Author Topic: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS  (Read 1737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Reputation: +76/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
« Reply #90 on: December 07, 2017, 02:48:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • They are not two different things.
    Yes, they are two different things.

    Quote
    They are the same thing, since you proclaim that anyone (such as R&R's) who do not not accept your view of the situation is a schismatic.
    Firstly, that's a bizarre non sequitur. What does the very real distinction between possessing authority to pass juridical judgment upon a pope and possessing the ability to make an intellectual judgment of the presence of manifest heresy have to do with calling you a schismatic?
    You're a schismatic because doctrine and canon law demand that you submit your intellect and will to the pope and bishops in union with him in their authentic magisterium, but you formally refuse to do this. This has nothing to do with whether or not Sedevacantism is right or with the possiblity of judging a pope in any sense of the word. If you recognise Francis as the Pope then you are obliged to submit to his magisterium; to refuse this, holding him to be Pope, is by definition to be in formal schism.

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #91 on: December 07, 2017, 02:51:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Pope is judged by divine law. Heresy severs all (including a Pope) from the Church "ipso facto". The Church does not judge the Pope, because by his heresy he is no longer the Pope. Rather he is a heretic, and therefore the Church can judge him (as a heretic).
    She doesn't seem to get that this is something of a metaphysical matter, not a positive law of the Church with a penalty that is effected by the Church's judgment.


    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #92 on: December 07, 2017, 02:55:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote

    Again, you do not give ANY quotes regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. I specifically asked about Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. When you provide the quotes I asked for, I'll respond to you further.
    When you explain how the divinely effected reality of ipso facto loss of office for heresy logically depends on there existing specific Church doctrine laying out how to proceed in the situtation of a pope turned heretic, then your question might be of relevance to your argument against Sedevacantism.
    As it stands, this question is a side matter with no logical implications for the truth of the thesis

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12456
    • Reputation: +6471/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #93 on: December 07, 2017, 03:01:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's between him and God. But there is such a thing as manifest heresy which clearly and explicitly contrary de fide teachings. Why is the ability to know this constantly questioned in general because many people don't possess the necessary faculties to discern it?
    If my priest stands before the congregation and says:" I've converted to Islam", is his apostasy, in good conscience, not to be taken as an objective fact? If a bishop states publically that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh and die on the cross, is there some reaosonable doubt left somewhere as to my obligation to shun him as a heretic? And if an apparent pope teaches moral relativism and gradualism as part of his authentic magisterium and, after being corrected, persists in this, what am I to think?

    Yes, I've listed the different scenarios before:

    1) "I am becoming a Buddhist."  --- ipso facto gone
    2) "I know that the Church teaches x but I don't believe it anyway." --- ipso facto gone
    3) "I believe x and don't consider it to be heresy." -- complicated

    Ratzinger and Wojtyla certainly believed that they were being consistent with Tradition ... in applying their "hermeneutic of continuity".  But Bergoglio seems to know that he's breaking with Church teaching.  In the case of #3, the Church would have to discern that what he's saying is indeed heresy.  Then if he recanted, there would not have been any deposition ... even though the heresy had become "manifest".  If he then persisted, the "Church" could come back and reaffirm her judgment and warn Bergoglio that she would consider him a heretic if he persisted.  Then, after that, if he persisted, the Church could declare him deposed.  Undboutedly he would still have backers, and then what?  Call in someone to forcibly remove him from the Vatican when as a point of law the Pope owns Church property.  This would get messy very quickly.

    Ultimately God will need to intervene and solve this mess.

    In the meantime, there certainly exists grave positive doubt about their legitimacy.  And that's enough for me to refuse my submission without schism.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12456
    • Reputation: +6471/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #94 on: December 07, 2017, 03:06:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • With regard to +Lefebvre NOT being a sedeplenist, consider this.

    Theologians teach that the legitimacy of a pope is dogmatic fact, i.e. that it's known with the certainty of faith.  Otherwise, any dogmas he teaches cannot have the certainty of faith either.  Now, +Lefebvre often mulled over the possibility that the V2 popes might be illegitimate.  BY THAT VERY FACT, he's a sededoubtist and not a sedeplenist.  Papa dubius nullus papa ... in the practical order.  If he were a sedeplenist, he could no sooner question the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants than he could the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

    I asked R&R folks here before whether they were as convinced that Bergoglio is pope as they are that Our Lady was Assumed into heaven.  They invariably answered no.  Consequently, they are NOT sedeplenists and are sededoubtists ... even if they don't know it themselves.  If someone were to ask me if I would bet my life on the truth of the Immaculate Conception, I would do it without hesitation.  If someone were to ask me if I would bet my life that Bergoglio is pope, I would run the other way.


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #95 on: December 07, 2017, 03:40:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I've listed the different scenarios before:

    1) "I am becoming a Buddhist."  --- ipso facto gone

    He already is a Buddhist. He is also a Jew and a Moslem (and more). The only thing he isn't, is a Catholic.

