Author Topic: Was the papacy or non-papacy of John Paul 2 is was a matter of opinion (Read 3682 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #10 on:** June 26, 2015, 11:22:39 AM »

Ladislaus said: "What's at issue is whether and to what extent individual Catholics (vs. the Church as a whole) can decide even for themselves whether or not someone is the Pope."

How do you decide who is the Pope?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #11 on:** June 26, 2015, 11:36:05 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

But that's the position held by the John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, and many other theologians; that position actually GAINED popularity in the last couple hundred years. So it's an absolutely tenable opinion. SVs try to pretend that St. Robert Bellarmine's position is tantamount to dogma, but that's not even close to being true.

Except that the 1917 Code of Canon Law took SAINT Robert Bellarmine's position, not John of St. Thomas's. Maybe you can docuмent all the pre-Vatican 2 sources who supported JOST's position? The SVs have done their homework and have numerous citations of theologians who support St. Robert's position. cf. Fr. Cekada's pamphlet, Tradition, Infallibility and the Pope.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #12 on:** June 26, 2015, 11:44:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

And my variant on sedeprivationism actually solves the Apostolic succession argument from the R&R camp.

Let's say that Francis materially possesses the papacy but does not hold it formally. Francis then appoints a bishop to a See, a bishop who is not heretic (perhaps he's confused or in error but not a heretic). That bishop then can formally exercise jurisdiction, since the material potency comes from the appointment. I believe that the potency (material aspect) can be transmitted purely materially and then can be turned into formal jurisdiction in someone who happens not to be a heretic.

This could be a question someone could direct towards the leading sedeprivationists.

That's a novel solution. Maybe it is correct. But the concepts of sedeprivation and/or sededoubt are novel and unheard of in Catholic tradition. That is very dangerous ground to be treading on.

The sede vacante on the other hand is a traditional concept. The only thing unusual about the present situation is the length of the sede vacante. Otherwise, all the concepts related to the SV are completely in keeping with the traditions of the Church. That appears to me to be the much safer path to take.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** June 26, 2015, 01:31:35 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Ladislaus said: "What's at issue is whether and to what extent individual Catholics (vs. the Church as a whole) can decide even for themselves whether or not someone is the Pope."

How do you decide who is the Pope?

That's precisely the point. I don't decide. Only the Church decides.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #14 on:** June 26, 2015, 01:40:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Ladislaus said: "What's at issue is whether and to what extent individual Catholics (vs. the Church as a whole) can decide even for themselves whether or not someone is the Pope."

How do you decide who is the Pope?

That's precisely the point. I don't decide. Only the Church decides.

How do you decide where the Church is?