The "Heavy Burdens" of Catholic Fundamentalism
The Counsel of Trent | 28 Aug. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_BUn5aKtA
1:50 For this example, you rely on "Paul VI" having been Pope.
In one of the previous comments on it, you said "provided they are able to provide" ... I think you are binding a burden of Protestant "foresight" ... one does not know in advance what one will have to provide with.
One can have a splendid well paid job and be kicked out of it tomorrow, because one made one screw up that was precisely what the boss was allergic to or because it was owned by someone wasting all efforts by speculation on the stock market that went wrong.
For my own part, with 12 000 blog posts and so far 7.8 million readers on blogs and quora accounts, I think I definitely could provide tomorrow, if a republication on paper started today.
But some people like finding excuses against republishing me, like me being a Catholic Fundamentalist or in your comparison a Catholic "Pharisee" ..
2:25 I'm recommending my readers to follow the actual Pope.
Just interviewed by Mr. Wagner, Pope Michael II.
3:39 It is a bit equivocal about St. Pius X.
On the one hand, St. Clement Maria Hofbauer condemned going to waltz dances, and he canonised him.
On the other hand, there is at least an urban legend he considered tango as not sinful, though less pretty than the furlana, when having watched one tango dance.
5:18 The argument he was trying to convey was not perhaps just that modern bishops are not magisterially accepting certain funds, but that bishops of the past were condemning certain economic practises, i e usury.
5:46 Let's see.
- Reject the late Pope Michael I
- Reject Pope Michael II
- Promote Theistic Evolution
- Discourage (if not condemn) Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism
... are those the bishops you speak of?
Because I would say those guys in fact do not have any divincely guaranteed authority whatsoever. They have some very good remains of Catholicism left, but ...
5:51 No, I do believe the bishops in Communion with Pope Michael II have divinely guaranteed teaching authority, and so does he.
6:55 Salient points in Calvin's letter.
"Renew" — an admission it had been lost (not just widely neglected)
"ancient" — lost a long time ago.
7:21 OK, when was it a Catholic test to say "this is the mentality of so and so, but so and so is wrong or evil, therefore this is evil"?
Back in the day of Chesterton, he died less than 100 years ago, that was a Protestant way of judging.
Among mildly liberal Lutherans I could be told "your way of taking the six days reminds so much of how Catholics take the words of Institution" ... they didn't realise I was not 100 % sold on the Reformation, and already did take the words of Institution that way.
Your way of judging reminds of how Calvin condemned the Eucharist and Mariology by stating they reminded him of Bacchus and Venus worship.
7:27 "Private interpretation" ... actually never condemned.
Trent Session IV? No. Mortalium animos? No.
Both say private interpretation can go wrong (i e get to contradict universal patristic testimony or cause divisions when it is the highest actual authority). Neither says private interpretation is wrong.
8:54 I'm noting that the examples are after the death of Pius XII.
Probably we do not deal with any actual ban on married women working outside the home, but a recommendation.
Villeines' wives were sometimes working in the household of the lord of the manor.
I'd be interested in what kind of authority of the past they claim for this, I'm sure it made at least exceptions for necessity in the poor.
Quadragesimo Anno isn't saying a mother doing this is sinning, it's saying an employer of her husband making it necessary is gravely sinful.
10:39 I am very sure that the passage in the catechism of Trent said it was usually (not always) gravely sinful to marry against the parents' wishes.
It also said the will of the two contrahents is sufficient for validity.
A case in point, if you have the right religion and a parent having the wrong religion would want to hold you back from marrying within the right religion, it is certain that Trent would have allowed for not just validity but even liceity of marrying against a parent's wish in that case.
Could the Tim Gordon case be one of those stories?
12:54 ..."that would have gotten them flogged in the Middle Ages"
In what exact court, secular or ecclesiastic, about what exact kind of superior by what exact kind of inferior?
Speaking up against bad priests was not a flogging offense in any court.
King Henry was certainly flogged, but not for saying "Becket is troublesome" rather for saying "won't someone rid me of that troublesome priest" in the proximity of people who were willing to make their king's wishes come true. Henry II had lots more responsibility for the killiing of St. Thomas Becket than Mussolini for the killing of Matteotti.
When Walther von der Vogelweide (erroneously) defended Stauffer anti-papalism by saying "you want the honour of Peter, keep to the doctrine of Peter" (i e, don't commit simony), he was never flogged. Nor excommunicated.
13:13 "the one duty of the multitude"
I think YOU inserted "lay" which is not in the text.
If you want a distinction, it's between "ecclesia docens" (popes, bishops of every rank, I think even sui juris abbots) and "ecclesia docta" (Father Ronald Knox and Mother Angelica as much as Gilbert Keith Chesterton).
Note also, there is here a question of leading the society, basically overall, not of stating certain truths.
Vehementer Nos which you quoted was banning politicians from imposing pastoral
Here is what Pope St. Pius X is directing the words at, and it's not online Catholic Influencers:
The Law of Separation, in opposition to these principles, assigns the administration and the supervision of public worship not to the hierarchical body divinely instituted by Our Savior, but to an association formed of laymen. To this association it assigns a special form and a juridical personality, and considers it alone as having rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law in all matters appertaining to religious worship. It is this association which is to have the use of the churches and sacred edifices, which is to possess ecclesiastical property, real and personal, which is to have at its disposition (though only for a time) the residences of the Bishops and priests and the seminaries; which is to administer the property, regulate collections, and receive the alms and the legacies destined for religious worship. As for the hierarchical body of Pastors, the law is completely silent. And if it does prescribe that the associations of worship are to be constituted in harmony with the general rules of organization of the cult whose existence they are designed to assure, it is none the less true that care has been taken to declare that in all disputes which may arise relative to their property the Council of State is the only competent tribunal. These associations of worship are therefore placed in such a state of dependence on the civil authority that the ecclesiastical authority will, clearly, have no power over them. It is obvious at a glance that all these provisions seriously violate the rights of the Church, and are in opposition with her Divine constitution. Moreover, the law on these points is not set forth in clear and precise terms, but is left so vague and so open to arbitrary decisions that its mere interpretation is well calculated to be productive of the greatest trouble.
Same paragraph, the one you quoted.
13:38 You are by "the" Catechism referring to CCC?
Because § 283 pretty clearly violates Catholic truth and implicitly even dogma, therefore showing it is not a Catholic document.
14:00 sth the links.
1) Two of them are to material by a club of online influencers, Catholic Answers.
2) The third is by two pretended Cardinals in schism against Pope Michael I.
[Click to enlarge]
No comments:
Post a Comment