Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 43327 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #420 on:** November 13, 2019, 10:14:07 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 13, 2019, 09:00:13 AM

I believe the Catholic faith is truth, and that truth doesn't contradict itself. If I'm wrong, what does any of this matter?

Well put.

And I'll add this:

If the occupant of the Holy See can teach error to the Church and promulgate harmful disciplines, in short, if the occupant of the Holy See can lead souls to hell, then what does it matter if the See is vacant? In fact, it would be better for such a See to remain vacant as often and for as long as possible.

R&R claim to be defending the Papacy when in fact they are absolutely undermining and destroying it.

They would rather defend Jorge Bergoglio tooth and nail than to defend the Holiness of the Church; in fact, they throw the latter overboard in order to save Bergoglio.

R&R really is some kind of a psychological problem ... in the final analysis, some kind of pacifier that they can't stop sucking on.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #421 on:** November 13, 2019, 10:25:45 AM »

"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public; and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #422 on:** November 13, 2019, 10:35:19 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 13, 2019, 10:25:45 AM

"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public; and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.

I do still wonder sometimes about the status of an internal heretic. Could one of these only be a member of the Church's body secundum quid?

If there were an evil infiltrator who managed to conceal his heresy who had the intention of becoming pope only to promulgate false doctrines, and even declare an erroneous dogma, all in order to damage the Church, would this man really still have papal authority?

One could argue that the intention to accept the papacy was defective? Or perhaps he's not FULLY a member of the Church's body and is only materially in possession of the office?

Of course, in the practical order, God would undoubtedly expose such a one ... to those at least who have the eyes to see ... but is someone like that REALLY a member of the Catholic Church?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #423 on:** November 13, 2019, 10:46:35 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 13, 2019, 10:25:45 AM

"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public; and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.

Right. They confuse the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy.

I have a challenge for them. I attach the quotes from canonists, put in an appendix to Father Cekada's pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf). These canonists declare, point blank and without any equivocation, that the loss of office and jurisdiction for manifest public heresy by a pope occurs without a declaration.

Clear, honest, no hiding. No smoke screen of words, no movements of shells on a table . . . no "look here, look there, now here at this swath of words . . ."

So the challenge to S & S: cite one canonist or theologian after Vatican I who discusses this specific issue of a heretic pope (as the attached canonists do) who says that a declaration would be necessary to remove a manifest public heretic who is pope (if it were to happen). Says it straight out without any nonsense, like the attached canonists say a declaration is not necessary.

All I've see from S & S is leaps and arguments from sources not discussing the specific issue of a heretic pope and whether a declaration is necessary for loss of office in this specific case.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #424 on:** November 13, 2019, 10:55:27 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 13, 2019, 10:46:35 AM

I have a challenge for them. I attach the quotes from canonists, put in an appendix to Father Cekada's pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf). These canonists declare, point blank and without any equivocation, that the loss of office and jurisdiction for manifest public heresy by a pope occurs without a declaration.

Clear, honest, no hiding. No smoke screen of words, no movements of shells on a table . . . no "look here, look there, now here at this swath of words . . ."

See, this is what is refreshing about Father Chazal vs. S&S. Father admits that theologians in the past have held both views. He, rightly, criticizes Father Cekada and some of the sedevacantists for pretending that there was absolute consensus on the "ipso facto without any declaration" position, where some like Cajetan and John of St. Thomas felt otherwise. But S&S then go do the opposite, and even more; they not only implicitly claim this as the sedevacantists do, by ignoring the opposite opinion, they go farther and explicitly assert that the theologians all unanimously agree with them ... by twisting and distoring Bellarmine, in addition to ignoring authors like those cited by DR.

Here's the bottom line: it's a disputed question, and Catholics MAY hold either opinion in this matter, and various ones in between. It has not been settled by the Church. If you want to argue that your position is better than the other one and is in fact, right, go right ahead, but this game of pretending that there's unanimous consensus requiring a Church declaration is incredibly dishonest.

It could not have been laid out more explicitly than in Coronata's quote.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #425 on:** November 13, 2019, 10:59:12 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2019, 10:35:19 AM

I do still wonder sometimes about the status of an internal heretic. Could one of these only be a member of the Church's body secundum quid?

If there were an evil infiltrator who managed to conceal his heresy who had the intention of becoming pope only to promulgate false doctrines, and even declare an erroneous dogma, all in order to damage the Church, would this man really still have papal authority?

One could argue that the intention to accept the papacy was defective? Or perhaps he's not FULLY a member of the Church's body and is only materially in possession of the office?

Of course, in the practical order, God would undoubtedly expose such a one ... to those at least who have the eyes to see ... but is someone like that REALLY a member of the Catholic Church?

I wonder the same.

