Papal Oath Not To Introduce New Ideas To The Rcc

[Bruce S]

[quote]Although John Paul II seems to escape censure by saying that Vatican II “perhaps” contained something new, or that he is only concerned with “points of doctrine” rather than “doctrine,” nevertheless, the mere suggestion that Vatican II taught something “new” in regard to doctrine (as opposed, for example, to teaching something new in regards to mere pastoral issues which would certainly be allowable), seems to contradict the very declaration of Vatican I against such possibilities. When one says “points of doctrine” it is normally understood as specific statements about doctrine, and certainly nothing outside of doctrine. Logic dictates that, if they are “new,” then they were not taught before. If they were not taught before, then they were not part of Tradition. It they are not part of Tradition, then they have the potential of being erroneous. Moreover, since “points” is used in the plural, it means that John Paul II interprets Vatican II as teaching a variety of “new” things. Whether his interpretation of Vatican II is correct or not is another issue, part of which will be addressed in this essay. Suffice it to say, however, John Paul’s statement in Ecclesia Dei is confusing and cause for concern as to what he really believes both about Vatican I’s decrees and the “continuity of tradition.”

Moreover, when we consider the specific and ominous language of the Papal Oath, which solemnly warns the pope against propagating any new teaching, we shudder at the mere thought that John Paul II might interpret Vatican II as teaching new doctrine. The oath which each pope is required to take states:



[color=blue][i]“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess; I swear to God Almighty and Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church.  I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”[/i][/color]

Not only is this language rather foreboding against any pope who would dare change or introduce something new into Catholic teaching, the italicized portions show that it is certainly a possibility that the pope himself could indeed disobey the oath and thus introduce new teaching, otherwise there would be no reason for him to take the oath if he were immune from such transgressions. Hence, our thesis is proved at the outset – the very oath required of the pope indicates that it is possible for the pope to err, and indeed, on the very issues of the faith he chooses not to protect under the domain of infallibility[/quote]

Comments?

[url="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/errs.htm"]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/errs.htm[/url]

[popestpiusx]

The oath against Modernism should never have been dropped. What I find interesting is that many priests took it. But after it was eliminated even the ones who took started acting like it had no binding force. They took the oath and are bound by it until death or until they are relieved from it by the Holy Father.

[popestpiusx]

Just to anticipate your comments, Bruce, this ommission of the Oath does not indicate a doctrinal change. The Holy Father was perfectly free to drop it. I think it was a horrible mistake, but he had the right to do it.

[Bruce S]

Errr...

Don't forget, I ALWAYS have maintained, and still do the COMPLETE right of the Catholic Church to manage her affairs in any way she deems fit to do so.

Remember, we Protestants are not hung up on the need to be right all the time, to us, squabbling is part of the FUN part of being a Christian.

Since NONE of us Protestants hold to any actions of men, outside what was reduced and accepted in scripture, as being binding, we don't worry about these so called infallibility issues, we more or less assume ALL of us are wrong so much of the time.

Edited April 6, 2004 by Bruce S

[the lumberjack]

hahahahaha

very true...very true.

[MagiDragon]

[quote]Since NONE of us Protestants hold to any actions of men, outside what was reduced and accepted in scripture, as being binding, we don't worry about these so called infallibility issues, we more or less assume ALL of us are wrong so much of the time. [/quote]

Now *that* sheds light on things.

I'd always assumed you considered yourself right about *everything.*

[Brother Adam]

What the heck kind of admission is that? lol

[popestpiusx]

Why would you believe something if you think you are probably wrong?????????

[Hananiah]

That isn't the oath against modernism which Sungenis is quoting. That's the Papal oath which was first taken by Pope St. Agatho in A.D. 681.

[mulls]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 6 2004, 03:37 PM'] Why would you believe something if you think you are probably wrong????????? [/quote]
God's right, we're screw-ups just trying to focus on Him to put us in our place.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Apr 6 2004, 08:15 PM'] That isn't the oath against modernism which Sungenis is quoting. That's the Papal oath which was first taken by Pope St. Agatho in A.D. 681. [/quote]
Ah, yes. Of course. I was not paying very close attention now was I? How very embarassing.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 6 2004, 01:36 PM']Errr...

