Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
(06-08-2018, 08:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: To clarify, it's not that the Pope can't be warned - we obviously see this all the time today with cardinals and bishops and even laypeople speaking out and questioning what Pope Francis has been saying. What I'm saying is a Pope receiving a warning from his subordinates is not a mandatory part of the process where Pope loses his pontificate due to heresy, as you said was the case.

It is the mandatory part of every other office, according to Canon Law, why not the Papacy.

Every theologian agrees that heresy must be manfest for us to consider any kind of loss of office. The question still comes down to manifest.

You are using a Webster's-dictionary, common-parlance use of the term. Theologians and are are using the canonical definition. Thus we're still stuck on what makes a heresy "manifest".

(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: As for material heresy (heresy due to ignorance), certainly a Pope cannot claim ignorance to heresy in the case of something like ecumenism where it is clearly condemned in Scripture, has been condemned by previous popes, and where all the current cardinals and bishops of the world can easily point it out.

But how do we know that something is contrary to Scripture? Do we get to make that determination? Do we get to interpret scripture?

(In passing I would point out that Ecumenism, erroneous as it may be, is in Vatican II also a very limited term, referring only to Christians. In past posts you made it seem as if Ecumenism was "indifferentism" -- the idea that all religions are acceptable and good).

But the point can be logically shown that you are setting up two different standards.

You are suggesting a Pope is incapable of material heresy. Everything he says therefore must be infallibly true. If not then he loses the office of Pope.

A Cardinal can make a materially heretical statement, must be warned and only after two warnings and other lesser penalties in the meantime can formal heresy be established and thus he be degraded, excommunicated, etc.

That flies in the face of demonstrable history. Pope John XXII clearly taught an heretical teaching (that the blessed do not have the Beatific Vision until the General Judgement). He taught it despite the fact that he was corrected by others who told him it was heresy. It was not until a mass of theologians condemned the proposition that he eventually recanted it. His successor, Benedict XII, condemned his proposition as heretical and solemnly defined that the blessed who do not suffer in purgatory immediately have the Beatific Vision. Thus he directly condemned John XXII's statements as heretical.

Yet, John XXII is accepted as a valid Pope, and has never been considered as a formal heretic. Were he, St. Thomas Aquinas would not be a Saint, since it was John XXII who canonized him. Meister Eckhart's heresies would never have been condemned, since it was John XXII who condemned them. We would not have the Anima Christi ("Soul of my saviour"), since he wrote it.

Thus history provides us the example of a Pope who uttered and even pertinaciously taught heresy in the face of many critiques. Eventually after being convinced through a large number of prominent theologians and Churchmen condemning his teaching as heretical, he begrudgingly abandoned the theory. His successor solemnly defined it as heresy. Thus clearly we have the example of materially heretical Pope, possibly with grave sin given the pertinacity, but since it was never judged that he was a formal heretic, he was never deposed, thus never lost the office of the exercise of the

(06-08-2018, 08:55 AM)pabbie Wrote: As for the pertinacity of Paul VI, he obviously never recanted on his decision to approve the decree on ecumenism before his death in 1978. Rather we see all of his successors take the torch of ecumenism and continue carrying it. We have the Assisi meetings in each of the last 4 decades to easily confirm this. Catholics can obviously see this is a divergence from the Deposit of Faith and they are not judging any Pope but pointing it out and avoiding it until the Church resolves the matter officially.

It is pointless to try to apply a principle when you don't have the correct one to begin with.
 
Yes, quotes were previously posted confirming that what a Pope teaches regarding faith and morals, regardless whether it was solemn teaching or not, Catholics must believe. That's why we know that if we see explicit heresy, the man cannot possibly be a Pope. The quote I gave from the Vatican I Fathers confirms this, and also gives some examples of manifest heresy, so there is no confusion about what manifest is. I have been quoting from approved Catholic sources with imprimatur, not a Webster dictionary.

As for the pope requiring a warning, none of the quotes say it. Even if you want to argue that a warning from his subordinates is required, think it through and it becomes an absurdity. For example, Paul VI provides a solemn stamp of approval on ecumenism through an Ecumenical Council, even though his predecessors firmly condemned this. But the poor Pope just didn't know, and all of his subordinates, the Cardinals and Bishops of the world SOMEHOW never said a word to the pope, so the poor man hasn't even been warned either (like that is really going to happen). And since no one will ever know what goes on behind the doors of the Vatican, none of us will ever know if he ever gets warned. So no one ever finds out if he ever gets warned, which gets him off the hook for teaching heresy. Then the problem just repeats itself with other doctrines and it goes on endlessly, giving the heretical Pope a loophole for endless heresies. The absurdity of the whole thing is nauseating.

I am shocked to see you ask the question, "how do we know that something is contrary to Scripture?". My gosh, do we really have to go into such a question? We simply look at what has been handed down Pope to Pope and look at what they have taught on the subject, and make sure the teaching hasn't strayed.

I'm also shocked to see you state, "ecumenism, erroneous as it may be…". Stop and think about that for a moment. That is to say Paul VI gave a solemn stamp of approval in a General Council to erroneous doctrine, which is impossible - a blatant contradiction. As has been shown, if a Pope does so, he cannot possibly be a true Pope. This is exactly what we have been talking about.

As for John XXII, the Church doesn't consider him a heretic because he didn't pertinaciously hold to any heresy. This can't be compared to what we are talking about which is a Pope giving his solemn approval to a heresy in a General Council.

As for ecumenism (religious unity), it is directly related to indifferentism, and also related to the belief that there is no need for conversion. All of these beliefs are rampant in the local dioceses right now (ever since Vatican II), and all have been condemned prior to that. Quotes have been posted already confirming this, but if you need any posted again I will gladly do so.
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 - 06-09-2018, 01:24 AM
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)