Since I've started this, I might as well explain why I suspect Innocent XI. And when I say "suspect," I just mean there is a CHANCE he was a private heretic, as with any Pope, except that in his case certain actions and attitudes might lead one more soundly and roundly to that suspicion, which, as I am not able to read hearts, must remain a mere suspicion until the Day of Judgment.
It is this condemned proposition that raised my eyebrows.
"Pope Innocent XI, condemned proposition:
"Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit faith in a Rewarder."
The Case Against Innocent XIInnocent XI was a Jesuit, or at least studied with Jesuits, and during his papacy he condemned certain laxist propositions of the more casuistry-prone Jesuits. Hey, here is someone who doesn't play favorites, right? Seems pretty conservative, doesn't he? Hm.
In the quote given above, he condemns the proposition that faith is not necessary by a necessity of means. But wait a minute -- how does he define faith? As the explicit faith not in Christ, not in the Trinity, but in a monotheistic God who is a "Rewarder." Those who support the heresy that you can be saved in other religions might say, with enemies like these, who needs friends!
Innocent XI's use of the Biblical quote is not heresy, of course, if you read what he said in tandem with what other Popes and Councils have said, since Christ IS the Rewarder. He also capitalizes "God" which as far as I'm concerned could only apply to God the Father -- no other God is God, only a god, AKA a demon. But he doesn't say you must believe in CHRIST specifically. This suggests you can bypass Christ entirely and believe in God the Father alone to be saved, impossible since the promulgation of the gospel.
The way the condemned proposition is worded could also lead people to believe that all you have to believe in to be saved is a monotheistic god that vaguely rewards. And what monotheistic god doesn't? The Muslims believe their god will ply them with virgins in some big heavenly orgy, which in their eyes is a reward. The Jєωs also have one "god," the devil, who they think rewards them.
This is precisely why you must believe in CHRIST THE SON: "No one comes to the Father but through the Son." If you don't have the Son, your one god is NOT THE FATHER. Even if you call him the God of Abraham, he is not, he is the devil. Christ said to the Jєωs in His time that if they knew the Father who sent Him, they would have known Him. This shows they did NOT have God but only the devil: "You are the children of the devil."
Is it possible these Jesuits set up a false left-right opposition and that Innocent XI was on the "right"? Is it possible they were exercising the Hegelian dialectic before Hegel was born? Is it possible that the technique plied by the anti-Popes of today, saying they are against communism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ while supporting them and even teaching their principles -- PLAYING BOTH SIDES -- was hatched in the feverish minds of certain Jesuits lo these many centuries ago?
Put nothing past the Jesuits. If I were to give full reign to my paranoid mind, I could say that Innocent XI was playing both sides in the same way that Father Feeney might have been doing, since it is possible that Father Feeney was part of a Jesuit plot, a false left-right opposition between those who believe in the salvation heresy, and those who call baptism a heresy, when BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG, and the truth is really IN THE MIDDLE. It just feels extremely fishy to me that Father Feeney had the real heresy in his grasp, this heresy of the Baltimore Catechism, that you can be saved as a good-willed Protestant, as well as that of Americanism, taught by so many Modernist priests in his time, that all religions can be a path to salvation. He could have been this great Athansius, and then he suddenly just wigged out and began teaching against baptism of desire, retiring to some little farm and setting up a colony... What?! He could have helped save the Church, instead he carved it up even further, introducing an UNNECESSARY divide ( many divisions are necessary ), and the rotten fruits are still with us today.
To finish with the case against Innocent XI, this section of the Wikipedia article is quite telling:
"Personally not unfriendly to Miguel de Molinos, Innocent XI nevertheless yielded to the enormous pressure brought to bear upon him to confirm in 1687 the judgement of the inquisitors by which sixty-eight quietist propositions of Molinos were condemned as blasphemous and heretical."
This makes it sound like it was only pressure from others that made him condemn propositions of Molinos, reluctantly. That means he had some sympathy with a heretic! Could it have been the same pressure that made him condemn certain propositions of De Lugo and Suarez and the casuists, while in his heart supporting them? And is that why the condemnation that I quoted above is so wishy-washy, and actually could be taken by those so inclined to SUPPORT De Lugo and Suarez?
The Case For Innocent XI:Papal bulls and decrees are meant to be read en masse, in the context of the Magisterium. In such a context, what Innocent XI said will not deceive you. Also, even what Jesus said could be vague, unless the Holy Ghost enlightens you. Should I blame Him for all the people that have used His name to advance their own self-interests? Should He be blamed for the Protestants and Anglicans who quote the Gospels to justify themselves? Innocent XI, then, cannot be blamed for not being more specific when he could have been, perhaps because God is testing us to see if we will go out and SEEK His commandments diligently.
Topic: Innocent XI and my new Jesuit paranoia. (Read 890 times)