Posted on 09/01/2018 7:30:20 AM PDT by ealgeone
This question had already been asked, before the September 24 announcement that a group of Catholic scholars from around the world had issued a "filial correction" to Pope Francis, warning him that some of his statements and writings have caused heresy to spread within the church. Needless to say, the news renders this discussion more timely than ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...
I’ve become so disgusted over the current state of the Church that I have a hard time even reading articles about it.
The word “antichrist” is only used in 1 John. The other passages you reference don’t use that term. It’s up to you and Fr Martin to defend the idea that the term “antichrist” makes sense apart from the description in 1 Jn 2 & 4.
>>I don’t find anything disagreeable about the article, but she doesn’t actually answer the question!<<
That may be because it was meant to be a rhetorical question to which the answer is obviously “yes”.
The Lutheran statement that the pope (including his successors) is the Antichrist is explained in the Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article IV and in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Both Symbols are part of the Lutheran Confessions, which are subscribed to by members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church throughout the world.
NLMMV (Non-Lutheran mileage may vary)
Would Yogi steal a picnic basket?
Did you read the article?
Yep. It's time to buy some rope.
He is using incrementalism, but he is not the first.
Pope John Paul II tap danced around the death penalty, substituting his own tender feelings for Biblical theology, laying the foundation for Francis to complete the heresy.
It appears the only way to remove this brazen man is for the laity to hound him out. The collection plates should go empty, the feds should RICO the Church, and the (smelly) sheep need to heckle him at every public appearance.
To a man in such need of public adoration, this would be like death.
Oooh....I like that. PINO. Pope In Name Only.
If the pope is the supreme authority on who is guilty of heresy, and has absolute unhindered power to declare such, and render them powerless, then he must do so to himself if RCs are to disregard his authority.
► CCC 882 For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
►Can. 1404 M The First See is judged by no one. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P5A.HTM
Dictatus papae [1075] (a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075), likewise asserts,
That he himself may be judged by no one. - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
>The First Vatican Council, which infallibly declared papal infallibly (overcoming opposition) stated:
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. [so much for the EOs] — First Vatican Council, Chapter 3 (1869-1870) http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm
"We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him"... The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See"... "That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand;..." — Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran "that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear...there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Leo XIII - Satis cognitum
3. Only he can summon universal councils
4. No synod can be called valid without the pope's agreement.
5. No scripture is of authentic authority without his authority
6. Who does not agree to the decrees of the apostolic see is to be considered a heretic.
8. Who delivers a judgment against him should be deposed, as is seen from Dioscurus. - Propriae auctoritates apostolicae sedis; http://legalhistorysources.com/ChurchHistory220/TopicFive/DictatusAvranches.htm
And Francis the Jesuit could likely spin much of a real change into a "clarification." After all, if V2 could so so, why not him?
Your (copy-protected) source article by a lady canon lawyer mainly deals with how hard it can be to judge one as guilty of heresy, and does not get into the arguments against the pope being judged and effectively excommunicated as guilty of heresy.
Excerpts:
A Catholic who commits heresy is excommunicated latae sententiae, as per canon 1364.1...
In short, when it comes to answering specific questions about Popes and heresy, we are forced to extrapolate, which means that readers who expect to find a definitive answer to these questions here will be disappointed—because there simply isn’t one...
Heresy involves denial of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. This might sound beautifully poetic—but in reality, “divine and Catholic faith” is a precise phrase pertaining to a specific category of the Catholic Church’s teachings...
In his 1998 Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, Pope John Paul II attempted to clarify the varying degrees of importance attached to the different levels of these teachings...
That’s immediately crystal-clear to everyone, right? In all seriousness, we’ll come back to the question of what this means, and which beliefs fit into this category in a moment. In Ad Tuendam Fidem, John Paul II described for the first time the second category of Catholic beliefs,..
There’s also a third category, which even before Ad Tuendam Fidem was already found in canon 752:..
Well, what’s the difference between the first category of teachings (denial of which constitutes heresy), and the second and third categories? If you’re unsure, you’ve got a lot of company. ..
With his characteristic razor-sharp precision, Ratzinger tried to explain more clearly the sorts of teachings which fall into each of these categories ..
This explanation is unquestionably helpful, but still, let’s be frank: it’s not always immediately clear to anybody which category a particular tenet of our faith falls into. If it falls into the first category, obstinate denial of it constitutes heresy. If it falls into the second or third category, obstinate denial of it is a punishable offense—but it isn’t heresy. In a nutshell, it’s possible for a Catholic to refuse to accept some elements of the Catholic faith without ipso facto being a heretic...
the term heresy has a very precise theological/canonical meaning, and so it shouldn’t be tossed around indiscriminately. This means that any suggestion that a Pope is involved in heresy must be made with tremendous caution.
You’re right.
If the Pope is infallible then how could any doctrine pronounced by the Pope be in error? A most recent case in point is the Pope saying capital punishment is wrong. Although Councils might have stated otherwise, the Pope pronouncement is supreme. BTW-I read this article and the author nevers come to a conclusion.
