The Pope
#1
Since the filial correction and the question of the pope and heresy has come up I decided to leave a link from the website War For Christendom on the papacy. I might also link to James Larson later (I liked his book War Against the Papacy, but I am not sure about his discussions on other topics. For example, I am not sure if Our Lady of Good Success, which he talks about at length, is a confirmed apparition or not. I've heard conflicting reports.)

Vivat Pontifex:
https://thewarforchristendom.wordpress.c...-pontifex/
Reply
#2
From the article linked to:

Quote:“But” others object “his writings are too ambiguous! They could be interpreted as heresy!” This is also false. By virtue of his office, every authoritative (magisterial) statement issued by the Pope can only have one meaning, that meaning which is consistent with the Tradition of the Church, regardless of how seemingly ambiguous the words themselves are.

Then why has he refused to discipline those Bishops (of Malta and Argentina, as well as individual Bishops in other countries) who have interpreted his 'authoritative (magisterial) statement' in blatantly and egregiously heretical ways? Or why hasn't he answered the Dubia from four Princes of the Church? And why has there been no response to the Filial Correction? It was made public on Sunday, but it was delivered to him several weeks ago.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#3
(09-26-2017, 07:49 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: From the article linked to:

Quote:“But” others object “his writings are too ambiguous! They could be interpreted as heresy!” This is also false. By virtue of his office, every authoritative (magisterial) statement issued by the Pope can only have one meaning, that meaning which is consistent with the Tradition of the Church, regardless of how seemingly ambiguous the words themselves are.

Then why has he refused to discipline those Bishops (of Malta and Argentina, as well as individual Bishops in other countries) who have interpreted his 'authoritative (magisterial) statement' in blatantly and egregiously heretical ways? Or why hasn't he answered the Dubia from four Princes of the Church? And why has there been no response to the Filial Correction? It was made public on Sunday, but it was delivered to him several weeks ago.

Agreed.

That site presents a naïve myoptic view of Church History and the Papacy. Popes have made serious grave errors in the past and promoted heresy.

The author also fails to understand that there is a tertium datur here : what constitutes an 'authoritative (magisterial) statement'? Does the title given the document calling it an "Apostolic Exortation", "Apostolic Constitution", or a "Papal Bull" make it so? Or is it rather the other way round, that the orthodoxy of the content makes it an 'authoritative (magisterial) statement'?

By oversimplifying the author effectively blurs the distinction between the degrees of assent due to the different expressions of the magisterium, and begs the question, arguing from the very conclusion he wants to prove (the infallibility of the Pope in all matters), which is not the Catholic doctrine.
Reply
#4
This is the problem with all of this 'correct the Pope" From the Code of Canon Law;

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM
Reply
#5
Can the Church Depose an Heretical Pope?  https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.p...tical-pope

                                         Bergoglio's teachings are already being used to lead souls in Argentina and Malta into mortal sin. He has also actively promoted Bishops and clergy who reject the Church's teaching on homosexuality. He doesn't believe the Catholic Church is Christ's church on earth. He questions are Saviour's miracles. He kneels before Muslims, but won't genuflect at the altar. He despises Catholic Tradition. He's pro-Communist. He's speaks of committing sins against ecumenism. He commemorates the Lutheran heresy. He questions the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother.  Is this a shepherd of Jesus Christ ?


                                         
Reply
#6
(09-28-2017, 06:53 AM)Poche Wrote: This is the problem with all of this 'correct the Pope" From the Code of Canon Law;

The Pope has primacy and supremacy, yes, which is why nobody but God can judge him, but that doesn't mean everything he says is correct. And the Pope's power was given to him to preserve the faith, not to invent new doctrines.

(09-28-2017, 06:53 AM)First Vatican Council, Pastor æternus Wrote: For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

But correcting a superior goes back much further:


(09-28-2017, 06:53 AM)Galatians 2, 11-21 Wrote: [11] But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [12] For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. [13] And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. [14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [15] We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners.  [16] But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. [17] But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners; is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid. [18] For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator. [19] For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God: with Christ I am nailed to the cross. [20] And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself for me.[21] I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.

From the Douay:

[11] "I withstood": The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)