Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
#61
(10-11-2011, 02:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 02:28 PM)Walty Wrote: I am forgetful as to who the pontiff was, but what of the pope who publicly claimed the dormition of the soul after death?  Such teaching went against Catholic theology and was condemned by the very next pope.  Did he lose his office, then?

You're thinking of Pope John XXII and the Beatific Vision: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

Thank you!

Vetus, ggreg, et al.

I pose the following question to you.

Quote:Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.

Now, unlike the Conciliar popes, he recanted from this position before his death, but why did he not lose the papacy for teaching public heresy, at least until he recanted?



Reply
#62
You know, maybe Hitler repented during those last miliseconds the bullet took to lodge in the back of his brain. And, contrary to all known evidence, maybe Luther repented of his errors in the last days of his life and died in the bosom of the Church. Who can know for sure?

In truth, we can never know for sure anything if we give way to this kind of puerile speculation in order to avoid the hard truths. Let's be frank: who would seriously argue that men like that would be eligible for sainthood? No-one. It would be scandalous and insane to even think of it.

However, all that sanity and common sense are suspended when it comes to John Paul II. Why? Because of the consequences that it would bring to many people's faith if they seriously considered the fact that the Church would be declaring a heretic to be a saint, regardless of facts. Simple.

Reply
#63
(10-11-2011, 08:18 PM)Walty Wrote: Vetus, ggreg, et al.

I pose the following question to you.

Quote:Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.

Now, unlike the Conciliar popes, he recanted from this position before his death, but why did he not lose the papacy for teaching public heresy, at least until he recanted?

Because no-one dared to depose him although, according to St. Robert Bellarmine's sound reasoning, they would have been entitled to do so. In fact, Church history proves it as the roman clergy rightly stripped off Liberius from his pontifical dignity on the account of suspicion of heresy and gave it to Felix.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.
Reply
#64
(10-11-2011, 08:23 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: You know, maybe Hitler repented during those last miliseconds the bullet took to lodge in the back of his brain. And, contrary to all known evidence, maybe Luther repented of his errors in the last days of his life and died in the bosom of the Church. Who can know for sure?

In truth, we can never know for sure anything if we give way to this kind of puerile speculation in order to avoid the hard truths. Let's be frank: who would seriously argue that men like that would be eligible for sainthood? No-one. It would be scandalous and insane to even think of it.

However, all that sanity and common sense are suspended when it comes to John Paul II. Why? Because of the consequences that it would bring to many people's faith if they seriously considered the fact that the Church would be declaring a heretic to be a saint, regardless of facts. Simple.

It's very, very unlikely that Hitler or Luther converted.  That doesn't mean we can state with certainty that either is in hell.  That's been the consistent stance of Catholic theologians and saints since the time of Christ.

And I'm not arguing that JPII should be canonized.  I don't think he should be in any way.  That's not my point.  My point is that you don't know whether he's in heaven or hell and it's dangerous when we start to talk like we do.
Reply
#65
(10-11-2011, 08:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 08:18 PM)Walty Wrote: Vetus, ggreg, et al.

I pose the following question to you.

Quote:Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.

Now, unlike the Conciliar popes, he recanted from this position before his death, but why did he not lose the papacy for teaching public heresy, at least until he recanted?

Because no-one dared to depose him although, according to St. Robert Bellarmine's sound reasoning, they would have been entitled to do so. In fact, Church history proves it as the roman clergy rightly stripped off Liberius from his pontifical dignity on the account of suspicion of heresy and gave it to Felix.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

So Pope John XXII was actually an anti-pope for a time and the Seat was vacant?  Why have no Church historians or theologians ever asserted this?
Reply
#66
(10-11-2011, 08:46 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 08:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 08:18 PM)Walty Wrote: Vetus, ggreg, et al.

I pose the following question to you.

Quote:Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.

Now, unlike the Conciliar popes, he recanted from this position before his death, but why did he not lose the papacy for teaching public heresy, at least until he recanted?

Because no-one dared to depose him although, according to St. Robert Bellarmine's sound reasoning, they would have been entitled to do so. In fact, Church history proves it as the roman clergy rightly stripped off Liberius from his pontifical dignity on the account of suspicion of heresy and gave it to Felix.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

So Pope John XXII was actually an anti-pope for a time and the Seat was vacant?  Why have no Church historians or theologians ever asserted this?

I don't know but the fact remains that Liberius was legitimately deposed on the account of suspicion of heresy.
Reply
#67
(10-11-2011, 08:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I don't know but the fact remains that Liberius was legitimately deposed on the account of suspicion of heresy.

Deposition under suspicion is one thing, but claiming to know that the Seat is vacant is another.

I just think it's strange that no one is Church history has made the argument that you're making regarding John XXII.

Reply
#68
(10-11-2011, 08:54 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 08:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I don't know but the fact remains that Liberius was legitimately deposed on the account of suspicion of heresy.

Deposition under suspicion is one thing, but claiming to know that the Seat is vacant is another.

I just think it's strange that no one is Church history has made the argument that you're making regarding John XXII.

I'm not making any real argument regarding John XXII, you're the one who dug him up. I don't know why the roman clergy didn't do anything regarding his heresy. I suppose they were just too afraid of stirring the pot.

You're missing the larger point though: if Liberius was legitimately deposed on account of suspicion of heresy, how much more should "Blessed" John Paul II have been?

