Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Apr 20, '17, 5:50 pm
PopePiusXIISupp PopePiusXIISupp is offline
Junior Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2015
Posts: 300
Religion: Cradle Catholic with devotion to the Rosary
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Explanation of papal infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Denzinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Apr 20, '17, 5:51 pm
PopePiusXIISupp PopePiusXIISupp is offline
Junior Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2015
Posts: 300
Religion: Cradle Catholic with devotion to the Rosary
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,
the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;
the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;
the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);
the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;
and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).
Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x);
and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that "all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).
And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."
Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: "so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo."
More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."
After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's promise: "Thou art Peter, etc."; "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See."
Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and 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 the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur.
Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Apr 20, '17, 5:52 pm
PopePiusXIISupp PopePiusXIISupp is offline
Junior Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2015
Posts: 300
Religion: Cradle Catholic with devotion to the Rosary
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Objections alleged

The only noteworthy objections against papal infallibility, as distinct from the infallibility of the Church at large, are based on certain historical instances in which it is alleged that certain popes in the ex cathedra exercise of their office have actually taught heresy and condemned as heretical what has afterwards turned out to be true. The chief instances usually appealed to are those of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius in the early centuries, and the Galileo affair at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Pope Liberius
Liberius, it is alleged, subscribed an Arian or Semi-Arian creed drawn up by the Council of Sirmium and anathematized St. Athanasius, the great champion of Nicaea, as a heretic. But even if this were an accurate statement of historical fact, it is a very inadequate statement. The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as soon as he had recovered his liberty, made amends for the moral weakness he had been guilty of. This is a quite satisfactory answer to the objection, but it ought to be added that there is no evidence whatever that Liberius ever anathematized St. Athanasius expressly as a heretic, and that it remains a moot point which of three or four Sirmian creeds he subscribed, two of which contained no positive assertion of heretical doctrine and were defective merely for the negative reason that they failed to insist on the full definition of Nicaea.

Pope Honorius
The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter's misrepresentation of his opponents' position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius's letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.

Pope Vigilius
There is still less reason for trying to found an objection to papal infallibility on the wavering conduct of Pope Vigilius in connection with the controversy of the Three Chapters; and it is all the more needless to delay upon this instance as most modern opponents of the papal claims no longer appeal to it.

Galileo
As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained — which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

Conclusion
The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Apr 20, '17, 5:52 pm
PopePiusXIISupp PopePiusXIISupp is offline
Junior Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2015
Posts: 300
Religion: Cradle Catholic with devotion to the Rosary
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

What teaching is infallible?

A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Apr 20, '17, 5:59 pm
PopePiusXIISupp PopePiusXIISupp is offline
Junior Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2015
Posts: 300
Religion: Cradle Catholic with devotion to the Rosary
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Sedevacantism says that there is no pope after Pope Pius XII (what is generally assumed as some go back farther). The SSPX accept the pope and pope and say masses una cum papa (in union with the pope). So by that they do accept the pope. They are disobedient, but that does not mean schism as that means rejecting the pope and those in union with him, but that is a thread for itself.

(I do not sympathize with the SSPX as they have faulty logic)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Apr 20, '17, 7:40 pm
Expatreprocedit Expatreprocedit is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2014
Posts: 802
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by willymonfrete View Post
according to the council honorius was a private heretic
I don't see the word "private" or any equivalent in the extract. I see the word "heretic", simpliciter, and I see Honorius named with other *public* heretics.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Apr 21, '17, 4:38 am
commenter commenter is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Posts: 3,179
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ad Orientem View Post
That's a much more reasonable assertion.

It's certainly true that the existence of limitations on authority can be abused to wiggle out of obedience. The error is in the wiggling, however, not in the assertion that there are limitations.

I'm afraid many of us fall into the opposite error of equating the Magisterium with the person of the holy father, rather than see the Magisterium as something belonging to the Church in all ages, in which the current holy father participates.

A solemn definition in a papal bull from 500 years ago does not become less infallible over time. Nor can it be overturned by, say, a private letter the living pope (whomever he happens to be) writes to a prelate on the same subject, let alone an attempted solemn definition to the contrary (which would be impossible). Granted, the living successor of Peter has peculiar authority to synthesize and interpret past magisterial statements (as do the bishops in communion with him); but if he does so as a private theologian, it is not the same as if he does so as supreme pontiff.
You are correct in that there are 2 opposite errors to avoid. At various times more people are likely to fall into one error, at other times more are likely to fall into the opposite error.
Catholics are influenced by the secular climate of the moment. In 2017, are Catholics in the West more prone towards excessive obedience to current religious authority? Or are they more tempted towards disobedience, I will do my own thing, I will myself evaluate the current pope (or bishop, or pastor, or parent, etc). Popes have limitations, but I sure don't.

