Author Topic: Crux of the Pope Problem (Read 7257 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** April 28, 2018, 12:47:47 PM »

With all the debate raging on the different positions regarding the Papacy, the simple truth of the matter is that the Church has never officially defined what happens in the case of a heretical pope. There dozens of possible variations of opinions, anywhere from he's immediately gone to he remains Pope and there's no way to get rid of him til he dies, all of which can be legitimately held by Catholics ... so long as it doesn't violate any known Catholic principles that have in fact been taught by the Church. So, for instance, no legitimate principle can have it that the Pope as Pope can actually be deposed by the Church, since it's taught that there's no higher authority on earth than the Pope and that the Pope cannot be deposed.

With that said, I could hardly care less what opinion you have on this issue. You're perfectly entitled to it.

BUT ... don't tell me that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council taught errors (or even heresies) to the Universal Church and don't tell me that a legitimate Pope promulgated a Rite of Mass that displeases God and is harmful to faith. Don't tell me that it's OK for Catholics to go so far as to break communion with the legitimate hierarchy in order to reject this Magisterium and Universal Discipline. Don't tell me that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have gotten so corrupt that we're almost required to break communion with the Church in order to save our souls. That is nothing other than the defection of the Catholic Church.

Now, if you want to say that 1) V2 can be reconciled with Tradition through some hermeutic of continuity and the New Mass when offered as intended in Latin isn't particularly bad or displeaseing to God, or that 2) Montini was replaced by an imposter who fraudulently promulgated these things, or that 3) Montini was being blackmailed due to his prior ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities, or that 4) someone else was signing these docuмents, or that 5) Montini was just a holographic projection and the Illuminati controlled everything, or that 6) Cardinal Siri was elected pope and impeded the legitimate election of most of the V2 popes, or that 7) Paul VI had no legitimate authority due to heresy, or at least doubt/suspicion, or had some authority but not teaching authority, or was just materially pope. I would rather buy the holographic Montini theory than smear the Holy Catholic Church by saying that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass are products of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 28, 2018, 12:50:00 PM »

THIS HERE is the reason for the often-vitriolic debate between SVs and R&R. People aren't that emotionally tied to every opinion of Bellarmine or Billuart or anyone else to become this heated about it. This is, in the final analysis, a battle for what it MEANS to be Catholic and a debate about Ecclesiology. Who are we as Catholics and what is our relationship with the hierarchy and the Magisterium? This is absolutely essential to who we are and what we believe. THAT's why this is no mere academic quarrel like the proverbial squabble of theologians over the question of how may angels can sit on the head of a needle.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2018, 12:52:37 PM »

Let's not take another thread here into a 100-page battle over the issue and stay on topic. I want to explore why these questions are so important and not solve or even argue about it here.

Jaynek · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2018, 01:16:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 28, 2018, 12:47:47 PM

With all the debate raging on the different positions regarding the Papacy, the simple truth of the matter is that the Church has never officially defined what happens in the case of a heretical pope.

I hope this does not go too far astray from what you are trying to discuss, but I can't figure out which thread to put my question in.

I am not prepared to say that this is a case of a heretical pope. There is no question in my mind that the current pope (and this same problem goes back to the Vatican II docuмents) says things that are, in practice, interpreted and implemented in a heretical way. But I don't think that I have ever seen a statement that was not theoretically capable of interpretation in an orthodox way. Admittedly I stopped reading about the latest papal escapades some time ago as it was too damaging to my peace and pursuit of piety. But before that point, I had not seen anything that was in itself unambiguously heretical.

Obviously such a situation is terribly wrong and scandalous, but I wonder if it technically qualifies as heresy. If it does not, then I am probably not even thinking about the same pope problem as most of you.

Jaynek · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2018, 02:39:56 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven on April 28, 2018, 01:52:24 PM

Heretics disguise their heresies in ambiguity so that their words may be interpreted in an Orthodox manner. Here are two quotes from Popes that really prove this point. Please read. These men are wolves, not misunderstood.

