Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 47003 times)

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #270 on:** November 11, 2019, 08:39:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 11, 2019, 06:00:04 PM

So we must conclude that a Doubtful Pope is certainly not a True Pope simpliciter. Otherwise, it would be heretical to state that he could not dissolve any General Council.

So a Doubtful Pope is merely a pope secundum quid.

Might one not say this secundum quid works out along the lines of formaliter vs. materialiter. Gasp.

You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to figure this out. I understand that you're just seeking clarity, but don't torture yourself in the process. God doesn't demand that you have all the answers, and there's a danger in trying too hard to figure out what God might not want you to understand, to see if you will remain faithful to Him in spite of your doubts; and to see if, instead of relying on your wits, you will place your trust in Him to bring you through the crisis safely. If you have a Mass nearby and old books to read, what more do you need?

That being said, I would reply that a true but doubtful Pope (don't equate this with an heretical Pope yet) is a true Pope secundum quid, not with respect to the distinction between the form and the matter, but quoad se/quoad nos.

During the Great Western Schism, the true but doubtful Popes possessed jurisdiction (were formal popes), and were Popes quoad se, but they were not Popes quoad nos (for all the Church). Obviously, the doubt is always related to "quoad nos," since it is "we" who are doubting. The doubt, in this case, doesn't affect the quoad se, material or formal distinctions, but it did excuse the Catholics who followed a false claimant, since at the time it was nearly impossible for them to know for sure which Pope was legit.

You mentioned a quote that Fr. Jenkins has cited that refers to a doubtful Pope not possessing jurisdiction (i.e., lacking the form). If it’s the quote I’m thinking of, this is referring to a “Pope” whose election was in doubt from the beginning, and specifically one whose election was judged be null who a subsequent investigation determined was never the Pope. The reason he lacks the form is because he was never the true Pope. Here’s the quote I think you’re referring to:

Quote

Fr. Wernz: “The ancient authors everywhere admitted the axiom, ‘A doubtful pope is no pope’ and applied it to solve the difficulties which arose from the Great Western Schism. Now this axiom could be understood in several ways. For instance, a ‘doubtful pope’ can be understood not negatively, but positively - i.e., when, after a diligent examination of the facts, competent men in the Catholic Church would pronounce: 'The validity of the canonical election of this Roman pontiff is uncertain’. Moreover, the words 'No pope' are not necessarily understood of a pope who has previously been received as certain and undoubted by the whole Church, but concerning whose election so many difficulties are subsequently brought to light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' so that he would thereby forfeit the pontifical power already obtained. This understanding of the axiom concerning 'a doubtful pope' should be reproved because the whole Church cannot entirely fall away from a Roman pontiff who has been legitimately elected, on account of the unity promised to His Church by Christ.

The underlined is exactly what we have with Francis. He was accepted as Pope by the entire Church at first - which is all that’s required for the “peaceful and universal acceptance” to prove that he’s is the Pope (and that Benedict is not) – and then later doubted by some due to alleged defects in the election. As Fr. Wernz said, this is not what’s meant by a doubtful Pope. The initial acceptance of Francis in the days and weeks after the election is all that’s required to prove he became Pope. UPA does not have to be habitual.

Fr Wernz goes on to address the case of a Pope whose election was uncertain from the beginning and remained so:

Quote

Fr. Wernz: “But the other part of this axiom could have the meaning that a Roman pontiff whose canonical election is uncertain and remains subject to positive and solid doubts after studious examination, absolutely never did acquire also the papal jurisdiction from Christ the Lord. For this reason, the bishops gathered together in a general council, in the event that they subject to examination a doubtful case of this kind, do not pronounce judgement on a true pope, since the person in question lacks the papal jurisdiction [because he never had it].

“Now if the axiom be understood in this last sense, the doctrine which it contains is entirely sound. Indeed, this is what is deduced in the first place from the very nature of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently, in such a person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal jurisdiction.
The same conclusion is confirmed on the basis of the visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognised and discerned, especially on the part of her legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are considering, the pope cannot be found even after diligent examination. The conclusion is therefore correct that such a doubtful pope is not the proper head of the visible Church instituted by Christ. Nor is such a doubtful pope any less compatible with the unity of the Church, which would be in the highest degree prejudiced in the case of the body being perfectly separated from its head. For a doubtful pope has no right of commanding and therefore there is no obligation of obedience on the part of the faithful. Hence in such a case the head would be perfectly separated from the rest of the body of the Church. Cf. Suarez, De Fide, Disp.10, sect.6, n.4, 19

Ladislaus · « **Reply #271 on:** November 11, 2019, 08:44:03 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 11, 2019, 08:22:15 PM

PaxChristi2 said:Can we all agree that if there is UPA then there cannot possibly be a discretionary judgment against the Roman Pontiff? We must adhere to a UPA pope. There is no way around it. The only way not to adhere to a pope is to first of all deny that he is UPA. But PaxChristi2 is asserting UPA. So he can't possibly justify the possibility of a discretionary judgment by a council (or the cardinals). He has to choose one or the other. Either UPA and obedience or not UPA and resistance.