How could someone who lacks the faith receive the grace that their faith not fail? There's no faith to preserve there to begin with.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #426 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:03:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2019, 10:55:27 AM

See, this is what is refreshing about Father Chazal vs. S&S. Father admits that theologians in the past have held both views. He, rightly, criticizes Father Cekada and some of the sedevacantists for pretending that there was absolute consensus on the "ipso facto without any declaration" position, where some like Cajetan and John of St. Thomas felt otherwise. But S&S then go do the opposite, and even more; they not only implicitly claim this as the sedevacantists do, by ignoring the opposite opinion, they go farther and explicitly assert that the theologians all unanimously agree with them ... by twisting and distoring Bellarmine, in addition to ignoring authors like those cited by DR.

Here's the bottom line: it's a disputed question, and Catholics MAY hold either opinion in this matter, and various ones in between. It has not been settled by the Church. If you want to argue that your position is better than the other one and is in fact, right, go right ahead, but this game of pretending that there's unanimous consensus requiring a Church declaration is incredibly dishonest.

It could not have been laid out more explicitly than in Coronata's quote.

Sure, it's an open question. Which position is more reasonable and has more authority? We're discussing the issue.

I note also that Cajetan and St. John of Thomas opined before Paul IV and cuм Ex, and of course before Vatican I. Father Cekada notes in a video that cuм Ex was binding since I think Paul IV was alive when St. John of Thomas expressed his views. This is a relevant consideration. Any canonists or theologians after Vatican I, or even cuм Ex?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #427 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:09:25 AM »

Quote

No one on earth possesses the jurisdiction to "officially" warn or correct the pope. Ecclesiastical warnings are of the nature of an act of a superior over a subject.

Cardinals who rebuke a pope are not doing so jurisdictionally; they are not "pulling rank". They are rebuking per Scripture, as St Paul explains where he rebuked St Peter. Even +Bellarmine says that St Paul "orders" that "2 warnings" be given, to determine 'manifest obstinacy'. You're falsely inserting the idea of jurisdiction.
.

Quote

A formal correction done as a charitable act can be done by any private person, as Ballerini explains.

Ok, but not in the case of the pope. It's very clear that Cardinals elect the pope and they are allowed to rebuke him (by way of council, committee or letter, etc).

Quote

If the obstinacy is manifest, it is perceptible to the senses and is manifested in such a manner that is seen to be obvious, such as when one refuses correction,

Exactly! Correction = St Paul's 2 warnings = rebuke = official warning.
.

Quote

When the obstinacy is manifest, it is public or will become public, and pertains to the external forum.

Obstinacy can only be determined by a rebuke/correction process. A passionate, open or public assertion of error is not obstinacy.
.

Quote

Once the manifest material heretic remains obstinate even after being corrected by someone (by anyone who is capable) with an explanation that would suffice to convince a reasonable man (as Fr. Charles Augustine and St. Alphonsus explain), then the formal heresy is obvious and manifest, even before any judgment or declaration is made by the Church.

Agree, except for your insertion of the phrase "by anyone who is capable". In the matter of fraternal correction, we are allowed to fraternally correct those who are our peers, and only correct superiors if they have given us permission, or if we know that such correction can be done in a respectful way. In the case of a pope, since the Cardinals are the "princes of the Church" and they elected him, only they are allowed to rebuke him.
.

Quote

If the obstinacy of heresy is manifested in such a manner that the dolus of heresy is obvious even without correction, then the form of heresy is already manifest entirely by itself, even without warnings (as Bordoni and de Lugo explain); and therefore is manifest even before being judged and declared by the Church

This is the crux of the debate. The V2 popes claim that their novelties are consistent with Tradition, or at least, they are "pastoral" applications of orthodox doctrine. They continue to deny that they are heretics; they continue to explain that their novelties are catholic. Thus while the heresy is obvious; the obstinacy is not. The heresy may be manifest (in the sense that it is open and public) but it is not "manifest obstinate" heresy, per +Bellarmine's use. Until they are formally rebuked, their obstinacy is not legally established, no matter how open is the error.
.
Let's not forget that the PURPOSE of the rebuke/warning/correction is to bring back the heretic from his sin. The purpose is the salvation of his soul. The purpose of all canonical penalties (including excommunication) is to "shock the system" so that the heretic/schismatic will "wake up" from his unorthodox views and come back to Truth. Many of you want to rush to judgement, to see obstinacy where it is not yet been proven. You have no patience for the Church's processes, which as history shows, can take YEARS to develop. Let's not forget that from the day that Martin Luther nailed his 99 heresies on the church door, to the day he was excommunicated, was over a year and a half. Was anyone more of a clear-cut case of heresy than Martin Luther? Yet, he was not declared obstinate for months and months.
.
I still say, you need to provide +Bellarmine's definition of "manifest" heresy, before you can apply his quote properly. You are interpreting 'manifest' incorrectly, according to the current use by theologians, over 400 years after +Bellarmine lived. The use of this term has changed.
.

Quote

By the fact of the manifestly evident obstinacy,

Manifest does not equal obstinate. Obstinate does not equal manifest. You use these terms as if they were connected and they are not. They have 2 COMPLETELY separate meanings, both in law and in theology.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #428 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:11:42 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 13, 2019, 11:09:25 AM

Obstinacy can only be determined by a rebuke/correction process. A passionate, open or public assertion of error is not obstinacy.

