Were There Really Revolutionary Popes? By Caminante Wanderer
I think the debate sparked by Eck's post on revolutionary popes is one of the most interesting we have had in recent years, and I think it is also one of the most urgent. I sincerely thank all those …More
I think the debate sparked by Eck's post on revolutionary popes is one of the most interesting we have had in recent years, and I think it is also one of the most urgent.
I sincerely thank all those who have taken the time to read, think and write on the blog, beyond personal opinions and sympathies.
There are two ideas. The first is that the popes of the last century and a half, beginning with Pius IX, were revolutionary because they adopted "the outlines of the modern revolutionary state on the governance of the Church and the conception of papal power as absolute, sovereign, unrestricted and the foundation of the Church itself". To deepen this position, I invite you to read Eck's text itself and his comments, as well as this post I published exactly two years ago today, "The Tradition Engulfed by the Magisterium".
The other idea is that the truly revolutionary popes were Paul VI and subsequent popes up to Francis, while the previous popes were not revolutionary because they never …More
I sincerely thank all those who have taken the time to read, think and write on the blog, beyond personal opinions and sympathies.
There are two ideas. The first is that the popes of the last century and a half, beginning with Pius IX, were revolutionary because they adopted "the outlines of the modern revolutionary state on the governance of the Church and the conception of papal power as absolute, sovereign, unrestricted and the foundation of the Church itself". To deepen this position, I invite you to read Eck's text itself and his comments, as well as this post I published exactly two years ago today, "The Tradition Engulfed by the Magisterium".
The other idea is that the truly revolutionary popes were Paul VI and subsequent popes up to Francis, while the previous popes were not revolutionary because they never …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
salliperson
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Yes, indeed, and Church history proves it. It shows the last 7 popes as being modernists. Hear it for yourself, Fr Hesse on the Satanist & Masonic Infiltration in Rome, Opus Dei
El Precursor shares this
- Report
Remove share
papes révolutionnaires? Par Caminante
Arthur De la Baure
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
L' idée du passage de l'Église enseignante à l'Église apologetique qui se justifie plus quelle affirme est vraie. Cette idée est applicable a l'Église conciliaire, certainement, mais pas aux papes préconciliaires. Là vous allez vite en besogne. Vous ne faites aucunes distinctions dans la nature des enseignements, vous ne tenez pas compte de l'etat d'esprit des papes, du rôle primordial de l'Espri …More
L' idée du passage de l'Église enseignante à l'Église apologetique qui se justifie plus quelle affirme est vraie. Cette idée est applicable a l'Église conciliaire, certainement, mais pas aux papes préconciliaires. Là vous allez vite en besogne. Vous ne faites aucunes distinctions dans la nature des enseignements, vous ne tenez pas compte de l'etat d'esprit des papes, du rôle primordial de l'Espri Saint vous niez par votre raisonnement la rupture du concile et ce changement radical d'esprit propre a une vraie révolution. Donc votre raisonnement est faux c'est à partir de la rupture substantielle de vatican2 et des papes postconciliaires d'avec la Tradition qu'il faut partir( principe de réalité) et non d'une interprétation d' éventuelles stratégies ( subjectivisme). Je vous poserez donc cette question : quel est le postulat et le but visé, par Eck? Si l'on suit le raisonnement cela a des conséquences cataclysmiques( je ne développe pas, trop long). En outre tout cela respire le Naturalisme par conséquent l'absence de hauteur surnaturelle. On ne peut s'en passer, l'Église est humaine et divine.
Je souscris par ailleurs au commentaire de "vrs"
Je souscris par ailleurs au commentaire de "vrs"
"Let us briefly look at some cases to understand this question. When Pius IX proclaimed two dogmas during his pontificate - the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility - which had never been done before, he did so for a revolutionary reason, because there was no theological need for such proclamations."
---
"Proclaiming the Catholic dogma for a revolutionary reason" is contradictio in adiecto. …More
"Let us briefly look at some cases to understand this question. When Pius IX proclaimed two dogmas during his pontificate - the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility - which had never been done before, he did so for a revolutionary reason, because there was no theological need for such proclamations."
---
"Proclaiming the Catholic dogma for a revolutionary reason" is contradictio in adiecto.
Dogmas are proclaimed to defend and exalt the Holy Catholic Faith.
And who will judge whether there is "a theological need" for them or not? Certain "Mr. Eck"?
How does "Mr Eck" define a "theological need"? If theologians need something? Then it is perhaps the "anthropological need" not the "theological one".
The latter IMHO exists every time it is proper to teach and clarify something about God (like the "theological need" of St. Thomas Aquinas writing his Summa)
"The need was rather to reassert papal authority at a time when it was threatened by anti-clerical nations and powerful Freemasonry"
----
The need to reassert the teaching on the papal authority (Pastor aeternus) in such circumstances is not only "theological" but also quite reasonable, isn't it?
"And when the pontiff himself drafts the Syllabus, he goes into specific discussion of the issues raised by the liberals, in the terms used by the liberals."