Don't forget, I ALWAYS have maintained, and still do the COMPLETE right of the Catholic Church to manage her affairs in any way she deems fit to do so.

Remember, we Protestants are not hung up on the need to be right all the time, to us, squabbling is part of the FUN part of being a Christian.

Since NONE of us Protestants hold to any actions of men, outside what was reduced and accepted in scripture, as being binding, we don't worry about these so called infallibility issues, we more or less assume ALL of us are wrong so much of the time.[/quote]

Sorry Brucy, but as much as you question and come over here bashing the Catholic Faith you maintain nothing.

Are you board or what!

You need to show me in Scripture were it says follow the Bible alone!

I'll give you the rest of your life because you'll never find it!

I can show you tradition in Scripture in a heart beat. But I've noticed once you get the facts you kinda fade off in the backround.

Here is just one example 1 Cor 11:2 look it up, if you need more I got more.

God Bless
Jason

Edited April 8, 2004 by Jason

[Bruce S]

[quote]You need to show me in Scripture were it says follow the Bible alone![/quote]

I *NEVER SAID* nor do I believe that the Bible ALONE is the right way....grrr.

Don't erect a stawman against me, then ask ME to defend, something YOU think I believe.

I believe that scripture is the ultimate TEST for any belief and doctrine. If it is NOT there, such as the bodily assumption "theory" the Catholic Church has "evolved" one SHOULD be able to find it there.

For example, John, who wrote a Gospel, and Revelations, lived till 90-100AD, long past when one would expect Mary to have died. In his Gospel, we find NO mention of Mary being bodily assumed, IF that happened, it would be a MASSIVE miracle, and ALL the Christians would latch onto this and write about it, he did not.

That is pretty amazing, silence on Jesus's mother being bodily assumed into heaven.

So, this to me, indicates it is myth.

[Livin_the_MASS]

You don't know your Bible do you. People in the Old Testament were assumed into heaven

Gn 5:24 (Hb11:5)- Enoch taken to heaven without dying

2 Kg 2:11 -Elijah assumend into heaven in fiery chariot

Hmmm....

It happened in the Old Testament? Wow did you know that? So God can do whatever He wants.

Since you looked over the first Scripture I'll give you a little 1 Cor 11:2-"hold fast to traditions I handed on to you."

peace

[Livin_the_MASS]

[color=red](Please use Christian Charity, Bruce has done nothing wrong.)[/color]

[Bruce S]

I agree.

Now show me ONE contempory SOURCE from BEFORE the year 100 that has Mary being bodily assumed, intact flesh and all..

ONE?

No I will not accept sources that had time for a myth to develop as the Catholic Church encountered the female dieties that they needed something to counter with, I personally think that is behind the elevation of Mary beyond her historical role, if you want to convert the heathens, and the female heathens, and take them away from the female dieties that women WERE attached to, you needed to somehow counter the male bias that Jewish religion is completely saturated with.

So, we elevate Mary, from a humble maiden serving God, to ...

The new Mary, and that Mary is now appearing and giving new instructions to the world...

THAT is the thing that most troubles me, those apparitions...

[Livin_the_MASS]

The Bible tells me to hold fast to the traditons handed down by letter or mouth. I can trace that back to Jesus can you.

Were is your 2000 years of Tradition. The Bible tells us this, you don't even follow it, how can you say you believe in Bible alone yet not even follow it?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 8 2004, 10:33 AM']
I *NEVER SAID* nor do I believe that the Bible ALONE is the right way....grrr.

Don't erect a stawman against me, then ask ME to defend, something YOU think I believe.

I believe that scripture is the ultimate TEST for any belief and doctrine. If it is NOT there, such as the bodily assumption "theory" the Catholic Church has "evolved" one SHOULD be able to find it there.

For example, John, who wrote a Gospel, and Revelations, lived till 90-100AD, long past when one would expect Mary to have died. In his Gospel, we find NO mention of Mary being bodily assumed, IF that happened, it would be a MASSIVE miracle, and ALL the Christians would latch onto this and write about it, he did not.

That is pretty amazing, silence on Jesus's mother being bodily assumed into heaven.

So, this to me, indicates it is myth. [/quote]
A doc dump just for you Bruce


The Assumption of Our Lady
by Rev. James M. Keane, O.S.M.

Protestants as well as Catholics believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is now in heaven.

