FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
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 17 18 19 20 21
(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]And please don't bother replying with the lame "not infallible" argument - this quotes a discussion by the Cardinals in the Vatican which is obviously trustworthy:

You do understand that 'trustworthy' does not equal  'infallible'?
(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As we mentioned earlier in this discussion, heresy is defined as the doubt or denial of a Catholic doctrine.

No, we said that this was an insufficient definition. I explained how you were using the term ambiguously.

By heresy we can mean a statement a variance with the Faith, a sin (which consists in adhesion to this statement knowing it to be false), and a crime (which consists in pertinacity in this sin despite the warning of the Church).

That may just seem like semantics, but for which does a Pope lose his office? A statement, a sin, or a crime. Only the last one can really be determined with any objectivity.

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]We have 2000 years of Catholic teaching to confirm what is a Catholic doctrine and what is not, so any Catholic can determine what heresy is. A Catholic can recognize heresy very easily, and by doing so he is NOT declaring the Pope a heretic ...

Then why do we have the Magisterium. Why define the dogma of the Assumption?

If someone said to Joe Catholic: "The Semi-Pelagians taught the necessity of interior prevenient grace for every action even for the beginning of faith; they were heretics forasmuch as they considered grace to be such that the human will can either cooperate with it or refuse to do so," how would he know this statement is heresy?

A lot of people swooned over it in 17th century France, not seeing how it was false.

Arianism : the vast majority of bishops accepted it or at least accepted ambiguous forumlas. A Pope seems even to have done so. This, after it was solemnly condemned at Nicaea. It was so bad that when Julian the Apostate tried to destroy the Church, he attacked Arianism, thinking it to be the Church. What was Joe Catholic to do when it seemed the Catholic Faith he was taught was Arianism? Not so clear.

What if Catholics come to different conclusions? What if you say that Amoris Lætitiæ is clearly the Pope teaching heresy, others say that it is favoring of heresy, and others hold it is ambiguous but could be read in the light of traditional theology to correct the ambiguities? Who is right?

I understand you are thinking along the line if Pope Robert XI declared, "there are four persons in the Trinity," Joe Catholic would be able to see this is wrong, but usually we're not talking about such obvious things.

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]A Catholic can recognize heresy very easily, and by doing so he is NOT declaring the Pope a heretic - that will be up to the Church to declare. A Catholic simply needs to recognize that something is a deviation from the teaching of the Church and avoid the source of it.

The problem is who has the power to decide if something is a deviation from Church teaching?

You spent many words in another thread essentially claiming Quo Primum is infallible and proves that the first Mass was basically the Pontifical Mass of 1570. That can be shown historically false, yet you decided that that was what the Church was teaching.

If we each get to decide what accords with and discords with Catholic teaching we are relying on our individual and flawed judgement. In doing so we cannot be sure, except in the obvious cases like the four-person Trinity, or explicit denials of what Christ said where there is no possible logical alternative than error.

Most theological issues, even with Vatican II are not so clear. For instance Religious Liberty is a hotly debated topic. I would say it can be show to be contradictory to previous teachings, others argue it is not. Others still think Dignitatis Humanæ teaches that every man has the right to practice his false religion (indifferentism) and that is not taught, in fact. The new Catechism specifically rejects indifferentism, but still does not correct the error which is in political theology (the older right of the state to tolerate vs. the new right of the individual to be tolerated).

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I posted this quote before but for sake of clarity I am posting it again as it confirms exactly what I've been saying. And please don't bother replying with the lame "not infallible" argument - this quotes a discussion by the Cardinals in the Vatican which is obviously trustworthy:

... but must be taken in the context of what other theologians have said.

You are quoting a history book, relating a conversation between two bishops who were at Vatican II. Certainly the Catholic doctrine or various theological theories (remember St. Robert Bellarmine said there were five) is not completely explained by the second-hand reporting of a conversation between people.
(06-06-2018, 01:19 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]And please don't bother replying with the lame "not infallible" argument - this quotes a discussion by the Cardinals in the Vatican which is obviously trustworthy:

You do understand that 'trustworthy' does not equal  'infallible'?
 
Who cares? Something doesn't have to be infallible for us to believe it as Catholics. Saying something is "not infallible" when it's not personally comforting to you is to imply that is in error. You are constantly accusing the Church of propagating error when you say this.
(06-06-2018, 09:17 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2018, 01:19 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]And please don't bother replying with the lame "not infallible" argument - this quotes a discussion by the Cardinals in the Vatican which is obviously trustworthy:

You do understand that 'trustworthy' does not equal  'infallible'?
 
