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

Author Topic: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility  (Read 7978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14758
  • Reputation: +6090/-907
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
« Reply #120 on: October 01, 2024, 09:22:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :facepalm:  The 2 items in question "public abjuration" and "public retraction" .... these are not a public confession, which is what your quote is referencing.  Your quote has nothing to do with abjuration/retraction.

    An abjuration/retraction is a formal admitting that you were a heretic/schismatic.  That you believed, supported, condoned, and pushed error.  Since your errors were public, then your retraction must be public.  It's exactly the type of letter that +Vigano wrote.  He admitted he was wrong about V2, and Conciliarism, the new mass, etc.  Then he explained why they are wrong and Orthodoxy is right.
    All Trent is saying above is that it's not a Divine requirement.  It also says that SECRET sins should not be made public.  But sins of heresy/schism are NOT SECRET.  They cause scandal and the scandal must be undone.  So says canon law.  That's the whole point of a suspected heretic being "called to rome" to be interrogated.  It's the entire basis of the Spanish Inquisition.  Suspected heretics were examined to determine if they were a) confused on doctrine (material heretics, or b) obstinate in error (formal heretics).

    :facepalm:  No one is talking about in 'danger of death' which situation has all manner of exceptions.
    As I said Pax, stop making your own rules. Per canon law (you can look it up) normally, confession is all that is necessary - unless the confessor or bishop require a public abjuration, or, if the penitent is a new convert. 
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14758
    • Reputation: +6090/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #121 on: October 01, 2024, 09:30:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, in what sense did Martin Luther "remain a Catholic until his bitter end"? I am still looking for Church teaching that would support that such a statement is Catholic.
    If you can replace the word "army" with "Church," it is in this sense.

    You desert from the army, far as you're concerned you're no longer in the army, as far as army is concerned you're still in the army. 
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12282
    • Reputation: +7782/-2370
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #122 on: October 01, 2024, 09:58:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    No, it’s wrong in all senses. A heretic is not a Catholic.
    Try to define heretic without using the word 'catholic'.

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #123 on: October 01, 2024, 10:00:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Try to define heretic without using the word 'catholic'.

    Is that all you have? :facepalm:
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12282
    • Reputation: +7782/-2370
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #124 on: October 01, 2024, 10:07:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    As I said Pax, stop making your own rules. 
    I'm not.  I'm pointing out the different levels of crimes in canon law.  You are simply generalizing the crimes. 

    Quote
    Per canon law (you can look it up) normally, confession is all that is necessary
    See?  You're using the word "normally" which is the general rule.  But this means that there are cases where confession IS NOT ALL THAT IS NECESSARY.  There's more required in order to obtain forgiveness.

    Martin Luther could not simply go to confession and act like the 99 thesis he nailed to the church door didn't happen.  He was summoned to a meeting to be interrogated for his heresies, as his crimes were extreme.

    Quote
     - unless the confessor or bishop require a public abjuration, or, if the penitent is a new convert. 
    Or if the penalty requires a special forgiveness from the roman official, or a roman judge, or the pope himself.

    Again, there is the general rule (which you hyper-focus on) and you are forgetting all the exceptions and other special cases which are contrary to the general rule.

    You do this all the time.  Admit that the general rule AND exceptions exist.  You can't pick and choose.  It's both.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12282
    • Reputation: +7782/-2370
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #125 on: October 01, 2024, 10:11:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • A heretic is a former catholic.  A former catholic is not a pagan; they have been baptized and received the sacraments.  They were former members of Christ's Mystical Body.  Their heresies do not erase the baptismal character, nor their catholic training, nor their knowledge of the Faith.  A heretic does not get "downgraded" to a pagan, in spiritual terms.  The only way to define a heretic is by saying "they were a former catholic".  There's no other way.  It's the defining mark of their error.

