Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
I've pointed this out to Stubborn before.

I would say that the fact that it is an "open question" means Cajetan's view is disfavored by theologians, etc., but not barred to a Catholic. What does "open" question mean? It means, you can only go with the theological views in vogue, despite churchmen, very distinguished like Cajetan, holding the view in the past?

One could argue that Pope Pius XII's formulation of "membership" bars the Cajetan view, but, as Feeneyites argue, it would also bar BOD, e.g.  the formula recognizes only the baptized as "true members," which it certainly did not, since Pius XII talked about it and it was the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and theologians. They could be, as Stubborn argues, false members, or dead members in need of penance/confession.

I'm neither advocating for Stubborn's view nor against it. One thing this crisis requires us to do, in my view, is think, and rethink. Under the prevailing views in 1950 regarding indefectibility, etc., would anyone have thought this Conciliar reality possible?

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Regardless, the (minority) opinion that occult heretics are NOT members of the Church doesn't really help the side that claim a heretic can remain the pope.


Agreed. 


Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Regardless, the (minority) opinion that occult heretics are NOT members of the Church doesn't really help the side that claim a heretic can remain the pope.

Only the abandoned Cajetan opinion tenaciously held by Father Wathen and therefore Stubborn that the baptismal character alone is required might help that position.

Let's look at an example you raise: the Augustinian view regarding non-baptized infants suffering minor "torments" in hell. What theologian opposed that view for hundreds, if not over a thousand, years before Limbo came along? 

I wouldn't necessarily dismiss an old view on an "open" question.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
There are lots of opinions regarding the status of a heretic pope.  As I've said before, at the end of the day, I don't care about the issue since it won't be resolved by any of us here when it hasn't been completely settled by theologians.

What's at issue is whether the Holy Catholic Church can go corrupt in her doctrine and her public worship.  That is not possible.  How one wants to explain what happened in V2 outside of that will remain a disputed question.  I personally hold to the Siri explanation, so the notion of a heretical pope or non-pope doesn't even figure in, since these guys were never legitimately elected in the first place (at least before Benedict XVI).

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
That it is not "tenable" is your opinion. As I said, and Msgr. Fenton's article demonstrates, it is still an open question. Or would one be a "heretic" according to Lad to hold it? :laugh1:

Msgr. Fenton notes of the contrary opinion - i.e., that occult heretic's are not members - that it is "still the unsubdued opposition to St. Robert's thesis." See page 216 (emphasis added).

Stubborn, you might like to read page 209, where the view of Cajetan and others that "all baptized persons" are "parts or members of the true Church," and "that the baptismal character constituted even a public apostate or heretic a genuine member of the Church," is mentioned. He does say that Cajetan's opinion did not survive the Counter-Reformation period. Page 213.

The first part, that says: "all baptized persons are parts or members of the true Church," is incomplete, therefore not the whole truth which results in being cause for confusion.

Very simply, baptized prot babies are members, but only until the age of reason. If they never become Catholic after the age of reason, then they remain outside of the Church unless or until they do become Catholic.

The bolded is only true if apostates / heretics had the Catholic faith before falling into the sin of heresy.

The distinction is, *having the Catholic faith*, because this is what makes one Catholic. To lose the faith by whatever means is itself a sin because to lose the faith is to not believe in the Church, which is Christ, see John 16:9 (" And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9]Of sin: because they believed not in me").