Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
#86
(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.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-10-2018, 06:18 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:25 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-11-2018, 01:26 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-14-2018, 05:07 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-15-2018, 02:59 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-12-2018, 08:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-13-2018, 12:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-29-2018, 10:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 01:11 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:19 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 09:02 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-30-2018, 02:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 05-31-2018, 01:10 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-01-2018, 09:52 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-02-2018, 08:11 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-03-2018, 02:56 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by MagisterMusicae - 06-05-2018, 04:33 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 03:54 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-12-2018, 05:17 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 10:08 AM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 11:04 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:16 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 03:46 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-18-2018, 05:25 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-15-2018, 12:14 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:21 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:39 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:35 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 02:42 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 03:01 PM
RE: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes - by Paul - 06-14-2018, 04:54 PM



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)