Who cares? Something doesn't have to be infallible for us to believe it as Catholics. Saying something is "not infallible" when it's not personally comforting to you is to imply that is in error. You are constantly accusing the Church of propagating error when you say this.

Of course the Catholic Faith is more than just what has been infallibly defined.

We believe in Limbo, for instance, a traditional teaching of the Church, which is only a common opinion of theologians (which means denying it doesn't make you not longer Catholic).

Still what is "not infallible" could be in error, because we do not have the infallible assurance of the Church in its Truth.

No one is saying that the quote you keep repeating is in error. I have said before, and will repeat : it does not completely and totally exhaust the Catholic teaching on the issue, especially because, as is clear to everyone else here, other theologians (including Doctors of the Church) have different opinions which are "not infallible" either. 

When the Church has not infallibly defined something, Catholics are free to choose from among the accepted theological opinions, but need to support their arguments with theology, history, science, philosophy, etc.

This is why continually quoting the same thing (which no one here denies presents one tenable opinion on papal heresy), is getting us nowhere. I an others have retorted with equally valid (if not more valid) quotes which present alternate possibilities to try to outline the issue. Returning to the same quote, as if it trumped all the others is a game of "I know you are, but what am I ...".
It's very simple really. Canonisations in the current crisis are not guaranteed to be infallible.

While we can be certain St. Thomas Aquinas is currently enjoying the beatific vision, we cannot have this same certainty with progressivists and church-destroyers like Paul VI or John Paul II.
(06-06-2018, 03:50 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As we mentioned earlier in this discussion, heresy is defined as the doubt or denial of a Catholic doctrine.

No, we said that this was an insufficient definition. I explained how you were using the term ambiguously.

By heresy we can mean a statement a variance with the Faith, a sin (which consists in adhesion to this statement knowing it to be false), and a crime (which consists in pertinacity in this sin despite the warning of the Church).

That may just seem like semantics, but for which does a Pope lose his office? A statement, a sin, or a crime. Only the last one can really be determined with any objectivity.

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]We have 2000 years of Catholic teaching to confirm what is a Catholic doctrine and what is not, so any Catholic can determine what heresy is. A Catholic can recognize heresy very easily, and by doing so he is NOT declaring the Pope a heretic ...

Then why do we have the Magisterium. Why define the dogma of the Assumption?

If someone said to Joe Catholic: "The Semi-Pelagians taught the necessity of interior prevenient grace for every action even for the beginning of faith; they were heretics forasmuch as they considered grace to be such that the human will can either cooperate with it or refuse to do so," how would he know this statement is heresy?

A lot of people swooned over it in 17th century France, not seeing how it was false.

Arianism : the vast majority of bishops accepted it or at least accepted ambiguous forumlas. A Pope seems even to have done so. This, after it was solemnly condemned at Nicaea. It was so bad that when Julian the Apostate tried to destroy the Church, he attacked Arianism, thinking it to be the Church. What was Joe Catholic to do when it seemed the Catholic Faith he was taught was Arianism? Not so clear.

What if Catholics come to different conclusions? What if you say that Amoris Lætitiæ is clearly the Pope teaching heresy, others say that it is favoring of heresy, and others hold it is ambiguous but could be read in the light of traditional theology to correct the ambiguities? Who is right?

I understand you are thinking along the line if Pope Robert XI declared, "there are four persons in the Trinity," Joe Catholic would be able to see this is wrong, but usually we're not talking about such obvious things.

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]A Catholic can recognize heresy very easily, and by doing so he is NOT declaring the Pope a heretic - that will be up to the Church to declare. A Catholic simply needs to recognize that something is a deviation from the teaching of the Church and avoid the source of it.

The problem is who has the power to decide if something is a deviation from Church teaching?

You spent many words in another thread essentially claiming Quo Primum is infallible and proves that the first Mass was basically the Pontifical Mass of 1570. That can be shown historically false, yet you decided that that was what the Church was teaching.

If we each get to decide what accords with and discords with Catholic teaching we are relying on our individual and flawed judgement. In doing so we cannot be sure, except in the obvious cases like the four-person Trinity, or explicit denials of what Christ said where there is no possible logical alternative than error.

