Why are SDA so paraoid of Jesuits?

[BobRyan]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.

very good points
I am curious as to why this is not counted under Papal infallibility

Indeed - especially given that the infallibility idea came along later - and then was retroactively applied to the past.

You would think that a Pope speaks on the faith, morals and practice of an entire religious order - and speaking "in all the fullness" of apostolic "power" -- would make "honorable mention" in that line of infallible statements.

But as someone has recently noted here - it is all just opinion and the opinion of Popes can be ignored the same as anyone else's.

Bob, I know that you really don't care what the truth is in this situation, but an infallible statement by either the pope or through an Ecumenical Council, can only be on faith (doctrine) or morals. Pastoral instructions, which is what you are discussing, do not fall under Papal Infallibility.

Ecumenical councils such as Lateran IV called for the "extermination" of heretics.

Is that another "not infallible" example of pastoral instruction about what to do with those who differ - but not on actual doctrine?

If so - has there been any statement that the Canon law of Lateran IV is not infallible or that at least that part of it is not???

Because right now both the Pope speaking "ex cathedra" out of the chair of Peter (from the chair) of Peter -- and the ecumenical councils are considered to make in fallible statements -- as of July 18, 1870 when this idea was put in its infallible form. The idea I think is that the "authority is Apostolic and of divine origin" making it infallible.

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,

speaking ex cathedra[6] expressed since the solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.[7] This authority is considered by Catholics to be apostolic and of divine origin. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, there were other ex cathedra decrees, for example, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302,[8][9][10] and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[11][12] and Pope Eugene IV in the bull Cantate Domino of 1441, spoke "ex cathedra".

in Christ,

BY DEFINITION EX CATHEDRA STATEMENTS MUST BE ON EITHER FAITH OR MORALS, PASTORAL STATEMENTS ARE NOT AND CAN NOT FALL UNDER EX CATHEDRA.

FROM VATICAN I ITSELF HERE IS DEFINTION OF EX CATHEDRA:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, (1)in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2)in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3)he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals .

The Pope's statements about heretics, extermination, Jesuits and "Extinguish" - all ecumencial councils and canon law on those same subjects then - is hereby declared "fallible"??

is that how we are to understand it?

(I am happy with that - since I have always claimed they were fallible) - I just never find a place where the Ecumenical Council statements in Canon Law are declared as fallible when they call for things like the extermination of heretics.

As for the Jesuit subject - I think it is only reasonable to "notice" what the Pope who tried to "extinguish them forever" warned the world about.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Erose]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.





Indeed - especially given that the infallibility idea came along later - and then was retroactively applied to the past.

You would think that a Pope speaks on the faith, morals and practice of an entire religious order - and speaking "in all the fullness" of apostolic "power" -- would make "honorable mention" in that line of infallible statements.

But as someone has recently noted here - it is all just opinion and the opinion of Popes can be ignored the same as anyone else's.





Ecumenical councils such as Lateran IV called for the "extermination" of heretics.

Is that another "not infallible" example of pastoral instruction about what to do with those who differ - but not on actual doctrine?

If so - has there been any statement that the Canon law of Lateran IV is not infallible or that at least that part of it is not???

Because right now both the Pope speaking "ex cathedra" out of the chair of Peter (from the chair) of Peter -- and the ecumenical councils are considered to make in fallible statements -- as of July 18, 1870 when this idea was put in its infallible form. The idea I think is that the "authority is Apostolic and of divine origin" making it infallible.

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


in Christ,




The Pope's statements about heretics, extermination, Jesuits and "Extinguish" - all ecumencial councils and canon law on those same subjects then - is hereby declared "fallible"??

is that how we are to understand it?

(I am happy with that - since I have always claimed they were fallible) - I just never find a place where the Ecumenical Council statements in Canon Law are declared as fallible when they call for things like the extermination of heretics.