This makes sense. Without a Pope becoming a "doubtful pope," no Council can exercise even a discretionary judgment about him ... against his will. So he would have to lose UPA before that could possibly happen.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #272 on:** November 11, 2019, 08:52:11 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 11, 2019, 08:39:33 PM

During the Great Western Schism, the true but doubtful Popes possessed jurisdiction (were formal popes), and were Popes quoad se, but they were not Popes quoad nos (for all the Church). Obviously, the doubt is always related to "quoad nos," since it is "we" who are doubting. The doubt, in this case, doesn't affect the quoad se, material or formal distinctions, but it did excuse the Catholics who followed a false claimant, since at the time it was nearly impossible for them to know for sure which Pope was legit.

You are presupposing that Francis is a true pope. If you are sure that he is a true pope then he cannot possibly be a doubtful pope (to you) at the same time. From a historical perspective we can say that a pope was a true but doubtful pope but for the people who doubted his claim at that moment in time, he certainly was not a true pope (of course they were wrong but that's besides the point). He was merely a doubtful pope to them. You can't assert a claimant is both a certainly true pope (UPA) and a doubtful pope at the same time. That is nonsense.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #273 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:04:13 PM »

Clemens,
UPA refers to an election. A doubt could happen after the election - say for heresy - and be completely unrelated to the election. So, yes, in the case of +Francis (or +Benedict), their election would be accepted (UPA), but they could later be doubted for their V2 heresies.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #274 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:04:32 PM »

By the way, 20th century theologians were still wondering if any of those GWS claimants were true popes. The Liber Pontificalis would list Urban as a true pope. But that is not infallible. And just as you guys doubt that Pope Martin was still the true pope when Pope Eugene was elected and peacefully accepted so it is possible for 20th century theologians to doubt that Urban was a true pope. History isn't infallible. But it's there. It's at least an indication of what Roman authorities thought was possible. The main point is that a UPA pope wields an authority that no doubtful pope ever could. If Frank is UPA, then you better obey him in both heart and mind. Not recommending that.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #275 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:10:15 PM »

Quote

This makes sense. Without a Pope becoming a "doubtful pope," no Council can exercise even a discretionary judgment about him ... against his will. So he would have to lose UPA before that could possibly happen.

Isnt this obvious? Wouldn’t the fact that a pope is deemed a “potential” heretic make his status doubtful? Thus, the Cardinals can investigate his orthodoxy and charge him with heresy, if he’s obstinate.
.
On the other hand, if such doubts were wrong and he was not obstinate in heresy or what he said was understood incorrectly, I don’t think a discretionary judgment is problematic. The word “discretionary” is limited. It doesn’t usurp any authority; it’s advisory. I don’t see an issue with it.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #276 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:13:30 PM »

I agree with Salza and Siscoe on the definition of UPA. I just don't think they are applying it correctly.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #277 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:23:32 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 11, 2019, 07:27:19 PM

There is no universal peaceful acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio as the pope. I posted an answer to this idea in another thread. Let me copy/paste it here:

In any case, there is [present tense] no universal public acceptance of George Bergoglio as pope on the part of Catholics, so the question is moot anyway.

Yeti, the peaceful and universal acceptance is a one-time event that happens the moment the Church accepts the man as Pope; or rather, when the news of the election spreads throughout the universal Church and there is no protest. That’s the “infallible sign” that proves the validity of his election and his legitimacy as Pope.

Quote

Cardinal Billot: "the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. … Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi)

Quote

John of St. Thomas: “All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition [i.e., that this man is Pope] de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?

"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops at a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

The news of Francis' election spread throughout the Church within a few days and no one raised any objections for more than a year. By then it was too late. UPA happened in the days following his election.

Quote

Yeti: “If someone is appealing to the mass of people who call themselves Catholic today, most of them don't believe that abortion, divorce, contraception, sodomy, etc. are mortal sins. Most of them don't believe in transubstantiation. People who don't accept these teachings are not Catholics, therefore their opinions are not relevant to a discussion of whether most Catholics accept George Bergoglio as pope.”