This is absolutely false.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #429 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:14:33 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 13, 2019, 11:03:19 AM

Sure, it's an open question. Which position is more reasonable and has more authority? We're discussing the issue.

I note also that Cajetan and St. John of Thomas opined before Paul IV and cuм Ex, and of course before Vatican I. Father Cekada notes in a video that cuм Ex was binding since I think Paul IV was alive when St. John of Thomas expressed his views. This is a relevant consideration. Any canonists or theologians after Vatican I, or even cuм Ex?

Yes, this is relevant. I didn't know about that chronology relative to cuм Ex.

So it would seem that the so-called Bellarmine position was the general theological consensus since cuм Ex? [Of course, most of these other theologians just misunderstood Bellarmine.]

Ladislaus · « **Reply #430 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:19:46 AM »

Father Cekada's response, in the one posting from his pamphlet by DR, also explains the Bellarmine distinction between the Pope essentially leaving on his own or being forced out against his will. According to Father Cekada, if such a Pope were to continue to act de facto as the Pope (i.e. refuse to leave), then the Cardinals would be required de jure to declare the See vacant so that they could elect another.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #431 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:32:28 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2019, 11:14:33 AM

Yes, this is relevant. I didn't know about that chronology relative to cuм Ex.

So it would seem that the so-called Bellarmine position was the general theological consensus since cuм Ex? [Of course, most of these other theologians just misunderstood Bellarmine.]

Cajetan died in 1534. Paul IV wrote cuм Ex in 1555. St. John of Thomas wasn't even born during Paul IV's pontificate, so I'm not sure what Father Cekada was talking about. I'll go check the video again. But St. John of Thomas looks to have opined after cuм Ex.

Anyone else? Anyone after Vatican I "take the declaration necessary" view?

The Bellarmine view seems to be the consensus, but I'm just a layman seeking wisdom here and ask the experts.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #432 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:33:18 AM »

Quote

"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal".

If you tell me that you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, because of "x" reason, your obstinacy is not obvious because you have yet to be rebuked. If I tell you you're wrong, and show you why, but you continue to hold your error, then your obstinacy is proven and is now public.

Quote

If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external;

yes.

Quote

and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public;

Using the same example as above...If you, instead of telling me personally, you go to a church parking lot and get a megaphone, and declare that you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception for "x" reason, your obstinacy is not obvious, just because your heresy is now public. Public heresy has NOTHING TO DO with obstinacy. Do you even understand what obstinacy or pertinacity means? It means "stubborn refusal" or "difficult to change".
.
Just because heresy is public, does not mean that this person has REFUSED CORRECTION. It does not mean they have REJECTED A CHALLENGE OR CHANGE to their error.
.

Quote

and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separates one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.

The sin of heresy, even before obstinacy is proven, can separate one from the Church (spiritually speaking). As in sedeprivationism, this sin can separate one from the SPIRITUAL office. But...obstinacy is necessary to establish for the removal of the MATERIAL office. You are failing to make a distinction between the spiritual penalties for heresy and the temporal. A manifest-only heretic may very well be in a grave state of sin. He could be uneducated on the Faith, or actually rejecting Truth. That's between him and God. All we can say is that he's objectively wrong. +Bellarmine says that obstinacy is required for the loss of office because the MATERIAL office is lost by MATERIAL proof (i.e. proof of obstinacy, by some human process).
.
+Bellarmine's debate on the deposition of a pope is primarily concerned with the MATERIAL, GOVERNING ASPECT OF THE CHURCH. The whole point of the debate is what happens to the TEMPORAL OFFICE. He's not discussing sin, or the evils of heresy, or loss of membership of the church (which is a spiritual penalty). They are discussing PRACTICAL problems, in LEGAL terms, for a HUMAN office.
.
Pius XII is speaking of the SPIRITUAL loss of Church membership for heresy. You can't apply Pius XII's words to +Bellarmine's analysis. That's just retarded.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #433 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:36:52 AM »

Quote

This is absolutely false.

No it's not. Who was more passionate, open or public in his profession of heresy than Martin Luther, who nailed is 99 heresies to the door of the Church and started an open revolt against the Faith? Was he automatically defrocked, ignored and removed from his office? No, he was not. He was put through a process, and rebuked for his errors. Only after he REFUSED correction and was STUBBORN in error, was he finally excommunicated and deemed a heretic.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #434 on:** November 13, 2019, 11:40:19 AM »

Quote

I won't assume anything here, I'll guarantee that the definition of manifest, today, is the same definition back in Bellarmine's day.

Prove it. Show us all where/how +Bellarmine defined 'manifest'.
.

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 43327 times)

Ladislaus

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

Don Paolo

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

Ladislaus

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

DecemRationis

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

Ladislaus

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

DecemRationis

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

DecemRationis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Ladislaus

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

Ladislaus

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

Ladislaus

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

DecemRationis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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