Seems like trads have a problem

[brendan1104]

traditionalists that are non-sedevacantists believes the pope is the pope and bishop of rome...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Aug 19 2005, 01:01 AM']Can Cardinals elect other Cardinals?
[right][snapback]690036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If by that you mean "can they appoint or 'make' other Cardinals" the answer is no.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 18 2005, 09:25 PM']it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the successor of St. Peter.  Traditional Catholic Teaching holds that only two things send a person to hell:

original sin
mortal sin

and for a mortal sin to be mortal, you must have three factors: 1) grave matter 2) full consent of the will 3) knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.

therefore, one condemns himself who refuses to submit to the Roman Pontiff.  that's what Boniface is saying. 

Vatican II is saying that IF (and that's a big IF) someone is ignorant that this is necessary through no fault of their own, then they have not condemned themself by refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
[right][snapback]689817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not at all. Read Pope Boniface's word. He is not making ANY exceptions as you are.

"...every human creature..." .

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”



"What the Pope really meant is....." Always fascinating to observe an apologist try to pretend that a major blunder in papal teaching really didn't mean what it clearly said.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Aug 19 2005, 12:01 AM']Can Cardinals elect other Cardinals?
[right][snapback]690036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

The original Catholic practice was to have the people elect their own bishops. And this appied to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as well. Then the Pope made the rule that only cardinals (appointed by him , naturally)could elect the pope. But it in no way is infallible, or even necessary, unless you believe that whatever a Pope says comes from God.

For example, Pope Innocent III (c 1200) "Every cleric must obey the pope, even if he commands what is evil, for no one may judge the pope."

Are "orthodox" Catholics still expected to believe that too?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 19 2005, 06:12 AM']RESPONSE:

Not at all. Read Pope Boniface's word. He is not making ANY exceptions as you are.

"...every human creature..."  . 

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"What the Pope really meant is....."  Always fascinating to observe an apologist try to pretend that a major blunder in papal teaching really didn't mean what it clearly said.
[right][snapback]690157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why Lester, are you debating Catholics again?

[Cam42]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 19 2005, 09:56 AM']Why Lester, are you debating Catholics again?
[right][snapback]690244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Because he doesn't get it.....

[brendan1104]

Well the councils of Florence and Trent, and the popes have said much, dogmatically, and irrevocably on salvation:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)"

[son_of_angels]

Aye, ancient practice allowed the election of bishops by the people or governments in that area, provided that those bishops were validly consecrated ONLY by another bishop with papal mandate (although the mandate only makes consecration licit, the consecration without mandate could still be valid but wouldn't convey the authority required of a bishop). In ancient times as long as a bishop's activities and doctrine were normative the papal approbation was assumed in some instances where the Throne to be filled was remote. Things were, admittedly, not as complex in terms of canon law as today.
However, as less and less things could be assumed, the simple acknowledgement of election by the Bishop of Ostia (who has the sole right to consecrate the Bishop of Rome) was changed into requiring the assent and obedience of the College of Cardinals so as to ensure succession, Cardinals then simply being clergy in Rome closely associated with the Pope.

So, yes, in some totally canonically removed theory a Pope could be elected by the people he serves, HOWEVER, A.) Canon law forbids the change of any canon law in the interregnum B.) the Pope is not the Bishop of the World but the Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of the West, for which he could only be elected by the Roman diocese and only a licit Western bishop would have the right to consecrate him.

SO THERE sedevacantists, here's a trad you won't be convincing (points to self)..

[brendan1104]

there isn't really sedevacantists on here...

i think everyone who's indult should say so.
same with sspx and sedevacantists.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Aug 19 2005, 10:39 AM']Well the councils of Florence and Trent, and the popes have said much, dogmatically, and irrevocably on salvation:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)"
[right][snapback]690362[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE: Yes indeed,. This was an infallible teaching that was infallibly wrong. Apologists try to pretend that it isn't really all encompassing, because an exception can be made for invincible ignorance.

But please note that such an exception is not made in this teaching.

And as I mentioned yesterday, Vatican II reversed this teaching. Actually, it had been reversed earlier but not "infallibly."

Strictly orthodox Catholics are probably quite put out by this change.

Of course, another more plausible objection might be made. If this was a Papal Bull issued separately from the Council of Florence, it might not be infallible. It might just be papal bull!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 19 2005, 08:56 AM']Why Lester, are you debating Catholics again?
[right][snapback]690244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually, I'm not debating. Just stating the facts of history.

Which Catholicsare we talking about anyway? I didn't catch the names.

I do hope that recounting Church history isn't upsetting to the orthodox.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

But I'm getting confused.

Which "party line" is it being claimed is "orthodox"?

The teaching that each and every person must be subject to the Roman Pontiff and partake of the sacramental life of the Church to be saved, ie. only Catholics in heaven. (Unum Sanctum, Council of Florence).?

Or

Each individual acting in accordance with his conscience can achieve salvation (Vatican II)?