This doctrine is called the Ascension and is explicitly revealed in the Bible. All Christians believe, too, that the bodies of the just will be united to their souls at the end of the world and be glorified in heaven after the manner of the Risen Body of Christ. This is also revealed explicitly in the New Testament. It follows, therefore, that the bodies and souls of the departed saints are now separated, that their souls are in heaven and their bodies in the grave. Christians of every conceivable denomination are agreed on these two dogmas.


After that, however, Protestants and Catholics part company, for Catholics believe that the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also in heaven. We call this doctrine the Assumption. By it we hold that the glorification of the flesh, which will take place for us only at the end of time, was granted to Mary at the end of her earthly life. We believe, therefore, that the bodies of both Jesus and Mary are now in heaven. There is, however, this difference: Jesus arose from the tomb and ascended into heaven by his own power, whereas Mary's body was taken up to heaven by the power of her Son. For that reason we use two different words: the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary.


Historical Data


There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption.

"It is impossible to accept the popular and late legend, according to which the Apostles, having been present at the Virgin's death, later found her tomb empty or saw her body wafted away by angels" (Jean Guitton).

There are however, negative historical conditions which are quite impressive. Among others are these:


At no time in history has Christendom venerated a grave or tomb of the Blessed Virgin.

Until the 5th century of Christianity there was not even a legend concerning her place of burial.

There is absolutely no relic of Our Lady's body in existence; nor has any person or city ever claimed possession of such a relic.
"From the earliest ages of the Church the faithful venerated the remains of the Saints, and in instances even strove for the honor of possessing them. Relics of the Apostles and of thousands of martyrs are preserved in richly adorned shrines and caskets. The sacred remains of Mary could not have been lost or neglected; that is a hypothesis which it would be impossible to entertain" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).


In the first sixteen centuries of Christianity no reputable theologian or school of theology ever questioned the dogma of the Assumption. It is notable how theologians have been more unanimous in accepting the Assumption than the Immaculate Conception.

Implicit in Bible

The Bible nowhere mentions explicitly this glorification of Mary's Immaculate body. That it has been revealed by God is nevertheless certain; otherwise it could not have been defined as a dogma of faith, A public revelation of the Assumption must have been made to the Apostles, or at least to one of them, because public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. There are, however, several implicit revelations of the Assumption in the Bible. The most important texts are: Gen. 3:15; Lk. 1:28; Apoc. 12:1-2.


Reasons for the Assumption

Ancient belief in the Assumption was based on the Christian conviction that Christ willed his holy Mother to participate in all his prerogatives. Therefore he associated her in his own glorification by an anticipated resurrection.


The corruption of the grave is a punishment for sin (Gen. 3:19). Our flesh is a "flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3). Through the desires of this flesh the majority of our sins are committed. In Mary, however, there is not the slightest stain of sin. By her Immaculate Conception and fulness of grace she was entitled to immunity from corruption in her body. The principle of corruption which we bear within us did not exist in her. "Flesh and blood," says the Bible, "cannot possess the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:15). Even the bodies of the saints do not deserve to enter the kingdom of God. They must first be renewed by the hand of God. But Mary's body — Immaculate, pure, sinless — is consequently incorruptible.


From the first moment of her conception the state of the Blessed Virgin Mary was analogous, but superior, to the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall. Had they not sinned they would not have heard the divine malediction: "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Gen. 3,19). Doesn't justice therefore demand that Mary be preserved from a malediction never merited by her?


Mary's Immaculate Body was, in a sense, the origin of sanctification of all mankind. Her flesh was used to form the flesh of her Son; the flesh which he used on the Cross to destroy death and sin, and which he gave to us that we might rise from the dead. Was this flesh, Mary's flesh, Christ's flesh, the instrument of our redemption and resurrection, to be subject to the corruption of the grave?

"The womb that bore Jesus Christ, the hands that caressed him, the arms that embraced him, the breasts that nourished him, the heart that so loved him — it is impossible to think that these crumbled into dust" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).

Christ's perfect victory over Satan included victory over sin and death. But Mary, the Mother of God, was most intimately associated with Jesus in his victory over Satan. She not only furnished the flesh which Christ sacrificed for our Redemption, but she also had a definite role of cooperation in this Redemption. She was associated with him in the different parts of his triumph. Hence she was associated with him in his victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and Assumption. This argument is used by Pope Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus.