Here's Bishop Sanborn’s reply to your objection:

Quote

Bishop Sanborn:

Q. Can a papal election be convalidated by the general acceptance of the Catholic people?

“A. Yes. This is generally conceded by Catholic theologians. The ultimate guarantee of a valid election is the universal acceptance of Catholics that a certain man has been elected. (…)

“Q. But if the Novus Ordo Catholics are in heresy together with the Vatican II cardinals, how can they convalidate an election?

“A. They can do so because, again, they have not been legally severed from the Catholic Church, and therefore, despite the fact that they adhere to the heresies of Vatican II, are still legally Catholics, and retain the power to legally accept an election. Their legal status as Catholics is confirmed by the fact that all traditional priests admit them to the practice of the traditional Faith without any lifting of excommunication, and without any public or formal abjuration of error. (…)
“When Novus Ordites return to the traditional faith, they merely need to tell the priest, in all the cases I know, that they want to become members of their parish (i.e., Mass center). They make no abjuration, public or private, and no excommunication is lifted. On the other hand, if a Lutheran should approach a traditional priest, the priest rightly requires that he make a public abjuration, in which the excommunication is lifted. Furthermore, if Lutherans were to approach the communion rail, the priest would refuse them Holy Communion, even without previous warning. But I know of no priest who refuses Holy Communion, without previous warning, to Novus Ordites who wander into the traditional Mass for the first time. Why this difference? Because the Novus Ordites have not been legally severed from the Catholic Church. (…) The effect of their baptism by which they became legally united to the Church as a society has never been destroyed.” (Bishop Sanborn, Explanation Of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers, June 29th, 2002).

Don Paolo · « **Reply #278 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:24:41 PM »

Pax Vobis says:《No one is denying that the true pope has full powers/jurisdiction. No one is denying that a CONFIRMED heretic pope loses all of these powers. What is under debate: In the intermediary state, before a pope is declared a heretic, but when he appears (materially) to be one, are his spiritual or jurisdictional powers impaired?》

I REPLY: For so long as a man is certainly the pope, he possesses the fullness of power. A man who is manifestly a formal heretic is an incapable subject of the papacy. He is no pope. A man who is doubtfully the pope, due to indicia constituting him as suspect of heresy is to be resisted. If he subsequently manifests pertinacity, then he is certainly no pope, even if he was believed to have been the pope before. A man can be declared a heretic by the ecclesiastical authority if he is no longer the pope; i.e., if he fell from office when his pertinacity became manifest. For so long as he is validly constituted as pope, he may not be judged by any power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical; not even by an ecuмenical council.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #279 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:39:40 PM »

PaxChristi2, Bishop Sanborn doesn't support your position. He would not allow a Novus Ordo priest to celebrate Mass in his chapels. The NO priest would first be required to prove that he was proficient in traditional Catholic theology and then he would be required to be at least conditionally ordained. It doesn't matter if that NO priest was legally severed from the Catholic Church or not. There is no way that Conciliar cardinals and/or Conciliar clergy in general can convalidate the claim of a man who isn't even a priest as the true Bishop of Rome.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #280 on:** November 11, 2019, 09:48:39 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 11, 2019, 08:52:11 PM

You are presupposing that Francis is a true pope. If you are sure that he is a true pope then he cannot possibly be a doubtful pope (to you) at the same time. From a historical perspective we can say that a pope was a true but doubtful pope but for the people who doubted his claim at that moment in time, he certainly was not a true pope (of course they were wrong but that's besides the point). He was merely a doubtful pope to them. You can't assert a claimant is both a certainly true pope (UPA) and a doubtful pope at the same time. That is nonsense.

You are confusing three things. First, UPA happened 6.5 years ago, in March of 2013, when the universal Church accepted him as Pope.

Second, I never said Francis was a doubtful Pope. A doubtful Pope and an apparently heretical Pope are only in the same category in the sense that they are the two cases that theologians say justifies the Church convene an imperfect council, but that doesn't mean a doubtful Pope must be considered a heretic, and a heretic must be doubtful. They are distinct categories that happen to fall into the same third category.