Thanks for these quotes. They do address the problem I am thinking about although I am going to need to think about them some more before coming to any conclusions.

Jaynek · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2018, 02:52:44 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven on April 28, 2018, 02:44:31 PM

I get it. I just like to put those quotes out there when I see people make this justification for these modern teachings and "teachers". Please pray about it.

Potential for orthodox interpretation does not justify these damaging ambiguous statements; I'm clear about that. I am not questioning that it's wrong, just how to identify the problem. It's like trying to decide whether to charge an assailant with assault or attempted murder.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2018, 06:31:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 28, 2018, 12:47:47 PM

BUT ... don't tell me that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council taught errors (or even heresies) to the Universal Church and don't tell me ...

Let's address these issues one at a time, beginning with your first "don't tell me...". I'll should preface this by saying I don't concede that there are any heresies in Vatican II, and most of what appear to be errors are, in reality, only ambiguities that lend themselves to an erroneous interpretation, but which be reconciled with tradition by making the necessary distinctions. I mention this because there is a tendency among many to exaggerate the errors of the council by declaring it to be "full of heresies". People are then confronted with the question, "how can a true pope approve a council that is full of heresies," when the real question should be: "how could a true pope approve a council that contains ambiguities and some errors"? There's a big difference between ambiguities and errors in a conciliar docuмent, and direct heresies.

Now, conceding that Vatican II does contain real errors, my question to you is this: Given the fact that doctrinal infallibility only applies to teachings that have been definitively proposed, either by a solemn act of the extraordinary magisterium or by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and considering that the intention to define (or to be held definitively) must be clearly manifest, why do you believe it is impossible for Vatican II to contain errors given the fact that the council defined no doctrines, and Paul VI himself explicitly stated that the intention of the Council was to avoid doing so?

roscoe · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2018, 09:35:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 28, 2018, 12:47:47 PM

With all the debate raging on the different positions regarding the Papacy, the simple truth of the matter is that the Church has never officially defined what happens in the case of a heretical pope.

As a historian & not a theologian, there is really no need to explore the alleged possibility of an heretical pope. None of the v2 anti-popes can claim to be legally elected-- end of story.
Having said that, isn't there a Bull from Paul IV that deposes any occupant of Peter's Chair who transforms into a public heretic? The Bull has never been rescinded & has been posted in the past. :chef:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2018, 09:52:28 PM »

I agree with Ladislaus on this subject. All positions in this crisis (so long as they don't deny doctrine) are to be considered as Catholic until the Church speaks otherwise. The problem is with those dogmatic sedevacantists and those who say we may not so much as doubt that the post-conciliar claimants are popes. These are the guys who are perpetuating the crisis in the Church, in my opinion.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** April 29, 2018, 07:24:29 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on April 28, 2018, 09:52:28 PM

I agree with Ladislaus on this subject. All positions in this crisis (so long as they don't deny doctrine) are to be considered as Catholic until the Church speaks otherwise. The problem is with those dogmatic sedevacantists and those who say we may not so much as doubt that the post-conciliar claimants are popes. These are the guys who are perpetuating the crisis in the Church, in my opinion.

Can you clarify who are the bolded?
Also, how are these two groups the only people who perpetuate the Crisis?

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** April 29, 2018, 08:16:55 AM »

"....and that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council"

RomanTheo · « **Reply #11 on:** April 29, 2018, 09:43:34 AM »

Quote

...why do you believe it is impossible for Vatican II to contain errors given the fact that the council defined no doctrines, and Paul VI himself explicitly stated that the intention of the Council was to avoid doing so?

Quote

Paul VI, ECCLESIAM SUAM AUGUST 6, 1964 : "#30...Much progress has therefore been made. Suffice it here to refer to the relevant findings of the First Ecuмenical Vatican Council. From these it is obvious that the doctrine concerning the Church is one which must claim the attention not only of pastors and teachers, but also of the faithful, and indeed of all Christians. This doctrine is a necessary stepping-stone to the understanding of Christ and His work. It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council."

Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Ratzinger: "The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council".