Most theological issues, even with Vatican II are not so clear. For instance Religious Liberty is a hotly debated topic. I would say it can be show to be contradictory to previous teachings, others argue it is not. Others still think Dignitatis Humanæ teaches that every man has the right to practice his false religion (indifferentism) and that is not taught, in fact. The new Catechism specifically rejects indifferentism, but still does not correct the error which is in political theology (the older right of the state to tolerate vs. the new right of the individual to be tolerated).

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I posted this quote before but for sake of clarity I am posting it again as it confirms exactly what I've been saying. And please don't bother replying with the lame "not infallible" argument - this quotes a discussion by the Cardinals in the Vatican which is obviously trustworthy:

... but must be taken in the context of what other theologians have said.

You are quoting a history book, relating a conversation between two bishops who were at Vatican II. Certainly the Catholic doctrine or various theological theories (remember St. Robert Bellarmine said there were five) is not completely explained by the second-hand reporting of a conversation between people.
 
If we look at the quotes from Church sources on Popes and heresy, collectively they say the heresy only need be explicit or manifest. So, for example, if a Pope were to say baptism is no longer required, it would be game over, and even a Catholic child would know this was heresy. But if it were something not explicit, then the Pope would obviously be given the benefit of the doubt.

For example, St. Francis says, "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic..." and St.Robert says, "a pope who is a manifest heretic...".

If we look at the first 300 years of the Church it allows us to clearly see how the infallible teaching of the Church works - something  most Catholics today are totally confused about. For the first 3 centuries there was no solemn teaching from the Catholic Church. The only teaching during that time was primarily that of preaching and handing down the deposit of faith (the ordinary magisterium). As doctrines were handed down generation to generation, Pope to Pope, the dogma of infallibility of the Church guaranteed that what was being handed down and preached was infallible, since the Church is the pillar of truth and guaranteed not to teach error.

Then in the year 319, it was noticed Arius had strayed from the continuous teaching of the Church on the divinity of Christ. It was immediately noticed and the clergy reacted immediately. From the orations of St. Athanasius:

"There were many letters to be written in defense of the doctrine denied by Arius, and in order to expose his real meaning: the most important of these, the 'Encyclical,' has been assigned, on internal evidence, to the hand of Athanasius, now, apparently, Archdeacon of Alexandria. Adjusting itself to all Christian prelates, the letter insisted that the propositions of Arius were at variance alike with Scripture and with continuous Christian teaching: and in one sentence, eminently 'Athanasian,' called on its readers to 'hold aloof, as Christians, from those who spoke or thought in opposition to Christ.' Athanasius was among the 44 deacons who, with 36 priests, signed this letter...."

So Arius was considered a heretic for opposing the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium) and St. Athanasius ordered people to stay away. There had not yet been any solemn teaching from the Church. Then 6 years later in 325 they called the Council of Nicaea to condemn Arius (since he would not recant) and clarified the true belief on the doctrine to make sure it was clear to all the faithful. This was the first solemn teaching in the Church and was of course infallible, however the ordinary everyday teaching of the Church for the prior three centuries was also considered infallible, and that is why St. Athanasius and the clergy in the area were absolutely positive Arius was teaching heresy - he strayed from what was handed down.

We use the same method today to determine heresy - we look at what has been handed down continuously Pope to Pope with the same understanding passed at the same time. The Deposit of Faith cannot change, and when serious attempts have been made, the Church has called another Council to clarify. So the Church teaches infallibly day-to-day (ordinary magisterium), and the solemn magisterium steps in when there is either a problem or something needs to be clarified. An example, the existence of Guardian Angels was never solemnly defined, yet if a Catholic were to deny their existence it would be considered heresy because this has been taught since the beginning of the Church . If anyone were to seriously challenge it, then a Council would likely be called to clarify. But until then it is assumed infallible because the Church cannot teach error. If error arises, the Church is guaranteed to put a stop to it because it is divinely guided.

Another example - baptism was not solemnly defined until well after the first 1000 years of the Church (I forget the Council at the moment). Why wasn't it? Because it wasn't needed - it was understood by all that it was taught all along and therefore infallible. It was only when the everyday teaching was challenged in some way where the Church stepped forward and defined it.
(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]If we look at the quotes from Church sources on Popes and heresy, collectively they say the heresy only need be explicit or manifest.

Correct. Except ... "manifest" is a very important term because it is a canonical term.