In the virginal conception and birth of his Son, God performed an absolutely unique miracle. This miracle was an act of divine respect for the flesh of the Mother of God. Against all the laws of nature he preserved the corporal integrity of his Mother. Would he later allow that Immaculate flesh to suffer the immeasurably greater lesion of the corruption of the grave?


It is a basic principle of Catholic teaching that all the prerogatives and glories of Mary are because of Jesus Christ. His divine dignity presupposes and demands such perfection in his Mother. The flesh of Mary was the Flesh of Christ; and Christ owed it to himself to preserve from dissolution the body that had served to form his own Body. Mary's body, like her soul, had to be sinless and undefiled. The humiliation of the Mother would have been the humiliation of the Son.


Silence of Early Centuries

The first person known to have asked what happened to Mary's body was St. Epiphanius. He was a 4th century Bishop, close to the scene of events, who had devoted himself seriously to the study of Mary's death. On the occasion of the controversy against the Antidico-marianites, opponents of Mary's virginity, he apparently had no knowledge of even the existence of a tradition concerning the end of Mary's life. In fact, he seemed to be of the opinion as are many mariologists today, that Our Lady did not die. Here are his exact words:


"The Sacred Scriptures do not say that Mary remained in the house of St. John, and the probable reason for the silence of Holy Writ concerning Mary's later life may be found in the fact that her life was so completely heavenly and wonderful that mankind could not possibly have borne the spectacle. Perhaps the Apocalypse (12,13) would show by the woman who was snatched from the dragon, that Mary escaped death. If she did die, her death was kept hidden, that people might not think too carnally about Mary."


Origin of Feast

From the middle of the 5th century a feast called "Commemoration of the Mother of God" was celebrated on August 15th in a shrine located near Jerusalem. Near the end of the 6th century this became a feast commemorating the end of Mary's sojourn on earth and was called the "Dormition of Our Lady." In the beginning of the 8th century Pope Sergius introduced the feast into Rome together with three other feasts of the Blessed Virgin. From Rome it spread rapidly throughout western Europe. It was Pope Hadrian who, at the end of the 8th century, gave it the name of the "Assumption of St. Mary." The Greek Church became interested in this question long before the Latin Church did. Both Greek and Latin writers, however, readily acknowledged their ignorance of the way in which the Blessed Virgin Mary had left this world.


Development and Definition

When Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it drew attention to the possibility of a dogmatic definition of the Assumption. Both are truths not found explicitly in the Bible. Many began to petition the Apostolic See for its immediate definition. Between 1849 and 1940 more than 2,500 such petitions were received from bishops and superiors of religious orders. These represented 73% of the Catholic hierarchy. On May 1st, 1946, Pope Pius XII sent an Encyclical Letter ("Deiparae Virginis") to all the bishops of the world asking them to make known to him the belief and devotion of themselves, their clergy, and their people regarding the Assumption. 1185 bishops answered that the dogma could safely be defined, and only 16 questioned the advisability of the proclamation at that time. It was therefore a quasi-unanimity. On November 1st of the Holy Year, 1950, the day after the closing of the 8th International Marian Congress, held that year in Rome, Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. This great event took place in the Piazza of St. Peter's in the presence of 40 Cardinals, 500 bishops, thousands of priests, and close to one million lay persons. The exact words of the dogma of faith definition, extracted from the Bull "Munificentissimus Deus," were:


"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

Just as Mary received Christ on earth, so Christ in turn received Mary in heaven. Having deigned to descend to her, it was fitting that he should raise her to himself in his glory. The place of the Mother of God is in the splendors of eternal glory and not in the gloom of the sepulchre.


"The Virgin, who gave history its impetus, was herself soon detached from it, to become instead an emblem of history's goal." — Jean Guitton •

[Bruce S]

[quote]Historical Data -There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption.

"It is impossible to accept the [b]popular and late [color=blue]legend[/color][/b], according to which the Apostles, having been present at the Virgin's death, later found her tomb empty or saw her body wafted away by angels" (Jean Guitton). [/quote]

That is the truth, and it then is elaborated upon by supposition, not ANY supportable concurrent writings nor eyewitnesses, NOR writings.