---
Let me ask: when Hus or other heretics were condemned: did the Church "go into specific discussion of the issues raised by the heretics" using "the terms used by them"?
"When Pius X decided to write a code of canon law, he broke with what traditional societies had done up to the French Revolution and embraced the revolutionary legislative forms of Napoleonic codification, as opposed to the tried and tested traditional law of compiling canons, rescripts and formularies. All canon law appeared as an act of the will of a single pope, whereas in the traditional way the whole Church was involved with the pope as the final arbiter."
----
I guess we are talking here about "the revolutionary format" not form in the classical meaning.
In a similar way we can talk about "revolutionary" sacramentaries, ordos or missals of the past and of course the "revolutionary" privilege/document of Quo primum tempore - unprecedented before in the history of the Church.
However, the form (in the classical meaning) or essence of "traditional societies" like the Church like the Church is different here i.e. the following:
1) The canon law is not a dogma and should not be dogmatised (people often forget about it today).
It is positive law though in some points based on the dogma and Church tradition (and here it is not "an act of the will of a single pope" as it incorporates traditional elements and institutions like heresy or schism for example).
2) Popes (Roman Pontiffs) are entitled to issue canon law acts like disciplinary constitutions, etc.
The rest (i.e. that the Canon Law Code format was much more easy to handle than Corpus Iuris Canonici or Bullarium of Benedict XIV) is secondary.
And yes - we can talk about points on the boundary of positive law / the sphere of faith/morals including sacramental teachings (like in case of nullity of marriage) but they appear regardless of the method of canon law legislation.
---
"Proclaiming the Catholic dogma for a revolutionary reason" is contradictio in adiecto.
Dogmas are proclaimed to defend and exalt the Holy Catholic Faith.
And who will judge whether there is "a theological need" for them or not? Certain "Mr. Eck"?
How does "Mr Eck" define a "theological need"? If theologians need something? Then it is perhaps the "anthropological need" not the "theological one".
The latter IMHO exists every time it is proper to teach and clarify something about God (like the "theological need" of St. Thomas Aquinas writing his Summa)
"The need was rather to reassert papal authority at a time when it was threatened by anti-clerical nations and powerful Freemasonry"
----
The need to reassert the teaching on the papal authority (Pastor aeternus) in such circumstances is not only "theological" but also quite reasonable, isn't it?
"And when the pontiff himself drafts the Syllabus, he goes into specific discussion of the issues raised by the liberals, in the terms used by the liberals."
---
Let me ask: when Hus or other heretics were condemned: did the Church "go into specific discussion of the issues raised by the heretics" using "the terms used by them"?
"When Pius X decided to write a code of canon law, he broke with what traditional societies had done up to the French Revolution and embraced the revolutionary legislative forms of Napoleonic codification, as opposed to the tried and tested traditional law of compiling canons, rescripts and formularies. All canon law appeared as an act of the will of a single pope, whereas in the traditional way the whole Church was involved with the pope as the final arbiter."
----
I guess we are talking here about "the revolutionary format" not form in the classical meaning.
In a similar way we can talk about "revolutionary" sacramentaries, ordos or missals of the past and of course the "revolutionary" privilege/document of Quo primum tempore - unprecedented before in the history of the Church.
However, the form (in the classical meaning) or essence of "traditional societies" like the Church like the Church is different here i.e. the following:
1) The canon law is not a dogma and should not be dogmatised (people often forget about it today).
It is positive law though in some points based on the dogma and Church tradition (and here it is not "an act of the will of a single pope" as it incorporates traditional elements and institutions like heresy or schism for example).
2) Popes (Roman Pontiffs) are entitled to issue canon law acts like disciplinary constitutions, etc.
The rest (i.e. that the Canon Law Code format was much more easy to handle than Corpus Iuris Canonici or Bullarium of Benedict XIV) is secondary.
And yes - we can talk about points on the boundary of positive law / the sphere of faith/morals including sacramental teachings (like in case of nullity of marriage) but they appear regardless of the method of canon law legislation.
mccallansteve
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I would follow any of the above popes to the ends of the earth. I won't follow the Vatican II popes at all
Caroline03
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"the outlines of the modern revolutionary state on the governance of the Church and the conception of papal power as absolute, sovereign, unrestricted and the foundation of the Church itself" I disagree with this thesis, mainly on the basis of the magisterial texts. The pope cannot contradict doctrine, it has always been said.
I see that the authors try to draw a continuous line between preconciliar …More
"the outlines of the modern revolutionary state on the governance of the Church and the conception of papal power as absolute, sovereign, unrestricted and the foundation of the Church itself" I disagree with this thesis, mainly on the basis of the magisterial texts. The pope cannot contradict doctrine, it has always been said.
I see that the authors try to draw a continuous line between preconciliar and postconciliar popes. But just read the documents of the IIVC and see what they say. That is not the same thing.
I see that the authors try to draw a continuous line between preconciliar and postconciliar popes. But just read the documents of the IIVC and see what they say. That is not the same thing.