That's why his canonisation would be a serious blow on the Church's credibility.
Reply
#69
Vetus Ordo Wrote:If he's in heaven, the 1st commandment is a joke.

[...]
What is this? A game?

John Paul II committed public sins against the 1st commandment more than once, scandalised the Church and the faithful, and never showed any signs of repentance, quite the contrary. He lived like an unrepented heretic until the day he died. I'm sorry to be so blunt that's the way it is.

To His Grandiosity "Pope" Vetus I:

After you have finished scheduling your first consistory and crowning yourself with the tiara, I trust you will be eager to root out the nefarious errors of the following people, who were so unhappy as not to have your dogmatic definitions as to the identity of the denizens of Hell to guide them in their pastoral duties.

May I turn your attention, then, to some of those to whom you will be obliged to posthumously anathematize, if you would be consistent:

1. Firstly, the notorious "heretic" St. John Bosco, who was so imprudent as to recount the following anecdote (my emphases):

Quote:One day I went to visit a lady who begged me to call on a man who was grievously ill.  This man was a high ranking Mason and he had absolutely refused to have any priest at his bedside.  However, after many entreaties he had permitted his relative to call on me.  I went and as soon as I entered the room and closed the door, he said in as loud a voice as he could, ‘Do you come as a friend or as a priest?  Woe to you if you even hint at confession!’ He picked up two revolvers which he had on either side of the bed, pointed them at my chest and continued, ‘Remember, that as you mention the word confession, I shall fire one of these revolvers at you and the other at myself.  After all, I have only a few days to live.’  I asked him to be quiet because I would not speak of confession without his permission.  I asked him about his illness and what the doctors had said.  Then I turned the conversation to the subject of history and above all I dwelled on the death of Voltaire.  After finished the story I concluded, ‘Some say that Voltaire is damned.  But I do not think so for I know that the mercy of God is infinite.’  The poor man was listening to me with great interest and at this point he interrupted me saying, ‘Do you mean to tell me that there is still hope for Voltaire?  Then, please, hear my confession.’  I got close to him, prepared him, and heard his confession.  While I was giving him absolution he burst into tears and exclaimed that he had never had so much peace in his life as he had at that moment.”—from Edna Phelan’s Don Bosco

Imagine!  Voltaire, the apostate...saved?  If only Don Bosco had had you at the Mason's bedside to steer him back from the very brink of heresy, Vetus.

The poor Mason did not have you there, Vetus, to tell him that his life of Freemasonry, a mockery of the First Commandment, made his deathbed repentance impossible; you could have advised him that he was an unsalvageable reprobate who was merely, to use one of St. John Vianney's phrases, being "fattened for the eternal flames."  St. John Bosco encouraged him to confidence in Divine Mercy; had you been there you might have had better success driving the repentant Mason to the very brink of despair, since his conversion, as you would have it, makes a "joke" of the Commandment.

2. Then we have the "wily crypto-modernist" St. Francis de Sales, who said:

Quote:He did all he could to cover the faults of others, his goodness of heart being so great that he never allowed himself to think ill even of the wicked. He attributed their sinfulness to the violence of temptation and the infirmity of human nature. When faults were public and so manifest that they could not be excused, he would say: "Who knows but that the unhappy soul will be converted? The greatest sinners often become the greatest penitents, as we see in the case of David. And who are we that we should judge our brother? Were it not for the grace of God we should perhaps do worse than he."

He never allowed the conversion of a sinner to be despaired of, hoping on till death. "This life," he said, "is our pilgrim way, in which those who now stand may fall, and those who have fallen may, by grace, be set on their feet again." Nor even after death would he tolerate an unfavourable judgment being passed on any.
...

With regard to this subject he related to me an amusing incident which occurred whilst he was a missioner in the Chablais. Amongst the Priests and Religious who were sent to help him was one of a humorous temperament, and who did not hesitate to show that he was so, even in the pulpit. One day, when preaching before our Blessed Prelate against the heresiarch [Calvin] who had raised the standard of revolt in Geneva, he said that we should never condemn any one as lost after death, except such as are by Scripture denounced; no, not even the said heresiarch who had caused so much evil by his errors. "For," he went on to say, "who knows but that God may have touched his heart at the last moment and converted him? It is true that out of the Church and without the true faith there is no salvation; but who can say that he did not at the moment of death wish to be reunited with the Catholic Church, from which he had separated himself, and acknowledge in his heart the truth of the belief he had combated, and that thus he did not die sincerely repentant?" The Spirit of St. Francis de Sales,
Gasp!  Yes, St. Francis, a Doctor of the Church, actually allowed in his presence to be said that the heresiarch Calvin could have been saved by an end-of-life repentance. 

Please, Vetus: endeavor to restrain your horror.

I guess St. Francis will have to be added to your list of those who mock the First Commandment.




Reply
#70
Walty,
Yes, maybe Pope John Paul II suffered from an unknown mental illness, because otherwise he could not as a cleric -- with a doctorate, no less -- claim habitual inculpable ignorance, which would excuse him from not knowing the Church's doctrine and teaching on heresy and sin.

"If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him" (McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, CU Canon Law Studies 77 [Washington: 1932] 48).

GUDC,
None of your examples have any chance of being canonized by Holy Mother Church.  I think that's Vetus' main point (heretics shouldn't be canonized as models of Christian living), although he's also said that deathbed conversions are not "customary," as though they happen all of the time, especially to lifelong sinners.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)