Is this the Age of Eisenhower and Churchill, in terms of respect for current leadership? Or are we more likely to be biased from a different direction?
__________________
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NY Times:
They do not speak for me.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Apr 21, '17, 7:15 am
twf twf is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 5,158
Religion: Catholic (former Evangelical Protestant)
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatreprocedit View Post
I don't see the word "private" or any equivalent in the extract. I see the word "heretic", simpliciter, and I see Honorius named with other *public* heretics.
Its immaterial. I think the poster simply meant that he didn't explicitly teach heresy, but he was condemned by the council regardless with other heretics as you say. Much later in our history, Pope John XII was a heretic as well, but he was corrected and recanted. This isn't an issue for Catholics. This pious sentiment that the Pope can't even err in his personal beliefs is rubbish and not Catholic teaching.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Apr 21, '17, 7:55 am
Ad Orientem's Avatar
Ad Orientem Ad Orientem is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2013
Posts: 2,472
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by commenter View Post
. . . In 2017, are Catholics in the West more prone towards excessive obedience to current religious authority? Or are they more tempted towards disobedience . . . ?
While it's true that we live in a predominantly anti-authoritarian age, opposite extremes can and do co-exist. As a matter of fact, they co-exist precisely because of each other, in reaction to one another. Thus the Church today is polarized between those whose forbears over-corrected strictness with misguided liberality, and those who have over-corrected that liberality with excessive strictness. Similarly, those who exaggerate the powers of the Roman Pontiff are reacting to those who deny them. It may be that the one camp vastly outnumbers the other, but both dangers are equally real.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Apr 21, '17, 9:37 am
giuseppeTO giuseppeTO is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2006
Posts: 1,236
Religion: Roman Catholic - SSPX
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by willymonfrete View Post
..no pope can teach heresy in a matter binding on the church.
As an SSPX'er, I am a bit confused about the title of this thread. The Society of St. Pius X is union of priests without vows. I'm not sure how the First Vatican Council disproves that.

I do agree with your quote above and I do not believe that any post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that. There have been Popes who have taught error (Pope John XX), were challenged by the only rightful authority (Cardinals and Bishops), and recanted their erroneous positions.

Even in the case of John XX, he did not seek to bind his error on the church.
__________________
TraditionalCatholicRadio.org
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Apr 21, '17, 10:38 am
willymonfrete willymonfrete is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2017
Posts: 27
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by giuseppeTO View Post
As an SSPX'er, I am a bit confused about the title of this thread. The Society of St. Pius X is union of priests without vows. I'm not sure how the First Vatican Council disproves that.

I do agree with your quote above and I do not believe that any post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that. There have been Popes who have taught error (Pope John XX), were challenged by the only rightful authority (Cardinals and Bishops), and recanted their erroneous positions.

Even in the case of John XX, he did not seek to bind his error on the church.
there is a difference between error and heresy.a pope can fall into error but not heresy,wich means go oppositte to a doctrine formed by the magisterium.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Apr 21, '17, 11:45 am
giuseppeTO giuseppeTO is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2006
Posts: 1,236
Religion: Roman Catholic - SSPX
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by willymonfrete View Post
there is a difference between error and heresy.a pope can fall into error but not heresy,wich means go oppositte to a doctrine formed by the magisterium.
Well, all heresy is error. Heresy is adherence to a belief contrary to the dogmatic teachings of the church. Pope John did that but evetually recanted once corrected. V1 protects the Pope against binding the church in that error, or heresy, in that case.
__________________
TraditionalCatholicRadio.org
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Apr 21, '17, 12:08 pm
commenter commenter is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Posts: 3,179
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by giuseppeTO View Post
As an SSPX'er, I am a bit confused about the title of this thread. The Society of St. Pius X is union of priests without vows. I'm not sure how the First Vatican Council disproves that.

I do agree with your quote above and I do not believe that any post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that. There have been Popes who have taught error (Pope John XX), were challenged by the only rightful authority (Cardinals and Bishops), and recanted their erroneous positions.

Even in the case of John XX, he did not seek to bind his error on the church.
Welcome, g. I have not run into your posts for some time. They are always accurate and charitable.
__________________
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NY Times:
They do not speak for me.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Apr 21, '17, 12:43 pm
giuseppeTO giuseppeTO is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2006
Posts: 1,236
Religion: Roman Catholic - SSPX
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Welcome, g. I have not run into your posts for some time. They are always accurate and charitable.
Thanks C-. It is much eadier to be accurate than charitable and I frequently fall short with the former and struggle with the latter.

I have enough warnings over the past 11 years on CA to pave a parking lot. But I think I'm mellowing in old age.
__________________
TraditionalCatholicRadio.org
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old Apr 21, '17, 9:33 pm
PluniaZ's Avatar
PluniaZ PluniaZ is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2016
Posts: 502
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathBoy1 View Post
Idk if this holds up, especially if you read up about Pope Honorius 1 :


More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".

"Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

If one Pope could have been wrong in matters of faith, than perhaps another could.
It scares me to think about this.
A church council does not have the authority to judge the Pope.

"And who would you be, man, who did this? Where is your authority to do it? Offer testimony from the Holy Book, if you can. Is that a way to live according to the Gospel? Absolutely not. For in the Gospel Christ says to Peter: And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven. And you would say to the pope, the successor of Peter: ”Do not bind this, do not loose that!”! Do you not know, you miserable man, that only divine authority binds the Roman Bishop? The pope is only subject to Holy Scripture, revealed by the hand of God, and he is not bound by decrees of men. ”But we say that the pope is subject to reason, and the power of the Church is given for edification and not for destruction.” But even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the Pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults. Oh, how wrong is the opinion of many men: though they do not allow a king’s subjects to have any say against the king, they would allow it in the case of the Pope even if God has given him power over all mortal men. Those stupid men are unconcerned that the Holy Apostolic Church has, from Saint Peter to this day, never been heard to teach anything that is contrary to orthodox faith. This privilege it has received from the Lord that it shall never succumb to wrong teachings for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See."

-Pope Pius II, Multa hic hodie

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/...84531/document
__________________
"Mary attests that the mercy of the Son of God knows no bounds and extends to everyone, without exception."

-Pope Francis

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6491CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6012Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5099Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4615Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4237Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
4052OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Popeye14
3288For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: ShepherdMe
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2811Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: tawny
2446SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:59 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.