This is the common SV ruse; claiming that the declaration of the Church is needed simply to "bind consciences". Utter nonsense. You are not even FREE of your own conscience to consider a pope illegitimate on your own authority if the Church says otherwise. If you were alive during the reign of Pius XII and decided that he was illegitimate due to heresy or due to the liturgical changes, would it be OK for you to consider him a non-pope ... except that your conscience wouldn't be bound by the non-papacy until the Church agreed with you? Utterly absurd. No, your conscience would be bound to ACCEPT him as pope, with the certainty of faith, because the CHURCH accepted him with the certainty of faith. I listed the steps involved in a normal process where a pope would defect.
From what I understand is that you think the same as SV as far as that the Church would not be deposing the Pope anymore, as the man is no longer Pope on account of formal heresy which placed him outside the Body of Christ (which requires declaration and sentence). An imperfect council could do this and not contradict infallible defined dogma, then. BUT, there difference is that you think ONLY the Church (namely bishops & cardinals) could do such pronouncement ( and then call for official conclave), but not the average Catholic in the pew who has absolutely not theological capacity, nor access to verifiable and reliable information, or hold any position of authority whatsoever (the likes of Myrna, LoT, Nado etc?, that means the 98% of barely literate sedes out there who obtain all their learning and information solely from poor reputable yellow websites like dailycatholic, novusordowatch, or schismatic cults such as CMRI? )
Is that correct?
In case anyone forgot. Popes depose themselves. The SV merely acknowledges the fact. Anyone who wants to pretend a valid Pope can:
1. Approve a heretical council
2. Doubtful and invalid sacraments
3. An incentive to impiety Mass
4. Canon Law that allows heretics to receive the Eucharist
5. Canonize those who kiss the koran and worship in false religions
6. Teach, write and engage in repeated heretical acts
Go ahead, at your own peril.
Anyone who insists such a one is Pope must submit on all he binds and or maintains on the Church at the peril of your soul. Go to the new Mass and pray to anti-Christ Wojtyla.
"Common" "ruse" By this is meant "not common" and not a "ruse". Next we have a manifest ignoramus calling everyone else stupid. People filled with barf-worthy sentiments much like those apostate heretics they call popes. Follow your leader or be damned.
Yes, all these things make them quite suspect of heresy indeed. Yet your private judgment does not suffice to judge them to be non-Catholics. At most you can enter a state of grave, well-founded, positive doubt regarding their legitimacy. As such, these "Papae Dubii" do not formally bind consciences. That's as far as we need to go, and as far as we CAN go in our capacity of private judgment. And you haven't even stopped to consider the alternative that there may be other reasons that this exercise of Magisterium hasn't been legitimate short of their having been formal heretics (Siri thesis, blackmail -- such as may have been likely with Paul VI, threats of various kinds, etc.).
What's very important, and something you refuse to acknowledge, is that you have NO RIGHT to decide whether popes are legitimate or illegitimate. I'm not talking about just making formal declarations that "bind consciences". You cannot even DECIDE definitively regarding the matter in your own mind.
Why would it not have been OK, then, for a Catholic in the 1950s to just declare that Pius XII had vacated the see for one reason of another? Explain. If you honestly examine this issue, then you'll come to see where the error of SVism lies.
Topic: The Heretical Popes (Read 12354 times)