Author Topic: going in circles (Read 4401 times)

pax · « **on:** December 07, 2011, 07:54:26 AM »

My friends, it seems that all conversations here are just going in circles, and always come back to the same argument: authority and competence.

Do you really believe that you have both the authority and the competence to depose a Pope?

Do you really believe that the clerics whom you now follow had both the authority and the competence to depose a Pope?

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:59:29 AM »

Who the heck has deposed the pope?? Who has declared that we should depose one? Uh... no one.

Is this part of the 'competence' you wrote about?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2011, 08:00:01 AM »

Quote from: pax

My friends, it seems that all conversations here are just going in circles, and always come back to the same argument: authority and competence.

Do you really believe that you have both the authority and the competence to depose a Pope?

Do you really believe that the clerics whom you now follow had both the authority and the competence to depose a Pope?

Do you really believe that we believe we have both the authority and the competence to depose a Pope, if we do not believe he is a tue pope?

Do you really believe that the clerics with whom we associate believe they had both the authority and the competence to depose a true Pope?

pax · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2011, 08:03:26 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Who the heck has deposed the pope?? Who has declared that we should depose one? Uh... no one.

Is this part of the 'competence' you wrote about?

You have declared the reigning Pontiff to be an antipope. I am pretty sure such a declaration falls under the general heading of deposing a Pope. Perhaps I need to re-phrase my questions?

pax · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2011, 06:15:00 PM »

Nobody wants to touch this one?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2011, 06:29:27 PM »

In the abstract, do the laity have the competence to judge when fundamental teachings of the Church are being contradicted? It is certainly possible to conceive of such a situation.

All arguments that follow from the premise that no one can judge the Pope would logically lead to the conclusion that we would have to accept as Pope someone who publicly engaged in satanic worship. Who are we to judge? He considers satanic worship Catholic, suitable for modern man, ergo, who are we to judge?

The argument really is ridiculous.

pax · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2011, 06:51:56 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

In the abstract, do the laity have the competence to judge when fundamental teachings of the Church are being contradicted? It is certainly possible to conceive of such a situation.

All arguments that follow from the premise that no one can judge the Pope would logically lead to the conclusion that we would have to accept as Pope someone who publicly engaged in satanic worship. Who are we to judge? He considers satanic worship Catholic, suitable for modern man, ergo, who are we to judge?

The argument really is ridiculous.

We have the promise of Christ that He would be with His Church until the end of time. That means the possibility of having a Pope who worships satan is equal to the possibility of a four sided triangle.

If I were to accept that a Pope could teach error, or that a man who was not the authentic Successor of Blessed Peter could sit in the Chair of Blessed Peter, unchallenged by a true Successor of Blessed Peter in the Chair of Peter, then I would have to believe that Christ has indeed deserted His Church.

There has never been a false claimant to the Chair of Blessed Peter who was unchallenged by the true Successor of Blessed Peter.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2011, 06:55:18 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

This precisely means the men who could judge a man to not be a pope, do not condemn a man they know is a pope in order to depose or degrade him. Both opinions include that the man is pre-determined to be a non-pope, and they then proceed officially to make a declaration of that fact. Because, to call to a council a man they even suspect might be a true pope, would actually be part of the condemned heresy of Gallicanism or Conciliarism.

If a Pope is ipso facto deprived of the Papacy, he doesn't have it. Whether there is any decision by an ecuмenical council of cardinals isn't going to deprive him of any authority that he hadn't already lost.

pax · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2011, 06:55:45 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

As Stevusmagnus first quoted on Cathinfo last April, though he misunderstood its import:

"466. Q*. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?
*A.* - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 1887

The Holy Office scrutinized this canon law book and approved of it.

This precisely means the men who could judge a man to not be a pope, do not condemn a man they know is a pope in order to depose or degrade him. Both opinions include that the man is pre-determined to be a non-pope, and they then proceed officially to make a declaration of that fact. Because, to call to a council a man they even suspect might be a true pope, would actually be part of the condemned heresy of Gallicanism or Conciliarism.

Ok. Now all I need to know is which Ecuмenical Council or College of Cardinals has declared any post V2 Pope to be a heretic.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2011, 06:58:22 PM »

Why don't you just go kiss a Koran? You'll feel much better.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:00:43 PM »

Pax, if you don't like the discussions here then why post?

And for the record, debating with you is hard and tiresome because you keep asking the same worn out questions.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:01:38 PM »

Quote from: pax

We have the promise of Christ that He would be with His Church until the end of time. That means the possibility of having a Pope who worships satan is equal to the possibility of a four sided triangle.

The opinion that a Pope can never lose the Faith is not something Catholics are required to believe.

Quote

If I were to accept that a Pope could teach error, or that a man who was not the authentic Successor of Blessed Peter could sit in the Chair of Blessed Peter, unchallenged by a true Successor of Blessed Peter in the Chair of Peter, then I would have to believe that Christ has indeed deserted His Church.

No, you would have to conclude that the man you considered to be Pope is not Pope.

Quote

There has never been a false claimant to the Chair of Blessed Peter who was unchallenged by the true Successor of Blessed Peter.

These Popes are not unchallenged nor are they universally accepted.

Infallibility isn't a tautology.

It doesn't mean "the Pope is infallible except when he's saying things with no basis in prior Tradition" - the sifting position.

It doesn't mean "what the Pope teaches is true by virtue of the fact the Pope teaches it" - that's the neo-Cath position.

What it means, is that we can be sure that a true Pope remains faithful and teaches the true religion and is its supreme authority.

But knowing this does not mean we throw away our own reason and accept absurd contradictions as being possible. It is because of the infallibility of true Popes that we know what the Church teaches and has always taught, and because of that, we can recognize a false teacher and judge his false teachings.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:23:37 PM »

Quote

Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 1887

Case closed.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:33:18 PM »

I don't have to "pretend" anything since the quote quite clearly states that a Pope would have to be declared a heretic by a Council before any private judging can occur. Laymen have neither the authority or competence to decide for themselves the Pope is not the Pope and then ignore him before the Church speaks on the issue.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:40:02 PM »

Unless "the Church" declares the Pope a heretic, we cannot go off on our own and privately judge that he is one and is officially not Pope. Where does the treatise say that each individual can decide for himself if a sitting Pontiff has become a heretic?