https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-francis-the-pope-the-argument-from-public-heresy-suggests-not/?utm_source=popular
There are two ways for a pope to vacate his office; 1) his death and 2) his resignation.
Anyone else remember this?
if it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would vacate the office automatically for public heresy.No, obviously he wouldn't, because he hasn't.....and there ain't nuthin' anyone can do about it.
No, obviously he wouldn't, because he hasn't.....and there ain't nuthin' anyone can do about it.
There are two ways for a pope to vacate his office; 1) his death and 2) his resignation.
Anyone else remember this?
Except that since Vatican II, some traditional Catholic have added a new doctrine regarding how a Pope can vacate his office. The new doctrine says that a manifest heretical Pope has vacated his office, even though it looks like he's still sitting in the chair, but really he isn't. And this is the new Church teaching that they want us to accept.
That's because you and Stubborn refuse to accept the Catholic teaching that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
We were talking about the official ways, according to Tradition, that a pope can vacate his office. Your doctrine isn't included as being one of the ways in which a Pope can vacate his office, and never has been. Your doctrine is novel.No, it is not novel, it is what being a heretic, schismatic or an apostate is. When some willfully consents to being a heretic, schismatic or apostate, they make a free choice to leave the Catholic Church. The person committing any of these three sins separates themselves from there Catholic Church. The difficulty is that now there are people that choose to be either heretic, schismatic (or both) and some even choose to be an apostate and yet want to keep their clerical position within the Church so as to destroy it.
No, it is not novel, it is what being a heretic, schismatic or an apostate is. When some willfully consents to being a heretic, schismatic or apostate, they make a free choice to leave the Catholic Church. The person committing any of these three sins separates themselves from there Catholic Church. The difficulty is that now there are people that choose to be either heretic, schismatic (or both) and some choose to be an apostate and yet want to keep their clerical position within the Church so as to destroy it.
Where in the Traditional teachings of the Church is your doctrine included, regarding how a Pope loses his office?Where in the Traditional teachings of the Church is your doctrine included, regarding a Non-Catholic holding office in the Catholic Church?
Where in the Traditional teachings of the Church is your doctrine included, regarding a Non-Catholic holding office in the Catholic Church?
Since there is no provision in the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church for a pope to lose his office due to heresy, of course you cannot cite it.
Since laymen believe that they can depose a pope, of course they believe that the office of the papacy isn't really any different than that of the lay state. Not special at all. A pope is just the same as any Catholic layman. Isn't that something that Vatican II wanted to stress as well? Blur the lines between clergy and laity?
Since there is no provision in the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church for a pope to lose his office due to heresy, of course you cannot cite it.Since there is no provision in the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church for a non-Catholic to be pope, of course you cannot cite it.
Since laymen believe that they can depose a pope, of course they believe that the office of the papacy isn't really any different than that of the lay state. Not special at all. A pope is just the same as any Catholic layman. Isn't that something that Vatican II wanted to stress as well? Blur the lines between clergy and laity?
Since there is no provision in the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church for a non-Catholic to be pope, of course you cannot cite it.
I'm not the one providing new doctrine on how a Pope can lose his office. Your doctrine is novel, since you cannot back it up with any source which says that a Pope will lose his office due to heresy.
Public heresy BY ITS VERY NATURE separates the heretic from the Church.
Why wasn't it included, then, in the Catholic Church doctrine which states how a Pope can lose his office? There are only two reasons provided by the Catholic Church, as stubborn said, which are death or resignation.
There are two ways for a pope to vacate his office; 1) his death and 2) his resignation.What I remember is for hundreds of years, no Pope "retired."
Anyone else remember this?
We were talking about the official ways, according to Tradition, that a pope can vacate his office. Your doctrine isn't included as being one of the ways in which a Pope can vacate his office, and never has been. Your doctrine is novel.Retirement is novel.
Why wasn't it included, then, in the Catholic Church doctrine which states how a Pope can lose his office? There are only two reasons provided by the Catholic Church, as stubborn said, which are death or resignation.Just so we are all on the same page, please cite the doctrine of which you speak.
No, obviously he wouldn't, because he hasn't.....and there ain't nuthin' anyone can do about it.The pope plays by his own rules. Sorry looser. He could actually murder every man womem and child and there ain't nuttin you can do.
I'm not the one providing new doctrine on how a Pope can lose his office. Your doctrine is novel, since you cannot back it up with any source which says that a Pope will lose his office due to heresy.Your doctrine is novel, since you cannot back it up with any source which says that a non-Catholic can be Pope.
It doesn't need to. "BY ITS VERY NATURE" applies to everyone without exception.
(https://i.imgur.com/41DUiYH.png)
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
(https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html)The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
Your doctrine is novel, since you cannot back it up with any source which says that a non-Catholic can be Pope.
Retirement is novel.
If Bergolio is separated from the Church, then why is he still there, in the office of what the world assumes is the Papacy?
Because people like you afford him authority that he doesn't have.
Actually, people like me don't afford the Pope any authority, since a Pope's authority doesn't come from the laity. The Pope is the Pope, and it has nothing to do with me. I didn't elect him, and I can't depose him. But I can acknowledge that he is the Pope, because that's what Catholics do.
I have always understood that only the hierarchy can judge if a pope is no longer a pope.
Alas, today, with a hierarchy that agrees with the perversions of Pope Francis,
that is not going to happen.
However, maybe in the future, a pope will rule Francis was a heretic and thus an anti-pope,
confirming some to say: 'told you so.'
