Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
#96
(06-06-2018, 03:50 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: As we mentioned earlier in this discussion, heresy is defined as the doubt or denial of a Catholic doctrine.

No, we said that this was an insufficient definition. I explained how you were using the term ambiguously.

By heresy we can mean a statement a variance with the Faith, a sin (which consists in adhesion to this statement knowing it to be false), and a crime (which consists in pertinacity in this sin despite the warning of the Church).

That may just seem like semantics, but for which does a Pope lose his office? A statement, a sin, or a crime. Only the last one can really be determined with any objectivity.

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: 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 ...

Then why do we have the Magisterium. Why define the dogma of the Assumption?

If someone said to Joe Catholic: "The Semi-Pelagians taught the necessity of interior prevenient grace for every action even for the beginning of faith; they were heretics forasmuch as they considered grace to be such that the human will can either cooperate with it or refuse to do so," how would he know this statement is heresy?

A lot of people swooned over it in 17th century France, not seeing how it was false.

Arianism : the vast majority of bishops accepted it or at least accepted ambiguous forumlas. A Pope seems even to have done so. This, after it was solemnly condemned at Nicaea. It was so bad that when Julian the Apostate tried to destroy the Church, he attacked Arianism, thinking it to be the Church. What was Joe Catholic to do when it seemed the Catholic Faith he was taught was Arianism? Not so clear.

What if Catholics come to different conclusions? What if you say that Amoris Lætitiæ is clearly the Pope teaching heresy, others say that it is favoring of heresy, and others hold it is ambiguous but could be read in the light of traditional theology to correct the ambiguities? Who is right?

I understand you are thinking along the line if Pope Robert XI declared, "there are four persons in the Trinity," Joe Catholic would be able to see this is wrong, but usually we're not talking about such obvious things.

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: 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.

The problem is who has the power to decide if something is a deviation from Church teaching?

You spent many words in another thread essentially claiming Quo Primum is infallible and proves that the first Mass was basically the Pontifical Mass of 1570. That can be shown historically false, yet you decided that that was what the Church was teaching.

If we each get to decide what accords with and discords with Catholic teaching we are relying on our individual and flawed judgement. In doing so we cannot be sure, except in the obvious cases like the four-person Trinity, or explicit denials of what Christ said where there is no possible logical alternative than error.

Most theological issues, even with Vatican II are not so clear. For instance Religious Liberty is a hotly debated topic. I would say it can be show to be contradictory to previous teachings, others argue it is not. Others still think Dignitatis Humanæ teaches that every man has the right to practice his false religion (indifferentism) and that is not taught, in fact. The new Catechism specifically rejects indifferentism, but still does not correct the error which is in political theology (the older right of the state to tolerate vs. the new right of the individual to be tolerated).

(06-06-2018, 11:52 AM)pabbie Wrote: 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:

... but must be taken in the context of what other theologians have said.

You are quoting a history book, relating a conversation between two bishops who were at Vatican II. Certainly the Catholic doctrine or various theological theories (remember St. Robert Bellarmine said there were five) is not completely explained by the second-hand reporting of a conversation between people.
 
If we look at the quotes from Church sources on Popes and heresy, collectively they say the heresy only need be explicit or manifest. So, for example, if a Pope were to say baptism is no longer required, it would be game over, and even a Catholic child would know this was heresy. But if it were something not explicit, then the Pope would obviously be given the benefit of the doubt.

For example, St. Francis says, "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic..." and St.Robert says, "a pope who is a manifest heretic...".

If we look at the first 300 years of the Church it allows us to clearly see how the infallible teaching of the Church works - something  most Catholics today are totally confused about. For the first 3 centuries there was no solemn teaching from the Catholic Church. The only teaching during that time was primarily that of preaching and handing down the deposit of faith (the ordinary magisterium). As doctrines were handed down generation to generation, Pope to Pope, the dogma of infallibility of the Church guaranteed that what was being handed down and preached was infallible, since the Church is the pillar of truth and guaranteed not to teach error.

Then in the year 319, it was noticed Arius had strayed from the continuous teaching of the Church on the divinity of Christ. It was immediately noticed and the clergy reacted immediately. From the orations of St. Athanasius:

"There were many letters to be written in defense of the doctrine denied by Arius, and in order to expose his real meaning: the most important of these, the 'Encyclical,' has been assigned, on internal evidence, to the hand of Athanasius, now, apparently, Archdeacon of Alexandria. Adjusting itself to all Christian prelates, the letter insisted that the propositions of Arius were at variance alike with Scripture and with continuous Christian teaching: and in one sentence, eminently 'Athanasian,' called on its readers to 'hold aloof, as Christians, from those who spoke or thought in opposition to Christ.' Athanasius was among the 44 deacons who, with 36 priests, signed this letter...."

So Arius was considered a heretic for opposing the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium) and St. Athanasius ordered people to stay away. There had not yet been any solemn teaching from the Church. Then 6 years later in 325 they called the Council of Nicaea to condemn Arius (since he would not recant) and clarified the true belief on the doctrine to make sure it was clear to all the faithful. This was the first solemn teaching in the Church and was of course infallible, however the ordinary everyday teaching of the Church for the prior three centuries was also considered infallible, and that is why St. Athanasius and the clergy in the area were absolutely positive Arius was teaching heresy - he strayed from what was handed down.

We use the same method today to determine heresy - we look at what has been handed down continuously Pope to Pope with the same understanding passed at the same time. The Deposit of Faith cannot change, and when serious attempts have been made, the Church has called another Council to clarify. So the Church teaches infallibly day-to-day (ordinary magisterium), and the solemn magisterium steps in when there is either a problem or something needs to be clarified. An example, the existence of Guardian Angels was never solemnly defined, yet if a Catholic were to deny their existence it would be considered heresy because this has been taught since the beginning of the Church . If anyone were to seriously challenge it, then a Council would likely be called to clarify. But until then it is assumed infallible because the Church cannot teach error. If error arises, the Church is guaranteed to put a stop to it because it is divinely guided.

Another example - baptism was not solemnly defined until well after the first 1000 years of the Church (I forget the Council at the moment). Why wasn't it? Because it wasn't needed - it was understood by all that it was taught all along and therefore infallible. It was only when the everyday teaching was challenged in some way where the Church stepped forward and defined it.
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 pabbie - 06-06-2018, 11:04 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: 1 Guest(s)