|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 10:15:12 GMT -5
at 24:00 or so Part 2 Charles quotes a Council that does condemn Honorious. Brother Pacelli please I understand that to a man of your precise and analytical mind 2 blowhards like Charles and I having an informal discussion on serious issues probebly makes you wince. No doubt...but I think you need to understand the context is informal. Maybe in your mind we shouldnt informally discuss this stuff...and you could be right. But tge methodology of dissecting EVERY point is wrong...the video should be glossed for the points Charles asserts that shows valid Popes making deleterious actions. Our original discussion is about how I asserted that Pius12s Changes to the Mass proved deleterious ( which I agree I havent proven to your satisfaction) and that they were imprudent. I didnt assert Pius12 was part of the modernists. Catholic RandR folks like Charles continually point out how past Popes did " bad" things...of course they wrongly imo conflate this to mean that bergoglio can be as bad as he wants ...hes still pope...but thats a different Topic Now gloss over to part 2 35:00 Charles discusses Leo 13 Normally, I would just let this go as an informal discussion, but you used these as sources, so that's why I am going through them. I also did note in my first comment that I am cutting him slack as I realize that what one states verbally and informally is not the same as a carefully written text. I am not convinced by what I am finding so far, though, and believe that his historical assertions cannot be taken at face value, so, even though the points above are not relevant to the Pius XII laws, and even though he is stating these informally, there are clear problems with his assertions, so keep in mind that his assertions need a high level of scrutiny, each and every one of them, as far as I can see. I don't care for videos, but if I ever did do a video, I would either state in the video what sources I am using, or attach a list for listeners to refer to in the comments. Sources are what matters, and the serious discussion of these types of matters demands rigor, or listeners may come away believing things that are not true. For what it's worth, in the case of Pope Honorius, the enemies of the Church use this case as a proof that popes are not infallible, so this may just seem like a mundane case in Church history, but it's very much a significant part of apologetics, and that is the other reason I am correcting the record on what he is stating. Anyway, I will skip to part II and listen to what you are mentioning before commenting any further.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 13:44:17 GMT -5
I was watching part II, and at (25:00). You were correct that Catholics knew nothing about Pope Honorius' inaction towards the Monothelites. None of this was known, and it was only brought to light much later in Church history when the private later he wrote to Sergius came to light.
When you read commentary on this incident, it seems very reasonable that Pope Honorius was acting in good Faith, but perhaps erred by not stamping this out. There is no doubt about his orthodoxy, he lived as a Catholic and died in the Church as a Catholic, not a heretic.
The teaching of St. Pius X has no relevance here. Pope Honorius was not commanding anything or making any law. No Catholic was being suspicious of his laws or his commands, as there were none. He was not making a law ordering Catholics to not denounce the Monothelite heresy. The only thing he was doing (or better said, not doing) on this matter was literally nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 15:06:20 GMT -5
The policy of Pope Leo XIII historically called ralliement, is an interesting one. If you ever study French history, it was a mess from the time of the Revolution forward, with a murderous revolutionary government, then an empire, then an English puppet king, and on and on. It's a complex subject and I can see why a professed monarchist may not like Pope Leo's decision. I think though that when one grasps the complexity of this situation, it's easier to see that Leo XIII was acting reasonably. The Pope was clearly trying his best in a very complex situation to secure the rights of the Church in a land that was once a Catholic land, namely France, but had since become openly hostile to the Church. Anyway, I would urge you to read for yourself Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, explaining this matter, for yourself, and see if you see any problem with what he was teaching, and if you do, why? www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_16021892_au-milieu-des-sollicitudes.html
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 15:45:19 GMT -5
So all is clear, I am not asserting that the Pope's judgment is always right or the best, or his commands are always the best commands that can be given, or even that laws promulgated by the Pope for the Church are always better. This is not what St. Pius X taught.
We must love the Pope and not conclude we know better. We must trust the pope's judgment, and for whatever reason, if we think we know better, we must approach the matter with humility, appealing to him privately, not speaking against him, harboring suspicions about his commands and laws, and trusting his commands or the laws which he promulgated until such a time as either that pope or a future pope may change course, and if or when that happens, we then trust that new decision of the pope, the same way we trusted the former decision of the pope, even though the two commands or laws may be at odds with each other.
I don't see any problem with Pope Pius XI forbidding Catholics from being members of Action Française if that's what he determined was best for the common good or the good of their souls. Catholics should trust that he had good reasons, and just leave it at that. When Pope Pius XII changed direction and permitted Catholics to be members, they should also trust that decision. In both cases, we trust Our Lord's Vicars's decision, even if, we, in our judgement may have done things differently.
In all of the examples that Charles Coulombe states, even though I know he wasn't dealing with the 1950's laws of the Church, I see no conflict with the teaching of St. Pius X, once the proper understanding is given to these examples.
In regard to the Holy Week, I trust Pope Pius XII. If a future Pope changes course, then so be it, I'll trust him just the same as I trust Pius XII. I am always with the Pope. If he loosens the law, fine, if he tightens the law, fine. Our Lord gave him, and him alone this authority, and it is for us to trust him, and as I said if we think we know better, we must be humble, and approach the Pope privately with our reasons, and accept whatever he decides, whether or not it meets our private expectations of what we think.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 10, 2023 16:42:48 GMT -5
That is beautifully put..but to play ( literally) devils advocate...then why not trust Paul6 and the rest?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2023 20:51:23 GMT -5
That is beautifully put..but to play ( literally) devils advocate...then why not trust Paul6 and the rest? They deviated from the Faith, and that forced Catholics to conclude that they were not Popes. If anything, this is a proof of sedevacantism. The way that St. Pius X taught Catholics to treat the Pope is impossible to do with a Paul VI and his successors, because if we do, we lose the Faith.
|
|