You should acknowledge Jorge Bergoglio is not pope based on Church teaching and that he is a public manifest formal heretic. See the syllogism above.
"...Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected..." - Fr. Wathen
The argument is settled once the sedes admit that they are the ones who insist that it is a dogmatic fact that their knowledge of his sins does indeed qualify them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.
No where in the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church is it said that the Catholic laity are required to judge as to whether or not a Pope is a manifest heretic.
Reason enlightened by Faith compels one to do so.
Making a juridical declaration is one thing, but making a private judgment in conscience is another. The faithful may make a private judgment in conscience that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope because the evidence is sufficient that he is a public manifest formal heretic, which places him outside of the Church. As a matter of fact, a positive and probable doubt that Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Church is sufficient to withdraw obedience to him.But the sede's judgement is not private, it's quite public - to the point of changing the Church's liturgy to suit their own private judgement....."We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy." - Fr. Wathen
I have always understood that only the hierarchy can judge if a pope is no longer a pope.Actually, not even the hierarchy can judge the pope - who, per canon law, "is judged by no one."
Alas, today, with a hierarchy that agrees with the perversions of Pope Francis,
that is not going to happen.
However, maybe in the future, a pope will rule Francis was a heretic and thus an anti-pope,
confirming some to say: 'told you so.'
That's what protestants say too. No need for Church teachings, which only get in the way.
But the sede's judgement is not private, it's quite public - to the point of changing the Church's liturgy to suit their own private judgement....."We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy." - Fr. Wathen
Actually, not even the hierarchy can judge the pope - who, per canon law, "is judged by no one."
And if there is a future pope that does not declare Francis was not the pope, what then?
And if a future pope does declare that Francis was NOT the pope, what then? The R&R will say; "well, we were wrong all along - so what." And the sedes will say; "ah ha! we were right all along," again, so what.
it is a private judgment in conscience made public, which is legitimate when the evidence is sufficient.It's not actually legitimate except only to sedes.
How can a future pope judge a previous pope when an equal cannot judge an equal?Is a dead pope equal to a living pope? No.
It's not actually legitimate except only to sedes.
Is a dead pope equal to a living pope? No.
Then it's also not legitimate for you to judge that the Novus Ordo Missae is not legitimate.The Liturgy of Pope St. Pius V is the only legitimate liturgy of the Roman Rite in perpetuity, we learn this from Quo Primum which is the law that he established. So if you want to sidetrack into this issue, you will need to bring papal authority into the discussion, not papal validity.
How does death relate to this? If a man is pope and then dies, his authority as pope at the time he was pope cannot be judged by a future pope because it would be the equivalent of a pope judging his equal.One lives and one is dead - yet they are still equal? Aside from that, the popes' authority is supreme, not limitless. Supreme in that the living pope can, if he should decide, to declare the dead pope was invalid - but he will never make such a futile declaration. Declare him a heretic, schismatic and apostate, yes, but invalid? no.
The Liturgy of Pope St. Pius V is the only legitimate liturgy of the Roman Rite in perpetuity, we learn this from Quo Primum which is the law that he established. So if you want to sidetrack into this issue, you will need to bring papal authority into the discussion, not papal validity.
Both cases (whether Jorge Bergoglio is pope and whether the Novus Ordo Missae is legitimate) require a judgment on your part using reason enlightened by Faith.No it does not. All you need to know is what is legitimate, in knowing what is legitimate, you know what is not.
No where in the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church is it said that the Catholic laity are required to judge as to whether or not a Pope is a manifest heretic.No where in the history of the Church has the entire hierarchy been corrupted enough (including the pope) to accept false teachings and say they are Catholic. The closest example was the Arian heresy.
No where in the history of the Church has the entire hierarchy been corrupted enough (including the pope) to accept false teachings and say they are Catholic. The closest example was the Arian heresy.
Heretical popes? The essence of Catholicism is that there be none. It is also its essence that, if necessary, the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly.
Has the Church erred in not having a specific doctrine for this situation?
It is indeed the essence of Catholicism that there be no heretical popes; hence, no actual specific doctrine which says what is to be done with a heretical pope. Has the Church erred in not having a specific doctrine for this situation?
I agree that the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly. IMO, a pope who is accused of heresy should be offered a chance to defend himself against the charges. But as of yet no charges have been made, except by a few of the (conciliar) hierarchy. And as such, Francis can ignore it. I have often wondered why Pope St. Pius X didn't call a Council in order to deal with the issue of Modernism once and for all. He must have had a good reason for not doing this, but I can't think of what that might be.
I feel like this is borderline blasphemous: "Has the Church erred?" Would you ask if Our Lord erred? The Immaculate Bride of Christ doesn't err.
I agree. The Church cannot err. So why is there no doctrine to deal with a potential heretical pope? There must be a good reason for this. Do you have any ideas? It seems like something of a mystery to me.::dips toe into water::
And the real issue isn't even whether some pope has spouted some heresy on some occasion. The issue is, is Vatican II the Catholic religion or is it the Great Apostasy we've all been warned about?Agreed. I said this somewhere else too (maybe even in this thread). Bennyvacantists take us off course with focusing solely on the heresy or the "lack of consent" of Bergoglio. Makes one wonder.
Agreed. I said this somewhere else too (maybe even in this thread). Bennyvacantists take us off course with focusing solely on the heresy or the "lack of consent" of Bergoglio. Makes one wonder.
Both E & S are in 2 types of motion-- rotational & lateral. Both Helio & Geo-Centrism are false scientifically. E is the center of the Universe in a spiritual sense because of the presence of Jesus regardless of it's physical location.‘Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before. For over a century, the organizers of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.’(Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, October 4, 2019.)