Croixalist · « **Reply #281 on:** November 11, 2019, 10:04:22 PM »

A major part of what would be necessary to form such a council in the first place, a great number of scandalized and courageous bishops, is missing. A nice thought, but it's even less likely we're suddenly going to get a group of faithful Cardinals before we get a decent Pope. It was from a great mass of rotten apples the we received our latest worm-riddled papacy. Miracles are miracles and if we get them all at once I won't complain! In my opinion, only a good Pope from sometime in the future is really going to be able to make this right. Until then, no Pope at anytime has had or ever will have the authority to teach against dogma, or suppress the Latin Mass, or create a new rite, or practice pagan rituals, or worship pagan idols, etc, etc...

I do find a few things I agree with S&S on, like their distinction between occult and notorious heresy, and the near impossible conditions a Pope may enter into such a state. Ultimately the Church is restricted to judging the externals, which wouldn't be so tortuous if we weren't dealing with thoroughly dishonest modernist-masons lying their heads off when they say the Church teaches this or that and insisting they actually believe it. This is what makes Modernism such a difficult thing to root out: the heretics have found an exploit against the Church Militant and they are going to keep pressing their advantage until God removes them. And then of course, there is the fact that we have a very guilty College of Cardinals unwilling to press the Pope for the True Faith.

If the future glory of the Church is indicated at all by the hideous near-hopeless situation she currently finds herself in, it truly may feel like a Heaven on Earth when it finally arrives.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #282 on:** November 11, 2019, 10:16:38 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 11, 2019, 09:48:39 PM

You are confusing three things. First, UPA happened 6.5 years ago, in March of 2013, when the universal Church accepted him as Pope.

Second, I never said Francis was a doubtful Pope. A doubtful Pope and an apparently heretical Pope are only in the same category in the sense that they are the two cases that theologians say justifies the Church convene an imperfect council, but that doesn't mean a doubtful Pope must be considered a heretic, and a heretic must be doubtful. They are distinct categories that happen to fall into the same third category.

How would Salza know in an unqualified manner that sedes are manifestly schismatic and heretical if you aren't asserting UPA as a dogmatic fact that guarantees that Bergoglio is the true pope right now? At least some sede privationists would agree that Bergoglio was validly elected and recognized by the Church and still materially holds the office. And some sedes would argue that Bergoglio was validly elected but fell from the papacy. So if you believe UPA only guarantees that he was validly elected and not that he is certainly the pope right now, how does Salza (and I presume you) justify the assertion that all sedes are not members of the Church? No sedes have said, "I quit the Church." And of course, if UPA is only relevant to the election and not to the present time then why are you bringing it up now? In 1965 the American Ecclesiastical Review asserted that UPA was how we could know that Paul VI was certainly the pope. But Paul VI was elected in 1963. Why didn't the AER say that we could be sure that Paul VI was validly elected and leave it at that? It's because UPA is how we know that a pope is the true pope right now, not years ago when he was elected. The purpose of asserting UPA is that we must obey true popes. That's why I posted the link to "Must I believe it". You can't avoid your head. It is true that all doubtful popes are not heretics. But it certainly also is true that all manifest heretics have doubtful jurisdiction.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #283 on:** November 11, 2019, 10:27:26 PM »

Frankly, PaxChristi2, I think you wasted 15 years of your life on this. Your position is a house of cards in a wind storm. If it took you 15 years to get to a position where only your fellow R&R friends agree with you, what does that say about your work? It's completely unconvincing and a lot of it is tortured logic. You quote St Robert's refutation of the idea that popes are subject to emperors to prove your point that popes were subject to emperors. That's madness. You quote sede Bishop Sanborn who rejects Bergoglio's claim to prove your point that Bergoglio's claim is valid. You're nuts. Not to mention that your posts are dripping with condescension. Maybe you're not aware of it. It doesn't help your effort.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #284 on:** November 11, 2019, 10:37:43 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 11, 2019, 09:24:41 PM

A man can be declared a heretic by the ecclesiastical authority if he is no longer the pope; i.e., if he fell from office when his pertinacity became manifest. For so long as he is validly constituted as pope, he may not be judged by any power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical; not even by an ecuмenical council.

No power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council can judge the Pope, yet Fr. Kramer believes he's free to do so using is "conscience," no less (which judges good vs. evil in practical matters, not true vs. false in speculative matters); and if his conscience is tells him he who is judged by no power on earth, civil or religions, nor even an ecuмenical council, is a heretic, he believes he is fully in his right to "exhort the few remaining Catholics" to presume the See is vacant on his Facebook page, which he did.

Then a few months later his conscience told him that he who "may no be judged by no power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council," is the Pope after all.

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 47003 times)

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Clemens Maria

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Clemens Maria

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Clemens Maria

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Don Paolo

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Clemens Maria

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Croixalist

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Clemens Maria

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Clemens Maria

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!