|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 4, 2017 10:50:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Oct 4, 2017 18:01:57 GMT -5
Thank you. I look forward to delving into this.
|
|
MiriamM
TC spellcheck
TC quality control
Posts: 55
|
Post by MiriamM on Oct 9, 2017 10:28:25 GMT -5
I perused enough to be unconvinced. Still written by a layman, still making assertions about moral theology such as interior disposition/assent and mortal sin when no specifics about that (such as examples of what supposedly would be mortally sinful in not "obeying" "Rome"), and when he has no authority to make such assertions.
We don't owe obedience to a concept (Romanity). Nor do we owe obedience to every word that comes forth from the mouth of a Pope. In previous eras, popes did not make dozens of formal addresses to associations, causes, agencies, companies, etc., but this pope makes more than even world-traveler JP2 did. His audience is overwhelmingly the non-Catholic world, and Catholics are under no moral obligation to "assent interiorly" to the theories and secular policy statements of a sitting pope.
That said, I acknowledge (have acknowledged, for years) that the Conciliar "church" has drifted gradually for 50+ years away from Romanity and toward Proddy-ism, false (evil) ecumenism, and even secular agnosticism. An accumulation of gradualism can result in radical difference from the original (authentically Roman) source. The moral responsibility for that drift rests on the shoulders of the disobedient cardinals and bishops who engineered this crisis to begin with. Laypeople are not obliged to continue such disobedience under pain of mortal sin.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 11:32:20 GMT -5
You do owe obedience to every word of the Pope in any matter to do with the Catholic faith...you MOST CERTAINLY DO!
|
|
MiriamM
TC spellcheck
TC quality control
Posts: 55
|
Post by MiriamM on Oct 9, 2017 12:34:01 GMT -5
You do owe obedience to every word of the Pope in any matter to do with the Catholic faith...you MOST CERTAINLY DO! You didn't read my post, Voxx. I didn't say anything about "the Catholic faith." In fact, I said quite the opposite. Overwhelmingly, the pope has (1) spoken casually, not formally; (2) spoken, when he has, not about The Faith but about secular policy, theoretical meanderings, whines, rants, personal opinions and preferences -- IOW, how he wishes the world would be and how sad he is that the world is not what he wants it to be, especially economically and politically. Further, on the few occasions on which he has spoken formally, the utterances have contained no commands to laity to do X, obey Y. No, I owe no obedience to any of those, and I just very recently confirmed this one-on-one with my completely reliable, ultra-traditionalist priest/Spiritual Director, to whom I am obedient. What, if anything, PF has commanded in private of clergy is another matter. But I'm not clergy, and if clergy are negligent in passing on some kind of new command (other than what we are already commanded to do by the Church), we do not share in their responsibility, because such would be a secret kept from us. I'm completely confident that would not be my own priest. He would never fail to pass on a new command of any sitting pope; therefore, there are no new commands.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 18:49:38 GMT -5
You do owe obedience to every word of the Pope in any matter to do with the Catholic faith...you MOST CERTAINLY DO! You didn't read my post, Voxx. I didn't say anything about "the Catholic faith." In fact, I said quite the opposite. Overwhelmingly, the pope has (1) spoken casually, not formally; (2) spoken, when he has, not about The Faith but about secular policy, theoretical meanderings, whines, rants, personal opinions and preferences -- IOW, how he wishes the world would be and how sad he is that the world is not what he wants it to be, especially economically and politically. Further, on the few occasions on which he has spoken formally, the utterances have contained no commands to laity to do X, obey Y. No, I owe no obedience to any of those, and I just very recently confirmed this one-on-one with my completely reliable, ultra-traditionalist priest/Spiritual Director, to whom I am obedient. What, if anything, PF has commanded in private of clergy is another matter. But I'm not clergy, and if clergy are negligent in passing on some kind of new command (other than what we are already commanded to do by the Church), we do not share in their responsibility, because such would be a secret kept from us. I'm completely confident that would not be my own priest. He would never fail to pass on a new command of any sitting pope; therefore, there are no new commands. You do not get to decide as laity what is catagorised as Catholic and Non Catholic in the context of Bergoglios Public statements AT ANY PUBLIC FUNCTION. That is protestantism. There is no special time in public forums when the Pope is not Pope...but just some dumb guy. So your position is circular and a total diminishment of what the Papacy is. So if bergoglio is actually a Pope you must love him as above and obey him...in example AS WELL as documents. Popes dont get to spout personal heretical opinions as long as they are not sitting in some mythical chair or brandishing a bishops crux. They are Pope 24-7...and as such...must be CATHOLIC 24-7. And especially since he is a Pope and not some drunken uncle from Italy who goes to church every Easter and calls himself a Catholic...this is the Holy Roman Pontiff one to whom the ENTIRE WORLD and Gods Children are entrusted to...He is held to the highest standard...he is not some politician with whom we can eat the "chicken but spit out the Bones". You simply couldnt be more wrong about a topic.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 18:53:12 GMT -5