Modernism began when from 1741 to 1835 Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius V and Pope Gregory XVI all agreed that the long condemned fixed-sun interpretation of Scripture was proven true by science so could no longer be forbidden in the Church. In other words, thereafter, every pope went along with their predecessors' contradiction of Holy Scripture entered into heresy. Pius X included, as he allowed his Pontifical Academy to promote the long held heresy condemned by all the Fathers. Once the supernatural creation was abandoned for a natural one, another long condemned heresy, the Nebular theory was never condemned, not even by Pius X, nothing could stop Modernism that caused millions of souls to be lost and the Church ending up as it is today, almost gone on Earth. Christianity is a supernatural religion and once it was dragged down to one based on the same theories of origins held by atheists, Catholic faith diminished slowly thereafter. the amount of Catholic doctrine that was changed by popes to accord with secular theories has to be seen to be believed.
However, the Catholic Church makes a distinction between material and formal heresy. Material heresy means in effect ‘holding erroneous doctrines through no fault of their own’ due to inculpable ignorance, in this case they believed that the subject matter of Scripture had been resolved by science, so ‘is neither a crime nor a sin’ since the individual made the error in good faith.
Now we know the Bible tells us that Satan is the 'Father of Lies.' Proof of that is how he fooled popes into allowing a heresy loose within the womb of the Church on the basis of an illusion, one that they would never admit to not even after Einstein in 1905 told the world the moving-sun of the Bible was never proven wrong. Pope Francis is just another 'material heretic' who told us God is not a magician, he cannot just wave a wand and make a finished universe appear. Francis is merely a result of the Modernism, a preference for a natural creation instead of a Supernatural Creation introduced into the Church since 1820, one every pope since has gone along with.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned The Bull of Pope Paul IV-- Cuм Apostolic Ex, which is the strongest docuмent expelling a Pope( even if he be legally elected) from the Church for committing manifest heresy.Per cuм ex, the directive explicitly identifies the Roman Pontiff and clearly states that if the Roman Pontiff is a heretic, that he is to be contradicted, which is R&R.
Agreed. That's my major objection to Bennyvacantism. As +Vigano rightly stated, Bergoglio is merely the inevitable metastasis of the Conciliar Revolution, i.e. and effect of it rather than the cause. There's this undercurrent in that movement where if only we had Ratzinger back all our problems would be solved. No, Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were all part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Per cuм ex, the directive explicitly identifies the Roman Pontiff and clearly states that if the Roman Pontiff is a heretic, that he is to be contradicted, which is R&R.
Sedeism is about expelling popes, it does not say anything about expelling popes.
The sedes completely ignore the one time that it actually does apply specifically to the pope.
::dips toe into water::::dives in head first::
I think it's because the Church did not believe that it was even possible for a Pope to be/to become a heretic. This was actually Bellarmine's position before taking up the question of what if it did happen.
Bennyvacantists take us off course with focusing solely on the heresy or the "lack of consent" of Bergoglio. Makes one wonder.
But of course, it is believed (though not completely proven) that Pope Liberius was under duress when signing the exile order for St. Athanasius, since he had been kidnaped by the Arians and held in exile himself. Basically, he was kidnapped, and forced to sign the docuмent against St. Atanasius. It was a moment of weakness, but that might be forgivable. The Arians of old were very crafty and at times violent. It wasn't an easier time back then. There's just a lot of time between now and then, and who really studies the situation of the Arian heretics anymore? Hardly anyone. It seems like a boring subject to many.
What I remember is for hundreds of years, no Pope "retired."
Not boring at all... It's interesting but there is no way to know for sure IMO. I personally am thoroughly convinced that St Pope Celestine V was usurped by Boniface VIII... nothing says fair and square quite like your usurper preventing you from returning to a quiet monastic life and instead imprisoning you out of fear and then dying shortly after.
It's something I think about with a lot of figures, especially those like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI... we can never really know the whole story of what was going on behind the scenes and the pressures they were under which is why I do not judge them as harshly as others do for their errors, I also believe they were valid successors to St Peter as there are no grounds to deny that IMO.
I suspect Pope John Paul I was αssαssιnαtҽd and Pope Benedict XVI once remarked that his authority ended at the door, e.g. none, surrounded on all sides both within and without and Catholicism is incredibly divided which would have made Pope Benedict XVI very easy prey (A Cardinal got caught discussing his assassinating in Beijing - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/10/plot-kill-pope-italian-media )... same with other figures even around Vatican II but those were before my time.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
No it does not. All you need to know is what is legitimate, in knowing what is legitimate, you know what is not.
Legitimate:
Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum:
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in
perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to
be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or
censure, and may freely and lawfully be used..."
Example of what I said above given by Last Tradhican:
"U.S. Treasury agents who specialize in forgery detection, when they are being trained, are never shown any forgeries, they are strictly immersed in learning every minute detail of the real thing. That way, they can spot the forgery instantly..."
The Arian crisis has so many parallels for today's Church crisis. The late Michael Davies did a lot of research into the subject.
I never knew the whole story of Celestine V and Boniface VIII. Sculduggery was of course going on back then too. I too try to not judge the VII popes too harshly, though of course they have all been Modernists, to one degree or another. Bp. Williamson has said that there was something decent about B16, which I agree with.
