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
(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It is the mandatory part of every other office, according to Canon Law, why not the Papacy.

Every theologian agrees that heresy must be manfest for us to consider any kind of loss of office. The question still comes down to manifest.

You are using a Webster's-dictionary, common-parlance use of the term. Theologians and are are using the canonical definition. Thus we're still stuck on what makes a heresy "manifest".

(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But how do we know that something is contrary to Scripture? Do we get to make that determination? Do we get to interpret scripture?

(In passing I would point out that Ecumenism, erroneous as it may be, is in Vatican II also a very limited term, referring only to Christians. In past posts you made it seem as if Ecumenism was "indifferentism" -- the idea that all religions are acceptable and good).

But the point can be logically shown that you are setting up two different standards.

You are suggesting a Pope is incapable of material heresy. Everything he says therefore must be infallibly true. If not then he loses the office of Pope.

A Cardinal can make a materially heretical statement, must be warned and only after two warnings and other lesser penalties in the meantime can formal heresy be established and thus he be degraded, excommunicated, etc.

That flies in the face of demonstrable history. Pope John XXII clearly taught an heretical teaching (that the blessed do not have the Beatific Vision until the General Judgement). He taught it despite the fact that he was corrected by others who told him it was heresy. It was not until a mass of theologians condemned the proposition that he eventually recanted it. His successor, Benedict XII, condemned his proposition as heretical and solemnly defined that the blessed who do not suffer in purgatory immediately have the Beatific Vision. Thus he directly condemned John XXII's statements as heretical.

Yet, John XXII is accepted as a valid Pope, and has never been considered as a formal heretic. Were he, St. Thomas Aquinas would not be a Saint, since it was John XXII who canonized him. Meister Eckhart's heresies would never have been condemned, since it was John XXII who condemned them. We would not have the Anima Christi ("Soul of my saviour"), since he wrote it.

Thus history provides us the example of a Pope who uttered and even pertinaciously taught heresy in the face of many critiques. Eventually after being convinced through a large number of prominent theologians and Churchmen condemning his teaching as heretical, he begrudgingly abandoned the theory. His successor solemnly defined it as heresy. Thus clearly we have the example of materially heretical Pope, possibly with grave sin given the pertinacity, but since it was never judged that he was a formal heretic, he was never deposed, thus never lost the office of the exercise of the

(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It is pointless to try to apply a principle when you don't have the correct one to begin with.
(06-08-2018, 08:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It is the mandatory part of every other office, according to Canon Law, why not the Papacy.

Every theologian agrees that heresy must be manfest for us to consider any kind of loss of office. The question still comes down to manifest.

You are using a Webster's-dictionary, common-parlance use of the term. Theologians and are are using the canonical definition. Thus we're still stuck on what makes a heresy "manifest".

(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

But how do we know that something is contrary to Scripture? Do we get to make that determination? Do we get to interpret scripture?

(In passing I would point out that Ecumenism, erroneous as it may be, is in Vatican II also a very limited term, referring only to Christians. In past posts you made it seem as if Ecumenism was "indifferentism" -- the idea that all religions are acceptable and good).

But the point can be logically shown that you are setting up two different standards.

You are suggesting a Pope is incapable of material heresy. Everything he says therefore must be infallibly true. If not then he loses the office of Pope.

A Cardinal can make a materially heretical statement, must be warned and only after two warnings and other lesser penalties in the meantime can formal heresy be established and thus he be degraded, excommunicated, etc.

That flies in the face of demonstrable history. Pope John XXII clearly taught an heretical teaching (that the blessed do not have the Beatific Vision until the General Judgement). He taught it despite the fact that he was corrected by others who told him it was heresy. It was not until a mass of theologians condemned the proposition that he eventually recanted it. His successor, Benedict XII, condemned his proposition as heretical and solemnly defined that the blessed who do not suffer in purgatory immediately have the Beatific Vision. Thus he directly condemned John XXII's statements as heretical.

Yet, John XXII is accepted as a valid Pope, and has never been considered as a formal heretic. Were he, St. Thomas Aquinas would not be a Saint, since it was John XXII who canonized him. Meister Eckhart's heresies would never have been condemned, since it was John XXII who condemned them. We would not have the Anima Christi ("Soul of my saviour"), since he wrote it.

Thus history provides us the example of a Pope who uttered and even pertinaciously taught heresy in the face of many critiques. Eventually after being convinced through a large number of prominent theologians and Churchmen condemning his teaching as heretical, he begrudgingly abandoned the theory. His successor solemnly defined it as heresy. Thus clearly we have the example of materially heretical Pope, possibly with grave sin given the pertinacity, but since it was never judged that he was a formal heretic, he was never deposed, thus never lost the office of the exercise of the

(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It is pointless to try to apply a principle when you don't have the correct one to begin with.
 
