Posted on 03/20/2017 1:42:02 PM PDT by redleghunter
PARIS, March 17, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Canon lawyers, theologians, and scholars will be meeting in Paris in two weeks to discuss a topic that has never been the focus of a Catholic conference before: How to depose a heretical pope.
Titled Deposing the Pope: Theological Premises, Canonical Models, Constitutional Challenge, the conference seeks to explore the mechanisms that are built into the Catholic Church for dealing with a pope who openly teaches falsehood and even heresy.
Speaking at the conference will be University of Paris Professor Laurent Fonbaustier who published a 1200 page book last year on the topic that was titled The Deposition of the Heretical Pope.
The conference includes 15 speakers who will be giving a range of talks on the subject matter with titles such as “Conciliarism and the Deposition of a Pope Through the Prism of Gallicanism,” "The Downfall of the Pope: Between Renunciation and Deposition," and "The Deposition of John XXII and Benedict XIII at Constance, 1415–1417."
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Pope “Hussein” Francis?
Sounds like the Obama of the Catholic church by what he’s done.
PARIS, March 17, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Canon lawyers, theologians, and scholars will be meeting in Paris in two weeks to discuss a topic that has never been the focus of a Catholic conference before: How to depose a heretical pope.
Titled Deposing the Pope: Theological Premises, Canonical Models, Constitutional Challenge, the conference seeks to explore the mechanisms that are built into the Catholic Church for dealing with a pope who openly teaches falsehood and even heresy.
Speaking at the conference will be University of Paris Professor Laurent Fonbaustier who published a 1200 page book last year on the topic that was titled The Deposition of the Heretical Pope.
The conference includes 15 speakers who will be giving a range of talks on the subject matter with titles such as “Conciliarism and the Deposition of a Pope Through the Prism of Gallicanism,” "The Downfall of the Pope: Between Renunciation and Deposition," and "The Deposition of John XXII and Benedict XIII at Constance, 1415–1417."
Speaking at the conference are Professors Nicolas Warembourg and Cyrille Dounot, two of the 45 Catholic academics who last June submitted an appeal to the Dean of the College of Cardinals in Rome requesting a repudiation of erroneous propositions they found in Pope Francis’ exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The group of 45 Catholic academics said the Pope’s exhortation presented “dangers to Catholic faith and morals” since it “contains a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals.”
The conference comes after four years of Francis at the helm of the Barque of Peter. During this time the Pope, and the people he has put into key positions, have steered the Church in a direction that would have been unthinkable to faithful Catholics under the two previous pontiffs of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Francis’ ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful. Doctrinal confusion has resulted in pastoral guidelines being issued based on his writings that allow Holy Communion to be given to those living in adultery.
READ: They gave Pope Francis four years to ‘make the Church over again.’ Here’s how he’s tried.
Last November Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi reported that a 1975 theological study by the learned Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira was making the rounds in the Vatican. The layman examined in his work titled The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope whether it is possible for a pope to be or become a heretic, and if so, what consequences would follow from this.
Reported Nardi: “Three-and-a-half years after the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis is reaching his limits. The impression, given by means of gestures and words, of a latent intention to change the doctrine of the Church must at some point either take on definite form or else it must collapse,” he wrote at that time.
“Francis finds himself cornered by means of the very atmosphere he himself is responsible for creating. It’s no longer about a spontaneous utterance on this or that, which remains improvised and non-binding. His pastoral work and his leadership skills, which demand a sense of responsibility and an exemplary character, are reaching their limits. This could cause Francis [‘s pontificate] to fail,” he added.
The conference comes three months after Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an interview in which he explained that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”
Burke said in the December 2016 interview that there is a process within the Church for dealing with such a situation, adding his hope that “we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon.”
Also in December American canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters addressed the question of what could be done if a pope were found to be heretical.
Peters writes that the “crucial question” from a canonist’s perspective is “who would determine whether a given pope has fallen into heresy” since Canon 1404 states that the “First See is judged by no one.”
He found in canonical tradition, however, the position that if a general council determined that a pope had committed heresy, by that very fact he will have effectually cut himself off from the true vine, thereby forfeiting his office.
Comments Peters: “…however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet [God forbid], would result in the loss of papal office.”
The location for the upcoming conference is significant, reports Church Militant. It was in the 1300s the University of Paris explored the question of what could be done with the possibly heretical Pope John XXII, who denied the doctrine that the souls of the just are admitted to the beatific vision after death, a position he retracted on his deathbed.
Catholic ping!
As a Catholic I say GO FOR IT.
No man of God preaches communism, birth control or says if you believe what you doing is just, then it’s ok.
I believe hitler and stalin believed what they were doing was just.
Got some ideas from both Borgia miniseries on Netflix.
Oy. I never thought that I’d see the day.
A lot of weird stuff has happened in the history of the Church (I just taught an RCIA lesson on that) but truly, nothing as weird as this. This is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
He's a sock puppet for the far left wing of the totally infiltrated, corrupt, Jesuit order, nothing more. He can be tossed out on his ear but they better toss out the Jesuit crowd manipulating him as well.
Look at his history. He backed leftists and Lib Theology when that had the upper hand then turned in Lib Theology to a new government he had to know would probably kill them once the other side had the upper hand. Exactly the same political game his Jesuit masters have played all over South America.
With Bergie, they didn't even have swap people around between countries to change sides, just tell Bergie what to do and he'd do it.