The former Celestine, now reverted to Pietro Angelerio, was not allowed to become a hermit once again. Various parties had opposed his resignation and the new Pope Boniface VIII had reason to worry that one of them might install him as an antipope. To prevent this, he ordered Pietro to accompany him to Rome. Pietro escaped and hid in the woods before attempting to return to Sulmona to resume monastic life. This proved impossible, and Pietro was captured after an attempt to flee to Dalmatia was thwarted when a tempest forced his ship to return to port. Boniface imprisoned him in the castle of Fumone near Ferentino in Lazio, attended by two monks of his order, where Pietro died after 10 months at about the age of 81. His supporters spread the allegation that Boniface had treated him harshly and ultimately executed Pietro, but there is no clear historical evidence of this.
The problem is that if the gates of hell are not to prevail against Christ's Church, then a heretic being validly elected Pope should not be possible in the first place, you can't have it both ways, either they were not validly elected or they were, either they were never the valid successor to St Peter or they were the valid successor to St Peter, you can't change your mind half way through and on whose authority? Thus it's a circular argument IMO and cannot work.You're creating a circular argument, one that does not exist. The presumption is validity, not invalidity. All the cardinals who voted in the conclave accepted his election, and we must also. No matter the "proof," it is an exercise in futility to attempt to prove invalidity of any papal election.
God Bless
Whether you deny it or not, the fact remains is that you are making a judgment in contradiction to the judgment of him who you accept as a true pope. You are basing your judgment on reason enlightened by Faith. It is the same process used to make the judgment that Jorge Bergoglio is not a true pope.This is not true. I am remaining faithful, not judging anything or anyone. Of course by remaining faithful to the true faith, I am doing as cuм ex directed us - contradicting the V2 popes - but we do this to remain faithful to truth rather than man - even though that man is pope(s).
If the Church could just get a few more of these men everything would be alright...:laugh1:
(https://i.imgur.com/Vg0rzRF.jpeg)
The correct thinking is in knowing with certainty of faith that the Gates of hell will not prevail no matter what. Because we are absolutely certain of this we must also be certain that even *with* evil, apostate, heretic popes sitting in the Chair till, God forbid, the end of time, the gates of hell will still not prevail.
Judging popes to not be popes is contrary to what the Church, in her infinite wisdom has always taught.....
You're creating a circular argument, one that does not exist. The presumption is validity, not invalidity. All the cardinals who voted in the conclave accepted his election, and we must also. No matter the "proof," it is an exercise in futility to attempt to prove invalidity of any papal election.
The thinking in your first sentence above is altogether contrary to the belief that binds us as regards the Church's indefectibility. I mean, Christ's promise is the Divine Revelation that tells us in no uncertain terms that the gates of hell will not prevail. So as far as that goes, the Church's indefectibility, being foundational, is not only not any concern of ours, it is our, well, our foundation that without, everything has already crumbled and hell prevailed.
The correct thinking is in knowing with certainty of faith that the Gates of hell will not prevail no matter what. Because we are absolutely certain of this we must also be certain that even *with* evil, apostate, heretic popes sitting in the Chair till, God forbid, the end of time, the gates of hell will still not prevail.
I have never accepted Boniface as a Pope for no other reason than his alleged election is simoniocal(sp?)-- mucho more than could ever be alleged against Alexander. Additionally there are those who think he murdered St Celestine. BTW-- it took about 2 weeks after the death of Boniface for the Church to recognse Celestine as a Saint. :popcorn:
I think the Arian heresy is so easily debunked by John 8:58, Before Abraham was I am, the 'I am' in relation to the name of God given to Moses in Exodus 3:14, that's why they wanted to stone Him to death right then and there... then we have John 14:9 and so many others, if you've seen Christ you've seen the Father, the Father and Christ are one, how sayeth thou show us the father etc.
When they start ranking the trinity it's like communism... equal but some are more equal than others lol a stepping stone to other heresies like Nestorianism and denying the Queen of Heaven IMO.
That being said, I think the violent manner in which they dealt with some of these things often exacerbated the problem, it's enough for the Holy Father (legitimately elected) to rule on it and let them be anathema and simply pray that they come back and evangelize them.
In terms of St Pope Celestine V and Boniface VIII, I never knew of this until others such as Ed Mazza talked about it, then I looked into myself and was amazed at what I found... Pope Benedict XVI made a significant point in regards to St Pope Celestine V as he intended to follow in the Saints footsteps.
April 2009, Pope Benedict XVI leaves his pallium at the tomb of St Pope Celestine V.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI5nVqTOXvI
Now what were those footsteps exactly... St Pope Celestine V came from a very humble and quiet background during a period of crisis in the Church, he was slandered as being inept and ineffectual IMO because he would not rule with an iron fist, as entire Kingdoms depended on the Papacy at this time... then we have Cardinals pressuring him to resign, among them Cardinal Benedetto Ceatani (Boniface VIII) who would then become his 'successor' this alone is already incredibly suspicious, but then as St Pope Celestine V tries to return to his prior quiet monastic life he is arrested and imprisoned by this so called successor... I mean, many Catholics question Vatican II and rightly so... but how can this obvious one be accepted on face value for so long? Who arrests and imprisons their predecessor, where he soon dies... if it was of their own free will and everything was legit? That's obviously foul play!
St Pope Celestine V - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Celestine_V
"no clear historical evidence of this" LOL! Nothing says 'free' and 'fair' like arresting and imprisoning your predecessor where he soon dies under ? circuмstances.
Boniface VIII formalized the 'resignation' clause... soon after it would send the Church into the Avignon Papacy crisis and several antipopes. Since it's before Vatican II many people simply don't want to look at it so Boniface and all he did gets a free pass sadly IMO.
