Pope's don't "resign". There is no "resignation".

Started by TerrorDæmonum, February 15, 2013, 02:27:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

trentcath

Quote from: Melkite on February 16, 2013, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: CamelliaSinensis on February 16, 2013, 03:52:18 PMas well?
Basically, Pius XII warning against trying to relive the primitive Church from before the middle ages. I added my second sentence because of the orthodox propaganda comment.

Well, of course one would warn against trying to go back before the medieval church if the medieval church was clearly at odds with the apostolic church!   :toth:

While I agree that one shouldn't try to relive the apostolic church purely for the sake of being apostolic, it certainly is not irrelevant and is worthy of study that the early church and the medieval latin church are quite different on many things.  Frankly, I'm a little surprised to see someone who is presumably trying to preserve Latin traditions, at least in part, for the sake of tradition, arguing against a tradition that precedes even it.  It reinforces the idea that the modern trad movement is in many ways merely a medieval fan club, and it makes your point above less credible.

:shrug:

But of course you'd never do that of your own 'church'

tmw89

#31
Quote from: trentcath on February 16, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: Melkite on February 16, 2013, 04:46:12 PM
Quote from: tmw89 on February 16, 2013, 02:48:31 PM
Wow!  If that isn't the most condescending remark RE the greatest pope of the 20th century, I don't know what is!

Given the amount of time he dedicated to studying the Church before his pontificate alone, I'm more inclined to take him at his word.

Well, the nice thing about it is, you don't have to take my word or his for it.  You can look and find it for yourself.  There clearly is no unanimous support for the idea of an ultramontanist papacy.  It's interesting, you can even find passages from the same father either professing or rejecting papal monarchy depending on whether he was at odds with the pope at a given moment (I.e., purely subjectively on the father's part in either respect).

Given the amount of time he apparently spent in studying it, did he ever acknowledge that the history does not paint a picture of papal supposrt so unanimously as he would like?  If he never mentioned it, then he was either dishonest, or not as well-read as you believe.  Which one is worse?

  :rolleyes:

And this arrogance is why the schism continues today

Trentcath, that isn't just arrogance:  Melkite has crossed the line of what is and is not acceptable here.

Between the language he employed in discussing St. Pius X, denying the apostolicity of the Church in the Middle Ages, and comparing the "modern trad movement" to a "medieval fan club" . . . just no.





EDIT:  changed an incorrect verb tense and separated "to" and "a."
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!

trentcath

Quote from: tmw89 on February 16, 2013, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: trentcath on February 16, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: Melkite on February 16, 2013, 04:46:12 PM
Quote from: tmw89 on February 16, 2013, 02:48:31 PM
Wow!  If that isn't the most condescending remark RE the greatest pope of the 20th century, I don't know what is!

Given the amount of time he dedicated to studying the Church before his pontificate alone, I'm more inclined to take him at his word.

Well, the nice thing about it is, you don't have to take my word or his for it.  You can look and find it for yourself.  There clearly is no unanimous support for the idea of an ultramontanist papacy.  It's interesting, you can even find passages from the same father either professing or rejecting papal monarchy depending on whether he was at odds with the pope at a given moment (I.e., purely subjectively on the father's part in either respect).

Given the amount of time he apparently spent in studying it, did he ever acknowledge that the history does not paint a picture of papal supposrt so unanimously as he would like?  If he never mentioned it, then he was either dishonest, or not as well-read as you believe.  Which one is worse?

  :rolleyes:

And this arrogance is why the schism continues today

Trentcath, that isn't just arrogance:  Melkite has crossed the line of what is and is not acceptable here.

Between the language he employed discussed St. Pius X, denying the apostolicity of the Church in the Middle Ages, and comparing the "modern trad movement" toa "medieval fan club" . . . just no.

Whats new?

Christknight104

The  so called effort to "return to the practices of the Early Church" has been used these past years  to justify the Novus Ordo, communion in the hand, and Conciliarism. Pope Pius XII was ahead of his time in resisting such a principle.

tmw89

Just so everybody is aware:

Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 16, 2013, 05:56:43 PM
Melkite is banned for three days for disrespect and lack of charity towards St. Pius X, Trad-bashing, and generally trolling.

Quote from: Melkite on February 16, 2013, 01:43:14 PM
Apparently, Pope St. Pius X wasn't familiar with the principle of 'just because you say it's so doesn't mean it is so.'  The testimony of the early church clearly does not agree with Pius X's understanding of it.

