I am moving this thread from the anonymous forum, as it belongs here, and has nothing to do with the mortal sin thread.

AM wrote:

Even though you admitted that Pope John XXII taught heresy in a sermon, you deny that Pius XII could do the same in his speech to midwifes, even though his speech to midwifes is just as fallible and in no way different from Pope John XXII's fallible, condemned sermon.

I wrote:

I also urged you to read the link I gave you.  If you had, you would have learned that John XXII was not teaching with his power as Pope, was only putting forth the idea as a theologian, and was willing to be corrected if he was wrong, which he did in fact admit prior to his death.

You would have also learned that the teaching in the particular judgment had not been clearly defined until the next Pope, Benedict XII ended the issue and taught and therefore bound the universal Church the teaching of the particular judgment.

You cannot equate the case of John XXII with your idea that a Pope can teach the universal Church a heresy or that it is permissible to commit a mortal sin under certain circuмstances.

As I sated before, the Papacy is protected by Our Lord Jesus Christ.  The Pope cannot lead the flock entrusted to him astray in his teaching on matters of Faith and moral given to the universal Church.  

You can dig all you want, you will never find an example of your idea in the entire history of the Church.  You will never find a source to support you, except Protestant sources.  

You stand alone.  No Catholic ever believed what you believe.  

On my side, there is the teaching from sacred Scripture, the fathers, the popes, the Doctors and the theologians on the Papacy.  Your position stands against all of them.

Your position is a direct attack on the Papacy!

You stand alone.  No Catholic ever believed what you believe.  

On my side, there is the teaching from sacred Scripture, the fathers, the popes, the Doctors and the theologians on the Papacy.  Your position stands against all of them.

Your position is a direct attack on the Papacy!

You can't be that blind - haven't you seen the many mile long posts from him containing dozens of teachings from sacred Scripture, the fathers, the popes, the Doctors and the theologians - all Catholics - supporting his side of argument?

And all you can do is say: "Your position is a direct attack on the Papacy!"

You're like a blast from the past and your post echo the modernists of the 60s and 70s, those people said the same things you are saying now. Do you realize that?  

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

You stand alone.  No Catholic ever believed what you believe.  

On my side, there is the teaching from sacred Scripture, the fathers, the popes, the Doctors and the theologians on the Papacy.  Your position stands against all of them.

Your position is a direct attack on the Papacy!

You can't be that blind - haven't you seen the many mile long posts from him containing dozens of teachings from sacred Scripture, the fathers, the popes, the Doctors and the theologians - all Catholics - supporting his side of argument?

And all you can do is say: "Your position is a direct attack on the Papacy!"

You're like a blast from the past and your post echo the modernists of the 60s and 70s, those people said the same things you are saying now. Do you realize that?  

Yes, I have waded through his mile long posts, and the Fathers are not saying what he says they are saying.  The only Father who appears to give him real support is St. Augustine.

Not so. The teachings he posted, not only from St. Augustine but also from St. Thomas and the others are plain and clearly against NFP. And they prove CLEARLY that learned Catholic saints and teachers not only stand WITH him but also they indeed do believe as he believes - contrary to your false accusation against him where you stated: "You stand alone.  No Catholic ever believed what you believe."

 

AM wrote:

How many in here view the Vatican II claimants as true popes yet reject their teachings?

Yes, they do, but it is not the same thing.  To be guilty of schism, one must sever the self from the Pope.  None of these Catholics has severed themselves from the Pope, they are in open rebellion with a heretical antipope.

I wrote

Yes, they do, but it is not the same thing.  To be guilty of schism, one must sever the self from the Pope.  None of these Catholics has severed themselves from the Pope, they are in open rebellion with a heretical antipope.

AM accused me of dishonesty in stating this saying

That's quite dishonest

No, It is not dishonest.  A catholic by definition cannot be in schism from an antipope.  If you do not believe me, review the definition.

