Author Topic: Ratzinger denies a BIG dogma (Read 14729 times)

CM · « **Reply #75 on:** September 29, 2009, 01:32:45 AM »

"Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ."

Heresy or not Caminus? Why or why not? Can a 'pope' teach this proposition publicly, in his fallible capacity, and remain pope? Why or why not?

I am very curious to see your answer.

SJB · « **Reply #76 on:** September 29, 2009, 12:54:11 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
Can you quote some authority that explains this?

Not off hand. But I do know that there is a slight difference in the term between its juridical and moral use.

Quote
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.

Quote
Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.

Correct, that's not in dispute.

Quote
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.

I'm considering the matter in an objective, abstract manner. The internal forum is relevant when considering the matter as an interior reality. That's half of what moral theology does, consider the inner workings within the soul and the operations of the intellect and will. This is the work of moral theology and rational psychology. But I do quibble a little insofar as judgments are made in the external forum, but formally true judgments are formed when the internal dispostion is manifested externally in some way.

Please provide a source that explains this. I haven't read anything that supports this view. I know you think you've explained it...but isn't there a theologian you can cite here?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #77 on:** September 29, 2009, 05:13:42 PM »

No Pope has ever been a formal heretic. It is only a theoretical possibility. If this issue ever arose it would be judged by a competent ecclesiastical authority and not Joe-six-pack Trad in the pew who then makes his own church.

As for the flood, Noah was the earthly authority for God and those who stuck with him were saved. Who is the earthly authority in the Sede paradigm? Themselves?

In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.

The Sede "god" is a small, petty, sadistic, juvenile, game-playing, weak god who abandons his church to the devil and rewards eternal life only to those with secret knowledge and insights who somehow figure out his conspiracy puzzle. This is simply absurd. An eternity with a "god" of this type would be Hell indeed.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #78 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:41:22 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.

Stevus, I don't think you can say that what has happened isn't secret. I never advance the sede hypothesis but one is hard-pressed to reconcile the actions of the conciliar popes with the requirements of the Papacy.

Eschatology tells us there will be a remnant, and a reign of the Antichrist.

Will there be someone in Rome who supports the Antichrist who many people call Pope?

Is it inconceivable that could happen?

SJB · « **Reply #79 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:42:38 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

No Pope has ever been a formal heretic. It is only a theoretical possibility. If this issue ever arose it would be judged by a competent ecclesiastical authority and not Joe-six-pack Trad in the pew who then makes his own church.

As for the flood, Noah was the earthly authority for God and those who stuck with him were saved. Who is the earthly authority in the Sede paradigm? Themselves?

In addition this was pre-Christ. Christ founded a Church that would not be secretly destroyed and replaced with a church of the anti-Christ while the "real" church disappeared into unrecognizable fragments who are their own authority.

The Sede "god" is a small, petty, sadistic, juvenile, game-playing, weak god who abandons his church to the devil and rewards eternal life only to those with secret knowledge and insights who somehow figure out his conspiracy puzzle. This is simply absurd. An eternity with a "god" of this type would be Hell indeed.

Do you ever read what you write (referring to the non-bolded parts)? And how could the pope be judged when the First See is judged by no one?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #80 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:49:25 PM »

correction:

*I don't think you can say that what has happened has been secret.

The Catholics in the pews who know the Faith can see how their priests have changed, how what is taught has changed. That's why there are Traditional chapels.

Those with access to the media can see the things the Popes have said and done, things that can't be reconciled with the Faith.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #81 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Eschatology tells us there will be a remnant, and a reign of the Antichrist.

Can you tell us how many times the word "Antichrist" appears in the Apocalypse? :reading:

(Hint: ZERO)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #82 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:53:40 PM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #83 on:** September 29, 2009, 07:05:30 PM »

The word used in the Apocalypse is the Beast. He is given power for 42 months. Interestingly enough, V2 lasted just short of 43 months.