In another article "The resignation of Celestine in 1295 provided the spiritual and legal groundwork for Benedict." ... of course it did, surprise, surprise lol... Pope Benedict XVI had to know the fate of poor St Pope Celestine V... as Pope Benedict XVI once lamented, that his authority ends at the door... surrounded on all sides, already foiled one assassination attempt, Wikileaks exposed them conducting a 'Catholic Spring' and later that same year in 2014 after he was deposed Victoria Nuland was in Ukraine handing out food to protesters as they conduct their violent coup there. Pope Benedict XVI IMO was just one more victim among a long line of regime changes. This is why IMO the Church cannot be restored until the USA Deep State goes down, I know their hands were involved in Vatican II too, like I said, Church Committee and JFK assassination all occurred during the same time period.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
I have never accepted Boniface as a Pope for no other reason than his alleged election is simoniocal(sp?)-- mucho more than could ever be alleged against Alexander. Additionally there are those who think he murdered St Celestine. BTW-- it took about 2 weeks after the death of Boniface for the Church to recognse Celestine as a Saint. :popcorn:
As I understand it, this means that no pope will ever OFFICIALLY define a heresy, or officially deny a truth of faith. A pope can say what he likes on an airplane or to a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, but that is merely a personal sin, not a gate of hell for the Church.What we can say is that the dogma on his infallibility is stated quite clearly in V1, which states he is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra. Beyond that, he is as fallible as you and I and can do and say all the evil things the conciliar popes have done and said in their teachings - just exactly the same as you or I could do.
Where has the Church taught this?Well, there's Canon Law's decree that the First See is to be judged by no one, but before that there's Pope Paul IV's cuм ex.
Just because a 'majority' accept something does not make it so, the truth is not subject to majority rules, especially in light of new information.That's right, but when something has been taught and believed always and everywhere by all of the faithful all of the time - that truth is infallible.
"...One of the saints, [St. Vincent of Lerins (died 445)] whose name I cannot remember, for which I apologize, made a statement concerning heresy and orthodoxy which I find both wonderfully intriguing as well as important.Let us now apply this to sedevacantism, I am interested in your thoughts here.....
He says that the true faith is that which has been held by all people, that is, all the faithful people in the Church, all the time.
Which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic. Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people, as is liberalism among Catholics today.
Also an heretical idea can be shown to have been held by a small group of people within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone..."
The 1917 code of canon law 188 states a Pope loses his office due to heresy. There's debate on how it irons out but it's not as if sedes pulled the notion out of a hat."...The law deprives one under censure of his office and jurisdiction, in order to prevent the cleric involved from using his office to damage the Church and souls. Such is the case with Canon 188, which rules that if an individual (cleric) "abandons" the Faith, he automatically loses his office. The term "abandonment" of the Faith, in this context, does not mean "public heresy," but complete departure from the place where the individual held and exercised his office. Such a person is classified as a "fugitive" and a "fallen-away." Otherwise, an ecclesiastical tribunal must make an examination of the charges that the subject has "abandoned the Faith," find him guilty, declare that the censure has taken effect, and that by virtue of the law and his intransigence, declare him to have been deprived of his office. This authority may then rule as to whether any or all of his official acts were invalid retrospectively.
"...The law deprives one under censure of his office and jurisdiction, in order to prevent the cleric involved from using his office to damage the Church and souls. Such is the case with Canon 188, which rules that if an individual (cleric) "abandons" the Faith, he automatically loses his office. The term "abandonment" of the Faith, in this context, does not mean "public heresy," but complete departure from the place where the individual held and exercised his office. Such a person is classified as a "fugitive" and a "fallen-away." Otherwise, an ecclesiastical tribunal must make an examination of the charges that the subject has "abandoned the Faith," find him guilty, declare that the censure has taken effect, and that by virtue of the law and his intransigence, declare him to have been deprived of his office. This authority may then rule as to whether any or all of his official acts were invalid retrospectively.I mean that's a fine opinion I was more just citing the law since some posts in this thread were suggesting that it's without basis. That a Pope losing office is a completely foreign concept nowhere to be found in tradition and I'm like that's just silly.
It must be understood that when the censure falls upon an individual "automatically," this is only in the "internal forum." An ipso facto excommunication has no effect upon the status of its recipient vis-a-vis the external forum, until the legitimate authorities of the Church establish and certify the incurrence of the censure. Thus, should a bishop preach heresy, he incurs this censure; but he is not thereby expelled from his bishopic, so that his diocese is without a head. That effect of the law occurs only after the juridical requirements of the Code are fulfilled, and the proper authority ratifies the determinations of the proper ecclesiastical tribunal..." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
Re: OP. Yes, he is. Pray for him, for the Cardinals and Bishops he appoints, and for his Successor, who is probably a Cardinal right now. There are still many conservative, Tradition-friendly Cardinals and Bishops in the Church.No he never was pope, pray that God puts an end to this counterfeit church from satan
Re: OP. Yes, he is. Pray for him
I mean that's a fine opinion I was more just citing the law since some posts in this thread were suggesting that it's without basis. That a Pope losing office is a completely foreign concept nowhere to be found in tradition and I'm like that's just silly.The thing is, that's not "a fine opinion," that's the law. I would not call it a "foreign concept," I call it what it has become, i.e. a novel doctrine.
No he never was pope, pray that God puts an end to this counterfeit church from satan^^This is an opinion, albeit spoken as if it were the law.
Did you miss this one that I asked for your thoughts?....
I used to be where you are now many years ago back when I was on Catholic Answers Forum....