    Agree or disagree, I don't care.  You have a myopic view on many topics, you are unable or unwilling to view things from different perspectives.  Not worth my time.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14758
    • Reputation: +6090/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #126 on: October 01, 2024, 10:31:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not.  I'm pointing out the different levels of crimes in canon law.  You are simply generalizing the crimes. 
    See?  You're using the word "normally" which is the general rule.  But this means that there are cases where confession IS NOT ALL THAT IS NECESSARY.  There's more required in order to obtain forgiveness.
    Yes, *normally* = confession is all that is necessary, and confession is as necessary for the sin of heresy to be forgiven as it is for all mortal sins.

    If there is a censure connected with the particular sin of heresy - which would have to have been pronounced to the individuals by the pope or bishop - not any laymen, or if the confessor or bishop judges that the sin requires a public abjuration, then so be it, but that is not normally the case, what that is is a rare or an extraordinary case. Either way, only trad clergy/hierarchy are the ones who are found guilty of sins of that nature these last 60 years. 

    If the pope deemed it appropriate for whatever reason, Luther could have received absolution without any abjuration at all. Public abjuration is NOT part of the sacrament.

    But there are some things we lay people have zero say in - and insisting heretics MUST publicly abjure their heresy in order for the sin to be forgiven is one of those things. 
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #127 on: October 01, 2024, 11:05:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A heretic is a former catholic.  A former catholic is not a pagan; they have been baptized and received the sacraments.  They were former members of Christ's Mystical Body.  Their heresies do not erase the baptismal character, nor their catholic training, nor their knowledge of the Faith.  A heretic does not get "downgraded" to a pagan, in spiritual terms.  The only way to define a heretic is by saying "they were a former catholic".  There's no other way.  It's the defining mark of their error.

    Agree or disagree, I don't care.  You have a myopic view on many topics, you are unable or unwilling to view things from different perspectives.  Not worth my time.
    This is what I said:
    Quote
    What’s more important is that you believe Martin Luther was always a Catholic. This is completely heterodox,

    This is what you said:

    No, it's right in one sense but wrong in another sense.  It depends.”

    A heretic is not a Catholic, period. What you posted above in no way supports what you said here: “No, it's right in one sense but wrong in another sense.  It depends.”

    I don’t know if you just try to post something, anything to contradict me, but you’re starting to look really stupid. What is your problem?

    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12282
    • Reputation: +7782/-2370
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #128 on: October 01, 2024, 11:12:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Yes, *normally* = confession is all that is necessary, and confession is as necessary for the sin of heresy to be forgiven as it is for all mortal sins.
    Thank you, captain obvious.

    Here's the problem, you are hyper-focused on the forgiveness of the sin (i.e. which only happens through confession...no one is arguing otherwise).  What you are minimizing is the ADDITIONAL penalties which heresy/schism causes, due to canon law.

    Quote
    If there is a censure connected with the particular sin of heresy
    YES!!!  This is what we're talking about.  The grave, serious and extreme cases of heresy/schism which canon law IPSO FACTO imposes on such sins.

    Quote
    - which would have to have been pronounced to the individuals by the pope or bishop - not any laymen,
    many of these censures are automatic, as canon law clearly states.  That's what IPSO FACTO means.  "By the fact" that (person A did x, this is the penalty).

    Quote
    or if the confessor or bishop judges that the sin requires a public abjuration, then so be it, but that is not normally the case,
    :facepalm:  But we're NOT talking about normal cases. 

    Quote
    what that is is a rare or an extraordinary case.
    Yes.  And Martin Luther is a rare case of extreme heresy.  Just like most of the V2 heretics.

    Quote
    If the pope deemed it appropriate for whatever reason, Luther could have received absolution without any abjuration at all.
    The point being, the pope has to decide either way.  Confession alone does not suffice.

    Quote
    Public abjuration is NOT part of the sacrament.
    No one ever said it was.  You're not distinguishing between the CANON LAW penalties of excommunication and the power of confession to forgive sins.

    Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose.  Certain sins (i.e. heresy/schism) have been BOUND by the Church to a greater degree, and require MORE than just confession.  The acts are BOTH sins and also violations of Church law.

