songbird
Reputation: 541
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 831
|
I think infallibility can be protection for Christ Church. It was stated that few if any pope has used ex cathedra. Well, If a pope does use ex cathedra, the pope must "define" what he says. To do so, would show the pope heretical if he goes against future definitions of dogma, such as Immaculate Conception. Note at Vatican II, Ratzinger and the group he was with (the minority) refused to define their "Suggestions of change". To do so would show them as heretics. It was a triumph and a victory of beauty to have Papal Infallibility defined and made firm. It was so important so as we define pope and anti-pope, we may have this post.
|
|
| Posted Jul 31, 2012, 9:00 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Stubborn
Reputation: 781
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,069
|
[quote=Pius IX]
Indeed. Thus, if a pope became a public heretic, he would cease to be pope.[/quote]
I do understand why you say that and I mean no disrespect to you, but who gave you that authority to tell the pope that he is not the pope because he is a heretic?
If the pope decides he wants to play pool while having beer at the local pub while watching cage wrestling on the TV from the moment he is elected till he dies, he can do that - there is nothing except his own faith and morals to stop him. If he wants to play cards all day long and go out sight seeing at night, he can do that - he is the pope, who is there to stop him?
He holds the same position of authority whether the pope is holy or not - even if he is a heretic as the conciliar popes are, but he, by virtue of his office remains pope because, as V1 declares, even an ecumenical council is not "an authority superior to the Roman pontiff", since we are taught that is the case, then certainly, *no one* is "an authority superior to the Roman pontiff" therefore unable to proclaim that the pope is not the pope.
Another thing is, that along with V2 came the whole 'surrender of authority' and lack of respect for authority over all and all over the world - maybe to the point that even many within the trad population fail to understand or recognize just what being "the supreme authority" means.
Once elected, other than him 1)denying to take the Chair at the time of his election, 2)retiring on his own or 3) dying, he cannot be impeached, he cannot in anyway lose his position based on anything he says or does - that's one reason why "it's great to be the king", that is what having supreme authority is, *that's* what it's all about no matter how much we may or may not like it.
If he decides to kiss Korans, pray with Hindu's and place a statue of Buddha on the NO table, he can - again, there is nothing to stop him - per V1, not even an ecumenical council can do anything about it. The only thing we can do, per Cum ex Apostolatus, is contradict him when he deviates away from the faith. I do not say I like that teaching, but that *is* what the Church, not I, teaches. It does not say dethrone *and* contradict him - it only says we may contradict him.
You said: "The notion of a "faithless or heretical pope" is an absurdity. Heresy removes one from the Church, so how can one head that in which he is not even a member?"
Whether he remains a member or not, is simply not only beyond our authority to proclaim, it is not up to us, nor is it up to anyone living to say. This is because with him being pope, it is only he "who may judge all and be judged by none in this world" - this is what the Church teaches from Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, this teaching directly contradicts the whole idea of SVism. OTOH, without that teaching, SVism might have a leg to stand on. Whoever does not recognize the pope as pope, first does not recognize the authority of the pope.
I maintain that the argument which sedevacantism uses to support it's position, falls apart if the above teachings were accepted as absolutely as they are taught.
|
.........................
Some may say, you are identifying the abuses with the "New Mass" itself. I am saying that the "New Mass" IS the abuse of the True Mass! I am saying that, with the jettisoning of both the law and the spirit of Quo Primum, by that very Act, the Pope has not only substituted something totally different from the Mass, but that it is of the very essence of the "New Mass" to permit every form of profanation, because the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy." - Fr. Wathen, 1971
Intra Ecclesiam Conciliariam Nulla Salus (There is no salvation within the Conciliar Church)
It is the Mass that matters - because of what it is.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. - Apocalypse 3:16
|
| Posted Aug 2, 2012, 11:25 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
songbird
Reputation: 541
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 831
|
First of all, We are the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is the HEAD. The Pope is the Vicar, known as the visible head. Then there is indefectibility which means The Catholic church that Christ founded will last until the end of time. That could be a few people like Noah's ark. Any pope who changes teachings is a heretic and ceased to belong to the Catholic Church. A heretic is not a Catholic and is no longer Vicar, BUT CHRIST is forever the Head! Just like the continual sacrifice will come to and end, (chpter 12 daniel) Christ's Eternal sacrifice is just that, ETERNAL, forever.
|
|
| Posted Aug 3, 2012, 4:47 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