As for the Jesuit subject - I think it is only reasonable to "notice" what the Pope who tried to "extinguish them forever" warned the world about.


in Christ,

Bob

How we are to understand it is in light of what the doctrine of infallibility is defined. Faith and morals that is it. Pastoral changes or decisions have never and will never fall into the Doctrine of Infallibility. The points of canon law not based upon a doctrine of the faith, can and has changed. The rites of the liturgy can and has changed. If the decision does not fall under the heading of faith or morals, then by definition the pope is not protected by the charism of infallibility.

I personally think that you guys make a mountain out of a mole hill, when comes to this doctrine. It isn't like the pope gains a power, but rather it is more appropiate to say that it actually limits him. For doctrine of infallibility has never and quite honestly canno ever lead to a new doctrine. In fact it exists only to protect the deposit of faith, not to add to or subtract from that deposit of faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power, ...

Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

The Catholic Church functions as a community of faith while you attempt to interpret documents as an individual who says "sounds a lot like 'ex cathedra'" so it is no wonder that you get it wrong.

Allowing or suppressing a religious order is a matter of discipline it is not doctrinal or moral teaching and ex cathedra decrees are only ever about doctrine and morals. You need to pay more attention to the context of the written statements you collect as evidence for this or that theory you've come up with and you probably ought to avoid the errors that Ellen White teaches.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Church functions as a community of faith while you attempt to interpret documents .

The historic fact that everyone can see is that the Jesuits were pretty much wiped out as of this Papal decree for the remainder of the 18th century and much of the 19th century.

Question -- just how "difficult" is it to "interpret" this document???

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pope Clement XIV[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dominus ac Redemptor Noster
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rome on July 21, 1773
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-suppression-bull.html

conforming ourselves to the examples of our predecessors, and particularly to that of Gregory X. in the general Council of Lyons; the rather as, in the present case, we are determining upon the fate of a society [/FONT]classed among the mendicant orders, both by its institute and by its privileges; after a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power, SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY: we deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools, colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated; we abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See or otherwise; in like manner we annul all and every its privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present Brief as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form, or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED, of what nature soever the said authority may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal.

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.

very good points
I am curious as to why this is not counted under Papal infallibility

Indeed - especially given that the infallibility idea came along later - and then was retroactively applied to the past.

You would think that a Pope speaks on the faith, morals and practice of an entire religious order - and speaking "in all the fullness" of apostolic "power" -- would make "honorable mention" in that line of infallible statements.

But as someone has recently noted here - it is all just opinion and the opinion of Popes can be ignored the same as anyone else's.

Bob, I know that you really don't care what the truth is in this situation, but an infallible statement by either the pope or through an Ecumenical Council, can only be on faith (doctrine) or morals. Pastoral instructions, which is what you are discussing, do not fall under Papal Infallibility.

Ecumenical councils such as Lateran IV called for the "extermination" of heretics.

Is that another "not infallible" example of pastoral instruction about what to do with those who differ - but not on actual doctrine?

If so - has there been any statement that the Canon law of Lateran IV is not infallible or that at least that part of it is not???

Because right now both the Pope speaking "ex cathedra" out of the chair of Peter (from the chair) of Peter -- and the ecumenical councils are considered to make in fallible statements -- as of July 18, 1870 when this idea was put in its infallible form. The idea I think is that the "authority is Apostolic and of divine origin" making it infallible.

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,

speaking ex cathedra[6] expressed since the solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.[7] This authority is considered by Catholics to be apostolic and of divine origin. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, there were other ex cathedra decrees, for example, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302,[8][9][10] and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[11][12] and Pope Eugene IV in the bull Cantate Domino of 1441, spoke "ex cathedra".

in Christ,

BY DEFINITION EX CATHEDRA STATEMENTS MUST BE ON EITHER FAITH OR MORALS, PASTORAL STATEMENTS ARE NOT AND CAN NOT FALL UNDER EX CATHEDRA.

FROM VATICAN I ITSELF HERE IS DEFINTION OF EX CATHEDRA:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, (1)in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2)in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3)he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals .

The Pope's statements about heretics, extermination, Jesuits and "Extinguish" - all ecumenical councils and canon law on those same subjects then - is hereby declared "fallible"??

is that how we are to understand it?

(I am happy with that - since I have always claimed they were fallible) - I just never find a place where the Ecumenical Council statements in Canon Law are declared as fallible when they call for things like the extermination of heretics.

As for the Jesuit subject - I think it is only reasonable to "notice" what the Pope who tried to "extinguish them forever" warned the world about.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Erose]

The historic fact that everyone can see is that the Jesuits were pretty much wiped out as of this Papal decree for the remainder of the 18th century and much of the 19th century.

Question -- just how "difficult" is it to "interpret" this document???

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.







Indeed - especially given that the infallibility idea came along later - and then was retroactively applied to the past.

You would think that a Pope speaks on the faith, morals and practice of an entire religious order - and speaking "in all the fullness" of apostolic "power" -- would make "honorable mention" in that line of infallible statements.

But as someone has recently noted here - it is all just opinion and the opinion of Popes can be ignored the same as anyone else's.





Ecumenical councils such as Lateran IV called for the "extermination" of heretics.

Is that another "not infallible" example of pastoral instruction about what to do with those who differ - but not on actual doctrine?

If so - has there been any statement that the Canon law of Lateran IV is not infallible or that at least that part of it is not???

Because right now both the Pope speaking "ex cathedra" out of the chair of Peter (from the chair) of Peter -- and the ecumenical councils are considered to make in fallible statements -- as of July 18, 1870 when this idea was put in its infallible form. The idea I think is that the "authority is Apostolic and of divine origin" making it infallible.

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


in Christ,




The Pope's statements about heretics, extermination, Jesuits and "Extinguish" - all ecumenical councils and canon law on those same subjects then - is hereby declared "fallible"??

is that how we are to understand it?

(I am happy with that - since I have always claimed they were fallible) - I just never find a place where the Ecumenical Council statements in Canon Law are declared as fallible when they call for things like the extermination of heretics.

As for the Jesuit subject - I think it is only reasonable to "notice" what the Pope who tried to "extinguish them forever" warned the world about.


in Christ,

Bob

The question of the status of these rules has nothing to do with fallible or infallibility. They are rules and church government laws, so fallible or infallibility doesn't apply. What you are claiming would be trying to state that it would be an infallible statement if the pope decided to expand parking in Vatican City, or do away with the Swiss Guard, or any other type of governing statement.

 

[Rhamiel]

as others have said, the reason the SDA dislike the Jesuits so much might just be kind of an intellectual envy

if you compare the two you will see that even though the Jesuits are just a relatively small branch of the Catholic Church, they have a far greater effect on education then the entirety of the SDA denomination

starting respected schools Georgetown University and Fordham University
and the sheer numbers are also incredible, well just compare for yourself
but you will find that the number of schools, the number of students, the quality of schools, and the global influence all seem to favor the Jesuits

List of Jesuit institutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Catholic Church functions as a community of faith while you attempt to interpret documents as an individual who says "sounds a lot like 'ex cathedra'" so it is no wonder that you get it wrong.

Allowing or suppressing a religious order is a matter of discipline it is not doctrinal or moral teaching and ex cathedra decrees are only ever about doctrine and morals. You need to pay more attention to the context of the written statements you collect as evidence for this or that theory you've come up with and you probably ought to avoid the errors that Ellen White teaches.

The historic fact that everyone can see is that the Jesuits ...

Best give up reading all those Ellen White books, they give one a jaundiced perspective on creation.

 

[BobRyan]

duplicate

 

[BobRyan]

The question of the status of these rules has nothing to do with fallible or infallibility. They are rules and church government laws, so fallible or infallibility doesn't apply. .

Depends on whether one is trying to insist that only when new doctrine is being declared - they are infallible - otherwise they are fallible and just someone's "opinion".