Schism is defined as "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope or to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him. It differs from apostasy and heresy, but often leads to them. Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated." 1951 catholic Dictionary.

The Catholics that resist the antipope are not refusing to submit to the Pope, they are refusing to submit to an antipope.  They do not fit under the definition of schism.

Ambrose, Do you view the Vatican II claimants as real popes but reject their teaching as false, erroneous, heretical?

No.

Either way, many here reject the Vatican II claimants and their teachings even though they accept them as true popes, but somehow seem to argue that Pius XII's false statement cannot be rejected. That is HYPOCRISY!

Pope Pius XII's authoritative teaching cannot be ignored as a refusal to hear him and believe him, is a refusal to hear Christ.

It is true that many on here hold to the position that they can reject the "authoritative" teaching of the antipopes, but that is only proof that they already implicitly reject their claims to the Papacy.

Many Catholics are very poorly educated on what the Papacy is, and do not grasp the principles involved.  

When a Catholic truly accepts a Pope, he submits himself to the Pope, he becomes the Pope's subject, and by that trusts the Pope, believes the Pope, and freely assents to the Pope's teaching and law.  

There can be no doubt that when a Catholic rejects a Popes teaching and law, that the Catholic has already rejected the man's claim to be Pope.  They may claim otherwise, but that is because of widespread modern confusion on the Papacy.

They (the Fathers, Popes and Saints) have all taught that the deliberate abuse of the sterile time and/or to perform the marital act without intending to fulfill the only primary end of marriage -- the procreation of children -- is a sin.

You say this, but who, other than you and a few moderns that agree with you has ever made this assertion in the entire history of the Church since the days of age of the Fathers.

Which Father, other than St. Augustine, who may have taught this, actually says exactly what you say?  

I am not talking about primary and secondary ends here.  We already agree in that.  I am also not talking about the subordination of the primary end to the secondary end, we already agree on that too.

What I am talking about is your assertion that the use of the sterile times is equivalent to the subordination of the secondary end to the primary end.  On what authority do you make this assertion?  What Pope specifically taught exactly what you are saying?  Pius XI certainly did not.  You cannot find a theologian who supports you in this.

You are interpreting Pius XI's teaching to state that the use of the sterile times is a subordination of the primary purpose in favor of the secondary purpose.  The problem for you is that he did not say this.  

You can always argue from a fact, and if that fact existed there would be no argument here.  The problem is that this fact does not exist, which means that you are relying on your interpretation of Casti Connubii to mean what you believe it means, even though it does not specifically and exactly state what you say it means.  

The second problem for you is that no one who was trained and commissioned by the Church to actually study these matters, i.e. the theologians, do not derive this belief from Casti Connubii.  This is why you lack any source to put forth who has an identical agreement on this matter as you.   I am sure you have looked, but you have not found any.

The reason that you hold the view you do is that you think that Church teaching is simplistically divided between infallible and fallible, and that it is the duty of the laity and perhaps the priests to sort it out, to determine if a statement is infallible or not, and then to determine whether it is orthodox, prior to accepting the teaching.

Such a process is entirely divorced from Catholicism, and I would ask you where you learned that?  Did someone teach you that a Pope in his non-infallible ordinary magisterium could teach unsafe doctrines?  If so, who taught you this?  

It appears to me that you were not taught the fundamentals, and that you built a massive edifice based on a faulty foundation.  Your belief that a Pope in his universal teaching can lead you astray has brought you to these conclusions.

Are you willing to look at your foundations and challenge your assumptions?  If not, then you are stuck, and the results are manifest.

If you would do this, and rebuild yourself, you could be a tool for God to use to defend the truth about the Papacy and shout it from the housetops.  This truth is needed desperately in our times to prepare fertile ground for a future Pope.  

There will come a day when these modern errors about the Papacy will be condemned.  The time is now to correct yourself and fight on the right side, by convincing Catholics to once again put their trust in the Divinely created office of the Pope.