Author Topic: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church? (Read 78740 times)

Meg · « **Reply #45 on:** December 27, 2024, 11:28:17 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 27, 2024, 12:27:55 PM

1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

The above quote does not prove that +ABL believed as you do; not does it prove that he believed as Ladislaus does.

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** December 28, 2024, 05:12:22 AM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 27, 2024, 02:28:53 PM

Laws change, based on the needs of the Church - the highest law is the salvation of souls. If the mechanism to perform some law no longer exists in actuality or has been replaced or superseded for some reason - the Church knows how to adjust her fire and still hit the target, because, ultimately, Christ is calling the shots, and He never misses.

Of course, laws may change when they are actually changed by the proper authority, until then they are the law established for the purpose of serving the highest law, which indeed is the salvation of souls. But we do not have the authority and are not in any position to simply ignore the established laws if they disagree with our opinion, and the idea that popes are not popes is nothing more than your opinion.

Are you able to admit that sedeism is only your opinion?

On the one hand, you quoted a pope teaching that Christ and the pope are one head, OTOH, you ignore the law that that 'one head' mandated for papal elections. Meanwhile you say that it's "Christ [who] is calling the shots, and He never misses," while ignoring the law ("the shot He called") on how He willed that popes get elected. Why do you not see that if you're right, "He missed on this one."

Meg · « **Reply #47 on:** December 28, 2024, 09:36:26 AM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 27, 2024, 12:27:55 PM

1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

Notice that in the above quote, +ABL refers to the pope as the pope. He doesn't say that the chair is empty. And, to say that those who follow the new church separate themselves from the Catholic church, does not mean that +ABL is saying what you are saying. He doesn't accuse them of heresy and condemn them. He did not view the situation in the same way that you and Ladislaus do.

Here are a few paragraphs from the last book written by +ABL, called, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," page 175:

quote:

"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power are set by the ends for which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this, I am not expressing a personal theory.

Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from the responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the papal authority is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible."

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** December 28, 2024, 10:46:47 AM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 28, 2024, 08:21:49 AM

By "sedeism" I assume you mean the logical conclusion that one forms based on sound Catholic teaching that currently the Chair of Peter is vacant....
So, no - I will not admit that the Chair of Peter being currently vacant is just "my opinion", rather it is my belief, otherwise, I would not have the conviction to act upon it if it were mere opinion.

Ok, well, you've chosen to make your conclusion your belief, based on what you opine is "the logical conclusion." What you are saying is you've made your opinion a de fide doctrine and you're not only fine with that, you live by it. At least you're not lukewarm.

Quote

A pope may make an ecclesiastical law on how to elect his successor, if that law cannot be observed because the mechanism to use for following it no longer exists, then the Church must still have a way to elect a successor to the Seat of Peter in keeping with the Divine Constitution of the Church laid down by Christ. She does and always will.

Well, the popes have made laws mandating how to elect their successors, and to date, that law has only been abrogated by opinions of some priests and lay people. Beyond that, that law is still in effect for all Catholics apparently except for those few.

Quote

You keep conflating ecclesiastical laws with Divine laws. On the other hand, it is of Divine law (and ecclesiastical law, cuм Ex, Canon Law, etc.) that heretics do not belong to the Body of the Church.

I'm not conflating anything, you misunderstand what is meant by "Christ and the pope are one head." If it means what you believe it means, then everything popes do, Christ does, ergo, everything Christ does, popes do. But out of necessity to maintain your starting point, you say this does not apply to ecclesiastical law, specifically, this does not apply to the laws on papal elections. Imagine believing this and at the same time, of all things, the papal laws established on the election of popes being mandated with only one head, i.e. without Christ. This is your conclusion on such an important event that will effect the whole Church and hundreds of millions of souls, possibly for many decades is done without Christ?

Stubborn · « **Reply #49 on:** December 28, 2024, 03:30:37 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 28, 2024, 11:31:51 AM

Yes, and they also made laws and pronouncements that heretics cannot hold any offices - which are based on Divine law and cannot be abrogated. Purely ecclesiastical laws can be abrogated or dispensed from if the means to follow them are not attainable.

I agree, but there are some things priests and lay people cannot do, one of those things is we cannot abrogate the laws on papal elections. Although you need to disagree in order to maintain a vacant chair, the rest of the Church, thankfully, cannot do that because first, there is no reason to do that and second, because we are forbidden from doing that.

Quote

Weeeeeeeeeeeee round and round we go hurrrraayyyyyy!

So, I was wondering how long it would take us to come here... You NEED "hundreds of millions of souls" to be saved. This is your underlying reason for what you are doing.

Well, we keep going around because you keep avoiding and redirecting into circular, absurd arguments the points I am making - the bolded is the latest example of this.

Your opinion-turned-conclusion-turned de fide doctrine effects the whole Church. The whole Church consists of 100s of millions of souls, does it not? If your understanding of the "two are one head" is true, then Christ is just as guilty as the conciliar popes of scandalizing those hundreds of millions of souls who are all NO.