Yes, quotes were previously posted confirming that what a Pope teaches regarding faith and morals, regardless whether it was solemn teaching or not, Catholics must believe. That's why we know that if we see explicit heresy, the man cannot possibly be a Pope. The quote I gave from the Vatican I Fathers confirms this, and also gives some examples of manifest heresy, so there is no confusion about what manifest is. I have been quoting from approved Catholic sources with imprimatur, not a Webster dictionary.

As for the pope requiring a warning, none of the quotes say it. Even if you want to argue that a warning from his subordinates is required, think it through and it becomes an absurdity. For example, Paul VI provides a solemn stamp of approval on ecumenism through an Ecumenical Council, even though his predecessors firmly condemned this. But the poor Pope just didn't know, and all of his subordinates, the Cardinals and Bishops of the world SOMEHOW never said a word to the pope, so the poor man hasn't even been warned either (like that is really going to happen). And since no one will ever know what goes on behind the doors of the Vatican, none of us will ever know if he ever gets warned. So no one ever finds out if he ever gets warned, which gets him off the hook for teaching heresy. Then the problem just repeats itself with other doctrines and it goes on endlessly, giving the heretical Pope a loophole for endless heresies. The absurdity of the whole thing is nauseating.

I am shocked to see you ask the question, "how do we know that something is contrary to Scripture?". My gosh, do we really have to go into such a question? We simply look at what has been handed down Pope to Pope and look at what they have taught on the subject, and make sure the teaching hasn't strayed.

I'm also shocked to see you state, "ecumenism, erroneous as it may be…". Stop and think about that for a moment. That is to say Paul VI gave a solemn stamp of approval in a General Council to erroneous doctrine, which is impossible - a blatant contradiction. As has been shown, if a Pope does so, he cannot possibly be a true Pope. This is exactly what we have been talking about.

As for John XXII, the Church doesn't consider him a heretic because he didn't pertinaciously hold to any heresy. This can't be compared to what we are talking about which is a Pope giving his solemn approval to a heresy in a General Council.

As for ecumenism (religious unity), it is directly related to indifferentism, and also related to the belief that there is no need for conversion. All of these beliefs are rampant in the local dioceses right now (ever since Vatican II), and all have been condemned prior to that. Quotes have been posted already confirming this, but if you need any posted again I will gladly do so.
Goodness, this thread is still going!? I mean the op was already banned for general trollishness, seems like this would have died off by now.
(06-09-2018, 02:44 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Goodness, this thread is still going!? I mean the op was already banned for general trollishness, seems like this would have died off by now.

Some people never seem to give up, even when they're in deep water, completely out of their depth. LOL! I told pabble back in post #71 that he was in over his head. Your post is #103.
(06-09-2018, 04:18 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-09-2018, 02:44 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Goodness, this thread is still going!? I mean the op was already banned for general trollishness, seems like this would have died off by now.

Some people never seem to give up, even when they're in deep water, completely out of their depth. LOL! I told pabble back in post #71 that he was in over his head. Your post is #103.
 
I've supported everything I have said with approved Church references. Rather, it's the opposite view that's not holding any water...
(06-09-2018, 01:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]As for John XXII, the Church doesn't consider him a heretic because he didn't pertinaciously hold to any heresy. This can't be compared to what we are talking about which is a Pope giving his solemn approval to a heresy in a General Council.

You might want to learn some history before you claim such things.

From that article, by a professional and well-lettered and highly-respected traditional Catholic historian :

Quote:John XXII, though, entered into conflict with Church Tradition on a point of primary importance. In three sermons he gave in the Cathedral of Avignon between November 1st 1331 and January 5th 1332, he sustained the view that the souls of the just, even after their perfect purification in Purgatory, did not enjoy the Beatific Vision of God. Only after the resurrection of the flesh and the general judgment would they be raised by God to the vision of the Divinity. Placed “under the altar” (Apoc. 6,9) the souls of the saints would be consoled and protected by the Humanity of Christ, but the Beatific Vision would be deferred until the resurrection of their bodies and the general judgment (Marc Dykmans in Les sermons de Jean XXII sur la vision beatifique, Gregorian University, Rome 1973, published the entire texts of the sermons pronounced by John XXII; cfr: also Christian Trottman, La vision béatifique. Des disputes scolastiques à sa définition par Benoit XII, Ecole Française de Rome, Rome 1995, pp. 417-739).  

