Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: The Vicar of Christ can never in actual fact become a pertinacious heretic.  (Read 1909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Vicar of Christ can never in actual fact become a pertinacious heretic.
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2019, 07:01:53 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on March 19, 2019, 06:02:15 AM
The contrary opinion is a hypothesis only and it was the teaching of the conservative, orthodox Fathers at Vatican I who defined ex cathedra Papal Infallibility that in actual fact the Vicar of Christ can never - non-hypothetically - become actually a formal and pertinacious heretic.
I disagree this is taught infallibly, hypothetically or otherwise at V1.

What the First Vatican Council did, is it infallibly condemned those who say that Christ did not institute that "blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy". But V1 never defined nor taught that the pope cannot be a heretic.

But if it did, then simple reality dictates that either V1 was wrong, or the pope is not a heretic, regardless of what Cardinal Billot opined.

 

Logged

Offline Viva Cristo Rey

Re: The Vicar of Christ can never in actual fact become a pertinacious heretic.
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2019, 07:08:41 AM »
Leviticus 20:13
Verse Concepts

'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

Re: The Vicar of Christ can never in actual fact become a pertinacious heretic.
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2019, 07:22:31 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn
[Vatican I]infallibly condemned those who say that Christ did not institute that "blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy"


Correct, Stubborn, it also taught and defined this: "2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world ... 9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema." (Chapter 3, On the Power and Character of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, Session 4, 18 July 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm )

Quote
But if it did, then simple reality dictates that either V1 was wrong, or the pope is not a heretic
I agree these are the only two alternatives, but the first is impossible because Vatican I was an Ecuмenical Council and is Dogma.

Therefore, the second must be true. Some passages in Vatican I that exegete and interpret the Lord's Promise of never-failing Faith:

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56] ...4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] ...Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Do we think Vatican I's explanation of the Lord's Promise to St. Peter can be mistaken? I cannot see how that could be the case.

Viva Cristo Rey, I agree with Abp. Sheen. Sr. Catherine Emmerich also prophesied a false counter-church in Rome side by side and opposing the true Church. She also spoke of the secret sect trying to subvert the Church of St. Peter. And she spoke of Two Popes.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Vicar of Christ can never in actual fact become a pertinacious heretic.
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2019, 07:31:06 AM »
Quote
The contrary opinion is a hypothesis only and it was the teaching of the conservative, orthodox Fathers at Vatican I who defined ex cathedra Papal Infallibility that in actual fact the Vicar of Christ can never - non-hypothetically - become actually a formal and pertinacious heretic.
They did no such thing.  Cardinal Burke and the 4 Cardinals who sent the dubia letter to +Francis, proves it's possible for the pope to fall into heresy.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have sent the letter.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Vicar of Christ can never in actual fact become a pertinacious heretic.
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2019, 07:35:21 AM »
Quote from: XavierSem on March 19, 2019, 07:22:31 AM
Quote
But if it did, then simple reality dictates that either V1 was wrong, or the pope is not a heretic

I agree these are the only two alternatives, but the first is impossible because Vatican I was an Ecuмenical Council and is Dogma.

Therefore, the second must be true: Some passages in Vatican I that exegete and interpret the Lord's Promise of never-failing Faith.

 [...]

Do we think Vatican I's explanation of the Lord's Promise to St. Peter can be mistaken? I cannot see how that could be the case.
The second is most assuredly as wrong as the first point Xavier. All one needs to do is know of anything that any of the conciliar popes have said or written to know they speak heresy.

What is now needed, is to examine both of the indisputable facts and form an indisputable conclusion, based on those facts:

1) V1 is right.
2) The pope preaches heresy.

This only means your understanding of what V1 taught, is wrong.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
« previous next »