I like the way Fr. Wathen sums up the Vincentian Canon in one of his sermons....Let us now apply this to sedevacantism, I am interested in your thoughts here.....
"...Which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic. Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people, as is liberalism among Catholics today.
Also an heretical idea (sedevacantism?) can be shown to have been held by a small group of people within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone..."
Did you miss this one that I asked for your thoughts?....
Well, there's Canon Law's decree that the First See is to be judged by no one, but before that there's Pope Paul IV's cuм ex.
1.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.
Not at all, I just haven't got around to it yet as it requires more research on my part. :)Thanks!
God Bless
This is assuming that the man in power is truly pope. Furthermore, it regards a canonical judgment which is a private judgment is not.Was Paul IV truly the pope? He's the one I quoted who forbids any and all judging. Again, the presumption is validity, not invalidity.
Was Paul IV truly the pope? He's the one I quoted who forbids any and all judging. Again, the presumption is validity, not invalidity.
Pope Paul IV was truly pope. He wasn't speaking about private judgment.Yes, of course he wasn't talking about private judgement, and if that's all it was, if that were all there is to it, then we would not be having this discussion.
Yes, of course he wasn't talking about private judgement, and if that's all it was, if that were all there is to it, then we would not be having this discussion.
"Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur" means that no one has jurisdiction over the pope. But whether the putative pope is actually the pope is the point in question. If he is not, then "Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur" does not apply to him.Being that the presumption is always that the pope is the pope, no one can judge him. This is why he essentially said: "Although he can be judged by no one, if he deviates from the faith, i.e. if he's a heretic, he may be contradicted."
Being that the presumption is always that the pope is the pope, no one can judge him. This is why he essentially said: "Although he can be judged by no one, if he deviates from the faith, i.e. if he's a heretic, he may be contradicted."
For us that means whether he's the pope or not, if he's a heretic don't listen to him. Which is to say that Pope Paul IV is saying that popes can indeed be heretics / heretics can be popes. That's what he is saying.
That's right, but when something has been taught and believed always and everywhere by all of the faithful all of the time - that truth is infallible.
You can look this up, search for Vincentian Canon and you will see the below summary is spot on accurate.
I like the way Fr. Wathen sums up the Vincentian Canon in one of his sermons....Let us now apply this to sedevacantism, I am interested in your thoughts here.....
"...Which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic. Which is to say that at any given time an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people, as is liberalism among Catholics today.
Also an heretical idea (sedevacantism?) can be shown to have been held by a small group of people within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone..."
Denying the Filioque is a denial of the Trinity, as there would be no opposition of relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost. Also the Fathers taught the Filioque.
This is completely wrong IMO.
It's like when the Orthodox say no to the Filioque... I don't consider it 'that' big of a deal, but I do think the Filioque is correct and important... after all John 15:26
You're one of those that holds that the public sin of manifest formal heresy does not by its nature separate the heretic from the Church. Correct?I'm the one who is merely pointing out that a pope, Paul IV, teaches that the pope can indeed be a heretic and that if a pope is a heretic, we are to not listen to him.
Denying the Filioque is a denial of the Trinity, as there would be no opposition of relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost. Also the Fathers taught the Filioque.
Well, it seems to me that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. We don't need to know if it's been held by what number or held always, we only need to know the idea is new. In this case, we know the idea is new because no one ever heard of it in tradition at all. Although a few centuries ago the idea was sparsely speculated upon, it never went beyond that. So because we know that the idea is new, we know it was not held always by everyone, rather it was held by no one ever, which per the Canon makes the idea not Catholic. Agree?
In the same way, at what point does it become a 'majority' or 'always held'? Who defines that and what did the early Christians have to ground them if this was the case? The early Christians didn't have a majority rules track record to go on, they had no track record at all other than Galatians 1:8 (But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.) now that's no majority rules or majority of people over time.
I'm the one who is merely pointing out that a pope, Paul IV, teaches that the pope can indeed be a heretic and that if a pope is a heretic, we are to not listen to him.
When they don't use the Filioque in the Nicene Creed, they are using the original Nicene Creed and on top of that, they are literally copying exactly what it says in scripture with 'proceedeth from the Father' John 15:26... So it's not exactly wrong per sae. Are all those who used the original Nicene Creed Trinity deniers? Was St John because of that passage in the Gospels? It depends what they mean when they don't use it IMO.Other Church councils have taught the Filioque. Also they hold other heresies like real distinction between essence and energies, that the Light of Transfiguration was uncreated and the denial of the Papacy, these are just some of the issues.
God Bless
Wow! This contradicts that the Church teaching that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church. Being separated from the Church means no longer being a member. No longer being a member means the heretic cannot be pope.Not according to Pope Paul IV.
Well, it seems to me that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. We don't need to know if it's been held by what number or held always, we only need to know the idea is new. In this case, we know the idea is new because no one ever heard of it in tradition at all. Although a few centuries ago the idea was sparsely speculated upon, it never went beyond that. So because we know that the idea is new, we know it was not held always by everyone, rather it was held by no one ever, which per the Canon makes the idea not Catholic. Agree?
'New' has no bearing on it IMO, for the early Christians it was all new.But it has everything to do with it, the early Christians had Our Lord and they had the Apostles, which is where all of our Catholic beliefs, every singles solitary one of them originate and come from.
But it has everything to do with it, the early Christians had Our Lord and they had the Apostles, which is where all of our Catholic beliefs, every singles solitary one of them originate and come from.
Not according to Pope Paul IV.