The error according to which the Beatific Vision of the Divinity would be conceded to souls not after the first judgment, but only after the resurrection of the flesh was an old one, but in the XIII century it had been rebutted by St. Thomas Aquinas, primarily in De veritate (q. 8, a. 1) and in the Summa Theologica ( I, q. 12, a. 1). When John XXII re-proposed this error, he was openly criticized by many theologians. Among those that intervened in the debate, were Guillaume Durand de Saint Pourcain, Bishop of Meaux (1270-1334), who accused the Pope of re-proposing the Catharist heresies, the English Dominican Thomas Waleys (1318-1349), who, as a result of his public resistance underwent trial and imprisonment, the Franciscan Nicola da Lira (1270 -1349) and Cardinal Jacques Fournier (1280-1342), pontifical theologian and author of the treatise De statu animarum ante generale iudicium.

When the Pope tried to impose this erroneous doctrine on the Faculty of Theology in Paris, the King of France, Philip VI of Valois, prohibited its teaching, and, according to accounts by the Sorbonne’s Chancellor, Jean Gerson [even] reached the point of threatening John XXII with the stake if he didn’t make a retraction.  John XXII’s sermons totus mundum christianum turbaverunt, so said  Thomas of Strasburg, Master of the Hermits of Saint Augustine (in Dykmans,  op. cit., p. 10).

On the eve of John XXII’s death, he stated that he had expressed himself simply as a private theologian, without any binding to the magisterium he held. Giovanni Villani reports in his Chronicle, the retraction the Pope made on his thesis on December 3rd 1334, the day before his death, at the solicitation of Cardinal Dal Poggetto, his nephew, and some other relatives.

On December 20th 1334, Cardinal Fournier was elected Pope, taking the name of Benedict XII (1335-1342). The new Pontiff wanted to close the issue with a dogmatic definition, the constitution, Benedictus Deus of January 29th 1336, where he expresses thus: “We, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints […] already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven […] and these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.” (Denz-H, n. 1000 ). It was an article of faith referred to again on July 6th 1439, by the Bull, Laetentur coeli at the Council of Florence (Denz-H, n. 1305).

Following these doctrinal decisions, the thesis sustained by John XXII must be considered formally heretical, even if at that time the Pope sustained that it was still not defined as dogma of faith. St. Robert Bellarmine who dealt amply with this issue in De Romano Pontifice (Opera omnia, Venetiis 1599, Book. IV, chap. 14, coll. 841-844) writes that John XXII supported a heretical thesis, with the intention of imposing it as the truth on the faithful, but died before he could have defined the dogma, without therefore, undermining the principle of pontifical infallibility by his behavior.

The heterodox teaching of John XXII was certainly an act of ordinary magisterium regarding the faith of the Church, but not infallible, as it was devoid of a defining nature.
So, the Pope proposed not once, but publicly three times an heretical doctrine, which was roundly criticized by theologians as a repackaging of a condemned heresy. He the tried to impose his error on theologians, which reacted to the point that the King of France even threatened the Pope with arrest and execution for heresy!

Eventually on his death bed he decided to declare he was not trying to solemnly impose the error, and retracted it. His successor solemnly defined that John XXII had preached heresy. Yet never has anyone considered that John XXII lost the papacy for manifest heresy (creating a pretty high bar for judging a Pope of heresy after him).

St. Robert Bellarmine in the very treatise that Sedevacantist hang their hat upon, says that John XXII did support a formal heresy, was warned, and yet did not lose the Papacy because he did not attempt to solemnly impose heresy on the Church.

The case of John XXII, detailed by St. Robert Bellarmine, historically and theologically undermines the Sedevacantist theory.
(06-09-2018, 08:00 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-09-2018, 04:18 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-09-2018, 02:44 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Goodness, this thread is still going!? I mean the op was already banned for general trollishness, seems like this would have died off by now.

Some people never seem to give up, even when they're in deep water, completely out of their depth. LOL! I told pabble back in post #71 that he was in over his head. Your post is #103.
 
I've supported everything I have said with approved Church references. Rather, it's the opposite view that's not holding any water...

Paddie,

Here's the fundamental problem with our discussion : you are blindly entrenched in your position despite obvious contradiction.

You insist on holding a myopic position which the facts prove is so over-simplified as to be false. You refuse to deal with that evidence. In short, your burying your head in the sand and yet have the gall to suggest (though absolutely no one here has posted in support of your argument) that it's your opponent's view that is "not holding any water".

How red-tinted are those glasses?

Despite that you have been presented in this thread and others with obvious contradictory historical evidence, plus obviously contradictory statements from the Magisterium (including councils and Pope) and from theologians, you still continue to cling to a single quote which you are manifestly misinterpreting in the face of such evidence and then over-generalize without citation to make your case.

