Author Topic: Ratzinger denies a BIG dogma (Read 14726 times)

SJB · « **Reply #105 on:** September 30, 2009, 11:34:51 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SJB

It's called a moral unanimity. It's not a mathematical unanimity. It (peaceful acceptance) does not MAKE the pope a pope...it is merely a proof that he is a true pope. It makes the fact that Pius XII was a true pope a dogmatic fact.

So whether a Pope exists depends upon a moral unanimity of Catholics? If enough Catholics protest the Pope is not the Pope? So we are a democratic Church ala VCII?

Are you always this way? IT'S A PROOF...a single individual proof is not NECESSARY by definition.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #106 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:19:19 AM »

The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.

SJB · « **Reply #107 on:** October 01, 2009, 09:24:54 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.

It CAN be a proof...if it is there. That's all I have said.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #108 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:23:45 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: stevusmagnus
The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.

It CAN be a proof...if it is there. That's all I have said.

It can be used as persuasive evidence I suppose, but it proves nothing.

SJB · « **Reply #109 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:49:33 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: stevusmagnus
The opinions or acceptance of Catholics has no bearing on whether a Pope is a true Pope. You could have widespread non-acceptance, which I believe has happened in the past, and the Pope was still the Pope.

It CAN be a proof...if it is there. That's all I have said.

It can be used as persuasive evidence I suppose, but it proves nothing.

So you admit you didn't really understand what I was talking about at first. :)

It is a real proof however...because the entire Church cannot peacefully accept a false pope. And that is a morally unanimous acceptance... not a mathematical unanimity.

Caminus · « **Reply #110 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:07:09 PM »

And this proof serves as yet another example of why the sedevacantist thesis only exists in the imagination of a few men.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #111 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:10:44 PM »

Is there not a morally unanimous acceptance of BXVI as Pope? There are only a few thousand Sedes in the world. In addition a much larger % of Catholics believed certain Popes were not Popes in the time of the anti-Popes.

SJB · « **Reply #112 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:16:17 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

And this proof serves as yet another example of why the sedevacantist thesis only exists in the imagination of a few men.

Yes, of course.

SJB · « **Reply #113 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:18:12 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Is there not a morally unanimous acceptance of BXVI as Pope? There are only a few thousand Sedes in the world. In addition a much larger % of Catholics believed certain Popes were not Popes in the time of the anti-Popes.

No, I don't think so. There is a huge resistance (you're part of it)...the situation is anything but peaceful acceptance.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #114 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:24:53 PM »

Resistance to liberalism, yes. But there is no sizeable # of Catholics (or non Catholics) who think BXVI is not Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

SJB · « **Reply #115 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:50:17 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Resistance to liberalism, yes. But there is no sizeable # of Catholics (or non Catholics) who think BXVI is not Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Non-Catholics do not matter. Look all one can say is that there is no universal and peaceful acceptance. That doesn't prove B16 is not the pope...it just doesn't prove that he is. That proof (that he is) is just missing here.

It is erroneous beliefs about the nature of the papacy and heresy that cause otherwise strong resistors to say he is a true pope. They simply ignore him and then claim this is a possibility...for a body to avoid it's own head.

Caminus · « **Reply #116 on:** October 02, 2009, 04:16:51 PM »

Quote

Non-Catholics do not matter.

This is an assumption and a rather unfair one I'd say.

Quote

Look all one can say is that there is no universal and peaceful acceptance.

Translation: Please, just let me assert my opinion in peace and don't bother me with any inconvenient details.

But if you are dealing with a bunch of non-catholics, then you can safely say that no valid proof could every be had again. Wait, unless you mean that we can witness a peaceful acceptance when the sedevacantists all consent to an election? Are you implying that you and those who share your opinion constitute the true Church? If so, why don't you simply elect your own Pope? Why not bring an end to this confusion? Have you no concern about the common good of the Church? Why do you profess to be a member of a body without a head? Would that not mean that you are a member of a corpse? Does this imply that sedevacantists are impotent in electing the true Pope? If so, how does that square with the implication that you and yours constitute the true Church? For the true Church is a perfect society that has within itself all that is needed to attain its perfection. This is most certainly not how true catholics would behave, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote

That doesn't prove B16 is not the pope...it just doesn't prove that he is. That proof (that he is) is just missing here.

John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were all peacefully recognized as legitimately elected Popes. If a moral unanimity suffices, then a few detractors couldn't really cast any doubt upon this proof.

Quote

It is erroneous beliefs about the nature of the papacy and heresy that cause otherwise strong resistors to say he is a true pope. They simply ignore him and then claim this is a possibility...for a body to avoid it's own head.

Please detail precisely these errors and heresies, give examples in the form of explicit propositions and the surrounding context which establishes intent and meaning.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #117 on:** October 02, 2009, 04:33:03 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
Non-Catholics do not matter.

This is an assumption and a rather unfair one I'd say.

In connection with THIS question (the peaceful acceptance of a Pontiff by the Church), are you serious, Caminus?

Caminus · « **Reply #118 on:** October 02, 2009, 04:41:20 PM »

You can't contort the meaning of the term and extend it beyond what it was meant to convey. 'Peaceful acceptance' constitutes simply a legal proof of a legal fact. This is a separate issue from the other problems in the Church and the crisis at large.

SJB · « **Reply #119 on:** October 02, 2009, 07:50:22 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

You can't contort the meaning of the term and extend it beyond what it was meant to convey. 'Peaceful acceptance' constitutes simply a legal proof of a legal fact. This is a separate issue from the other problems in the Church and the crisis at large.

It is not a LEGAL proof. You simply don't know what you are talking about.