Author Topic: Holy Week Law of Pope Pius XII (Read 5922 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:22:58 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The fact that a public heretic cannot be a Pope is a slam dunk and is that simple.

Explain then why there are about five different opinions on the subject held by reputable theologians. Were all these men invincibly ignorant? Or were they just less discerning and intellectually capable than yourself?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #21 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:25:35 PM »

Paul IV solemnly defined it. According to Bellarmine "All the Church Fathers" or something to that effect are in agreement and it is divine law.

There are minimums that are necessary in order for it to be possible to be Pope.

1. Male
2. Above the age of reason
3. Catholic (means not publicly schismatic, heretical or apostate).
4. Once elected if not a Bishop already it would be incuмbent upon him to be validly consecrated a bishop so he could fulfill the office of bishop of Rome and universal bishop.
5. Can't be insane.
6. Must accept the office.

Once it is realized that all the nonsense that has been "officially approved, promulgated and bound on the Church" has been done by those who have no authority the easier it is to make sense of the mess, unite under the banner of reality and move on in a united way based on the same fundamental premise.

This posturing and saying he is a heretic but not really a heretic or a modernist but not really a modernist and should be obeyed but not really obeyed and respected but not really respected and that he is the final authority unless we say otherwise is for the birds.

There was advice given to all the good willed by a man who is a delicate genius which went as follows:

He ain't the Pope man. Get over it.

Be careful how you respond to his statement because he is delicate.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:29:58 PM »

Even St. Robert Bellarmine struggled somewhat over when heresy becomes sufficiently "manifest" to effect deposition. Manifest, moreover is an inherently subjective or criteriological term. Manifest to WHOM? To Lover of Truth? So the minute that heresy became manifest to Lover of Truth, Bergoglio ceased to be Pope? What if heresy is manifest to 25% of Catholics, while 24% of Catholics decide that Bergoglio has committed error short of heresy, while 51% think that Bergoglio was spot on and committed no error. What's the objective status of Bergolgio then? Very few heresies are as obvious as "Jesus Christ never rose from the dead."

Since heresy must be MANIFEST with the certainty of faith, and not based on private opinion, due to the papacy being dogmatic fact, only the Church's authority can make heresy MANIFEST in such a manner as to bind consciences and to bind faith. In this way can the varying opinions on the papa haereticus issue be reconciled. So, while the Church cannot ontologically EFFECT deposition, the Church must make the deposition manifest to consciences.

In the meantime, we cannot have anything other than a state of doubt.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:32:48 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Paul IV solemnly defined it. According to Bellarmine "All the Church Fathers" or something to that effect are in agreement and it is divine law.

Paul IV simply defined and the Church Fathers taught a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, i.e. that heretics are not Catholics. That's the simple part that everyone agrees on. It's in the APPLICATION of this principle that the opinions diverge. As I said, you OVERSIMPLIFY.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:33:59 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

He ain't the Pope man. Get over it.

Did I every say that he is the Pope?