among the faith-plus-works folks that its necessary to give evidence of our salvation in the things we do. I don’t think we have to strive to make this happen. If we just follow the Holy Spirit’s counsel the good works will come automatically. The fact is we have to ignore the Holy Spirit’s advice and counsel to prevent it.
Very nicely put!
I fail daily, but the LORD keeps picking me up.
“Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (keeping the commandments=works)
Matthew 19:17
Also - Catholics do not emphasize works. They emphasize faith and works - both are equally emphasized.
Just because it is canned doesn’t mean it is incorrect. There are matters of faith and morals, and there are matters of discipline. This is discipline, like the Friday fast and, in the Western church, priestly celibacy.
Prefer what liturgy, catechism, etc., that you like, but getting involved in the heurmaneutics of suspicion is bad for one’s spiritual life, as I found to my detriment. Just be Catholic in the best way for you, read the best books for you, and remember that for hundreds of years the average Catholic knew little about what the pope did and mostly paid attention to his own holiness and that was enough.
One shouldn’t throw out words like “hermeneutics” until they can at least learn to spell the word and know what it means.
Way to avoid dealing with what I actually said.
“Hermeneutics of suspicion” is an actual thing. Looking at everything through a suspicious lens in the spiritual realm will be bad for your spiritual life.
Don’t like what the Pope says in areas outside of faith and morals? Fine. What difference does it make to your own quest for holiness? None whatsoever.
The best (and only) thing you can do is to pray for the Pope. Pray for him and otherwise, just do what you need to do to increase in holiness.
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.