Which is the "detail" that is not so easily glossed over. (Elephant in the living room sort of issue.)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Erose]

Depends on whether one is trying to insist that only when new doctrine is being declared - they are infallible - otherwise they are fallible and just someone's "opinion".

Which is the "detail" that is not so easily glossed over. (Elephant in the living room sort of issue.)

in Christ,

Bob

Why would it be? The doctrine of infallibility is very explicit in that it only applies to matters of faith and morals. I don't know why this is still an issue.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

The Catholic Church functions as a community of faith while you attempt to interpret documents as an individual who says "sounds a lot like 'ex cathedra'" so it is no wonder that you get it wrong.

Allowing or suppressing a religious order is a matter of discipline it is not doctrinal or moral teaching and ex cathedra decrees are only ever about doctrine and morals. You need to pay more attention to the context of the written statements you collect as evidence for this or that theory you've come up with and you probably ought to avoid the errors that Ellen White teaches.
​

The historic fact that everyone can see is that the Jesuits ...
​

Best give up reading all those Ellen White books, they give one a jaundiced perspective on creation.

For once I will have to agree with ya.......


.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Why are the SDA so paranoid about the Jesuits?
It's simple; The Jesuits are from the planet Xctwwobcc (which cannot be pronounced with the human tongue0 and their planet lays between the Earth and heaven which is in the Orion nebula. The Xctwwobccians let it slip through neuron ray communication and Ellen White picked up the signal on the filling in her bottom left bicuspid. The plan is to intercept all SDA souls (after their soul nap)on their journey to heaven in the Orion Nebula and use the power of their souls to power their neuron transmitters used in their collaboration with the Catholic leadership.
I mean gee, what did you think was under the pope's miter? Surely you didn't think his head was that tall? It's a neuron receiver.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why are the SDA so paranoid about the Jesuits?
...................The plan is to intercept all SDA souls (after their soul nap)on their journey to heaven in the Orion Nebula and use the power of their souls to power their neuron transmitters used in their collaboration with the Catholic leadership.
I mean gee, what did you think was under the pope's miter?
Surely you didn't think his head was that tall? It's a neuron receiver.

How many different styles of miters does the Pope wear?

Ezekiel 21:
25 Thou therefore, O piercing wicked, prince of Israel, whose day hath come, in a time of final iniquity:
26 Thus saith My Lord. YHWH, Remove the Turban/Miter/04701 mitsnepheth, And lift off the crown/05850 `atarah,--
This not that, The abased, exalt, And the exalted, abase.

..... .....

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I have noticed that some SDA really do not understand Catholic religious orders in particularly the Jesuits. For example I told one gentlemen that I went to school to study theology and he said something like "So you have been schooled by Jesuits". LOL. No I was not. I am curious why the SDA is so paranoid of these Jesuits and not the Dominicans or Franciscans or Carmelites or even diocesan priest etc?

All those schools they built that lead to higher eduaction and advances in science! CURSE THEM! Obviously, a tool of satan, as we all know science always contradicts the bible with its "facts"..or should I say... LIES!?!

/sarcasm off

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Athanasias

I have noticed that some SDA really do not understand Catholic religious orders in particularly the Jesuits. For example I told one gentlemen that I went to school to study theology and he said something like "So you have been schooled by Jesuits". LOL. No I was not. I am curious why the SDA is so paranoid of these Jesuits and not the Dominicans or Franciscans or Carmelites or even diocesan priest etc?
​

All those schools they built that lead to higher eduaction and advances in science! CURSE THEM! Obviously, a tool of satan, as we all know science always contradicts the bible with its "facts"..or should I say... LIES!?!

/sarcasm off

Are you talking about the Jesuits or SDAs?


.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Are you talking about the Jesuits or SDAs?


.

Yes.

 

[squint]

A jesuit is a sinner with a Roman Catholic education.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

A jesuit is a sinner with a Roman Catholic education.

I think most jesuits couldn't disagree with that.

 

[squint]

I think most jesuits couldn't disagree with that.

So is the pope.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So is the pope.

Is this a recent revelation for you?