Just a lovely story, that is so elaborately developed that it SHOULD be true, but ...

Is It?

You just have to decide, to go with FACT, or go with TRADITION, and that is where we part company.

[Livin_the_MASS]

Here Bruce,

"Pope John Paul II Encyclical Mother of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater) of March 25, 1987
40. After the events of the Resurrection and Ascension Mary entered the Upper Room together with the Apostles to await Pentecost, and was present there as the Mother of the glorified Lord. She was not only the one who "advanced in her pilgrimage of faith" and loyally persevered in her union with her Son "unto the Cross," but she was also the "handmaid of the Lord," left by her Son as Mother in the midst of the infant Church: "Behold your mother." Thus there began to develop a special bond between this Mother and the Church. For the infant Church was the fruit of the Cross and Resurrection of her Son. Mary, who from the beginning had given herself without reserve to the person and work of her Son, could not but pour out upon the Church, from the very beginning, her maternal self-giving. After her Son's departure, her motherhood remains in the Church as maternal mediation: interceding for all her children, the Mother cooperates in the saving work of her Son, the Redeemer of the world. In fact the Council teaches that the "motherhood of Mary in the order of grace . . . will last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect." With the redeeming death of her Son, the maternal mediation of the handmaid of the Lord took on a universal dimension, for the work of redemption embraces the whole of humanity. Thus there is manifested in a singular way the efficacy of the one and universal mediation of Christ "between God and men" Mary's cooperation shares, in its subordinate character, in the universality of the mediation of the Redeemer, the one Mediator. This is clearly indicated by the Council in the words quoted above.

"For," the text goes on, "taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation." With this character of "intercession," first manifested at Cana in Galilee, Mary's mediation continues in the history of the Church and the world. We read that Mary "by her maternal charity, cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led to their happy homeland." In this way Mary's motherhood continues unceasingly in the Church as the mediation which intercedes, and the Church expresses her faith in this truth by invoking Mary "under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix."

Pope John Paul II Encyclical Mother of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater) of March 25, 1987
41. ... By the mystery of the Assumption into heaven there were definitively accomplished in Mary all the effects of the one mediation of Christ the Redeemer of the world and Risen Lord: "In Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor. 15:22-23). In the mystery of the Assumption is expressed the faith of the Church, according to which Mary is "united by a close and indissoluble bond" to Christ, for, if as Virgin and Mother she was singularly united with him in his first coming, so through her continued collaboration with him she will also be united with him in expectation of the second; "redeemed in an especially sublime manner by reason of the merits of her Son," (109) she also has that specifically maternal role of Mediatrix of mercy at his final coming, when all those who belong to Christ "shall be made alive," when "the last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26)." ...

Pope John Paul II Encyclical Mother of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater) of March 25, 1987
21. ... What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union? But the fact speaks for itself. It is certain that that event already quite clearly outlines the new dimension, the new meaning of Mary's motherhood. Her motherhood has a significance which is not exclusively contained in the words of Jesus and in the various episodes reported by the Synoptics (Lk. 11:27-28 and Lk. 8:19-21; Mt. 12:46-50; Mk. 3:31-35). In these texts Jesus means above all to contrast the motherhood resulting from the fact of birth with what this "motherhood" (and also "brotherhood") is to be in the dimension of the Kingdom of God, in the salvific radius of God's fatherhood. In John's text on the other hand, the description of the Cana event outlines what is actually manifested as a new kind of motherhood according to the spirit and not just according to the flesh, that is to say Mary's solicitude for human beings, her coming to them in the wide variety of their wants and needs. At Cana in Galilee there is shown only one concrete aspect of human need, apparently a small one of little importance ("They have no wine"). But it has a symbolic value: this coming to the aid of human needs means, at the same time, bringing those needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power. Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a Mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she "has the right" to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary "intercedes" for mankind. And that is not all. As a mother she also wishes the messianic power of her Son to be manifested, that salvific power of his which is meant to help man in his misfortunes, to free him from the evil which in various forms and degrees weighs heavily upon his life. Precisely as the Prophet Isaiah had foretold about the Messiah in the famous passage which Jesus quoted before his fellow townsfolk in Nazareth: "To preach good news to the poor . . . to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind . . . " (cf. Lk. 4:18). "

peace