I hold that the geocentric model is true, but can you please give me this reference: “ Pope Paul V in 1616 had defined heliocentrism formal heresy”?
There is no punishment due for material heresy on death.
A friend sent this on to me. It is a position I have held for many years. Material heresy and formal heresy have been involved in the Galileo case, a study I have devoted much time to. In the article the author says: 'As bishop Schneider points out, this question is unprecedented in the history of the Church.' Now this may be true as regards the overall behaviour of a pope, it is not regarding heretical popes. Pope Paul V in 1616 had defined heliocentrism formal heresy. Pope Pius VII in 1820 was conned into material heresy when allowing a heretical reading of Scripture. As this article records, no pope will be allowed by God to officially deny an official dogma or decree of a previous pope. When researching the Galileo case I found no such denial of the 1616 decree by any pope since 1616. Quite the opposite, even the Church of 1820 agreed it was papal and not reversible.The problem you have is who is competent to sit in judgement? The Code of Canon Law says the following;
The following article will help many come to terms with the prevailing situation in the Churcvh.
[font=Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web (West European), Segoe UI, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, Helvetica Neue, sans-serif]https://onepeterfive.com/is-francis-the-pope/[/font] (https://onepeterfive.com/is-francis-the-pope/)[/url]
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to PeterThat is not an accurate quote. The Douay-Rheims (and every other Bible I know of) says "shall not prevail against it", meaning the Church herself, not St. Peter himself in this case.
Sources and links are provided in my book, To Deceive the Elect, Volume One. Don Curzio in the cited passage treats of a specific point of doctrine, to wit, that the common opinion of theologians is that a valid pope cannot be a formal heretic. The article is posted on his website. He has not deviated from this position; and whether or not he has changed his position as a sedeprivationist is totally irrelevant to this point of doctrine.
NO
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to PeterAnother one of your phony "quotes," Jerk!
The only thing you prove by your last comment, Meg, is that your mental capacity is somewhat limited. If you wish to verify the source of Don Curzio's passage I cited, I'll provide you with a clue (as I used to do for the less intelligent students hearing my theology lectures)::applause:
«la prima opinione o meglio l’antecedente, che è quella insegnata comunemente come la più probabile dalla maggior parte dei teologi e dei Dottori: S. Roberto Bellarmino, Francisco Suarez, Melchior Cano, Domingo Soto, Giovanni da San Tommaso, Juan de Torquemada, Louis Billot, Joachim Salaverri, A. Maria Vellico, Charles Journet (ed anche il Gaetano non citato dal Da Silveira, ma lo dimostra mons. Vittorio Mondello, ne La dottrina del Gaetano sul Romano Pontefice, Messina, Istituto Arti Grafiche di Sicilia, 1965, cap. V, pp. 163-194 e cap. VI, pp. 195-224) è che il Papa come Papa non può cadere in eresia formale, mentre può favorire l’eresia o cadere in eresia materiale come dottore privato oppure come Papa, ma solo nel magistero non definitorio, non obbligante e quindi non infallibile (cfr. A. X. Da Silveira, p. 33, nota 1; cfr. B. Gherardini, Concilio Ecuмenico Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare, Frigento, Casa Mariana Editrice, 2009; Tradidi quod et accepi. La Tradizione, vita e giovinezza della Chiesa, Frigento, Casa Mariana Editrice, 2010; Concilio Vaticano II. Il discorso mancato, Torino, Lindau, 2011; Quaecuмque dixero vobis. Parola di Dio e Tradizione a confronto con la storia e la teologia, Torino, Lindau, 2011; La Cattolica. Lineamenti d’ecclesiologia agostiniana, Torino, Lindau, 2011).»
If that is not enough for you to find the source, Meg, I provide you with another clue, if you are still lacking the mental capacity to perform the operation.
The only thing you prove by your last comment, Meg, is that your mental capacity is somewhat limited. If you wish to verify the source of Don Curzio's passage I cited, I'll provide you with a clue (as I used to do for the less intelligent students hearing my theology lectures):
Still no link. Still no proof. Hmmm…...