JMHo
Indeed and mercifully, we have survived, so far. I recall reading that in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, there have been some bad popes, yet ... "not one" ever erred in his teachings on faith or morals, testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit". Pope Francis, following his post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia, has written a private message approving the Buenos Aires bishops’ response to the divorced-and-remarried, but has not issued a formal teaching. The Buenos Aires document aimed to offer “minimal criteria” on the discernment of the possible access to the sacraments by penitents who are divorced and in a new union. Every bishop may clarify, complete, or establish limits on these criteria in his own diocese, the document said.
Wish I had saved the original link for reference.
If you will notice, most of the passably orthodox things he says are read by him...and written by someone else. But sometimes he pays attention to what he’s reading (most of the time he doesn’t) and throws in a special Francis twist to make it follow his (unorthodox) line. And a lot of what he says when he speaks in his usual impromptu mode, since he has a bad case of logorrhea, makes no sense whatsoever and can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.
I think it’s a combination of dementia, unorthodoxy and dictatorial malice.
The LAST time I will ever be blind to a leader or leaders was the 2014 congress elections. Before that Bush.
It will not happen again, whether it be a religious or govt leader.
Need Canon lawyers to decipher the complicated legalisms of the Church of Rome.
That did complicate the "what the Pope really meant to say" sort of follow ups that were more common a few years ago (or so it appears from here in the peanut gallery).
In a grade-school field trip they took us (second or third graders) to a zoo once.
At the zoo, near the front gate there were peanuts for sale. The teachers encouraged we little chillin's to purchase some, and not eat them all -- to save some for the elephants. Part of the field trip planning had been recommendation for parents to supply a small amount of money (possibly as low as 35¢, -- not much even in those days)
The peanuts were fantastic-- fresh roasted --perfect. Some of the best in memory... I could have eaten the whole bag and a few bags more of them, easy (if somebody would have allowed me to) but I ate only a few out the one small bag that was little more than a handful.
Trooping along with the rest of the schoolkids I was near the end of a long parade of us. When we made to the elephant exhibit, I approached the railing. An elephant on the far side (near the head of the parade grade schoolers) saw me with a bag of peanuts, purposefully marched past that long line of little kids right over to me. Using the end of it's trunk started mussing up my hair and tickling my face.
I was about the only kid that hadn't eaten all their peanuts. I loathed to give them to other children (to give to the elephants)-- specially those kids I'd watched eat all theirs -- that I had warned too -- "save some for the elephants", and here they were begging to be allowed fun at expense of my own deferred pleasure (and boy howdy did I like fresh roasted peanuts-- a heavenly luxury for a child such as myself in those days).
Now I get to laugh at the "what the Pope was really trying to say" crowd.
I could do that for them (explain Bergoglio's thinking) showing some good intent among what has begun to play not so good to many ears.
I'll just sit and eat peanuts (and popcorn) instead. Maybe toss a few, every once in a while. And laugh. <[;^')
Dictatorial malice?
Is it really all that complicated? Is "orthodoxy' being purred at in accustomed ways?
Mother life, hold firmly on to me
Catch my knowledge higher than the day
Lose as much as only you can show
Though you've seen me, please don't say a word
What I don't know, I have never shared
He’s a sock puppet for the far left wing of the totally infiltrated, corrupt, Jesuit order, nothing more
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bingo! Francis is a fraud, and so is the Society of Jesus. Anyone who doesn’t believe it need only read back copies of the Order’s Communist-inspired journal, slyly entitled “America”! My sources allege that the Order is filled to the rafters with sexual deviants of every possible description. Before anyone flames me for being some kind of heretical Fundy, I am a traditionalist Catholic and a graduate of a Jesuit university. The Jesuits are a hard left bunch who have been undermining orthodox Catholicism for well over a century. And at VC-II they pretty much accomplished their goal!
Of course, they ignore the fact that the same banks that fund the US military industrial complex funded the rebuilding of the USSR after WWII and kept them afloat throughout the Cold War although not as obviously as the with the Marshal Plan and aid to US allies.
So, people focus on the enemies the media they claim to not believe them tell them to focus on, that's about the size of it. Which is why the same people who swear Christ can reach down and work on the heart of even the most vile criminal in prison to bring them to Christ, Christ absolutely, positively, under no circumstances, can do the same for Putin or Russians in general.
The Jesuits were the most totally infiltrated and taken over of all the various orders. The dramatic difference in what they wrote, preached, and taught, up through the 1930s and what comes from since the late fifties makes that obvious.
Basically, the Catholic Church in the US wiped their butt on Testem benevolentiae nostrae and John Courtney Murry becoming prominent is proof that the Americanist faction backed by the monied elite in the US has run the Church for their masters ever since not Vatican II, but since Hesburg stole Notre Dame from the Church. Until that time, there were still centers of resistance that Rome backed in spite of the gross miss-interpretations of what Vatican II really was, that is, a Pastoral Council that announced no new doctrine and changed no doctrine exactly like the Pope said it was to be in advance.
The fact that the documents were deliberately padded with intentionally misleading portions and wildly misinterpreted with a vengeance is why Vatican II is important more than what actually came out of it.
JMHo, Regards
But, what about the “sin of Core”?
Go throw out a few more books of the Bible instead of pretending to know what you're talking about.
Oh, and have a lovely day
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.