Quote from: Melkite on February 16, 2013, 04:46:12 PMWell, the nice thing about it is, you don't have to take my word or his for it.  You can look and find it for yourself.  There clearly is no unanimous support for the idea of an ultramontanist papacy.  It's interesting, you can even find passages from the same father either professing or rejecting papal monarchy depending on whether he was at odds with the pope at a given moment (I.e., purely subjectively on the father's part in either respect).

Given the amount of time he apparently spent in studying it, did he ever acknowledge that the history does not paint a picture of papal supposrt so unanimously as he would like?  If he never mentioned it, then he was either dishonest, or not as well-read as you believe.  Which one is worse?

Quote from: Melkite on February 16, 2013, 04:54:05 PMWell, of course one would warn against trying to go back before the medieval church if the medieval church was clearly at odds with the apostolic church!   :toth:

While I agree that one shouldn't try to relive the apostolic church purely for the sake of being apostolic, it certainly is not irrelevant and is worthy of study that the early church and the medieval latin church are quite different on many things.  Frankly, I'm a little surprised to see someone who is presumably trying to preserve Latin traditions, at least in part, for the sake of tradition, arguing against a tradition that precedes even it.  It reinforces the idea that the modern trad movement is in many ways merely a medieval fan club, and it makes your point above less credible.
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!

CamelliaSinensis

Quote from: tmw89 on February 16, 2013, 04:06:54 PM
Doesn't look like he is to me.  I think his post to which you replied complemented your post from before.

...in other words, Melkite is wrong for a vast array of reasons, not just one!
You are correct  :) It came out odd, but I was agreeing with Trentcath.

Bonaventure

I'm about as "hardline" as they come, so I thought the use of resin of lieu of abdicate had a significance, but from what I read St. Celestine used the same word. I don't know if this is true, so feel free to correct me.


My view is there are already enough things I can criticize conciliar Rome for. I don't need to nitpick.

jovan66102

Well, the Code of Canon Law uses 'renounce' in Latin, but the translation into English on the Vatican website uses 'resign'. The French uses 'renounce', the Italian is 'renounce', and the Spanish uses 'renounce', but, if Google translate is to be trusted, the German uses 'resign', all from the versions posted on the Vatican site.
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
"Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)" St Bernard of Clairvaux
https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Melkite

Quote from: trentcath on February 16, 2013, 05:01:06 PM
:shrug:

But of course you'd never do that of your own 'church'

I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean I wouldn't change a Byzantine practice if it proved to be contrary to the apostolic practice?  It would depend if it were a contrast that offended an essential of the faith.  The the faith isn't harmed by the change, then it could be tolerated.  If it is harmed, then it shouldn't be tolerated.  I can't really say more without a specific example to go by.  Did you have something in mind?

Melkite

Quote from: trentcath on February 16, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
  :rolleyes:

And this arrogance is why the schism continues today

Indeed, the schism does continue today largely because of arrogance, although I think your statement is rather ironic.

trentcath

Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: trentcath on February 16, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
  :rolleyes:

And this arrogance is why the schism continues today

Indeed, the schism does continue today largely because of arrogance, although I think your statement is rather ironic.

:shrug:

On the note of you bashing St Pius X, several melkite patriarchs (including the one at v2) have been notoriously unorthodox, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't cast stones.

Melkite

Quote from: trentcath on February 19, 2013, 07:04:01 PM
:shrug:

On the note of you bashing St Pius X, several melkite patriarchs (including the one at v2) have been notoriously unorthodox, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't cast stones.

Again ironic, since several popes (including the one at v1), have been notoriously arrogant (and unorthodox in practice, if not doctrine), of the kind that perpetuates the schism.

trentcath

Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 07:06:22 PM
Quote from: trentcath on February 19, 2013, 07:04:01 PM
:shrug:

On the note of you bashing St Pius X, several melkite patriarchs (including the one at v2) have been notoriously unorthodox, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't cast stones.

Again ironic, since several popes (including the one at v1), have been notoriously arrogant (and unorthodox in practice, if not doctrine), of the kind that perpetuates the schism.

Production no 1 in case wannabe catholics v the roman catholic church

trentcath

#43
Quote

Again ironic, since several popes (including the one at v1), have been notoriously arrogant (and unorthodox in practice, if not doctrine), of the kind that perpetuates the schism.

By the way:

Quote
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
Bl. Pius IX, syllabus of errors

Melkite

Quote from: trentcath on February 19, 2013, 07:12:19 PM
By the way:

Quote
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
Bl. Pius IX, syllabus of errors

LOL, is that recognized as an infallible statement?

It's of course not an error, though, to believe the Popes have contributed to the division of the Church into traditional Catholic and Protestant.  Latin triumphalism = having one's cake and eating it too!  Know any good diet plans where you don't have to give up anything bad for you?