Here is where I think that the sedes go wrong:
1) Confusing theological error and bad judgments with formal heresy.
To give you just
one example, Pope Pius XI said the false ecuмenism was APOSTASY, not merely heresy.
Hint: apostasy is worse than heresy.
An example would be Pope John Paul II's "kissing of the Koran". (The Muslim cleric, in my opinion, "stuck the thing in his face," and so, he really had no choice in the matter.)
Convenient opinion you have there. Unfortunately it is just that, your opinion, and false to boot too.
Nope, wrong again.
Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists in dictis vel factis — not only in words,
but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)
Such "bad judgments" do not constitute heresy,
We just saw that they DO, and the indefendible Koran-kissing is not merely some "bad judgment" like declaring guilty someone who was actually innocent by not carefully considering the evidence no, it is APOSTASY.
All you say is flat-out wrong which is why i keep saying that you are inexcusably willfully ignorant and blind. You are so obstinate.
which, per Saint Thomas Aquinas is this:
As Augustine says (Ep. xliii), and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus), “By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion when they have found the truth”, because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. (ST, IIa IIae, Q. 11, art. 2, ad 3)[/b]
Wow.
You actually want to compare JPII's koran kissing with people who are erring in good faith, which is all St. Thomas is talking about here.
We see the absurdities to which the defenders of these antichrists fall into. It's just revolting.
Anyways this is what St. Thomas actually says:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Thelogica, Pt. II-II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2.: "…
if anyone were to... worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate."
So we can clearly see, as opposed to what you would have us believe, that St. Thomas did teach that ACTIONS can constitue even APOSTASY, which is just common sense.
It is possible, in my opinion, for a Pope and an ecuмenical Council (namely, Vatican II) to teach poorly without necessarily teaching heresy or even theological error.
Yes and i have already proven to you again and again, to no avail, that your dear "opinion" is flat-out WRONG and even heretical.
Need i point out that this is only your "opinion" and that it is backed up by NOTHING and contradicted by all the facts? What kind of absurdity is this?
2) Saluting the person and not the position. It's the other way around -- In Catholicism, we "Salute the office and not necessarily the man occupying it."
Yep, what you have is a cardboard pope, for visual purposes only.
Likewise, it is absurd to say that the Roman Pontiff cannot bind the Church, as a matter of discipline, to what he believes to be reformable doctrine, one which he wants a future successor and/or council to settle.
The only problem here is that we are dealing with HERESY, APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY, which is impossible that a Pope bind anyone to, let alone the whole Church.
The charism which we believe that the Pope has is a negative charism, which means that the Pope is not going to "drive the bus off a cliff."
Well, that's EXACTLY what this last 6 antipopes have been doing.
Which proves they are not real Popes.
As Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, the Pope is not a prophet or an oracle, but simply, a leader and a teacher of the universal Church, and the Holy Spirit's promise is that the Pope will not bind the faithful to believe, as a matter of faith, something which is false.
This is exactly what happened with Vatican II, the new "code", the new "catechism", the abominable "ecuмenical directory" ETC. ETC.
But what obstinate people like you fail to realize is that, just because these things aren't proposed AS DOGMA, AS MATTERS OF FAITH, doesn't all of a sudden get them all off the hook and saves the day.
The Church cannot give heretical, evil, blasphemous LAWS to the Church, or a false liturgy, and none of this false under things proposed as dogmas of faith.
As an individual, as a Pastor, and as a theological, the Pope can (and does) err.
Yes, and if he becomes a public heretic or an apostate, he's out.
3) Passing judgments on the Vicar of Christ. Paul IV's 1559 bull cuм ex apostolatus officio was quite clear about this:
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.
Same old, same old.
I'll just post what Cekada said:
5. FIRST SEE JUDGED BY NO ONE: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur — no one may judge the First See… That no one may judge the Pope — that is, his personal sin of heresy as opposed to the heretical import of his words — is a fundamental truth of our religion…” (p.13.)
(A)
Context: Any first-year canon law student knows that it says no such thing.
The maxim “the First See is judged by no one” is incorporated into the Code of Canon Law as canon 1556.
The canon appears in Book IV (Ecclesiastical Trials), Part I (Trials), Section 1 (Trials in General), Title 1 (The Competent Forum), which prescribes which ecclesiastical courts have jurisdiction to try which types of cases.
While it is true that the pope has the final say on doctrinal and disciplinary matters in the Church — except in the system Mr. Ferrara and SSPX propose, where they do — the maxim itself merely means that there is no ecclesiastical tribunal before which one could summon the pope or to which one could appeal the pope’s final judicial decision.
Here is an explanation from a standard canon law manual:
“Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity.” (Cappello, Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.)
The judicial immunity of the pope was disputed in church history by partisans of Gallicanism and Conciliarism, who also maintained that a pope’s decisions could be appealed to a general council.
The maxim “the First See is judged by no one” is a
procedural norm, then.
(B)
Sources: One of canonical sources for the maxim, the Decree of Gratian (ca. 1150), reads as follows: “Whose sins [the pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for
he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith [nisi deprehendatur a fide devius].” (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6.)
If anything, one can conclude from this the very opposite of what Mr. Ferrara maintains: defection from the faith is the
one sin of a pope we are permitted to judge.
(C)
Papal Teaching: In two of his coronation sermons, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) — considered one of the greatest canonists of his time — explained how a pope who falls into the sin of heresy is “judged.”
“’Without faith it is impossible to please God.’… And so the faith of the Apostolic See never failed, even in the most trying circuмstances [turbatione], but always continued intact and undiminished, so that the privilege of Peter remained constant and unshaken.
“To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge,
it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)
“You are the salt of the earth… Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather
he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. [quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim.] For he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)
A pope who commits the sin of heresy, then, can indeed be “shown to be judged.”
(D
Finally: Mr. Ferrara, who are you trying to kid?
If the publications you write for actually applied the maxim “The First See is judged by no one” to themselves, they’d be sending their entire editorial content out each month on a postcard.
Topic: To Jehanne: "Sedevacantism creates more problems than it solves" (Read 9440 times)