Let's be clear that we are both coming from a biased standpoint and certainly want our own position to be the correct one. The problem is that you have been presented with a dozen quotations which you dismiss as me "quoting when it supports my position" as if I am misinterpreting. A dozen quotes agree, and yet I'm the one selectively quoting?


Unless you're interested in actually correcting your misinterpretation in the face of such things, there's no point in wasting my time or yours.
(06-10-2018, 10:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-09-2018, 08:00 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-09-2018, 04:18 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-09-2018, 02:44 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Goodness, this thread is still going!? I mean the op was already banned for general trollishness, seems like this would have died off by now.

Some people never seem to give up, even when they're in deep water, completely out of their depth. LOL! I told pabble back in post #71 that he was in over his head. Your post is #103.
 
I've supported everything I have said with approved Church references. Rather, it's the opposite view that's not holding any water...

Paddie,

Here's the fundamental problem with our discussion : you are blindly entrenched in your position despite obvious contradiction.

You insist on holding a myopic position which the facts prove is so over-simplified as to be false. You refuse to deal with that evidence. In short, your burying your head in the sand and yet have the gall to suggest (though absolutely no one here has posted in support of your argument) that it's your opponent's view that is "not holding any water".

How red-tinted are those glasses?

Despite that you have been presented in this thread and others with obvious contradictory historical evidence, plus obviously contradictory statements from the Magisterium (including councils and Pope) and from theologians, you still continue to cling to a single quote which you are manifestly misinterpreting in the face of such evidence and then over-generalize without citation to make your case.

Let's be clear that we are both coming from a biased standpoint and certainly want our own position to be the correct one. The problem is that you have been presented with a dozen quotations which you dismiss as me "quoting when it supports my position" as if I am misinterpreting. A dozen quotes agree, and yet I'm the one selectively quoting?


Unless you're interested in actually correcting your misinterpretation in the face of such things, there's no point in wasting my time or yours.
 
 You just suggested I "learn some history" and then you reference a write up from 2015? This quote, already given, from the Fathers at the First Vatican Council confirms there has never been a heretical Pope as of 1870. The Church considers John XXII a VALID Pope, which means he could NOT have been considered a heretic at the same time. You really need to look at where you are getting your history from!
 
 "The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church...."
 
 You claim St. Robert undermined the sedevacantist theory, yet this quote from him actually confirms it:
 "...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
 
 You claim that I am in error on this subject, yet throughout the entire discussion you have repeatedly shown a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Catholicism:
 
  •  You have stated that a true Ecumenical Council can teach error which goes against all past teaching of the Church
  •  You disregarded multiple quotes from trusted Catholic sources which confirm a Pope that teaches explicit heresy automatically loses his office, and afterward the Church makes a judgment
  •  If you look up the definition of "magisterium", you'll see that it is defined as INFALLIBLE. Yet you just made reference to "contradictory statements from the magisterium" as if the magisterium can contradict itself
  •  You have disregarded teaching from the ordinary magisterium by calling it "not infallible" showing you don't even understand what the ordinary magisterium is
  •  You have openly disregarded imprimaturs as worthless when the Church has always valued them and made them mandatory
  •  You have tried to argue that a pope teaching heresy needs to be warned (by his subordinates) before he loses his office. I have disproven that argument
 
 I'm not trying to insult you, but you've been mistaken on several very key subjects, and this has led to repeated inconsistent replies from you.
(06-11-2018, 10:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not trying to insult you, but you've been mistaken on several very key subjects, and this has led to repeated inconsistent replies from you.

Pabbie, where did you study theology and logic?

I think you need to ask for your money back.
(06-05-2018, 12:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]The dogma of "infallibility of the Church" states that the Catholic Church is divinely kept from the possibility of error in teachings on faith and morals, so it is impossible to say that Vatican II is from the Church and at the same time teaches error. Is also impossible to say the Church has canonized someone and made any errors in the process. This dogma, that the Church cannot teach error, is something that all Catholics must believe, yet people in these discussions constantly show they don't trust the Church. If you see error, and the source claims to represent the Catholic Church, we know with certainty that they cannot be legitimate representatives.

(06-11-2018, 10:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
  • You have stated that a true Ecumenical Council can teach error which goes against all past teaching of the Church.


You have an excessive interpretation of infallibility which is beyond what the Church has defined.

Again:
Quote:Gadium et Spes 24:

“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”

This is an error, straight from Vatican II.

Unless by "error" you really mean "heresy," which is different form general “error.”
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21