By the way I find it intersesting that you argue from authority....only the authority you trust is a Local Trad Priest...but Not a "POPE"? And I certainly did read what you wrote...I think perhaps you need to re read what you wrote.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 18:58:41 GMT -5
"The Council of Florence defined that: 'The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole church.' "
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 19:01:01 GMT -5
When Praytell does a POPE do the above? Only on a chair in a special room when using special words with no windows and no public?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 9, 2017 21:30:03 GMT -5
I perused enough to be unconvinced. Still written by a layman, still making assertions about moral theology such as interior disposition/assent and mortal sin when no specifics about that (such as examples of what supposedly would be mortally sinful in not "obeying" "Rome"), and when he has no authority to make such assertions. We don't owe obedience to a concept (Romanity). Nor do we owe obedience to every word that comes forth from the mouth of a Pope. In previous eras, popes did not make dozens of formal addresses to associations, causes, agencies, companies, etc., but this pope makes more than even world-traveler JP2 did. His audience is overwhelmingly the non-Catholic world, and Catholics are under no moral obligation to "assent interiorly" to the theories and secular policy statements of a sitting pope. That said, I acknowledge (have acknowledged, for years) that the Conciliar "church" has drifted gradually for 50+ years away from Romanity and toward Proddy-ism, false (evil) ecumenism, and even secular agnosticism. An accumulation of gradualism can result in radical difference from the original (authentically Roman) source. The moral responsibility for that drift rests on the shoulders of the disobedient cardinals and bishops who engineered this crisis to begin with. Laypeople are not obliged to continue such disobedience under pain of mortal sin. These ideas are said by a laywoman, based on her own unsourced ideas. The irony is rich where she points out the fact that Mr. Daly is a layman.
|
|
MiriamM
TC spellcheck
TC quality control
Posts: 55
|
Post by MiriamM on Oct 10, 2017 3:20:05 GMT -5
The difference is that Mr. Daly is ignorant of the faith in certain areas especially. A layman (or woman) can judge the accuracy of another layman's or laywoman's understanding of the deposit of faith, and I am very certain that Mr. Daly lacks an adequate understanding of said faith.
Faith and morals from the mouth of the pope, not every utterance. This is not a new or revised or contemporary concept responding to the Crisis but what has in fact always been taught. Papolatry is part of the sickness of modernism which confuses laity and perpetuates ignorance. My spiritual director, who knows the faith far more accurately than Mr Daly does, has authority over me -- not Mr. Daly and not anyone on this forum. Mr. Daly is not even a priest, and he has repeatedly proven how little he understands about the papacy.
Some people on this forum understand that the current Man in White does not seem to speak as a Catholic. I agree. The difference is that these same people, and Mr. Daly, have chosen to declare -- on their own lay authority -- said Man in White not-pope, when all we really know is that the Man in White does not seem to speak as a Catholic in casual or in formal speech. He does not use Catholic words, Catholic terms, and most of all -- he rarely even speaks to Catholics, period. There are all kinds of possible interpretations attached to such behavior. One is Sede Vacante, another is Sedeprivation, another is anti-pope, and there are actually worse, more evil possibilities. There are also less heavy possibilities: senility, incompetence, dislike of his job (i.e., burnout), and personal crisis of faith. There may or may not be loss of office. In the meantime, the world keeps revolving on its axis, and we just heard a sermon recently on idleness in one's state in life and where our first responsibilities lie, each of us. If the best possible pope in existence were holding office right now, and not the man from Argentina, nothing would change, plus or minus, regarding our personal obligations to the faith -- about 98% of which would still have nothing to do with this more ideal pope's public utterances unless those were about the Catholic faith (not the Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheistic, Jewish, Environmentalist and Homosexualist faiths -- all of which the current Man in White prefers to talk about), or Catholic morals.
If any of you need to believe something specific about PF -- and without that firm conviction cannot sleep at night -- then feel free to privately or publicly hold that belief, but it is unjust to demand agreement from lay people about a specific ecclesiastical status.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 10, 2017 4:35:01 GMT -5
I showed you clearly from the infallable word of the Church herself that it is not just Faith and Morals. Not my own authority. So please cite evidence of YOUR standard. As far as every utterance...your correct in a broad sense but not in the sense of defending your position. Sure if Frank says "Hey I really like tofu" at a dinner..."and I think all Catholics should too"...But Frank is speaking IN PUBLIC IN COSTUME with all the accoutrements of a Holy Roman Pontiff about Dogmas...about morals...about the Sacraments. He directly commands us to belive in human caused climate change AND INSISTS its a MORAL issue. On and on. And your final point on whos authority do we dismiss frank as a non catholic. The Authority of almighty God who gave us eyes and ears...a Catholic sense...and intelligence and reason. I have no authority to lay hands on...or to canonically ban him from Rome...but I have the authority to publically speak on what my eyes see...ears hear...and reason shows. Now by whose authority do you proclaim the doctrine of faith and morals only?