St. Robert makes that clear in De Romano Pontifice (bk. 2, ch. 30) :

Quote:For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul (Tit. 3.10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate

The very term "manifest heretic" for St. Robert Bellarmine is defined by case given in St. Paul where there must be two warnings.

That is precisely what happens in the 1917 Canon Law as Fr. Henry Ayrinhac explains in his Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (p. 198):

Quote:If a person who is suspected of heresy does not, after being duly warned, remove the cause of the suspicion, supposing that it is morally possible to do so, he should be debarred from the legitimate acts. A cleric should receive a second warning, and if this too remained fruitless he should be suspended a divinis. After inflicting these punishments, six months more may be allowed, and if at the end of this time the party suspected of heresy has shown no signs of amendment, he is to be considered as a heretic and punished accordingly.

Fr. Augustine says the same in his A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (vol. 8, bk. 5, p. 286-7) :

Quote:We now proceed to the penalties the Code inflicts on those suspected of heresy.

a) They must, first, be warned, according to canon 2307, to remove the cause of suspicion. A reasonable time should be granted for this purpose in the canonical warning.

b) If the warning proves fruitless, the suspected person must be forbidden to perform any ecclesiastical legal acts, according to can. 2256. If he is a cleric, he must be suspended a divinis after a second warning has been left unheeded.

c) If, after the lapse of six months, to be reckoned from the moment the penalty has been contracted, the person suspected of heresy has not amended, he must be regarded as a heretic, amenable to the penalties set forth in canon 2314. Whilst the penalties enumerated under (b) are ferendae sententiae, to be inflicted according to can. 2223, 3, the penalties stated under © are a iure and latae sententiae.

For automatic penalties to enter into discussion, then, we have to have at least two canonical warning. The failure to respond or amend makes it clear (manifest) that the person is unwilling to abandon their error, and thus this is clearly (manifestly) heresy.

By a warning without amendment, the bad will is established.

Because a warning can only come from those capable of demanding account (and amendment) it must be an ecclesiastical authority.

Were it every one of the faithful, then each of us could differ on whose error is heresy or whether it is actually manifest, and we would be unable to warn such a person and demand their retraction.

Once the Church makes these warnings without amendment, the penalties follow automatically. This does not happen without this process.

The only difference with a Pope (and the whole reason for the discussion) is that the Pope has no human superior, thus no one who can demand an account from him. That is the debate of the theologians on how this would play out.

Some say that the warning must come from an imperfect council or its analog who warns the Pope twice, and then declares his manifest heresy. Theologians then further debate whether this would cause automatic penalties (because the Pope is not subject to the law which inflicts them), or if he would have to be deposed first.

No theologian whatsoever ever argues that the Pope is not subject to at least this procedure at a minimum. If a Cardinal would need to be warned twice by ecclesiastical authorities before he could be determined to be a "manifest heretic" and thus stripped automatically of his office, why would a Pope be accorded less protection from the whims of others declaring his manifest heresy.

You will of course try to respond that the manifest heresy was what caused the loss of office and of the Faith in the first place, and the Church is only "declaring" this, but that is a circular argument.

The only thing that can objectively make clear (manifest) the heresy (which is defined as pertinacity in denial) is that pertinacity, which is only established by some authority insisting on a correction and the person not correcting.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]So, for example, if a Pope were to say baptism is no longer required, it would be game over, and even a Catholic child would know this was heresy. But if it were something not explicit, then the Pope would obviously be given the benefit of the doubt.

We can certainly see such a statement is at variance with the Faith. No doubt.

We cannot see that this material heresy is actually formal heresy. Formal heresy requires pertinacity. How is someone known to be pertinacious unless they are warned that they have made an error and refuse to retract it.

Who warns and judges that this exists? The Church, not the individual faithful.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]So Arius was considered a heretic for opposing the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium) and St. Athanasius ordered people to stay away.

And St. Athanasius was a bishop, so was declaring (based on the refusal of Arius to amend after being warned) that he was suspect of heresy and to be avoided.

An ecclesiastical authority ... determining the suspicion of manifest formal heresy ... sounds like almost the 1917 Canon Law!

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There had not yet been any solemn teaching from the Church.

But there was the intervention of an ecclesiastical authority on a local level establishing the errors of a man amounted to suspicion of heresy ...

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Then 6 years later in 325 they called the Council of Nicaea to condemn Arius (since he would not recant) and clarified the true belief on the doctrine to make sure it was clear to all the faithful.

