Author Topic: Simple Yes or No Question (Read 3656 times)

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2007, 11:09:02 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Vague references to Popes teaching heresy might go unchallenged by most, but I require actual references. Provide them and we shall discuss the veracity of the claims.

I already did 3 or 4 days ago.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:13:20 PM »

If you are referring to the nonsense about John XXII and the Beatific Vision, that is easily answered: There was NO HERESY involved.

Have you others?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #17 on:** November 07, 2007, 09:41:09 AM »

Let's get back to the questions which initiated the thread:

Quote

Has either John Paul II or Bendict XVI spoke of, taught, or written heresy?

Of course they have! Was JPII a real pope? None of us have the authority to judge! Is BXVI a real pope? Again, none of us can declare with any certainty that he is or isn't. That should be the end of the discussion, but it won't be.

Trinity · « **Reply #18 on:** November 07, 2007, 10:39:39 AM »

That's a puerile answer, Hollingsworth. Jesus said we would know them by their fruit. "Know", in this case, means "make judgment". How can we possibly choose between good and evil without judging? You judge that they have, of course, written, taught and spoken heresy. You judged that and in so doing, you judged them, because only a heretic will spread heresy. That's what we call heresy spreaders---heretics.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2007, 12:24:15 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

If you are referring to the nonsense about John XXII and the Beatific Vision, that is easily answered: There was NO HERESY involved.

Have you others?

Even though it had not been defined until after John XXII's death, the fact that just souls can go see the Beatific Vision before the Last Judgment (i.e. go to heaven after death and before the end of the world even) is a possibility assumed by any Catholic. Why John XXII believed the contrary, I am not sure why.

Nonetheless, infallible dogmas are not the only things to which Catholics must adhere. We must also adhere to doctrines unanimously upheld by theologians if they are logical conclusions drawn from the Deposit of Faith, like the "baptisms" of desire and blood. There is the limbo of children too as well as the teaching of unity of Church and state.

Some things are common sense for Catholics though and so essential to the Catholic faith that it would have to be heresy for one to claim to be Catholic and yet deny something that should be a basic assumption for any Catholic. So John XXII was a heretic, even if not formally declared as such later on by another pope.

Remember that Adrian VI said there were popes who were heretics, although I guess what he said would not count for the sedevacantists here since he was not declaring an infallible dogma when he said it.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #20 on:** November 07, 2007, 12:36:35 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

That's a puerile answer, Hollingsworth. Jesus said we would know them by their fruit. "Know", in this case, means "make judgment". How can we possibly choose between good and evil without judging? You judge that they have, of course, written, taught and spoken heresy. You judged that and in so doing, you judged them, because only a heretic will spread heresy. That's what we call heresy spreaders---heretics.

Do not forget the distinction between formal and material heresy.

Our Lord told us to judge actions but not souls. When we judge the fruits, we are seeing if something is edifying or destructive to the salvation of souls. It is another thing to go and judge the state of a soul, even though someone could have a good idea. We must not be too hasty though, and we must be aware that there is if one has subjective culpability as well. Also, it is not for any of us lay Catholics to pronounce a judgment that is not as obvious as some here would assume. We cannot know something for sure as far as the office of a cleric then finally until a declaration by a higher authority has been given.

EDIT: Of course, some here would argue that God judges Benedict XVI and use what our Lord said in the past to back that up, but has our Lord said anything now in the present? I have not heard or read any declaration by our Lord in the present, and if He did that, that would mean He did not properly endow His Church with authority.

Trinity · « **Reply #21 on:** November 07, 2007, 01:34:04 PM »

We can't judge a soul, Keph, but we can know a heretic when we see one, and know that the Church says a heretic may not hold office.

Trinity · « **Reply #22 on:** November 07, 2007, 01:56:49 PM »

We are judging his Catholicity, and we do it all the time with the NO, Protestants, etc. Where did you get the idea that we were judging his soul? As Catholics we have to be sure that we are following Catholicism, therefore we must judge whether or not a person is Catholic. This "pope" is not Catholic.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #23 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:04:53 PM »

I would unsubscribe to this topic if I knew how. But since the blogger, whose user name links him with the Godhead, has written the following, I will post another entry:

Quote

That's a puerile answer, Hollingsworth. Jesus said we would know them by their fruit. "Know", in this case, means "make judgment". How can we possibly choose between good and evil without judging?

My answer may be puerile, but the endless back and forth over the pope's orthodoxy, or lack of it, does not, in my mind anyway, exactly rise to the level of mature, adult discussion. As for judging between good and evil: If it were that easy to settle, wouldn't we all be arriving at the same judgment?

Trinity · « **Reply #24 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:43:25 PM »

Arriving at the same judgment? We have arrived at the same judgment. Admitting it is the problem for some.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #25 on:** November 07, 2007, 04:02:01 PM »

Quote

Arriving at the same judgment? We have arrived at the same judgment. Admitting it is the problem for some.

Maybe so, but agreeing that the pope has said and written heretical things does not automatically move all of us to remove him from the Chair of St. Peter a posteriori

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #26 on:** November 07, 2007, 04:02:55 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

If you are referring to the nonsense about John XXII and the Beatific Vision, that is easily answered: There was NO HERESY involved.

Have you others?

Do you actually believe that? If you do you don't understand the faith. Tell me, why did the Dominicans fight against him? Because they disagreed with him? I wouldn't wage a theological war against someone who liked pizza, but someone who proposed heresy is different.

John XXII believed in objective heresy.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #27 on:** November 08, 2007, 01:58:23 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

Remember that Adrian VI said there were popes who were heretics, although I guess what he said would not count for the sedevacantists here since he was not declaring an infallible dogma when he said it.

This is an incorrect assumption.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #28 on:** November 08, 2007, 01:59:17 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

Some things are common sense for Catholics though and so essential to the Catholic faith that it would have to be heresy for one to claim to be Catholic and yet deny something that should be a basic assumption for any Catholic. So John XXII was a heretic, even if not formally declared as such later on by another pope.

This is not correct.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #29 on:** November 08, 2007, 02:02:23 PM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

John XXII believed in objective heresy.

Have you read the sermons in which he discussed this matter? He is the exact opposite of being obstinately attached to what he says therein.