Are you saying he was wrong?
it is you who are wrong. Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church. This is the constant teaching of the Church, unanimous teaching of the Fathers, and unanimous teaching of theologians.I'm not wrong, I am simply quoting Pope Paul IV. So what you are saying is that Pope Pius IV is wrong.
Except that since Vatican II, some traditional Catholic have added a new doctrine regarding how a Pope can vacate his office. The new doctrine says that a manifest heretical Pope has vacated his office, even though it looks like he's still sitting in the chair, but really he isn't. And this is the new Church teaching that they want us to accept.If this were indeed the case, it would represent the ultimate тαℓмυdic subversion.
It depends what kind of early we are talking, St Paul was Galatians 1:8 so he wasn't our Lord or one of those who were with Jesus during His earthly life like St John etc and when it comes to the Diocletian persecutions they didn't, then the various councils where much was ironed out and declared like the Nicene Creed, Theotokos etcI must say that this is most ridiculous.
It was widely understood by majority of Christians and already believed, but various heresies arose and issues needed to be settled. That's where St Peter comes into it as the successor to the New Aaron of the New Covenant, where the gates of hell will not prevail, the rock upon which Christ builds the Church and he has the keys to bind and loose all in the one passage too Matthew 16:18-19
God Bless
I must say that this is most ridiculous.
What part do you find most ridiculous? I can expand on it then.Your idea of "new" as regards new ideas vs what the Church has always taught and what the faithful have always believed is ridiculous. There has been nothing new, no new doctrines, beliefs, ideas or whatever since the death of the last Apostle. Each an every doctrine of the Church, all of our Catholic beliefs (excepting those continued from the Old Testament) began with Christ and the Apostles and can be traced back to then. If they can't be traced back to then through the Church, then they are new doctrines. New doctrines are not Catholic, new doctrines are either error or heresy.
God Bless
Your idea of "new" as regards new ideas vs what the Church has always taught and what the faithful have always believed is ridiculous. There has been nothing new, no new doctrines, beliefs, ideas or whatever since the death of the last Apostle. Each an every doctrine of the Church, all of our Catholic beliefs (excepting those continued from the Old Testament) began with Christ and the Apostles and can be traced back to then. If they can't be traced back to then through the Church, then they are new doctrines. New doctrines are not Catholic, new doctrines are either error or heresy.
Your attempt at redefining "what kind of early we are talking about" is ridiculous. You can read a snip from St. Vincent here. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg920610/#msg920610)
Furthermore, I forgot to add too, remember that Aaron was the Vicar of Moses before Pharaoh.
Exodus 7:1-2 (And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.)
Now the gates of hell not prevailing are in direction relation to St Peter the Vicar of Christ and St Peter is in direct relation to Aaron the Vicar of Moses, who will speak on Moses' behalf (Moses and Christ, Aaron and St Peter) it also shows us that they are capable of erring as Aaron and St Peter did. We can also see that in the Old Covenant and line of succession of High Priest they also made a mess of it too with usurpers and some questionable figures, but the setup is the same.
Therefore, the question is only whether Bergoglio was legitimately elected or not and the answer is most certainly no for many reasons I have outlined above and we already had a Pope... Pope Benedict XVI, who was either the Vicar of Christ or he was not and nobody can depose him regardless of what we think of him.
Therefore I don't really care what Bergoglio says and does anymore, he could turn around tomorrow and be the most orthodox guy and do everything I ever dreamed or wanted and it would all be completely irrelevant as it doesn't change anything IMO. The heresies and bad teaching and example simply prompted me to look into it as something had to be wrong.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
Josh, may I suggest that Moses is a figure of the Vicar of Christ, not of God Himself, i.e., Jesus Christ.
Moses = figure of the holder of the Petrine Ministry, the Pope.
Aaron = figure of any bishop under the Pope.
The quote from Exodus should be read "And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee as God to Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."
This means the Pope is above the secular ruler in spiritual matters. And the bishops, following the instructions of the Pope, are to be the emissaries of the Pope in their dioceses.
The rest of what you say, I agree with.
Now I do not at all think by simply correcting this grave injustice and usurpation that all would be suddenly well in the Church as I think Pope Benedict XVI and others erred and that Vatican II needs to also be addressed... but it'd be a start at least.
Your idea of "new" as regards new ideas vs what the Church has always taught and what the faithful have always believed is ridiculous. There has been nothing new, no new doctrines, beliefs, ideas or whatever since the death of the last Apostle. Each an every doctrine of the Church, all of our Catholic beliefs (excepting those continued from the Old Testament) began with Christ and the Apostles and can be traced back to then. If they can't be traced back to then through the Church, then they are new doctrines. New doctrines are not Catholic, new doctrines are either error or heresy.
Your attempt at redefining "what kind of early we are talking about" is ridiculous. You can read a snip from St. Vincent here. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg920610/#msg920610)
I guess it depends what one means by 'new' when saying that.If that were to happen, the only thing that would be new would be the status of the title, it would be raised from a doctrine to a dogma, iow, it would go from being something that has always been believed by all the faithful since the time of the Apostles, to a declared dogma, elevating the doctrine to a dogma, binding all Catholics to believe it under pain of sin.
An example is Mary's title of Co-Redemptrix.
When a future legitimately elected Pope officially recognises this, then in one sense it will be 'new' but in another sense it is not new at all.
"...This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly..."
The following should help and makes some excellent points - https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-jesus-a-second-moses
I was also using the Douay Rheims and both online and mine it says 'the' so not sure your source for that?