Exactly. Just like the 1917 Canon Law.

He was suspect of heresy, called to make account, refused to recant, and thus his heresy was declared manifest.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]We use the same method today to determine heresy - we look at what has been handed down continuously Pope to Pope with the same understanding passed at the same time. The Deposit of Faith cannot change, and when serious attempts have been made, the Church has called another Council to clarify. So the Church teaches infallibly day-to-day (ordinary magisterium), and the solemn magisterium steps in when there is either a problem or something needs to be clarified.

An example, the existence of Guardian Angels was never solemnly defined, yet if a Catholic were to deny their existence it would be considered heresy because this has been taught since the beginning of the Church. If anyone were to seriously challenge it, then a Council would likely be called to clarify. But until then it is assumed infallible because the Church cannot teach error. If error arises, the Church is guaranteed to put a stop to it because it is divinely guided.

Another example - baptism was not solemnly defined until well after the first 1000 years of the Church (I forget the Council at the moment). Why wasn't it? Because it wasn't needed - it was understood by all that it was taught all along and therefore infallible. It was only when the everyday teaching was challenged in some way where the Church stepped forward and defined it.

No one here doubts such things, but this is all a non sequitur.

The question isn't about solemn definitions or not but about what make a material heresy manifest.

You throw the term around, but ultimately you are implicitly saying it is the job of the faithful to judge whether someone's heresy is "manifest", and then expecting a canonical effect from a individual private determination.

That simply doesn't work, logically or otherwise.
(06-06-2018, 11:59 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]If we look at the quotes from Church sources on Popes and heresy, collectively they say the heresy only need be explicit or manifest.

Correct. Except ... "manifest" is a very important term because it is a canonical term.

St. Robert makes that clear in De Romano Pontifice (bk. 2, ch. 30) :

Quote:For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul (Tit. 3.10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate

The very term "manifest heretic" for St. Robert Bellarmine is defined by case given in St. Paul where there must be two warnings.

That is precisely what happens in the 1917 Canon Law as Fr. Henry Ayrinhac explains in his Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (p. 198):

Quote:If a person who is suspected of heresy does not, after being duly warned, remove the cause of the suspicion, supposing that it is morally possible to do so, he should be debarred from the legitimate acts. A cleric should receive a second warning, and if this too remained fruitless he should be suspended a divinis. After inflicting these punishments, six months more may be allowed, and if at the end of this time the party suspected of heresy has shown no signs of amendment, he is to be considered as a heretic and punished accordingly.

Fr. Augustine says the same in his A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (vol. 8, bk. 5, p. 286-7) :

Quote:We now proceed to the penalties the Code inflicts on those suspected of heresy.

a) They must, first, be warned, according to canon 2307, to remove the cause of suspicion. A reasonable time should be granted for this purpose in the canonical warning.

b) If the warning proves fruitless, the suspected person must be forbidden to perform any ecclesiastical legal acts, according to can. 2256. If he is a cleric, he must be suspended a divinis after a second warning has been left unheeded.

c) If, after the lapse of six months, to be reckoned from the moment the penalty has been contracted, the person suspected of heresy has not amended, he must be regarded as a heretic, amenable to the penalties set forth in canon 2314. Whilst the penalties enumerated under (b) are ferendae sententiae, to be inflicted according to can. 2223, 3, the penalties stated under © are a iure and latae sententiae.

For automatic penalties to enter into discussion, then, we have to have at least two canonical warning. The failure to respond or amend makes it clear (manifest) that the person is unwilling to abandon their error, and thus this is clearly (manifestly) heresy.

By a warning without amendment, the bad will is established.

Because a warning can only come from those capable of demanding account (and amendment) it must be an ecclesiastical authority.

Were it every one of the faithful, then each of us could differ on whose error is heresy or whether it is actually manifest, and we would be unable to warn such a person and demand their retraction.

Once the Church makes these warnings without amendment, the penalties follow automatically. This does not happen without this process.

The only difference with a Pope (and the whole reason for the discussion) is that the Pope has no human superior, thus no one who can demand an account from him. That is the debate of the theologians on how this would play out.

Some say that the warning must come from an imperfect council or its analog who warns the Pope twice, and then declares his manifest heresy. Theologians then further debate whether this would cause automatic penalties (because the Pope is not subject to the law which inflicts them), or if he would have to be deposed first.

