Author Topic: Was the papacy or non-papacy of John Paul 2 is was a matter of opinion (Read 3683 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2015, 07:31:51 PM »

Actually, whether any of the Conciliar popes are/were popes or not is not merely a matter of opinion. They either are popes or they are not popes. It matters not what your opinion is. If you think they are/were popes and they are/were NOT, your opinion is wrong. If you think they are/were NOT popes and they are/were popes, again, your opinion is wrong. Period.

However, none of us on CathInfo have the authority to bind another's conscience on the matter. I, personally, am convinced that all of the Conciliar popes (though I am not sure in the case of John 23) have defected from the faith, are/were heretics, and were not popes. In the case of Paul 6, if he was pope when he was elected, he certainly lost the papacy when he signed certain docuмents at Vatican 2. The rest were heretics before their election and never gained the papacy to begin with.

On the other hand, those who do not share my belief on the matter are still fully Catholic provided that they reject the heresies routinely taught by the Conciliar sect.

What I simply don't understand is how anyone can say that Bergoglio, for example, is clearly a heretic but retains the papacy. I don't think that those people are outside the Church for that reason, but if they want to clearly see what "diabolical disorientation" is, they need only to look in the mirror.

songbird · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2015, 07:55:45 PM »

I just finished reading, " The Church Threatened From Within, by Rev. Michal Poradowski. It states on inside: I have read Joseph Jankowiak's translation from Polish to English of Rev. Michal Poradowski's book and found it faithful to the original. signed Rev. John Diugosz OFM

Now this book ,1986, has a picture of Pope John Paul II on page 8 with the "Broken Cross". The author says words of admiration to John Paul II and the end of the book. The author explains Nova Et Vetera (New and old-traditional).

The author had the opinion that Poland was the ONLY country that had Nova Et Vetera while other countries had Only Nova.(at the end of book)

The author was giving his opinion as to why a Polish cardinal was elected Pope over Italians. (over 400 years)

I just want to know if anyone has read this red paperback book. I was very happy with the Total book, EXCEPT the picture on page 8 and the author admiring the Pope. I get a thinking that those may be edits/some one added to the contents. The info in the book is excellent showing all the marxists schemes for take over of all different cultures in deep detail. I would still recommend reading this book for just those reasons. I just feel like someone added admiration for the pope, thinking he was going to save the world. That does not go along with the legions and legions of Marxist that the author sees as FACTUAL.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2015, 09:07:29 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

However, none of us on CathInfo have the authority to bind another's conscience on the matter.

I always marveled at this argument. Doesn't this go without saying? OF COURSE SVs can't bind consciences. That's not even a point of contention. 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. As Bishop Sanborn points out, that has to be known with the certainty of faith. If we cannot know with the certainty of faith that Pius XII was a pope then we cannot know the dogma of the Assumption with the certainty of faith either. And that's true even if I'm living at the time of Pius XII (vs. Father Cekada's nonsensical statement about this applying only to past popes).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2015, 09:14:27 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

What I simply don't understand is how anyone can say that Bergoglio, for example, is clearly a heretic but retains the papacy.

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.

In fact, the sedeprivationists, of whom Bishop Sanborn is now one, partially believe what you said, that the heretical popes materially retain the papacy while formally losing it. I actually think that the key to reconciling the Bellarmine and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas positions does in fact lie in this distinction. I just haven't thought it all the way through. In the case of widespread, well-founded, positive doubts regarding legitimacy, according to the maxim papa dubius nullus papa the pope cannot formally exercise authority. I still have to find the quote put out there by Father Jenkins to that effect. It's as if the pope does in fact get "quarantined" until the Church resolves the issue. So in effect it's the Father Chazal position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 26, 2015, 09:20:41 AM »

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.