Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
"That in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.""In this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous and harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism." (Synod of Pistoia, as quoted in "Auctorem Fidei" of Pius VI)
The Jansenists thought there was a crisis too. The true traditional Augustinian doctrine had been obscured by the Popes - measures were necessary for resistance. Disciplines had been imposed by the Pope leading to "superstition and materialism".
No, not at all. There is no comparison. Luther opposed the traditional Mass. He opposed the priesthood. He opposed the notion of Sacrifice. He was a heretic. What ever else may be said about the Archbishop, he was not a heretic. He simply stood his ground and was absolutely traditional in exactly the way the Church had been for two thousand years. He would not be complicit in the destruction of the faith as he believed it.
In this case, it was the Pope who was the innovator, like Luther. It was he who was the heretic, the revolutionary, a pontiff who pushed for a pan-religious syncretism and indifferentism that had been opposed by his preconciliar predecessors. It is he who is even yet elevating heretics to the cardinalate and still doesn't "get it". You don't want to admit this--so you ignore the Pope's heterodoxy altogether. But it is at the heart of this conflict.
Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.
True - but he thought he wasn't.
What ever else may be said about the Archbishop, he was not a heretic.
I think we can give him that.
There has never been a crisis as in the present time. Never before has Rome ever turned its back on its own past and attempted to re-orient the Church to the world it had once opposed. Nor had the Church ever before entered in a period of such swift, precipitous auto-destruction comparable to what has been occurring in the last forty years, all the while simultaneously introducing a new Mass, new prayers, new architecture, new music, new calendar, new rites of sacraments, new theology, new doctrines, new ecclesiastical structures. At the same time whole countries which once had been champions of the Catholic faith--Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain--became alien and hostile territories. Nor is this all. Scandal after scandal has struck the Church in huge tsunami-like waves of corruption. The missions have been wrecked, the religious orders have collapsed, catechesis is a joke. Don't try to tell me this is routine and that those in power the past forty years bear no responsibility for all this damage and destruction. They most certainly do. Paul VI and JPII especially.
Assisi was a scandal that offended against the first commandment. Whether the Pope sinned or not only he knows, but it is very hard to believe he did not. He was certainly in error. This error was compounded last year when he repeated his shocking behavior. Whatever the Archbishop did pales in comparison to such a collosal offense that was probably heretical. It is time for Catholics to recognize the true radical nature of this celebrated man. He is a heterodox pope.
Why should I cite his encyclical?--they are unreadable for the most part. Nor should we parade our pieties in this forum. I'll leave such showbiz to others.
This probably shouldn't make me feel better, but it does. Misery loves company, and all that. I have to say OP, that I learn an awful lot from your posts, and I never pass up a chance to read them, if I'm lurking about.
And the following is so great, that it really should be repeated:
His head thrown back and his arms extended over the Sacred Elements, Calvin responded that although they might cut off his arms, shed his blood, and take his life, they would never force him to give holy things to the profane and dishonour the table of his God.
This is excellent! I learn a lot from you too.
Oh, yeah? Why did he toss out books of Scripture, that did not fit his Novus religion, from his Novus Bible?
They didn't preach Christ. Luther knew because of his private judgment inspired by the Holy Ghost.
PS. We are getting a bit sidetracked - my point with the mention of Luther was that just because the SSPX priests disobey the Apostolic See in good conscience doesn't make them right.
No, you deliberately sidetrack an issue when you lamely try to compare the SSPX to Luther.
The SSPX butchered no Catholic bible or Mass as Luther did. You would fair much better comparing Luther to Paul VI in their similarities.
I don't read the NYTimes and I don't pay any attention to the Democrats. I don't drink the KoolAid of the 'neocons,' nor of the BushBots.
BTW, Bill Rusher's column in today's WND approximates my point of view on the matter.
Please take your superiority complex elsewhere.
"No Bishop has 'standing' to excomm."
"In the eyes of Heaven LeF is right.."
"It was necessary..."
Around and around and around he goes, and still headed in the wrong direction.
Luther.
UR is correct: Luther was a revolutionary.
Of course, defying the Pope and directly, willingly, disobeying him in attempting ordination of Bishops--THAT'S not revolutionary!!!
It's Justified!!!
Resisting a pope is hardly revolutionary--it was done all the time in the past. Dante, a fairly good Catholic for his day, put his pope in Hell. The Pope is only worshiped nowadays--by neo-Catholics like yourself who imagine he never errs, swallowing every novelty like divine revelation.
Dante put Saint Celestine V in hell. He's your authority now?
It was not my point. My point was that resisting popes was not as "revolutionary" as ninenot imagined. In the past it was common for people to oppose popes who strayed even slightly from tradition. The worship of popes is a fairly modern phenomenon. Some on this site place the Pope before the faith itself and confuse him with God.
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.