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
(06-03-2018, 10:02 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is another scenario you are not considering. Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?

Which Antipope and which allegedly "General Council"?
(06-03-2018, 05:53 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2018, 09:34 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2018, 02:45 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Pabble, I have no idea what your qualifications are, but MM has studied theology and canon law at an advanced level. I think you're in way over your head.
 
What can I say, Canon Law and all other Catholic references I have ever found in my lifetime say that Ecumenical Councils and canonizations are always infallible, no exceptions. It doesn't matter how long someone has studied theology and canon law - we can't just disregard the traditional teaching of the Church.

How do you know the "traditional teaching of the Church"?

I would submit that you have read some things to learn what some people say, but then are over-extending what the teaching is.

As mentioned in the other thread, this is a matter of imprecision and ambiguity. When discussing such things you need to be precise.

Using terms like "General Council" when meaning the more precise (both theologically and canonically) "Eccumenical Council", and then saying there are "always infallible" (when you later admit that this is far more restricted to "faith and morals"), is precisely the problem.

If you take a true principle, and over-extend it you do the same as Vatican II did with "religious liberty" : they took the Catholic notion of tolerance  (the state has the right to tolerate those who spread error if a greater good is acheived) and over-extended it to suggest that the person who is spreading error has the right to be tolerated. The latter one is false, but it is the same over-extension you seem to be doing.

When we speak of General (Ecumenical) Councils, it is understood by all that the proceedings from those Councils have to do with faith and morals. There is very little in the proceedings of a General Council that touches on subjects other than the faith. With that in mind, all Catholic books say that General Councils are infallible, and the First Vatican Council was very specific in declaring so. This is because it is promised in Scripture. So there is really no need to beat this subject to death any longer.
(06-03-2018, 06:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-03-2018, 10:02 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is another scenario you are not considering. Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?

Which Antipope and which allegedly "General Council"?
 
There have been roughly 40 anti-popes throughout the history of the Church, and roughly 20 illegitimate Councils.

Some examples of antipopes would be Felix II, Paschal, Honorius II, and Felix V. Some examples of illegitimate councils would be that of Milan, Pisa, Antioch, Arles. There are plenty to read about.
(06-04-2018, 01:39 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-03-2018, 06:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-03-2018, 10:02 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is another scenario you are not considering. Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?

Which Antipope and which allegedly "General Council"?
 
There have been roughly 40 anti-popes throughout the history of the Church, and roughly 20 illegitimate Councils.

Some examples of antipopes would be Felix II, Paschal, Honorius II, and Felix V. Some examples of illegitimate councils would be that of Milan, Pisa, Antioch, Arles. There are plenty to read about.

There have been many antipopes and several councils which have been considered heretical or illegitimate. The problem with your argument is the two never collide.

There is no Ecumenical Council which later was declared invalid or illegitimate due to being called by or approved by an antipope.

Let us take your examples :

Felix II was an antipope who was elected when the Roman Emperor exiled Pope Liberius to extract from him the acceptance of a ambiguous Arian forumla. He never called a council.

Paschal at best had the support of some clergy and controlled a portion of the Lateran basilica and palace, but was never established or accepted by many. He never called a council.

Honorius II was elected by a small faction of anti-reformist bishops in Parma a month after the election of Pope Alexander II. He had limited support and was recognized only in a few places. When the German Emperor (the anti-reform movement was mostly German) was called to mediate the dispute, he decided in Alexander's favor. Honorious did not like this, assembled some favorable bishops at a synod (which was never considered an Ecumenical Council by anyone), and eventually gathered an army to march on Rome. He was eventually defeated and excommunicated by the local (non-Ecumenical) Council of Mantua.

Felix V was elected by the Council of Basel, but this was after Pope Eugene IV declared it closed and transferred the council to Ferrara and the Florence. The bishops at Basel refused to obey the Pope. He invited them to Ferrara, but they refused, so he excommunicated the lot who remained. The now-excommunicated and schismatic bishops presumed to continue the Council, declared the Council superior to the Pope, presumed to excommunicate and depose the Pope Eugene IV for schism and elected Antipope Felix V. This is the closest one could come to claiming that an antipope called a council that was later determined to be invalid, but in reality it was the schismatic and invalid council that called the antipope.

So, in short : Nego simpliciter.
(06-04-2018, 04:06 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-04-2018, 01:39 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-03-2018, 06:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-03-2018, 10:02 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is another scenario you are not considering. Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?

Which Antipope and which allegedly "General Council"?
 
There have been roughly 40 anti-popes throughout the history of the Church, and roughly 20 illegitimate Councils.

Some examples of antipopes would be Felix II, Paschal, Honorius II, and Felix V. Some examples of illegitimate councils would be that of Milan, Pisa, Antioch, Arles. There are plenty to read about.

