Author Topic: Holy Week Law of Pope Pius XII (Read 5906 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** December 17, 2013, 02:24:44 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant.

So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.

It indeed is as simple as he has to be a public heretic. A slip of the tongue does not a heretic make.

Oh, but it does. It make a material heretic. Which is why I had to add the additional qualification "FORMAL" to heretic.

So let's get back to a point that I glossed over, since it doesn't appear anymore that you've conceded it.

Let's say that Pius XII said something that wasn't a slip of the tongue but he didn't know was heretical. Someone points it out to him, and he immediately recants once it was pointed out to him. Did he fall from the papacy? Did he fall from the papacy and regain it upon recanting? Did he not fall from the papacy at all since he was not obstinate and therefore not a formal heretic? Did he fall from the papacy and now a new election needs to be held?

I'm sure that you'll concede that a statement made in ignorance does not cause one to fall from the Church because it's not FORMAL heresy.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** December 17, 2013, 02:46:06 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
OK, so it happened that Pius XII just got tongue-tied and got two sentences mixed up in his head and inadvertently asserted the "not". So clearly manifest MATERIAL heresy no longer suffices to effect deposition. You also correctly anticipated the next step by saying that he has to be given the opportunity to recant.

So we moved very quickly from MANIFEST HERESY deposes ipso facto to MANIFEST FORMAL HERESY. We've already added another adjective / qualifier.

It indeed is as simple as he has to be a public heretic. A slip of the tongue does not a heretic make.

Oh, but it does. It make a material heretic. Which is why I had to add the additional qualification "FORMAL" to heretic.

So let's get back to a point that I glossed over, since it doesn't appear anymore that you've conceded it.

Let's say that Pius XII said something that wasn't a slip of the tongue but he didn't know was heretical. Someone points it out to him, and he immediately recants once it was pointed out to him. Did he fall from the papacy? Did he fall from the papacy and regain it upon recanting? Did he not fall from the papacy at all since he was not obstinate and therefore not a formal heretic? Did he fall from the papacy and now a new election needs to be held?

I'm sure that you'll concede that a statement made in ignorance does not cause one to fall from the Church because it's not FORMAL heresy.

You are looking for the word "pertinacious" here not "formal".

If one errs due to ignorance and then accepts the Church teaching he is good. If he errs in ignorance and refuses to clarify or correct he is not good. We judge the exterior not the heart. But we are talking about a Pope with formal seminary training. Ignorance is not an excuse.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #32 on:** December 17, 2013, 02:51:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Firstly, it's not even a simple slam-dunk case that Bergoglio is a heretic. If there's one thing I could get him on, it would be his rejection of EENS. Yet, ironically, most SV Traditional Catholics hold essentially the same position on EENS that Bergoglio does. Recall also that not every error = "heresy" in the strict sense, in the sense that would remove from the Church.

Secondly, when does heresy become manifest to an individual's conscience? Only by the intervention of Church authority. I've gone through the whole thinking on this subject only to have it ignored. Perhaps I can try again here.

Thirdly, there's the inconvenient matter of there being an entire school of thought contrary to the Bellarmine opinion which believe that papa haereticus deponendus. You bloat the Bellarmine position to the level of being practically de fide truth when it's just one opinion among many on a very thorny issue (as evidenced even prima facie by the range of opinions on the subject).

If it was THAT slam-dunk and straightforward, then why should there by five or six opinions on the matter by reputable theologians?

It's getting easier -- MUCH easier-- now, because of this:

Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.

Knowing that the Church cannot teach contradictions, there's absolutely no way in an official way, that a Pope can publicly teach this without being a heretic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2013, 03:22:10 PM »

Pertinaceous and Formal are typically used interchangeably to distinguish true heresy from material heresy. Pertinacity is a hallmark or distinguishing characteristic of formal heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2013, 03:26:45 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

It's getting easier -- MUCH easier-- now, because of this:

Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.

Knowing that the Church cannot teach contradictions, there's absolutely no way in an official way, that a Pope can publicly teach this without being a heretic.

Ah, not so fast. I'm not even close to finished here.

Nevertheless, this is a tough one for me. I know that it's the passage that Father(?) Kramer cited in going SedeBenedicantist. But the passages everyone has cited as being in contradiction with this refer to the Old LAW being abrogated, not the Old Covenant. In fact, the Scriptures explicitly call the Abraham covenant "everlasting". In my view, the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and by rejecting the Messiah, the Jews are unfaithful to the Covenant. But perhaps someone could educate me on this.