Still no link. Still no proof. Hmmm…...What a lazy Behar! The Behar needs to be spoon fed.
That is not an accurate quote. The Douay-Rheims (and every other Bible I know of) says "shall not prevail against it", meaning the Church herself, not St. Peter himself in this case.Leave it to pooch to misquote Scripture :sleep:
(The quote above is from a posting that's no longer viewable, apparently having been later deleted by a CathInfo moderator, so I'm unable to provide a valid link.)
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you"
--Jesus to Peter
That is not an accurate quote. The Douay-Rheims (and every other Bible I know of) says "shall not prevail against it", meaning the Church herself, not St. Peter himself in this case.
[18] Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. [*]
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [*]
If you're a sedeprivationist, then the answer is ...At the end of the day a non catholic can not be head of the Catholic Church , when others ridicule the sede position (not you) we must point this out, that they believe someone who doesn’t profess the Catholic faith is their pope
YES AND NO
At the end of the day a non catholic can not be head of the Catholic Church , ...
At the end of the day a non catholic can not be head of the Catholic Church , when others ridicule the sede position (not you) we must point this out, that they believe someone who doesn’t profess the Catholic faith is their pope
So you, with power granted by Christ, have hereby decided that Francis is not a Catholic?1. is your argument that Jewgorglio is actually a Catholic?
Where is the hierarchy in your line of thinking?
But that's just one position, the Bellarmine position (unless you're Salza or Siscoe). Other theories hold that a non-Catholic (aka heretic) must be removed from office by the Church, and the sedeprivationist thesis that he formally ceases to be pope but then must be removed materially. This is an oversimplification.sedevacantists say non catholic ceases to be pope, even if he's physically there.....your position is non catholic , ceases to be pope and must be removed materially. at the end of the day you are saying he's not the pope ...the way he has to be removed is another discussion is it not? Can't I hold the sedevacant position and claim he must be removed materially for argument's sake. Can you explain to me how sedevacantists differ exactly on the to be removed materially part?
sedevacantists say non catholic ceases to be pope, even if he's physically there.....your position is non catholic , ceases to be pope and must be removed materially. at the end of the day you are saying he's not the pope ...the way he has to be removed is another discussion is it not? Can't I hold the sedevacant position and claim he must be removed materially for argument's sake. Can you explain to me how sedevacantists differ exactly on the to be removed materially part?From the Code of Canon Law;
From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM
If Songbird understood the teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the history of the ordination rite, he/she/it would know that the the new rite of ordination is valid.
From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM
Michael Davies’ book “The Order of Melchizedek” was always a bit of a mystery to me in this regard:DID YOU READ THE FIRST OR SECOND EDITION?
He repeatedly affirms the validity of the new rite, even as he draws, throughout the book, the analogy to the invalidating changes to the Anglican rite.
It always left me asking myself, “OK, so why bother to write the book?”
And if the answer were, “To put traditionalists at ease regarding the new rite,” then why trouble them by drawing the Anglican analogy (which is the general disturbance of soul produced by the book, despite Davies’ affirmation of validity)?
Again, why, then, bother to write the book?
Was he being coy, fearing to declare the rite invalid, but imparting to the reader the reasons it might be (despite his affirmation to the contrary)?
Not sure.
DID YOU READ THE FIRST OR SECOND EDITION?
It is reported that he drew different conclusions in the editions. I have tried to buy a FIRST edition, but, even when advertised as a FIRST edition, I received the second edition.