No theologian whatsoever ever argues that the Pope is not subject to at least this procedure at a minimum. If a Cardinal would need to be warned twice by ecclesiastical authorities before he could be determined to be a "manifest heretic" and thus stripped automatically of his office, why would a Pope be accorded less protection from the whims of others declaring his manifest heresy.

You will of course try to respond that the manifest heresy was what caused the loss of office and of the Faith in the first place, and the Church is only "declaring" this, but that is a circular argument.

The only thing that can objectively make clear (manifest) the heresy (which is defined as pertinacity in denial) is that pertinacity, which is only established by some authority insisting on a correction and the person not correcting.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]So, for example, if a Pope were to say baptism is no longer required, it would be game over, and even a Catholic child would know this was heresy. But if it were something not explicit, then the Pope would obviously be given the benefit of the doubt.

We can certainly see such a statement is at variance with the Faith. No doubt.

We cannot see that this material heresy is actually formal heresy. Formal heresy requires pertinacity. How is someone known to be pertinacious unless they are warned that they have made an error and refuse to retract it.

Who warns and judges that this exists? The Church, not the individual faithful.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]So Arius was considered a heretic for opposing the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium) and St. Athanasius ordered people to stay away.

And St. Athanasius was a bishop, so was declaring (based on the refusal of Arius to amend after being warned) that he was suspect of heresy and to be avoided.

An ecclesiastical authority ... determining the suspicion of manifest formal heresy ... sounds like almost the 1917 Canon Law!

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There had not yet been any solemn teaching from the Church.

But there was the intervention of an ecclesiastical authority on a local level establishing the errors of a man amounted to suspicion of heresy ...

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Then 6 years later in 325 they called the Council of Nicaea to condemn Arius (since he would not recant) and clarified the true belief on the doctrine to make sure it was clear to all the faithful.

Exactly. Just like the 1917 Canon Law.

He was suspect of heresy, called to make account, refused to recant, and thus his heresy was declared manifest.

(06-06-2018, 11:04 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]We use the same method today to determine heresy - we look at what has been handed down continuously Pope to Pope with the same understanding passed at the same time. The Deposit of Faith cannot change, and when serious attempts have been made, the Church has called another Council to clarify. So the Church teaches infallibly day-to-day (ordinary magisterium), and the solemn magisterium steps in when there is either a problem or something needs to be clarified.

An example, the existence of Guardian Angels was never solemnly defined, yet if a Catholic were to deny their existence it would be considered heresy because this has been taught since the beginning of the Church. If anyone were to seriously challenge it, then a Council would likely be called to clarify. But until then it is assumed infallible because the Church cannot teach error. If error arises, the Church is guaranteed to put a stop to it because it is divinely guided.

Another example - baptism was not solemnly defined until well after the first 1000 years of the Church (I forget the Council at the moment). Why wasn't it? Because it wasn't needed - it was understood by all that it was taught all along and therefore infallible. It was only when the everyday teaching was challenged in some way where the Church stepped forward and defined it.

No one here doubts such things, but this is all a non sequitur.

The question isn't about solemn definitions or not but about what make a material heresy manifest.

You throw the term around, but ultimately you are implicitly saying it is the job of the faithful to judge whether someone's heresy is "manifest", and then expecting a canonical effect from a individual private determination.

That simply doesn't work, logically or otherwise.
 
All the quotes from the Church on the subject of Popes and heresy confirm that the warning requirement does not apply to a Pope, and this is precisely because he has no superiors but God. To say he requires a warning means the warning would have to come from a subordinate. In that case, anyone could warn him. The Pope regularly consults Cardinals and Bishops on various matters - certainly they let him know when something looks erroneous, so if you want to argue he requires a warning about heresy, he certainly has plenty of warning on a regular basis! The more one thinks about a subordinate being required to warn the Pope that he has fallen to heresy, the more absurd the thought becomes.

The quotes all concur that if heresy is seen coming from a Pope, and that heresy is manifest or explicit, the man cannot possibly be a Pope.

As for pertinacity, if a Pope puts his stamp of approval on an explicit heresy for all the faithful to believe, he cannot claim ignorance because all the bishops would point it out to him. The fact that he doesn't immediately recant qualifies as pertinacious.

