FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp W Column, 5.30.09
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(05-30-2009, 11:23 AM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]No I think he's talking about specific people within the Church and he's actually right, as he is one of them. He is one who clings to Truth but not authority.

He admits as such, too.
(05-30-2009, 05:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]Cannot the same argument about Honorius be applied to JP2 in many ways?

Yes,  and it will be interesting to see what happens in the next fifty years. It is possible that one or two Conciliar post-VII Popes could be declared heretics. The Church will sort everything out in the next couple of decades.
(05-30-2009, 05:52 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2009, 05:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]Cannot the same argument about Honorius be applied to JP2 in many ways?

Yes,  and it will be interesting to see what happens in the next fifty years. It is possible that one or two Conciliar post-VII Popes could be declared heretics. The Church will sort everything out in the next couple of decades.

Whoa!!  Hold on a second.  I didn't mean that he was a heretic at all.  I meant that he didn't defend the Church against it, which, seems to me, is an objective fact given the likes of Kung and Rahner being in the good graces of the Vatican.
(05-30-2009, 05:54 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]Whoa!!  Hold on a second.  I didn't mean that he was a heretic at all.  I meant that he didn't defend the Church against it, which, seems to me, is an objective fact given the likes of Kung and Rahner being in the good graces of the Vatican.

With Pope Honorius, he was declared a heretic, so we have a heretical Pope in Church history. All I am saying is that it is possible that Paul VI or JPII might be declared heretics in the future. The charge could be holding the heresy of Modernism.

Modernism as a heresy has been condemned by Pope Pius IX and Pius X, with documents like the Syllabus of Errors and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
I have an article here against Sedevacantism and within it it discusses the issue of a "heretical pope." It is not dealing directly with the issue here but it might help with some understanding.

Edit by moderator - Sedevacantism, pro or con, is not to be discussed here.  If you can edit that so it doesn't refer to current popes and to the losing of the Chair but refers only to heresy, you can re-post it.
I think "Newschoolman" may be the same guy who goes by the moniker "Catholicdad" over on AQ. If not, he's got to be a close relative. These guys live in a dream world, and twist Catholic teaching to fit their own anti-Traditional Catholic bias. They fancy themselves as armchair theologians who can lecture learned Catholic prelates like Bishop Williamson on matters of faith and church teaching. Newschoolman or Bishop Williamson? I think I'll stick with the latter, thank you.  ???
(05-30-2009, 12:38 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2009, 11:08 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Bishop W is wrong.  In the Church there is no such opposition between Catholic truth and the divinely constituted teaching authority (papal magisterium).  He presumes that the magisterium can actually defect from the true faith -- but this is impossible.

And it appears you have a problem with reality. You are arguing against fact.

Spot on! Fresh fish fo rthis :w2go:
(05-30-2009, 05:30 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2009, 05:03 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]The following (footnote #6) from the work cited above adds further clarity.  We are not talking about Ex Cathedra definitions here -- but the perpetual immunity from falling into errors of faith and the teaching of heresy.

++++++++++++++++++  

Cf. First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870.  In his official Relatio of July 11, 1870 on chapter four of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Bishop Gasser stated the following: “This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church.  But if the Pontiff should fall into error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.  The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.’” (Cf. Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, pp. 24-25)

They have that book online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4ClPRR0HrHEC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=bishop+gasser&source=bl&ots=Slr8XBYl2K&sig=imNCoMM6WwxT1gsZk-1N7fzdX-c&hl=en&ei=N6QhSp7cLZDwtAOS3czzAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA21,M1

That section is from Part II of that book. Bishop Gasser in talking about Papal Infallibility. The chapter which starts on page 21 is all about Papal Infallibility. That is Ex-Cathedra statements.

No it refers to the inability of the Pope to "fall into heresy or to teach heresy."  Bishop Gasser, in the relatio, even says that Bellermine referred to this as the "most common and certain opinion." (Cf. Gasser, p. 59)  Again, all of this is way after Honorius and therefore, your theory of his heresy, properly speaking, is simply nonsense.
(05-30-2009, 05:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2009, 05:28 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Pope Leo II clarified the matter of Honorius in a letter to the Spanish bishops.  This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."

In other words, Honorius did not teach heresy -- but was negligent and allowed it to persist.  Therefore, Pope Sixtus IV is NOT "dead wrong" in condemning the proposition that "The Church of the city of Rome can err."  Look it up in Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma (#730).   

Cannot the same argument about Honorius be applied to JP2 in many ways?

Sure, I suppose it can.
(05-30-2009, 05:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2009, 01:04 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Stephen, are we to be surprised that you defend Bishop W's rupture theology?  On the contrary, the documents of VII are really Catholic (ABL signed all 16) -- and the Magisterium of the Popes has not defected. 

newschoolman, are we to be suprised that you are attacking Bishop W's defense of the traditional understanding of the Church's teachings? 

Where does +W say the Magisterium of the Popes has defected?

Do you mean explicity or implicitly by a logical connection with other assertions?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16