There have been many antipopes and several councils which have been considered heretical or illegitimate. The problem with your argument is the two never collide.

There is no Ecumenical Council which later was declared invalid or illegitimate due to being called by or approved by an antipope.

Let us take your examples :

Felix II was an antipope who was elected when the Roman Emperor exiled Pope Liberius to extract from him the acceptance of a ambiguous Arian forumla. He never called a council.

Paschal at best had the support of some clergy and controlled a portion of the Lateran basilica and palace, but was never established or accepted by many. He never called a council.

Honorius II was elected by a small faction of anti-reformist bishops in Parma a month after the election of Pope Alexander II. He had limited support and was recognized only in a few places. When the German Emperor (the anti-reform movement was mostly German) was called to mediate the dispute, he decided in Alexander's favor. Honorious did not like this, assembled some favorable bishops at a synod (which was never considered an Ecumenical Council by anyone), and eventually gathered an army to march on Rome. He was eventually defeated and excommunicated by the local (non-Ecumenical) Council of Mantua.

Felix V was elected by the Council of Basel, but this was after Pope Eugene IV declared it closed and transferred the council to Ferrara and the Florence. The bishops at Basel refused to obey the Pope. He invited them to Ferrara, but they refused, so he excommunicated the lot who remained. The now-excommunicated and schismatic bishops presumed to continue the Council, declared the Council superior to the Pope, presumed to excommunicate and depose the Pope Eugene IV for schism and elected Antipope Felix V. This is the closest one could come to claiming that an antipope called a council that was later determined to be invalid, but in reality it was the schismatic and invalid council that called the antipope.

So, in short : Nego simpliciter.
 
You've entirely missed the point I was making. The point is that it is possible for a man who is claiming to be Pope to actually not be a Pope at all, without people realizing it. And it is also possible for a Council to be illegitimate (if it was not approved by a true Pope) and people not realize it. I'm simply saying such scenarios have happened in the past and that Catholics should not rule them out in the current crisis.

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.
(06-05-2018, 12:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You've entirely missed the point I was making. The point is that it is possible for a man who is claiming to be Pope to actually not be a Pope at all, without people realizing it. And it is also possible for a Council to be illegitimate (if it was not approved by a true Pope) and people not realize it. I'm simply saying such scenarios have happened in the past and that Catholics should not rule them out in the current crisis.

First, that's not the point you made, because you claimed that there were antipopes who called councils that were later nullified as a result :

pabbie Wrote:Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?

If you were making the more limited point you now claim, then that is an odd way of expressing it.

Even so, that more limited point still falls when you study the theologians who discuss the matter.

Few deny that a Pope could fall into formal heresy, but all agree that he is only removed after some kind of intervention by the Church. Am I correct in asserting that we do not disagree on this point? that the faithful have no ability to judge the Pope in such a way to be able to consider that he is no longer Pope, but only the Church could do this? If not, then a side argument is pretty pointless.

Still, theologians all say that a Pope who is peacefully accepted is certainly and infallibly Pope. That is, that absent any serious dispute between Papal claimants, the acceptance by Catholics of a man as Pope is the infallible sign that he is Pope. In such a case it would be impossible that a man claimed to be Pope, was accepted by the vast majority of people, and yet was not Pope.

Cardinal Journet address this in his Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 481-2 :

Quote:Validity and certitude of election: The [Papal] election, remarks John of St. Thomas, may be invalid when carried out by persons not qualified, or when, although effected by persons qualified, it suffers from defect of form or falls on an incapable subject, as for example one of unsound mind or unbaptized.

But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest. The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected.

Fr. Sylvester Berry, explains (The Church of Christ, p. 290):

Quote:A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.

Fr. Francis J. Connell (one of the pre-eminent pre-Vatican II American theologians) wrote this answer to a question in the American Ecclesiastical Review (vol. 153, p. 422):

Quote:Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.

The well known Apologetical writer Msgr. Van Noort writes (Sources of Revelation, p.265) :

Quote:Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.

Cardinal Billot writes (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-3) :
Quote:Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [Papal heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
(06-05-2018, 04:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-05-2018, 12:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You've entirely missed the point I was making. The point is that it is possible for a man who is claiming to be Pope to actually not be a Pope at all, without people realizing it. And it is also possible for a Council to be illegitimate (if it was not approved by a true Pope) and people not realize it. I'm simply saying such scenarios have happened in the past and that Catholics should not rule them out in the current crisis.

First, that's not the point you made, because you claimed that there were antipopes who called councils that were later nullified as a result :

pabbie Wrote:Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?

If you were making the more limited point you now claim, then that is an odd way of expressing it.

Even so, that more limited point still falls when you study the theologians who discuss the matter.