Case in point. Every Catholic, whether clergy or lay people, know very well about the following verses from Scripture:
  • "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:15-16
  • "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." 2 John 1:10-11
  • "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth" Matthew 12:30
  • "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Mat 10:33
These verses confirm that if someone doesn't believe that Jesus is God, and does not get baptized, they are condemned. Jews and Muslims do not believe in Jesus, nor are they baptized, and are therefore unequivocally condemned by the words of our Lord Himself. Subsequent popes have confirmed the same teaching over the centuries.

Now when Paul VI proposed the decree on ecumenism at Vatican II, this was DIRECTLY contrary to Scripture and the traditional teaching of the Church. Certainly he could not possibly claim ignorance of the above verses in Scripture, nor teaching from his predecessors, and certainly he had plenty of warning during the Council discussions. Yet STILL, he decided to put his official stamp of approval on it - a BLATANTLY pertinacious act.
(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]All the quotes from the Church on the subject of Popes and heresy confirm that the warning requirement does not apply to a Pope, and this is precisely because he has no superiors but God.

Is that an exclusive universal, because if you note above, Cajetan says that a Pope must be deposed, which indicates that at least one major theologian says that the Pope must be judged in this limited case.

(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]To say he requires a warning means the warning would have to come from a subordinate. In that case, anyone could warn him.

So we cannot warn him to determine if he really actually realizes he is teaching something contrary to the Faith, but we can decide what he is saying is heresy and that he's lost his office as a result?

We cannot do the lesser, but can do the greater ... totally illogical.

And provably false. Case in point: the Curious Case of John XXII.

(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]The quotes all concur that if heresy is seen coming from a Pope, and that heresy is manifest or explicit, the man cannot possibly be a Pope.

But manifest, again, is a canonical term. Those same quotes all concur that we need the formal crime of heresy, not material heresy, not the sin of heresy, not an heretical statement. The crime of heresy.

Who determines that a crime has been committed? The authority.

(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As for pertinacity, if a Pope puts his stamp of approval on an explicit heresy for all the faithful to believe, he cannot claim ignorance because all the bishops would point it out to him. The fact that he doesn't immediately recant qualifies as pertinacious.

So he's stubborn because he approved something. In what universe does stubborn mean doing something once?
(06-07-2018, 04:46 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]All the quotes from the Church on the subject of Popes and heresy confirm that the warning requirement does not apply to a Pope, and this is precisely because he has no superiors but God.

Is that an exclusive universal, because if you note above, Cajetan says that a Pope must be deposed, which indicates that at least one major theologian says that the Pope must be judged in this limited case.

(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]To say he requires a warning means the warning would have to come from a subordinate. In that case, anyone could warn him.

So we cannot warn him to determine if he really actually realizes he is teaching something contrary to the Faith, but we can decide what he is saying is heresy and that he's lost his office as a result?

We cannot do the lesser, but can do the greater ... totally illogical.

And provably false. Case in point: the Curious Case of John XXII.

(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]The quotes all concur that if heresy is seen coming from a Pope, and that heresy is manifest or explicit, the man cannot possibly be a Pope.

But manifest, again, is a canonical term. Those same quotes all concur that we need the formal crime of heresy, not material heresy, not the sin of heresy, not an heretical statement. The crime of heresy.

Who determines that a crime has been committed? The authority.

(06-07-2018, 04:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As for pertinacity, if a Pope puts his stamp of approval on an explicit heresy for all the faithful to believe, he cannot claim ignorance because all the bishops would point it out to him. The fact that he doesn't immediately recant qualifies as pertinacious.

So he's stubborn because he approved something. In what universe does stubborn mean doing something once?
 
To clarify, it's not that the Pope can't be warned - we obviously see this all the time today with cardinals and bishops and even laypeople speaking out and questioning what Pope Francis has been saying. What I'm saying is a Pope receiving a warning from his subordinates is not a mandatory part of the process where Pope loses his pontificate due to heresy, as you said was the case.

As for material heresy (heresy due to ignorance), certainly a Pope cannot claim ignorance to heresy in the case of something like ecumenism where it is clearly condemned in Scripture, has been condemned by previous popes, and where all the current cardinals and bishops of the world can easily point it out.

As for the pertinacity of Paul VI, he obviously never recanted on his decision to approve the decree on ecumenism before his death in 1978. Rather we see all of his successors take the torch of ecumenism and continue carrying it. We have the Assisi meetings in each of the last 4 decades to easily confirm this. Catholics can obviously see this is a divergence from the Deposit of Faith and they are not judging any Pope but pointing it out and avoiding it until the Church resolves the matter officially.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21