They brought it on themselves when they abandoned the scriptures. Just wait until the pronouncement condemning plastic straws. Who needs scripture when they have the Pope telling them what is right? The Vatican is probably getting ready to market their new “holy” slurpy cup and a condemnation of the straw is just the ticket.
ANYone can.
Bingo
Da pope sounds as powerful as a Living Prophet©!!!
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University) http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
Interesting. From the RCC wiewpoint, infallibility applies to no one else alive on the globe.
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. But in RC doctrine infallibility is only promised the pope when as the pope he declares a matter on faith or morals as binding for the whole church, which after V1 is understood when done in a formal declaration, as in the (assumption of the) Assumption.
..we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. — Pastor Aeternus, Cp 4, Para 9; http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
Infallibility is also claimed for dogmatic ecumenical councils (such as V1) in defining the same in union with the pope who alone can call such councils (only Paul in particular called a council together in Acts), but never apart from him, and Satis cognitum teaches that Apostles have no supreme power without Peter, nor against Peter.
However, there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings, and just what teachings fall under infallibility is a matter of debate, and Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the Vatican 1 committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition said (in arguing against the necessity of precise language),
But some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind – of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments? - Vinzenz Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility (emp. mine).
Fr. John Hardon wrote that infallibility includes declarations that
“include not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected to divine revelation.” (Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, p. 195)
A most recent case in point is the Pope saying capital punishment is wrong
It is indeed a contradiction, but as with V2, via the art of “development of doctrine ,” contradictions can be termed clarifications based on deeper understanding (while the Assumption as binding belief is defended as that of the Church "remembering" what in reality early history "forgot" ).
In an address last year Pope Francis explained his thinking:
In past centuries, when means of defence were scarce and society had yet to develop and mature as it has, recourse to the death penalty appeared to be the logical consequence of the correct application of justice. Sadly, even in the Papal States recourse was had to this extreme and inhumane remedy that ignored the primacy of mercy over justice. Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize that the imposition of the death penalty was dictated by a mentality more legalistic than Christian. Concern for preserving power and material wealth led to an over-estimation of the value of the law and prevented a deeper understanding of the Gospel. Nowadays, however, were we to remain neutral before the new demands of upholding personal dignity, we would be even more guilty.
Here we are not in any way contradicting past teaching, for the defence of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception to natural death has been taught by the Church consistently and authoritatively. Yet the harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth. - http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2017/october/documents/papa-francesco_20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html, (emp. mine)
Thus "new light" (and better prevention) is invoked in the changed CCC 2267 teaching:
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Thus the response to murder in the light of "the dignity of the person" in Scripture was capital punishment (as well as for offenses against God), but the pope can claim superior understanding in effectively declaring it is wrong. Which also means Peter should have pleaded against the supernatural execution of Ananias and wife in Acts 5, rather than pronouncing it.
The Death Penalty is not merely to protect others, while "more effective systems of detention" - whatever that means - can hardly be considered a universal reality.
In contrast, rather defense of the dignity of human life being opposed to the killing of those who willfully unjustly take it, Catholic theology before argued,
The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end,...to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction...
The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the Church, not merely to sentence a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke the aid of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam". This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is so clearly connected with the parts expressly stated to possess such character that it is held by theologians to be theologically certain (Palmieri, "De Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). — Catholic Encyclopedia>The Pope; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
And this use of the civil powers to "execute her sentences" included death.
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.. - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp.
Aquinas states,
“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder...Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” ("The Catechism of Trent: The Fifth Commandment;"http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm) -
“If counterfeiters of money or other criminals are justly delivered over to death… much more can heretics, after they are convicted of heresy, be not only forthwith excommunicated, but as surely put to death.” – Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2a, 2ae, qu. Xi, art. III.
The Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980) by John A. Hardon, S.J., (imprimatur by Joseph T. O'Keefe, Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York, Dec. 13, 1979), describes the Catholic position of capital punishment:
“It is certain from Scripture that civil authorities may lawfully put malefactors to death. ... Christian dispensation made no essential change [to the Old Testament endorsement of the death penalty], as St. Paul expressly says .... [citing Romans 13:4]. Among the errors of the Waldenses condemned by the Church in the early thirteenth century was the proposition that denied the lawfulness of capital punishment (Argentre, Collectio de Novis Erroribus, I, 86)....The practice question remains of how effective a deterrent capital punishment is in some modern states, when rarely used or only after long delays. In principle, however, it is morally licit because in the most serious crimes the claims of retribution and deterrence are so demanding that the corrective value of punishment must, if necessary, be sacrificed.”
Cardinal Dulles states in an historical overview:
“In modern times Doctors of the Church such as Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori held that certain criminals should be punished by death. Venerable authorities such as Francisco de Vitoria, Thomas More, and Francisco Suárez agreed. John Henry Newman, in a letter to a friend, maintained that the magistrate had the right to bear the sword, and that the Church should sanction its use, in the sense that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel used it against abominable crimes.” (Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment”, in First Things (April, 2001).
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.