“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X
Which was basically the specious premise behind the rejection of a 1st century Itinerant Preacher and His disciples.
—————————+——————————
You present here an argument against not what was actually spoken by the saint, for the whole quote as you presumably show was about the condemning of “revolutionaries and innovators”, most especially those who reject God’s order for society where God is at its center. The French to whom the pontiff wrote this were basically innovating a communistic atheistic approach.
Here is a snippet from an article reporting this history which you carelessly miss and take the saint’s quote out of context to condemn the Church and the saint. That is what is truly “specious”:
snippet:
A solution to this problem is only possible if we consider that human authority is not an independent authority that originates from within human nature itself, but an authority by participation in the authority of a being with a superior nature. This higher being, Who is God, stands above all created wills and thus can oblige the human will to bend before and acknowledge His authority. Therefore, the origin of all authority is God; and this explains why some men can command others: their authority to do so derives from, and is a participation in the supreme authority of God.
Moreover, this philosophical truth, which we attain through the use of reason, was confirmed by divine Revelation. Suffice it to quote the famous teaching of Saint Paul to the Romans: “there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.”9
Thus, those who claim that authority originates from the people or from the State are in fact deifying the people or the State. This entails a certain form of social and political pantheism10 that feeds the mystique of both populism and State-worshipping totalitarianism.
Therefore, since all authority comes from God, both those who command and those who obey must submit to the divine will and work together to achieve the ultimate end of man, which is eternal salvation, and the immediate end of life in society, which is the pursuit of the common good.”
More at http://www.tfp.org/qour-apostolic-mandateq-a-key-to-restoring-christian-civilization/
So cease with the voluminous quoting so you can avoid misrepresenting the speaker and indeed history itself. Your argumentation may then carry some weight.
All of those questions at this point within this long & drawn out discussion were logical enough to ask, despite possibility that direct honest answers on your part could undermine your seeming overall positions.
I think we know why you did not answer those questions forthrightly. Remember; you did invite the guessing.
Based on what little answer you did supply, so far, lacking other answers, he and the rest of us also would need to be able to read your mind in order to answer those questions for you.
If that is what you are inviting, then if or when the devil himself were to take the hindmost (or shall we say -- your own true innermost thoughts revealed? including the self-refuting aspects) don't expect that any amount of umbrage (or else crocodile tears) on your part engender sympathy for failure on your own part to keep those thoughts either somewhat hidden, or couched only in certain terms --terms which still fail to adequately address the question(s).
If on the other hand that 1917 Code does answer the question, then show where that does, doing so while bearing in mind such as;
An extraordinary constriction of Catholicity occurred through the anti-Modernist oath imposed by Pius X on all ordinands, bishops, and priests appointed to teaching or administrative offices in the Church. The oath demanded acceptance of papal teaching in eodem sensu (in the same sense) and eadem semper sententia (always with the same meaning) as that proposed by Rome. In other words, there was no possibility of any form of dissent, even interior. The conscience of the person taking the oath was forced to accept not only what Rome proposed, but even the sense in which Rome interpreted it! Not only was this contrary to the traditional Catholic understanding of the role of conscience, [read up-page at the link for background information of what the author here means] but it was a form of thought control that was unrivaled even under fascist and communist regimes. It was Orwell's 1984 in 1910! The imposition of this oath was not removed until 1966.[underlining and note of direction in small text added]
in order to make sure that you are deriving the same sense and same meaning only that Popes themselves would have statements (and even words, themselves) have.
and after doing that;
Explain -- and explain clearly how the following could not apply to you;
Pope Alexander: We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:
and then we'll have another look at whether or not your own words could ever possibly "carry any weight" at all, and that including also your own critical comments aimed at daniel1212's person.
Hey Francis!
You've just been dissed from the past!
Call no man father
Who says he was a "saint" versus other believers? Show me where Scripture supports this distinction, and i will show you it does not, much less calling murderers as Damasus 1 "saints."
for the whole quote as you presumably show was about the condemning of “revolutionaries and innovators”, most especially those who reject God’s order for society where God is at its center. The French to whom the pontiff wrote this were basically innovating a communistic atheistic approach.
I did not "presumably show" what the whole quote contextually specifically addressed, but responded to your out-of-context single line in attempting to condemn those who are called revolutionaries or innovators by those who claimed historical fidelity. And which was basically the specious premise behind the rejection of a 1st century Itinerant Preacher and His disciples by those who sat in the seat of Moses.
most especially those who reject God’s order for society where God is at its center.
That depends upon the basis for determining a society where God is at its center.
The French to whom the pontiff wrote this were basically innovating a communistic atheistic approach.
Which is contrary to Scripture, and does not apply to those who reject Rome as being revolutionaries nor innovators in the light of the NT church, in which her distinctives are absent, and contrary to it.
Here is a snippet from an article reporting this history which you carelessly miss and take the saint’s quote out of context
WHAT?! You re the one who quoted a single line, without any context or even where is was found, much less a link to it, and which is what i responded to, and you dare charge me with carelessly missing and taking the "saint’s" quote out of context! Are you that desperate to finally gain a polemical point?
So cease with the voluminous quoting so you can avoid misrepresenting the speaker and indeed history itself. Your argumentation may then carry some weight.
What INSOLENCE. You can only wish you actually provided some "volume," rather than a single line, while using this to censure dissent from authority condemns you!.
“there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.” Thus, those who claim that authority originates from the people or from the State are in fact deifying the people or the State.
Both statements are true here, but which does not disallow principled dissent to authority (which no doubt is the papal intent here) based upon a authority that is supreme to both ecclesiastical and civil powers, that of God as expressed in His wholly inspired assured word. Thus the church was built upon the sub foundation of prophets and apostles, both of whom acted in dissent to established authority, as did Christ. And as did America's Founders.
And while you presume to use "there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God" to condemn our dissent, you yourself are in dissent from the manifest Catholic powers that be in Rome, which title you uniquely arrogate to your tiny cult!