Vis mysteria Christi ad laudem Dei et sanctificationem populi christiani, secundum Ecclesiae traditionem, pie et fideliter celebrare? Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ for the glory of God and the sancitification of the Christian people, according to the Tradition of the Church, faithfully and religiously? | Vis mysteria Christi ad laudem Dei et sanctificationem populi christiani, secundum Ecclesiae traditionem, praesertim in Eucharistiae sacrificio et sacramento reconciliationis, pie et fideliter celebrare? Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ for the glory of God and the sancitification of the Christian people, according to the Tradition of the Church, especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, faithfully and religiously? |
Sacerdotes tuos, Domine, et omnes famulos tuos vivificet divina, quam obtulimus et sumpsimus, hostia, ut, perpetua tibi caritate coniuncti, digne famulari tuae mereantur maiestati. | O Lord, may the Divine Victim which we have offered and consumed, bring new life to Thy priests and all Thy servants that, united with Thee in unceasing charity, they may merit worthily to serve Thy Divine majesty. |
When was the 2nd edition published?
Then of course the SSPX has sneakily been modifying other books toward the same end (eg., no longer including active participation in the NOM in the examination of conscience of Christian Warfare, while injecting the conciliar Divine Mercy devotion into the same revision. Meanwhile, it’s German bookstores sell materials by Ratzinger, Schneider, and even von Balthasar (while other volumes omit the “St.” title from the books by saints, etc).
…The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. …
A researcher who was sent to Rome investigate the history of the rite of ordination; explained to me that he was able to find the docuмentary proof that there were three variant formulae used as the form of the sacrament during the Middle Ages: one with "ut", one with "et", and one with an ";", and no conjunction.
I don't want to mention the researcher's name without his permission. He found the books containing the docuмentary evidence in the Anselmianum library.
That's understandable. But if someone could post copies from the books, that would be great. I did the same type of research at one point. When Bishop Kelly was going around saying that some of the ordinations done by +Lefebvre were invalid because he only laid one hand on the ordinand instead of the two indicated in the rubrics, I went to The Catholic University of America library and found medieval texts in which the rubric for priestly ordination specified only one hand, dextram. It appeared that the modern reference to the plural was a reference to both the co-ordaining bishops as well as all the priests who also laid their hands on the ordinands.Lad, you should publish those findings. Did you present them to Bishop Kelly?
Lad, you should publish those findings. Did you present them to Bishop Kelly?
I found that a sufficient argument against the “one hand Dan” nonsense was Pope Pius XII’s sacramentum ordinis where he declares: “In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.”
Father Cekada also did an admirable job destroying their ridiculous argument.
In the last analysis, what matters is not what Michael Davies was thinking, but only the sacramental doctrine of the Church. The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. It is not defective. Therefore, the new rite does not suffer a "defect of form" as did Parker's Anglican rite, which destroyed the validity of Anglican orders, as Leo XII taught in Apostolicæ Curæ.Yes, looking back, it appears the SSPX would have agreed; as they never had any issue with the matter and form of the new rite of ordination, but they did with the intention (which they qualify):
Yes, looking back, it appears the SSPX would have agreed; as they never had any issue with the matter and form of the new rite of ordination, but they did with the intention (which they qualify):
http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm
On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.
The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] (http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm#_ftn1) remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.
The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:
The abolition of this precision in the new rite of the priestly ordination (even if the rite remains valid in itself by the unchanged matter and form) makes the doctrine expressed by the new rite dangerously close to the Protestant doctrine. This is not surprising since the end of all the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II Council was ecuмenism.
Something else, which is also not surprising, alas, is that now, many new priests do not know anymore what the priesthood is. Consequently, this leads to all priestly problems, such as married priests (at least 70,000 priests have abandoned their priesthood since the last Council).
And do the bishops themselves know well what a priest is? We hope so, because with this new rite, some bishops could have an intention opposite to the intention of the Church when they ordain priests, and in that case the ordination would be invalid, or at least doubtful.
In the last analysis, what matters is not what Michael Davies was thinking, but only the sacramental doctrine of the Church. The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. It is not defective. Therefore, the new rite does not suffer a "defect of form" as did Parker's Anglican rite, which destroyed the validity of Anglican orders, as Leo XII taught in Apostolicæ Curæ.I read Michael Davies book like 3 times, I've had it for almost 25 years. Most of what he writes appears to be saying that the new ordination rite is at best weak. Then at the end he says two things which really negates anything he said in favor of the validity, he says