    Quote
    2) "I know that the Church teaches x but I don't believe it anyway." --- ipso facto gone

    They say this all the time. Remember the "counter syllabus" comment. Catholic Church teaching is always evolving for the modernists.

    Quote
    3) "I believe x and don't consider it to be heresy." -- complicated

    It's not complicated if you are a Catholic. It doesn't matter what the heretic believes is heresy or not. Have you lost your mind here? If a Catholic encounters heresy in the external forum the heretic is must prove his innocence by publicly abjuring the heresy and professing the truth opposed to it. Otherwise he is not to be counted as a member...

    Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed (Pius XII-Mystici Corporis Christi)

    Notice that Pius XII correctly states that one can separate himself from the unity of the body WITHOUT being excluded by legitimate authority (as you seem to require).


    Quote
    Ratzinger and Wojtyla certainly believed that they were being consistent with Tradition ... in applying their "hermeneutic of continuity".

    It's too bad for them that they believed this. It doesn't effect a Catholic in the least. Once they approved Vatican II and required submission to the heretical declarations within, they proved that they could not have the keys of binding and losing.


    Quote
    But Bergoglio seems to know that he's breaking with Church teaching. In the case of #3, the Church would have to discern that what he's saying is indeed heresy.  Then if he recanted, there would not have been any deposition ... even though the heresy had become "manifest".  If he then persisted, the "Church" could come back and reaffirm her judgment and warn Bergoglio that she would consider him a heretic if he persisted.  Then, after that, if he persisted, the Church could declare him deposed.  Undboutedly he would still have backers, and then what?  Call in someone to forcibly remove him from the Vatican when as a point of law the Pope owns Church property.  This would get messy very quickly.

    Warnings and formal disposition are not required once notorious public heresy is established. When it comes to public heresy a Catholic presumes dolus in the external forum. Always.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3707
    • Reputation: +1673/-41
    • Gender: Female
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #96 on: December 07, 2017, 04:16:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.

    And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.  
    Suddenly it's just the "dogmatic ones" that aren't Catholic.
    Meg stated in another thread:
    Sometimes people can't see the obvious: that it's the Catholic faith you're giving them, rather than the sedevacantist faith (which isn't the Catholic faith). 

    The truth of the matter is that Meg doesn't think ANY sede is Catholic. 
    ANYTHING, but Sedevacantism

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #97 on: December 07, 2017, 04:59:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Suddenly it's just the "dogmatic ones" that aren't Catholic.
    Meg stated in another thread:
    Sometimes people can't see the obvious: that it's the Catholic faith you're giving them, rather than the sedevacantist faith (which isn't the Catholic faith).

    The truth of the matter is that Meg doesn't think ANY sede is Catholic.
    She posted this to Stubborn (who is still trying to figure out exactly how he identifies dogma). Basically whatever Stubborn says is dogma "is dogma". If he doesn't like your dogma, it's not dogma. He also gets to interpret his dogmas however he wants. This religion (in which Stubborn is the Magisterium), is the Catholic faith according to Meg. Pretty sad.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.


    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 566
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #98 on: December 07, 2017, 05:26:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I've listed the different scenarios before:

    1) "I am becoming a Buddhist."  --- ipso facto gone
    2) "I know that the Church teaches x but I don't believe it anyway." --- ipso facto gone
    3) "I believe x and don't consider it to be heresy." -- complicated

    Ratzinger and Wojtyla certainly believed that they were being consistent with Tradition ... in applying their "hermeneutic of continuity".  But Bergoglio seems to know that he's breaking with Church teaching.  In the case of #3, the Church would have to discern that what he's saying is indeed heresy.  Then if he recanted, there would not have been any deposition ... even though the heresy had become "manifest".  If he then persisted, the "Church" could come back and reaffirm her judgment and warn Bergoglio that she would consider him a heretic if he persisted.  Then, after that, if he persisted, the Church could declare him deposed.  Undboutedly he would still have backers, and then what?  Call in someone to forcibly remove him from the Vatican when as a point of law the Pope owns Church property.  This would get messy very quickly.

    Ultimately God will need to intervene and solve this mess.

    In the meantime, there certainly exists grave positive doubt about their legitimacy.  And that's enough for me to refuse my submission without schism.
    My question is this: in the scenarios presented, aren't 2 & 3 the same in reality?

    2. "I know that the Church teaches EENS but I don't believe it anyway"
    3. "I believe in salvation outside of the Church and don't consider it heresy" 



    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 903
    • Reputation: +508/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 3 views on the internet: Amoris Laetitia now in the AAS
    « Reply #99 on: December 09, 2017, 01:57:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A couple of years or so ago, an SSPX priest told me that a former confrere of his in this Asia District had quit the priesthood and had got married to a divorcee who was (once?) apparently a Traditional Catholic.
    Now, can, under Bergoglio's dispensation, firmly planted in the AAS, this happy couple attend Mass at an SSPX chapel and receive Communion?. In fact, can they attend Mass at the chapel where the ex-husband is a regular attendee, and receive Communion there?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16