That's point I was making, you ignored that point and redirected it to the absurd accusation that I "NEED hundreds of millions of souls to be saved."

Stubborn · « **Reply #50 on:** December 28, 2024, 06:41:18 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 28, 2024, 03:53:59 PM

Quote It is not a redirection. Nor is it absurd, but rather it is the root reason you believe and act as you do by recognizing the apostasy and partially resisting it rather than outright rejecting it.

I do outright reject it, I just do it without deciding the status of popes and attempting all the theological wizardry that goes along with doing that. But the rest of your post is still way off track, I mean it has nothing to do with the law of papal elections.

Stubborn · « **Reply #51 on:** December 29, 2024, 09:55:37 AM »

You've taken what I said completely and totally out of context and used the false context as your means of avoiding facing the fact that we cannot abrogate laws mandated by popes that conflict with our opinion-turned-de fide-doctrine.

As far as the papal laws on the election of popes is concerned, we have zero to say about those because we cannot break those laws - because the law only applies to cardinals. It is for the same reason we cannot abrogate or fulfill it's mandates.
We may break the law of fasting, and we may break the law of contracting marriage at forbidden times, and so on, but the laws on papal elections are altogether out of our realm of doing anything other than acknowledging - because we are not cardinals in a conclave electing a new pope.

IOW, we have nothing to do with the law of papal elections - which law states:

Quote

29. None of the Cardinals, on the pretext or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other
ecclesiastical hindrance, can be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff in any
way; indeed, we suspend such censures and excommunications only for the effect of this election, to those
who will otherwise continue in their strength.

So while you're depending on the idea that heretics cannot be popes, PPX and all popes after him condemn your opinion as noted in the above quote. While you're promoting the idea that heretic cardinals all defected and are outside of the Church, PPX mandated that even excommunicated heretic cardinals must vote in the conclave. He did this for good reason. That you're not understanding it therefore not accepting it, doesn't ipso facto abrogate it, it is still there and will be there until abrogated by (one of the) next popes.

Because even excommunicated heretic cardinals must vote, one of the heretics could be elected. See how the Sainted Pope obliterates your whole opinion-tuned-doctrine that you depend on to maintain a empty chair?

Meg · « **Reply #52 on:** December 29, 2024, 12:25:52 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 29, 2024, 11:07:45 AM

Just how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).

I know that stubborn can address this question himself, but I just wanted point out that the laity aren't required to prove the number of the Church Militant on earth. Where in Church teaching does it say that we are supposed to ever know this number, even roughly speaking? Of course you will not reply to this post, and that's fine, but I wanted to put it out there anyway.

St Giles · « **Reply #53 on:** December 29, 2024, 01:20:15 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on December 29, 2024, 09:55:37 AM

PPX mandated that even excommunicated heretic cardinals must vote in the conclave.

I don't know if this makes any difference, I haven't read the whole thread, but is there a difference between

none can be excluded

&

all must be included

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** December 29, 2024, 02:47:18 PM »

Quote from: Meg on December 29, 2024, 12:25:52 PM

Quote
Just how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).
I know that stubborn can address this question himself, but I just wanted point out that the laity aren't required to prove the number of the Church Militant on earth. Where in Church teaching does it say that we are supposed to ever know this number, even roughly speaking? Of course you will not reply to this post, and that's fine, but I wanted to put it out there anyway.

It really does not matter Meg, the point I attempted to make is that it is the pope making the law who is the one concerned (not me) with the procedure of electing a pope because it effects the whole future Church, this is why he made it a law.

All I did was throw out a random large number of "100s of millions" attempting to demonstrate the importance of the law because it effects the whole future Church, aka "100s of millions". This law Johannes deems irrelevant and insists either we can abrogate it or it self abrogates because the cardinals are heretics therefore outside of the Church, which means they could not effect a valid election which means that the pope(s) was never elected, which leads right back to his starting point that the chair is empty. Same o same o.

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** December 29, 2024, 02:59:49 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on December 29, 2024, 01:20:15 PM

I don't know if this makes any difference, I haven't read the whole thread, but is there a difference between

none can be excluded

&

all must be included

Just use basic Catholic theology, there is nothing complicated whatsoever in all of this.

The law says that none can be excluded for the reason Johannes insist they *all* must be excluded. IOW, he is saying they're excluded on the pretext of them being excommunicated heretics - which is exactly contrary to the law.

It does not say "all must be included" because what if one or more of them are sick or dying or otherwise too weak to travel, or some other valid reason that they cannot make it?

