No, Our Lady Did Not Say That Rome Will Become the Seat of the Antichrist
#11
(03-05-2020, 01:59 PM)Te Deum Wrote: I'm not arguing that the message is false.

Nor, did I think you were, or suggest you were.

(03-05-2020, 01:59 PM)Te Deum Wrote: However, "Rome" cannot mean the Church, an ecumenical council or the papacy as an institution. Those by definition cannot lose the faith. As you noted, the pope can be a heretic but he cannot bind the Church to his error.

I think we're using the term "Faith" here a bit sloppily. Strictly the Faith is the supernatural virtue. An institution or moral person cannot be the subject of a virtue, only a real person, like a Pope. That is why we can say that a Pope can lose the Faith.

When it comes to the institutions, we're stepping down to the next level of analogy, and now what we mean is professing, defending, teaching or promoting the objects of the virtues.

In that, the institutions in themselves, the Church Herself, the Ecumenical Councils (in so far as they propose to bind the faithful), and the Papacy (in so far as the Popes propose to bind the faithful), indeed, have to "keep the Faith" and that means that their teachings must be orthodox by definition.

Individual examples, however, can fail, because individual examples are not the institution. That is why a particular Pope could fail to profess, defend, teach or promote the orthodox Faith. An ecumenical council could also do this (to the extent it was not trying to bind the faithful) since not everything promulgate at a Council is intended to be de fide. A good example of this Vatican II which the Popes who called it and approved its decrees clearly stated was not intending to bind the faithful or define doctrine. It is the same for the Papacy, since an individual Pope can err and fail.

Of course, what guarantees that the Council or Pope is protected from error in a particular teaching is that what it teaches meets the criteria for infallibility. That means that this teaching binds the faithful, and what teaching binds the faithful must be protected by the Holy Ghost from error.

(03-05-2020, 01:59 PM)Te Deum Wrote: Nor can the Church peacefully accept his heretical magisterium (bulls, allocutions, etc.) as normative. In such a case, he's either deposed or excommunicated post mortem. The jury is still out on that one.

Now you're mixing up theological theories.

Theologians (for centuries) are unanimous that the peaceful acceptance of a particular man as Pope is an infallible guarantee that he is Pope, because if it were not we could never know who was Pope (since there could always be doubts), and then we could never know if an apparently binding definition had to be followed, which since our salvation depends on following it, would bring the Faith itself into question.

Then you extend this to the "peaceful acceptance of the Pope's teaching". No theologian has ever said this, since that has nothing to do with the orthodoxy of his statements. It was not that people objected to John XXII's heresy that ensured it was erroneous. It was erroneous whether everyone quietly rolled over or the University of Paris declared it heretical.

And the theories for how an heretical Pope could be deposed do not in any way deal with deposing him after death.

Rather they focus on establishing his formal heresy, which the most logical theories would say would cause him to lose his office ipso facto, and then either the Church through some imperfect Council or similar recognizing this, and declaring him already deposed, or a heretic to be avoided, which would have the same effect of a universal recognition that he was not Pope.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)