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
(06-18-2018, 09:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-18-2018, 09:17 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]If people simply misinterpreted the decrees and started going down the wrong path, a true Pope would be guaranteed to step forward and make a clarification as to the true meaning people should be following.

Clearly you don't know much about Church History if you could say something as silly as this.

As noted before, true Popes (like John XXII) have preached heresy, identified and declared as heretical by their very successors and by the theologians of their own times. Clearly a "true Pope" can mislead the faithful and even teach grave error.

Even in the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius appears to have ascribed to an ambiguous Creed which could be interpreted to support Ariansism. So we even have Popes accepting promoting ambiguous formulas which could be interpreted as being against the Faith ... sound familiar.

(06-18-2018, 09:17 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]What ultimately would invalidate an ecumenical Council is not having the stamp of approval from a true pope. All the illegitimate Councils in history were created this way.

Earlier you claimed that many councils were later declared invalid because they were approved by a Pope who was declared to be an antipope. Which ones?

What "illegitimate councils" are you speaking of here?
 
You try to give examples of popes that misled the faithful, but you are mistaken.

Regarding John XXII, he expressed a private opinion. St. Francis de Sales mentions the distinction:

https://books.google.com/books?id=c96E0-IKnb0C&pg=PA306&dq=%22falls+ipso+facto+from+his+dignity+and+out+of+the+Church%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT24Ss-ejYAhUJNKwKHfA1BTEQ6AEIKTAA#v=twopage&q&f=false

Regarding Pope Liberius, "A Catholic Dictionary" (Attwater) confirms that some had alleged failure of papal infallibility against him, but then clarifies infallibility was not involved in his case. It states "He was an exile in the Emperor's power at the time; he made no doctrinal definition; and did not attempt to impose any belief on the Church. All the circumstances required for an exercise of infallibility were lacking."

Say you can now stop using these popes as examples to justify the failure of the Vatican II popes, who both gave their solemn approval to doctrines condemned in Scripture, and who have been publicly approving of, and associating with, non-Catholic religions.

Regarding illegitimate Councils, the book "Tumultuous Times" lists about 20 of them throughout the history of the Church. It's been sometime since I've read up on them so I would have to go back and refresh my memory, but here is the list from the book: Antioch 341 A.D.,Arles 353 A.D., Basel 1061 and 1438, Ephesus ( John of Antioch) 431 A.D., Ephesus (Latrocinium) 449 A.D., Hieria 753 A.D., Mainz & Brixen 1080, Milan 355 A.D., Parma 1063, Philippopolis 343 A.D.,Pisa 1409, Pisa, Milan and Lyons 1511-1512, Rimini 359 A.D., Rome 1084, 1089, 1098, 1412 ,Seleucia 359 A.D., Second Council of Simirium 357 A.D., Synod Of Photius 879-80 A.D.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21