The point is, Johannes insists the excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, or those who may be under whatever censure, are outside of the Church and on that account cannot vote validly. Again, this is essentially a word for word contradiction of the law.....so he sticks with wanting to insist it's all about my concern (which I do not have) of the "100s of millions" I mentioned. Remember, he considers his opinion that there is no pope to be a de fide doctrine of the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #56 on:** December 29, 2024, 03:04:17 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on December 29, 2024, 11:07:45 AM

To save myself the time I will just reproduce the rebuttal in full for you here:
ANSWER: As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a pope is the head of the Church. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.
What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis? First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office, falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister (c. 2342), etc. These are all ecclesiastical or Church penalties. Such actions, though gravely sinful, did not separate a person from the Church. And though the terms major and minor excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for heresy which would separate him from the Church.
Therefore, a cardinal who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a cardinal because heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a cardinal who receives an excommunication for something else is still a cardinal, though in a state of grave sin. So when Pope Pius XII says that all cardinals, whatever ecclesiastical impediment they are under, can vote and be elected in a Papal conclave, this presupposes cardinals who have received an excommunication for something other than heresy, since a cardinal who has received an excommunication for heresy is not a cardinal at all. The key point to understand is that heresy is not merely an ecclesiastical impediment – thus it is not what Pius XII is talking about – but an impediment by divine law. Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, but impediments flowing from the divine law. Pius XII’s legislation doesn’t apply to heresy because he was speaking about ecclesiastical impediments: “…or any other ecclesiastical impediment…”. Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, which is why he didn’t mention heretics. Pope Pius XII was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication.
To further prove the point, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope. Notice what Pius XII says:Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor. This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office! Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.If a heretic (one who denies the faith) could be the head inside the Church, then the dogma that the Church is one in faith (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic) would be false.

Now, look here:

The Divine Will and Intelligence is not directing every single thing a pope does - absurd! The pope is not a human shell through whom Christ is reincarnate - I assume you know this. In ecclesiastical laws, Christ gave the papacy full autonomy "whatever you bind is bound...loose is loosed". But no one on earth has the power to go against Divine law - not even a pope. One can be excommunicated for many things other than heresy, that is why when basic catechisms speak of who DOES NOT belong to the Church it lists heretics and excommunicates separately. Heresy is the sin the "Severs from the Body" (you have no way of avoiding this). Even a child with 2nd grade reading skills can see and understand this. It is of Divine law that heretics do not belong to the Church and therefore cannot hold any offices. See how this basic Divine law shatters your whole argument? Christ gives a true pope supreme authority over the faithful and he has much leeway to do as he sees fit in the Church and he can even misjudge others, act imprudently, rashly, disrespectfully, and be an enormous personal sinner. What a pope cannot do is lose the faith and teach heresy in words/deeds. For so by doing, he would be manifesting public heresy - and proving he is not even a member of the Church and "obviously, anyone who is not a member of the Church cannot rule over Her." (Van Noort).

The bolded portion of your quote above translates to, " Your conclusion seems really bad for lots of people, so it must be false!!!" This is of course all stemming from a compassionate root, but it is a false compassion based not on the Divine law and truths of the faith, but based on a human understanding and placing limits on what God will allow and what He wills.

Just how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).

I've refuted all of this more than once in this thread, I see no point in us continuing it, thanks for the convo and God Bless you.

StAndrew · « **Reply #57 on:** December 29, 2024, 10:15:05 PM »

Why is infallibility attributed to +ABL? No one ever wants to admit he could have be wrong.

Let's face it, he was all over the place when it came to how JP2 could do what he was doing. +ABL went from JP2 being a public heretic and can't be the Pope to he's the Pope and we have to sift.

Let's use teachings of popes and councils as the litmus test...not +ABL.

Oh wait, the popes are wrong and +ABL isn't. /s

Stubborn · « **Reply #58 on:** December 30, 2024, 06:09:59 AM »

Quote from: StAndrew on December 29, 2024, 10:15:05 PM

Why is infallibility attributed to +ABL? No one ever wants to admit he could have be wrong.

Let's face it, he was all over the place when it came to how JP2 could do what he was doing. +ABL went from JP2 being a public heretic and can't be the Pope to he's the Pope and we have to sift.

Let's use teachings of popes and councils as the litmus test...not +ABL.

Oh wait, the popes are wrong and +ABL isn't. /s

I dunno, I've been watching the whole sede conundrum play out since the 70s, so I can say with certainty that most of the exact same arguments that are going on today have been around since at least then, the same arguments are repeated over and over and over again, it's the same old thing but with different players.

Anyway, I attached a short clip from Pete Dimond, in this clip, he is speaking what Catholics have always believed.

Meg · « **Reply #59 on:** December 30, 2024, 10:59:37 PM »

Quote from: StAndrew on December 29, 2024, 10:15:05 PM

Why is infallibility attributed to +ABL? No one ever wants to admit he could have be wrong.

Let's face it, he was all over the place when it came to how JP2 could do what he was doing. +ABL went from JP2 being a public heretic and can't be the Pope to he's the Pope and we have to sift.

Let's use teachings of popes and councils as the litmus test...not +ABL.

Oh wait, the popes are wrong and +ABL isn't. /s

Who on this forum has ever said that +ABL was infallible? That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Poll

Can the Pope teach error(s) in his official acts to the Universal Church?

Author Topic: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church? (Read 78740 times)

Meg

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Meg

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Meg

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

St Giles

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

StAndrew

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Stubborn

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?

Meg

Re: Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church?