    If a person is excommunicated in the most extreme degree, they can go to confession and be forgiven, but... they are still not allowed to go to Communion and take part in public worship.  The excommunication is related to the heresy/error of dogma.  The confession is related to the sin.

    Again, looking at Martin Luther, he originally started with 99 heresies.  After being summoned to an inquiry, he was corrected and recanted 40 of these.  But he was obstinate in heresy, after being corrected, on the rest.

    This whole process, inquiry, investigation took multiple years.  All the while, he was excommunicated....which means, he was not allowed to take part in public worship.  He was on probation, so to speak.  Even if he had gone to confession every single day of this multi-year period.

    His excommunication meant he was not a "member in good standing" of the Church.  Again, he was on probation.  Until the Church decided on whether he was obstinate in his heresies or not.

    Confession does NOT solve every problem.  That's the whole point.  And Christ gave His Church the power to investigate, inquire and determine serious cases.

    Quote
    But there are some things we lay people have zero say in - and insisting heretics MUST publicly abjure their heresy in order for the sin to be forgiven is one of those things.
    We're insisting on following canon law.  No one is arguing for penalties which don't already exist in canon law.

    Do you honestly believe that this "abjuration of heresy" is not part of canon law?

    Here's another thing, which you fail to consider:
    1.  A firm purpose of amendment is required for forgiveness.  An abjuration of heresy is simply a firm purpose of amendment not to follow error anymore.
    2.  A public heretic can be forgiven his sins in confession.
    3.  An abjuration of heresy is simply their PUBLIC denial of errors, based on their PUBLIC sins, which is an extension of their firm purpose to reject heresy from now on.

    Again, +Vigano's letter was an abjuration of heresy, of sorts.  So was St Augustine's "Confessions".

    The Church can require EXTRA things (apart from confession) to be forgiven, just like a priest can require a thief to return property, or a murderer to turn himself in, or a perjurer to recant his lies in court.  So the Church can require a abjuration of heresy.

    This is NOT some new concept.  It's part of Church History.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14758
    • Reputation: +6090/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #129 on: October 01, 2024, 11:28:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :facepalm:  But we're NOT talking about normal cases. 
    Yes we are lol.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12282
    • Reputation: +7782/-2370
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #130 on: October 01, 2024, 11:30:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can’t be serious?  Do you think Martin Luther was a normal case of heresy?


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14758
    • Reputation: +6090/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #131 on: October 01, 2024, 11:36:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is what I said:
    This is what you said:

    No, it's right in one sense but wrong in another sense.  It depends.”

    A heretic is not a Catholic, period. What you posted above in no way supports what you said here: “No, it's right in one sense but wrong in another sense.  It depends.”

    I don’t know if you just try to post something, anything to contradict me, but you’re starting to look really stupid. What is your problem?
    In one sense, the heretic, as well as you and others, may or may not believe he is a Catholic, that's "in one sense."

    In the other sense, if he was ever Catholic then the Church considers him a Catholic in mortal sin, one who needs to confess his sins and amend his life. That's "in the other sense." 

    I think you know this already, but simply will not accept it, that's what I think.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14758
    • Reputation: +6090/-907
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #132 on: October 01, 2024, 11:40:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can’t be serious?  Do you think Martin Luther was a normal case of heresy?
    No. Luther, Henry VIII et all are not normal cases.

    If you would have read the thread, you would see I tried to get QV and 2V to imagine themselves as heretics wanting to repent. = Normal.

     I did say at one point that a heretic could be Luther and Calvin combined and still be absolved in confession, but I meant their heresies, not their notoriety.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2897/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility
    « Reply #133 on: October 01, 2024, 12:17:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In one sense, the heretic, as well as you and others, may or may not believe he is a Catholic, that's "in one sense."

    In the other sense, if he was ever Catholic then the Church considers him a Catholic in mortal sin, one who needs to confess his sins and amend his life. That's "in the other sense." 

    I think you know this already, but simply will not accept it, that's what I think.
    Well, at least Stubborn makes sense of what you wrote, now you know you’re in trouble. :laugh1:
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?