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Oct 10, 2017 7:55:44 GMT -5
I perused enough to be unconvinced. Still written by a layman, still making assertions about moral theology such as interior disposition/assent and mortal sin when no specifics about that (such as examples of what supposedly would be mortally sinful in not "obeying" "Rome"), and when he has no authority to make such assertions. We don't owe obedience to a concept (Romanity). Nor do we owe obedience to every word that comes forth from the mouth of a Pope. In previous eras, popes did not make dozens of formal addresses to associations, causes, agencies, companies, etc., but this pope makes more than even world-traveler JP2 did. His audience is overwhelmingly the non-Catholic world, and Catholics are under no moral obligation to "assent interiorly" to the theories and secular policy statements of a sitting pope. That said, I acknowledge (have acknowledged, for years) that the Conciliar "church" has drifted gradually for 50+ years away from Romanity and toward Proddy-ism, false (evil) ecumenism, and even secular agnosticism. An accumulation of gradualism can result in radical difference from the original (authentically Roman) source. The moral responsibility for that drift rests on the shoulders of the disobedient cardinals and bishops who engineered this crisis to begin with. Laypeople are not obliged to continue such disobedience under pain of mortal sin. False assertion: What difference does it make that Mr. Daly is a layman if he expresses the truth? Answer: Nothing. As a matter of fact, he knows more about Catholic theology than nearly any ordained priest in the "traditional world". False assertion: Who says that he claims “authority to make such assertions“? Answer: You did, not he! Straw man: Who said that one has to “owe obedience to every word that comes forth from the mouth of a Pope”? Answer: You did, not Mr. Daly. The sad part about this crisis is that many R&R Catholics have diminished the papacy into little more than a figurehead position. This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope that will eventually lead them into accepting heretical doctrine. What is the purpose of the papacy if what R&R Catholics say is true?
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Oct 10, 2017 11:46:15 GMT -5
The difference is that Mr. Daly is ignorant of the faith in certain areas especially. A layman (or woman) can judge the accuracy of another layman's or laywoman's understanding of the deposit of faith, and I am very certain that Mr. Daly lacks an adequate understanding of said faith. Just a question of interest. You seem to state that a lay person can judge another lay person's understanding of the faith, in another words, his faith, what he actually believes. My question is then, is such a lay person's judgment limited to that of another lay person or can it extend to clergy? If yes, why then cannot a cleric be evaluated as still holding the Catholic faith or not, or in having deviated from it? The subsequent question following is, if yes, and such facts are verifiable and supported by reasonable evidence, why cannot the same lay person claim with moral certainty said cleric is not Catholic and the resultant consequences of such a conclusion. If the sun is risen on a cloudless day, can I not conclude and say with certainty it is light out? And can I not sequencially claim with equal certainty that a normal person under such conditions can see the objects around him? And if you concede the facts leading to the above conclusion, would such a statement be considered rash? If no, then how can you claim your priest is "completely reliable, ultra-traditionalist priest/Spiritual Director" and Pope Francis is not?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 10, 2017 12:04:21 GMT -5
The difference is that Mr. Daly is ignorant of the faith in certain areas especially. A layman (or woman) can judge the accuracy of another layman's or laywoman's understanding of the deposit of faith, and I am very certain that Mr. Daly lacks an adequate understanding of said faith. Faith and morals from the mouth of the pope, not every utterance. This is not a new or revised or contemporary concept responding to the Crisis but what has in fact always been taught. Papolatry is part of the sickness of modernism which confuses laity and perpetuates ignorance. My spiritual director, who knows the faith far more accurately than Mr Daly does, has authority over me -- not Mr. Daly and not anyone on this forum. Mr. Daly is not even a priest, and he has repeatedly proven how little he understands about the papacy. Some people on this forum understand that the current Man in White does not seem to speak as a Catholic. I agree. The difference is that these same people, and Mr. Daly, have chosen to declare -- on their own lay authority -- said Man in White not-pope, when all we really know is that the Man in White does not seem to speak as a Catholic in casual or in formal speech. He does not use Catholic words, Catholic terms, and most of all -- he rarely even speaks to Catholics, period. There are all kinds of possible interpretations attached to such behavior. One is Sede Vacante, another is Sedeprivation, another is anti-pope, and there are actually worse, more evil possibilities. There are also less heavy possibilities: senility, incompetence, dislike of his job (i.e., burnout), and personal crisis of faith. There may or may not be loss of office. In the meantime, the world keeps revolving on its axis, and we just heard a sermon recently on idleness in one's state in life and where our first responsibilities lie, each of us. If the best possible pope in existence were holding office right now, and not the man from Argentina, nothing would change, plus or minus, regarding our personal obligations to the faith -- about 98% of which would still have nothing to do with this more ideal pope's public utterances unless those were about the Catholic faith (not the Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheistic, Jewish, Environmentalist and Homosexualist faiths -- all of which the current Man in White prefers to talk about), or Catholic morals. If any of you need to believe something specific about PF -- and without that firm conviction cannot sleep at night -- then feel free to privately or publicly hold that belief, but it is unjust to demand agreement from lay people about a specific ecclesiastical status. Based on your statement, I can assure that your opinion here is rash, and that you know nothing about this man.
|
|