In spite of this admission by Paul VI and Ratzinger, if you personally believe Vatican II defined a doctrine that is an erroneous, produce it. We will then see if the conciliar statement meets the criterion for a dogmatic definition.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #12 on:** April 29, 2018, 10:19:11 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on April 28, 2018, 01:52:24 PM

Heretics disguise their heresies in ambiguity so that their words may be interpreted in an Orthodox manner. Here are two quotes from Popes that really prove this point. Please read. These men are wolves, not misunderstood.

Ambiguity is the tactic Modernists use to deceive. They insinuate error and heresy, and thereby lead people into heresy, without clearly professing heresy. This prevents them from being "manifest heretics" while at the same time allowing them to deceive the unsuspecting. They are indeed wolves in sheep's clothing, but it doesn't change the fact that the ambiguities in Vatican II do not qualify as heresy, and most of the ambiguous statements are not even erroneous, when interpreted through the lens of the Catholic faith.

Another evil effect of Modernism is an overreaction to the right. This is what we find in those Traditional Catholics who know just enough to be dangerous, and end by concluding that the Modernists have managed to destroy the institutional Church by transform it into a New Church (the Conciliar Church). This error (heresy) is far worse than anything found in the docuмents of Vatican II.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #13 on:** April 29, 2018, 10:50:38 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on April 29, 2018, 08:33:52 AM

Quote
Quote
APOSTOLIC BRIEF “IN SPIRITU SANCTO’ FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

At last all which regards the holy ecuмenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, withour apostolic authority, this same ecuмenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

The ratification of a council, regardless of how much solemnity is used when doing so, does not render non-definitive statements of a council infallible.

The proof that Paul VI did not believe Vatican II was infallible is seen in the quotation you cited, and in the words you bolded. Notice that Paul VI said what the council has established must be "religiously observed by all the faithful". Anyone who knows the Faith, knows that "religious observance" is the level of assent owed to non-infallible teachings. Teachings that have been proposed infallibly require the assent of faith, not merely a "religious observance." So, the quotation you cited to prove your position, actually disproves it.

You should stop reading sedevacantist websites, since it is clear that you are ignorant of traditional Catholic theology. A Catholic who has been scandalized by the crisis in the Church, and who is ignorant of traditional Catholic theology, will easily be led astray by the erroneous sedevacantist arguments.

RomanTheo · « **Reply #14 on:** April 29, 2018, 11:15:25 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on April 29, 2018, 10:41:07 AM

You clearly didn't read the whole quote from Auctorem Fideii. Here it is again. Read it and ask yourself, "is my conclusion in line with Pope Pius VI?" His conclusion is to expose it and condemn it; not to attempt to give an orthodox meaning to it. This is very detrimental to the faithful.

I've been aware of the quote from Auctorem Fidei for 20 years, and completely agree that the way to expose ambiguity is to reject the erroneous interpretation and affirm the truth. I've used the quotation many times to make that very point.

So, for example, when Vatican II says "the Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present world, subsists in the Catholic Church", you don't respond by saying "that is heresy". That response would be an error, since the true Church does subsist in the Catholic Church. Instead, you respond by condemning the false notion that the true Church also "subsists" in false religion, or in schismatic or heretical sects.

When I said the ambiguous statements in Vatican II can be interpreted in accord with tradition by making the proper distinction, my point was that the ambiguity prevents them from being clearly erroneous, much less heretical.

If you were to ask how we should expose the ambiguous statements in Vatican II (which is a different issue), I would respond with the teaching of Auctorem Fidei, as I have done many times in the past.

Author Topic: Crux of the Pope Problem (Read 7257 times)

Ladislaus

Crux of the Pope Problem

Ladislaus

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

Ladislaus

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

Jaynek

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

Jaynek

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

Jaynek

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

RomanTheo

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

roscoe

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

Centroamerica

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

2Vermont

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

2Vermont

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

RomanTheo

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

RomanTheo

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

RomanTheo

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem

RomanTheo

Re: Crux of the Pope Problem