www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things Worse Or Better Under Pope Francis?

There is one exception to my dislike of all the so-called folk masses, polka masses, mariachi masses - I am always inspired hearing a traditional Alpine Jodler Mass as only the mountain people in Europe can do reverently. I have been to many of these masses in Bavaria and Austria and have them from You Tube. Even the alphorn played at the consecration is beautiful in the right setting.

I'm not sure what this is trying to convey: made what clear? how?

Yeah. I've been to plenty of non-traditional Masses a few times. Polka Masses, Guitar Masses, I think I went to a Mass where they had a Mariachi band, but the priest prayed in German, that was an odd combination. But, I'm all for the a cappella Byzantine Divine Liturgy, as much as I did like all those other ones, it's time to consider going back to old traditions.

It wasn't exactly that. The condemned theses were "The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church", "The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect" and "The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs".

And yet, in 1958, Pope Pius XII affirmed each and every one of those errors. Oh, well.

Where?

I don't think this is an entirely fair assessment of Vatican I. Certainly, many opponents of the Ultramontanist position felt that they had successfully limited the pope's own (even) more expansive claims.

Nevertheless, I think it is entirely fair to say that the Ultramontanists were in the driver's seat and managed to set the whole agenda. Perhaps they lost the battle in some ways but still basically won the war.

Want the straight dope on Vatican I? Read August Bernhard Hasler's How the Pope Became Infallible.

May the scales fall from your eyes!

Apparently the Pope's infallibility is open to question but not the author's.

Hey, sausage and doctrine are two things you never want to watch being made.

I had read the communication of Pope Leo IX to the Patriarch of Constantinople several years ago. I got the impression that Pope Leo mentioned the Donation not as a theological point, but merely as a piece of (what he thought was an) historic piece of information. This had to be the case since the Donation had nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. The Donation, even for Popes who appealed to it, was always recognized to refer only to the Western portion of the old Roman Empire, not the Eastern portion, so it is rather illogical for naysayers of the Papacy to cite the Donation as any kind of basis for a theological claim. I mean, if it was theological, it should have universal relevance, not limited to the West (to which the Donation is plainly limited).

Even Steven AFAIK. I recall that Pope Leo made his comments only after The Easterns first made disparaging comments about the Western practice of celibacy.

This is not a matter of theological error, but of theological misunderstanding. No heresy or heterodoxy on this point (though I think Anselm(?) and Beccus (?) used some rather strange, if not heterodox, language regarding the matter).

Yes

Yes, the ultramontanists, as distinct from the NEO-ultramontantists (the latter being the Absolutist Petrine adovcates).

Blessings

Read it, and was convinced of his points for a long time --- UNTIL I read Dom Cuthbert Chapman's seminal work on Vatican 1, which informs about what really went on behind the scenes.

Blessings

Dear brother Stuart,

May I ask what is objectionable or heterodox about asserting those three points as being "errors?"

Blessings

LOL, Yes that moderate Petrine view, or whatever it is you call it.

Those theologians who actually existed made a lot of use of the Donation thereafter to prop up Ultramontanist claims, as it was used in "Pax in Terra Hominibus." I make no claim for their logic. Like the Donation, I reject the whole as a fraud.

Btw, I wasn't aware you read Latin. I don't know of a translation of the letter in question.

The question wasn't on the jurisdiction of New Rome. It was to assert a universal and immediate jurisdiction of Old Rome. I make no claim for the logic of its argument.

His crusade was against his own clergy. For us, like anything else he said or did, didn't matter as long as we were outside his reach, or if he confessed the Orthodox Faith.
And it was more than words, forcibly separating clergy from their wives. As we know from watching the Borgias, mistresses went on.
Disparaging, like "let no made put asunder," or "remove not the boundary marker which your Fathers have set up"?

It is theological error and heresy, but I'm sure there are threads on that. One thing it unquestionably was was overturning that Roman Tradition that had been in conformity with the Universal practice of the Church and the Sacred Canons thereon, done to please the secular ruler. Isn't that called Caesaropapism?

I see we agree then.

A distinction whose existence I've seen only evidenced in your posts, here and elsewhere.

Oh? Did he speak ex cathedra?

Given his misunderstanding of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, don't know how much you should trust him on Vatican I.