Benevacantism, Etc.
You are confusing a lot of different things. I never mentioned ex cathedra statements or defined any other conditions under which infallibility is assumed.

Is the Pope's Burger King order infallible?
Reply
(04-22-2021, 12:01 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: Is the Pope's Burger King order infallible?
If he intends to solemnly order for the universal Church, yes.

The same does not apply for false religions. For example, when Dalai lama goes to Subway and asks the guy to make him one with everything.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, jovan66102
Reply
Sedevacantists are just as much papolators as people like Thomas Rosica and Antonio Spadaro. To the latter, if Francis were to say that 2+2=5, it would be Magisterial teaching, binding on the Faithful to accept.

Sedes have the same attitude, with the difference that they have arrogated to themselves the ability to judge the Pope. So, if Francis throws out an off the cuff opinion in a press scrum on a plane during a trip that contradicts Catholic Teaching, obviously he's trying to bind the Faithful to heresy and cannot be Pope.

The teaching of the Church is crystal clear:


Quote:[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, ❡9)

Neither the position of the Rosicas and Spadaros or the sedevactntists come close to the actual definition of the Dogma of Infallibility laid down in Pastor Aeternus.
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.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, HailGilbert
Reply
Father John Hunwicke, a signer of the 'Filial Correction', on the question of whether Francis is Pope:

NOTICE

(1) I do not enable comments which suggest that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope. Having examined, over and over again, historical analogies and reliable  authors, I have no doubt that the correct analysis is that this disordered and uncharitable individual is pope. I know no evidence of it being suggested, in the past, that any pope had "lost" his office through heresy or any other crime. Tradition makes it clear that subsequent magisterial anathematisation is the correct procedure.


Being a Traditionalist means taking Tradition seriously, not making it up as one goes along to suit one's own fads and passions. 
(My emphasis)

S John Henry Newman spoke of unworthy shepherds having voluntarily placed their authority in SUSPENSE. Precisely. That fits the facts, the precedents, and the realities of the situation. And, given the status of JHN, makes it difficult for anybody to be taken to task for employing this analysis.


And it also means ... since none of us is infallible ... that, if I am wrong, when I go to my account I shall not have to face charges of having seduced Christ's people from Communion with the Successor of S Peter. But, believe me, I am not wrong!
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.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, Evangelium
Reply
Quote:Tradition makes it clear that subsequent magisterial anathematisation is the correct procedure.

This is what I think.  It's up to the next pope to correct the errors of Pope Francis.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Evangelium's post:
  • Sword of St. Michael
Reply
(04-22-2021, 04:53 PM)Evangelium Wrote:
Quote:Tradition makes it clear that subsequent magisterial anathematisation is the correct procedure.

This is what I think.  It's up to the next pope to correct the errors of Pope Francis.

You've changed the subject.
Reply
(04-22-2021, 04:24 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Sedevacantists are just as much papolators as people like Thomas Rosica and Antonio Spadaro. To the latter, if Francis were to say that 2+2=5, it would be Magisterial teaching, binding on the Faithful to accept.

Sedes have the same attitude, with the difference that they have arrogated to themselves the ability to judge the Pope. So, if Francis throws out an off the cuff opinion in a press scrum on a plane during a trip that contradicts Catholic Teaching, obviously he's trying to bind the Faithful to heresy and cannot be Pope.

The teaching of the Church is crystal clear:


Quote:[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, ❡9)

Neither the position of the Rosicas and Spadaros or the sedevactntists come close to the actual definition of the Dogma of Infallibility laid down in Pastor Aeternus.


Fully agree, and this is one of the main things that keeps me from going sede. One of the other things is the restitution issue of the church (cardinals electing the pope, how do we get a legit pope issue).

I do want everyone's opinion on a what if here. Posted before this but didnt really get an answer yet.

We agree that the pope is protected from speaking infalliable when speaking ex cathedra, as the above quote teaches.

If then, in the future, Pope Francis was to speak ex Cathedra on something we know contradicts our faith (the worship of the earth/raising it to the lvl of a sacrament, divorce and remarriage is no longer sinful, something else along those lines) then:

do we follow him?

A) To not follow is then to be schismatic in a sense as you are defying the pope and what the church believes.
B) To follow him we know we are violating a command of God, yet following the pope still

Or since the pope can't error in speaking ex cathedra, can we conclude then he is not the pope? This then leads to the point though of we are now judging the pope to be in error, thus putting our-self above the pope.

Its a head scratcher that seems more and more real as the papacy goes on, and looking at the people he appointed and thus could choose the next pope. Im curious what everyone things on this question, what the catholic answer would be to that situation
Reply
I don't see it as a 'head scratcher' at all. It's quite simple. The Dogma of Infallibility is a negative charism. It prevents the Pope from teaching heresy as binding on the Faithful.Neither Francis nor any other Pope can attempt to bind the Faithful to heresy. God will simply not permit it. I'm sure that God would take steps necessary to prevent it, even death if necessary.
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.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident
Reply
(04-22-2021, 05:29 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: Or since the pope can't error in speaking ex cathedra, can we conclude then he is not the pope? This then leads to the point though of we are now judging the pope to be in error, thus putting our-self above the pope.
If we are certain about the facts (we are sure that we have understood what the correct doctrine is, there is no misrepresentation of events, the document is not a forgery, no mistranslation etc.), then yes, I think we would have to conclude he is not the Pope. That is, in a case where we know something to be true with a certainty of faith, and the man who otherwise seems to be Pope says the opposite. Of course, we mustn't be rash, and we should take counsel with prudent priests before admitting this. I wouldn't want to be the first person who says "this is not the Pope".
Reply
(04-22-2021, 05:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I don't see it as a 'head scratcher' at all. It's quite simple. The Dogma of Infallibility is a negative charism. It prevents the Pope from teaching heresy as binding on the Faithful.Neither Francis nor any other Pope can attempt to bind the Faithful to heresy. God will simply not permit it. I'm sure that God would take steps necessary to prevent it, even death if necessary.
But it's called Papal Infallibility, not Antipapal Infallibility. There is nothing to prevent an antipope from making a phony "ex cathedra" statement.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)