Karol Wojtyla influenced that council's most evil docuмents to an extraordinary degree. If you count the Pontiffs from St Pius X forward (starting with Benedict XV as the first), using the enumeration leading up to and pointing out the Beast (7th of eight, etc.), Wojtlya IS the Beast, and Ratzinger is the False Prophet. The lady who explained this to me gave a much more sensible explanation of things than most of the "learned" men I have known or read. Somewhat fittingly, she is blind, although she sees far more than most with functioning eyes. She is presently dying and I ask your prayers for her.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #84 on:** September 29, 2009, 07:33:35 PM »

SJB,

Not sure I get your point regarding non-bolded parts. Please explain.

In the theoretical (perhaps impossible) event that the Pope becomes a formal heretic, I believe that theologians have stated he could be declared as such by a Council and deposed. Formal heresy would mean, best I can remember, that his heresy must be public and he must persist in it even when made to realize it is heretical. An ecclesiastical body would make this call, not Joe-Sede.

As, I said this is all speculative/ theoretical as this has never happened and some say it cannot happen.

Tele,

I meant "secret knowledge" that all Popes since Pius XII? have been anti-popes, all NO sacraments are invalid, etc etc. Yes it is obvious that there have been a lot of changes since VCII and the world (including a lot of Catholics) have become more secular since 1960. But this is a far cry from saying that the notion there is no Pope is somehow self-evident.

SJB · « **Reply #85 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:25:25 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

SJB,

Not sure I get your point regarding non-bolded parts. Please explain.

Read it. It is rude at best.

Quote

In the theoretical (perhaps impossible) event that the Pope becomes a formal heretic, I believe that theologians have stated he could be declared as such by a Council and deposed.

ONLY because he had already lost his office due to public heresy.

Quote

Formal heresy would mean, best I can remember, that his heresy must be public and he must persist in it even when made to realize it is heretical. An ecclesiastical body would make this call, not Joe-Sede.

No, that is the error of conciliarism. A pope can be deposed ONLY because he is no longer considered a catholic and has lost his office. The First See is judged by no one.

Quote

As, I said this is all speculative/ theoretical as this has never happened and some say it cannot happen.

Well, you have it all wrong anyway...so it's not really all that theoretical. Have you ever read Bellarmine on the heretical pope issue?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #86 on:** September 30, 2009, 12:16:23 AM »

SJB,

Semantics.

First, as I've said this is all speculative/ theoretical.

Secondly, even if we speculate it is possible, until a competent Council declares that the Pope has "already" lost his office through public formal heresy, you can't do so and then go rogue.

What if some joe schmo believed it was obvious Pius XII was a heretic and doesn't recognize him as a true Pope? How do you prove him wrong? Argue about whether Pius XII spoke heresy ad infinitum? Beat him with a golf club until he agrees with you?

Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.

This is why Christ gave us an authority on earth and His Church to decide matters of this sort. Sedevacantism kept on running so far to the right that they wound up on the left with Luther, privately judging Popes and in the end, becoming their own Pope.

CM · « **Reply #87 on:** September 30, 2009, 01:04:03 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Saying it is "obvious" and that unfortunately the rest of the world is modernist and can't recognize obvious heresy anymore is ridiculous.

No it is not. The Church gave us an authority, which we must obey, and it is this very authority that has defined for us what is Catholic and what is not.

So it is obvious for those who have eyes to see, and as for the rest, they have been delivered up to permanent (or hopefully temporary) blindness.

Caminus · « **Reply #88 on:** September 30, 2009, 01:39:55 AM »

Quote

So it is obvious for those who have eyes to see, and as for the rest, they have been delivered up to permanent (or hopefully temporary) blindness.

Ah, the Enlightened One speaks of his secret gnosis.

CM · « **Reply #89 on:** September 30, 2009, 03:58:20 AM »

Caminus, did Christ bring a "secret Gnosis"? Is that what we are to believe? I mean he did, after all, refer to those who would deny him as having eyes, but not seeing, having ears but not hearing.