LittleLes

[Aloysius]

I believe Pope Eugene's Bull of Union with the Copts. you guys ever read the full text of it? it's found in session 11 of the Council of Florence. He's specifying what they [the copts] must believe in order to be unified to the Church.

this statement wasn't made in a vaccuum. it was made in a letter sent to the Coptic Church (its original languages are both Latin and Coptic).

anyway, it is infallibly correct and has never been denied. the Holy Catholic Church still firmly believes this, that only in the Church resides the salvitic grace necessary for salvation. That rejecting the Church is a damnable mortal sin.

The Church continues to believe that the only way to hell is 1) original sin or 2) mortal and and that mortal sin must have three things to make it mortal 1)grave matter 2) full consent of the will and 3) full knowledge (culpable ignorance counts for this requirement)

Les, that's not what Vatican II said. You must understand Vatican II in context. one of the first things Vatican II did was reaffirm the Council of Trent. Therefore it can be said that everything said at Trent was also said at Vatican II. Vatican II's statements about conscience can only be understood when you understand that even an erring conscience BINDS but it does not always EXCUSE. You can follow your conscience strait into hell. but not following your conscience leads you to hell as well. That's why a conscience must be well-formed. because someone with an erring conscience, if they were to disobey that conscience they would sin and if they were to obey it they also may be culpable of sin.

If you really want to play in the big leagues and discuss supposed contradictions in councils, you better darn well read them. I've read Nicaea I through Vatican II, and it all makes perfect sense. But reading an excerpt here and an excerpt there makes it look contradictory.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 12:48 PM']
The Church continues to believe that the only way to hell is 1) original sin


RESPONSE:

Nope! That claim went out with Augustine. So your really believe that all those babies dying without being baptized go to hell?

Don't you even allow for the Limbo fiction?

Straight to Hell for something they didn't do, eh?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 12:48 PM']
Les, that's not what Vatican II said.  You must understand Vatican II in context.  [/quote]


RESPONSE:

Ah! The apologist's old "context" ploy. Lets see.

Vatican II: . "The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

Pope Boniface VIII...".Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

(Read: "Absolutely necessary for salvation" for every human being. ie No exceptions allowed).

And you are trying to tell us that both of these statement really are the same if read "in context"?

And you expect someone to believe that?

[Aloysius]

I don't expect you to believe anything. Read all the documents of all the councils and then we'll talk. I cannot talk to someone who merely reads bits and peices.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chalcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinope II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinope III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]Constantinople IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum09.htm"]Lateran I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm"]Lateran II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum11.htm"]Lateran III[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]Lateran IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum13.htm"]Lyons I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum15.htm"]Council of Vienne[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm"]Council of Constance[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm"]Council of Basle[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm"]Lateran V[/url]
[url="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html"]Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]Vatican I[/url]
[url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/index.html"]Vatican II[/url]

the Bull of Union with the Copts (Cantate Domine) was written to the Copts on the occasion of seeking union with them. To be in union with Rome you must understand that only through the Catholic Church does salvation come. That neither jews nor heretics nor pagans nor schismatics have salvation.

meaning the copts were outside of the One True Church where salvation is found and they must enter as a necessity for salvation.

I also believe it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

but I also hold to the traditional understanding that only two things can send someone to hell, original sin and mortal sin. and for something to be a mortal sin three conditions must apply for their culpability. Those popes you're quoting all understood that as well, culpability is not a new concept.

[brendan1104]

LittleLes,

limbo is actually a part of hell.

It's not the hell of the damned,

but it's still part of it.

Research it.

[brendan1104]

of course, there's two limbos:

the limbo where the just waited before Christ.

and the limbo of original sin, etc.

Nicene Creed:

"On the third day he rose again from the dead."

(This might mean mortal death, or it might mean limbo.)

Apostle's Creed:

"He descended into hell"

or "He descended to the dead"

(That means limbo).

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 02:13 PM']
To be in union with Rome you must understand that only through the Catholic Church does salvation come.  That neither jews nor heretics nor pagans nor schismatics have salvation.


I also believe it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

but I also hold to the traditional understanding that only two things can send someone to hell, original sin and mortal sin.[/quote]

RESPONSE:


(1) Are you then mantaining that all Jews, Muslims, nonCatholics, and nonChristians go to hell?

(2) Jews, Muslims, noncatholics, and nonChristians of course are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(3) But if only two things send someone to hell and not what Boniface VIII says, you are then disagreeing with Pope Boniface VIII! You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

And you really believe that those unbaptized babies all go to Hell? Not even Libmo? You certainly are being mean to them!

[Aloysius]

Boniface is not saying that anything other than original or mortal sin sends one to hell. In describing a positive affirmation of what is absolutely necessary for salvation, he is defining a form of mortal sin (refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff) for which those conditions of mortal sin must be met for one to be culpable and thus damned.

I do not know the salvation of any man. apart from the Holy Catholic Church, none can be saved. if one mortally sins by rejecting the Catholic Church, he will be damned. if he is inculpable for the sin of rejecting the Catholic Church, then talk to God about that, that has been the subject of much speculative theology debate over the centuries. But if he follows the natural law written on all men's hearts and attempts to do the will of God and there is not the mortal sin of rejecting the Church then there is the possibility that God opens to him the treasury of salvtic grace residing alone in the Catholic Church and he may be saved through an imperfect implicit union with the Church.