There is also more typology, such as the six days and the cloud... the typology of the shining face of Moses and Christ's transfiguration. There is so much in fact that I don't see how anyone could not see the typology of Moses and Christ after reading it all.. there is still more for myself to unpack... The next step is Aaron and St Peter, which I'm glad you brought it up because I think Exodus 4:14-17 is even better -
(The Lord being angry at Moses, said Aaron the Levite is thy brother, I know that he is eloquent: behold he cometh forth to meet thee, and seeing thee shall be glad at heart. Speak to him, and put my words in his mouth: and I will be in thy mouth, and in his mouth, and will shew you what you must do. He shall speak in thy stead to the people, and shall be thy mouth: but thou shalt be to him in those things that pertain to God. And take this rod in thy hand, wherewith thou shalt do the signs.) Exodus 3:14-17
The Vicar of Moses... later the budding of Aaron's rod.
(He returned on the following day, and found that the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi, was budded: and that the buds swelling it had bloomed blossoms, which spreading the leaves, were formed into almonds. Moses therefore brought out all the rods from before the Lord to all the children of Israel: and they saw, and every one received their rods. And the Lord said to Moses: Carry back the rod of Aaron into the tabernacle of the testimony, that it may be kept there for a token of the rebellious children of Israel, and that their complaints may cease from me lest they die.) Numbers 17:8-10
Aaron made the golden calf and St Peter denied Him three times... now with Aaron he was the beginning of a single line of succession of High Priest... now we have St Peter given not only the promise of the gates of hell not prevailing, but also charging him as the rock on which Christ will build the Church and giving him the authority to bind and loose... the keys.
(And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.) Matthew 16:18-19
So the only question is whether Bergoglio was validly elected or not... and we already had a valid successor who was given the keys... Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected and had the keys and he was deposed and usurped, there is no such thing as 2 Popes or shared Papacy... not even St Pope Celestine V tried to retain the name and garments... St Celestine V tried to return to his monastic life before he was arrested and imprisoned by his so called 'successor'... nothing says free and fair quite like that... Pope Benedict XVI had to know of this... but as he once lamented 'my authority ends at the door' surrounded on all sides there was little he could do IMO. Also at a time when the propaganda and USA Deep State were at the height of their power under the Obama Administration.
Now I do not at all think by simply correcting this grave injustice and usurpation that all would be suddenly well in the Church as I think Pope Benedict XVI and others erred and that Vatican II needs to also be addressed... but it'd be a start at least.
God Bless
6 And Moses and Aaron leaving the multitude, went into the tabernacle of the covenant, and fell flat upon the ground, and cried to the Lord, and said: O Lord God, hear the cry of this people, and open to them thy treasure, a fountain of living water, that being satisfied, they may cease to murmur. And the glory of the Lord appeared over them. 7 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 8 Take the rod, and assemble the people together, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak to the rock before them, and it shall yield waters. And when thou hast brought forth water out of the rock, all the multitude and their cattle shall drink. 9 Moses therefore took the rod, which was before the Lord, as he had commanded him, 10 And having gathered together the multitude before the rock, he said to them: Hear, ye rebellious and incredulous: Can we bring you forth water out of this rock?11 And when Moses had lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank, 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not bring these people into the land, which I will give them. 13 This is the Water of contradiction, where the children of Israel strove with words against the Lord, and he was sanctified in them. 14 In the mean time Moses sent messengers from Cades to the king of Edom, to say: Thus saith thy brother Israel: Thou knowest all the labour that hath come upon us: 15 In what manner our fathers went down into Egypt, and there we dwelt a long time, and the Egyptians afflicted us and our fathers.[11] "The rock": This rock was a figure of Christ, and the water that issued out from the rock, of his precious blood, the source of all our good.[12] "You have not believed": The fault of Moses and Aaron, on this occasion, was a certain diffidence and weakness of faith; not doubting of God's power or veracity; but apprehending the unworthiness of that rebellious and incredulous people, and therefore speaking with some ambiguity.[13] "The Water of contradiction": Or strife. Hebrew, Meribah.
Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
The stone which the builders rejected; the same is become the head of the corner.
Thus in the desert you propagated the spirit of Moses through the minds of seventy wise men; with whom he used auxiliaries, and easily governed innumerable multitudes of the people. Thus you poured out the abundance of the paternal fullness of Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar; so that the service of the priest was sufficient for the saving sacrifices, and for the more frequent office of the Sacraments.
O God, who gave your servant Moses a familiar secret, among other heavenly docuмents of culture, and also instituting the habit of priestly clothing, you ordered the chosen Aaron to be clothed in a mystical garment during the ceremonies, so that the succeeding posterity might acquire a sense of intelligence from the examples of the former, so that the learning of your doctrine would not be lacking in any age. Whereas among the ancients the very appearance of signs obtained reverence, and with us the experiments of things are more certain than the riddles of figures. For his former habit of priesthood is the adornment of our minds, and the honor of the pontifical glory is no longer commended to us by the honor of the vestments, but by the splendor of the souls. Because even those who were then blindly flattered by the carnal, sought rather to understand what was in them. And therefore to this servant of yours, whom you have chosen for the ministry of high priesthood, grant, we beseech you, Lord, this grace, so that whatever those veils signified in the glitter of gold, in the luster of gems, and in the variety of many kinds of work, this may be made clear in his manners and actions. Complete in your Priest the sum of your ministry, and equipped with the ornaments of all glorification, sanctify with the dew of heavenly ointment.
but Eve is inseparably linked and will be the one to crush the head of the serpent...