Few deny that a Pope could fall into formal heresy, but all agree that he is only removed after some kind of intervention by the Church. Am I correct in asserting that we do not disagree on this point? that the faithful have no ability to judge the Pope in such a way to be able to consider that he is no longer Pope, but only the Church could do this? If not, then a side argument is pretty pointless.

Still, theologians all say that a Pope who is peacefully accepted is certainly and infallibly Pope. That is, that absent any serious dispute between Papal claimants, the acceptance by Catholics of a man as Pope is the infallible sign that he is Pope. In such a case it would be impossible that a man claimed to be Pope, was accepted by the vast majority of people, and yet was not Pope.

Cardinal Journet address this in his Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 481-2 :

Quote:Validity and certitude of election: The [Papal] election, remarks John of St. Thomas, may be invalid when carried out by persons not qualified, or when, although effected by persons qualified, it suffers from defect of form or falls on an incapable subject, as for example one of unsound mind or unbaptized.

But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest. The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected.

Fr. Sylvester Berry, explains (The Church of Christ, p. 290):

Quote:A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.

Fr. Francis J. Connell (one of the pre-eminent pre-Vatican II American theologians) wrote this answer to a question in the American Ecclesiastical Review (vol. 153, p. 422):

Quote:Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.

The well known Apologetical writer Msgr. Van Noort writes (Sources of Revelation, p.265) :

Quote:Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.

Cardinal Billot writes (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-3) :
Quote:Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [Papal heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
 
In providing the quotes you just provided above, you are not taking into account one important fact. If a Pope were to teach heresy, the quotes from the Church say he is immediately no longer pope or a member of the church, however he still retains his title until he is officially removed. In such a case, it would basically be similar to a US President-elect who is elected on November 8 but is powerless to function or pass laws until his inauguration in January. During this time he is president in name only.

This is why the following quote is worded the way it is:

 "An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
(06-05-2018, 09:27 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]In providing the quotes you just provided above, you are not taking into account one important fact. If a Pope were to teach heresy, the quotes from the Church say he is immediately no longer pope or a member of the church, however he still retains his title until he is officially removed. In such a case, it would basically be similar to a US President-elect who is elected on November 8 but is powerless to function or pass laws until his inauguration in January. During this time he is president in name only.

This is why the following quote is worded the way it is:

 "An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

The Catholic Dictionary presents one of the five possible opinions listed by St. Robert Bellarmine. There are four others.

Even so, the question whatever the opinion, the question comes down to how we determines that a Pope has fallen into heresy?

So, I'll put that question to you.
Back late to this party.


(05-31-2018, 12:23 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I have already provided you with a trusted source with imprimatur that confirms that when someone is canonized, that infallible declaration is also a confirmation of heroic virtue. That's what the definition states and you simply tossed it aside and said it's "not infallible". You have no grounds for doing so.

 
1. Your source is as good as mine – so why are you using it as absolute proof?
2. Your source has no binding authority let alone infallibility.
 
 
 
 



Quote:I am with you 100% in that some of JP II's actions were clearly not that of a saint, and I have already provided my opinion on that based on what the Church has taught on the subject. The only logical answer is that had no authority due to invalid election or heresy. Nothing else makes sense.

 
 
Your logic is based on a American Catholic dictionary from the 1940s that has no binding authority and is not infallible.
 
You’re the one not making sense when your authority isn’t actually an authority to begin with.
 
 
 
 
Quote:Saying that parts of the canonization process are not infallible is a complete novelty and not found in any Catholic book

 
Let’s list the real novelties:
 
1. Clinging to a Catholic dictionary as a source of authority when it has no such thing.
2. Saying John Paul II is a saint when he accommodates pagans in breaking the first commandment where they worship demons on consecrated Church ground.
3. Proclaiming that the entire canonization is infallible when the Church has never defined it as such.
 
 
Quote:this goes along the same lines as those in the SSPX who say Vatican II, a General Council, was not infallible (when General Councils always are infallible, no exceptions).

 
Oh, really?
 
Gadium et Spes 24:
 
“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.
 
Is this the first and greatest commandment? What do you say?
 
 
(06-05-2018, 09:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-05-2018, 09:27 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]In providing the quotes you just provided above, you are not taking into account one important fact. If a Pope were to teach heresy, the quotes from the Church say he is immediately no longer pope or a member of the church, however he still retains his title until he is officially removed. In such a case, it would basically be similar to a US President-elect who is elected on November 8 but is powerless to function or pass laws until his inauguration in January. During this time he is president in name only.

This is why the following quote is worded the way it is:

 "An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

The Catholic Dictionary presents one of the five possible opinions listed by St. Robert Bellarmine. There are four others.

Even so, the question whatever the opinion, the question comes down to how we determines that a Pope has fallen into heresy?

So, I'll put that question to you.
 
As we mentioned earlier in this discussion, heresy is defined as the doubt or denial of a Catholic doctrine. 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 - 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.

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:

"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. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21