ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 05/14/2004 2:13:48 PM PDT by gbcdoj
The corruption today is unprecedented. But no one is saying that JPII is an antipope for that reason. If it were in fact the case that JPII were a heretic, the corruption would only be a sympton of the actual underlying reality which would have caused him to lose his throne.
Pope John Paul II after his Inauguration Around his neck he wears a lamb's wool pallium instead of a papal tiara. He controversially did not take the Papal Oath either.In 1978, one of Pope John Paul I's first decisions on his election was to dispense with the millennium-old papal coronation and the use of a papal tiara. Though perhaps understandable, given Pope Paul's gesture a decade earlier (Paul VI never wore a Triple Tiara again) it still caused some surprise. Instead the new pope was installed in a new low key 'inauguration' ceremony, so low key indeed that he had it moved to the morning so as not to disrupt Italian soccer coverage, which would normally be shown in the afternoon.
After Pope John Paul I's sudden death less than a month later, the new pope, John Paul II, opted to continue with John Paul I's precedent of replacing the papal coronation with a low key inauguration. Though unworn, the tiara remains the symbol of the papacy, and still features on the coat of arms of popes, including the uncrowned popes John Paul I and John Paul II. With the disappearance of the papal coronation, the British Monarch now remains the only major monarch to receive a coronation. (Fact-Index: Papal Tiara)
I doubt it.
The Eastern Church has fallen away from the Faith and is now assailed on every side by infidels. Wherever I turn my eyes--to the west, to the north, or to the south--I find everywhere bishops who have obtained their office in an irregular way, whose lives and conversation are strangely at variance with their sacred calling; who go through their duties not for the love of Christ but from motives of worldly gain. There are no longer princes who set God's honour before their own selfish ends, or who allow justice to stand in the way of their ambition. . . .And those among whom I live--Romans, Lombards, and Normans--are, as I have often told them, worse than Jews or Pagans (St. Gregory VII, Registr., 1.II, ep. xlix).
My critic’s second point regards my contention that since none of the post-conciliar Popes has been considered a heretic by any more than “a tiny minority of Catholics — indeed, not even one of the thousands of Successors of the Apostles now in communion with Rome!” — it follows that none of them can fairly be considered as having fallen into public heresy or defection from the faith. Fr. Cekada counters that “no special number of witnesses is required for heresy to qualify as public”. But I never said that a “special number” is required. For any ecclesiastical delict (crime) to be canonically “public”, the important thing is not absolute numbers, but knowledge of the action, and of its criminal character, on the part of a majority of persons — and they must be reliable persons — within the relevant community. The canonists Vermeersch & Creusen, for instance, in commenting on the definition of “public” as divulgatum (“commonly known”) in c. 2197 §1 (1917 Code of Canon Law), state: “Divulgatio is knowledge which has spread among the greater part(in maiore parte)of the town, neighbourhood, college, etc.”, noting that the character, as well as the number, of the witnesses needs to be considered (vol. III, p. 221, my emphasis). C. Augustine cites approvingly other authors who maintain that knowledge of a crime on the part of “at least six persons” would be “public” in, “for instance, a religious house of 10 or 12 members”. Augustine adds (in agreement with Vermeersch & Creusen): “Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime” (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law [St. Louis & London: Herder, 1924] p. 16). T. L. Bouscaren & A. C. Ellis, in one of the best-known English Canon Law commentaries, comment similarly on divulgatum as the criterion of “public” in c. 2197 §1: “‘Commonly known’ (divulgatum) means known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a community” (p. 858, my emphasis).Now, in the case of any hypothetical heresy on the part of a Pope, what would the relevant ‘community’ be? Taking into account what the approved authors say about the character, as well as the number, of the witnesses, it would have to be something less than the whole Church; for by no means all Catholics are well qualified to judge whether a given proposition is heretical or not. In this case it would not be a question of a Catholic’s personal moral integrity, but rather, of his expertise in being able to distinguish orthodox from unorthodox doctrine. That is why I maintain that the remaining Successors of the Apostles in union with Rome would be the relevant ‘community’. For they are the only body who have been promised ex officio divine assistance in being able to discern corruptions of the true faith. I suppose it might be argued that a representative group within the Episcopate — for instance, the College of Cardinals or the presidents of Episcopal Conferences — would be an adequate “community” for present purposes. Perhaps. But in any case, no appeal to any such alternative body would serve the purposes of sedevacantism. For, far from there ever having been a majority of the bishops — or cardinals or Episcopal Conference presidents — who claimed that a post-conciliar Pope has committed the crime of formal heresy, not one bishop in good standing with Rome has made any such claim: not even Archbishop Lefebvre before the 1988 consecrations.
Fr. Cekada cites the canonist McDevitt to the effect that “[I]f even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith”, the offence would be public in the sense of canon 2197 §1. I suspect what McDevitt has in mind is the kind of “defection” which in itself would be so obvious and indisputable that any reasonably intelligent Catholic who did witness it would be left in no doubt as to its heretical character: e.g., a Catholic accepting re-baptism in a Mormon temple. But heresy is by no means always so easily recognizable. Fr. Cekada asserts that “if the Vatican Press Office hands out your heretical declarations, it is reasonable to assume your heresy is public”. But even supposing some such declaration is heretical, its distribution by the Vatican, as such, only makes the heresy materially public. As long as it is not recognized as heretical by a majority of the relevant community, it is still “formally occult” in terms of c. 2197 §4. And as the approved authors point out, a formally occult crime cannot be classed as “public” for practical purposes such as incurring penalties. (See for example T. García Barberena et al, Comentarios al Código de Derecho Canónico, Vol. IV [Madrid: BAC, 1964], p. 214; S. Woywood, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law [New York: J. Wagner, 1952], p. 449.)
That is, a heresy isn't notorious until it is recognized as heretical by the bishops, so no one can conclude the Pope is in fact a notorious heretic until the bishops do so.
Fascinating. I knew that Paul VI had retired the Papal Tiara and sold it for charity, but I had not heard this about the coronation aspect before.
Here's EWTN's article on the topic, with a picture of Paul VI wearing one: http://www.ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/tiara.htm
This one is much more cone-shaped than that of his predecessors: http://www.piusxiipope.info/papacy.htm
There is also an amusing site an associate keeps sending me that promotes Vatican/Freemason conspiracy theories based on symbols and emblems. They see the papal tiara as mirroring the masonic "beehive" symbol: http://www.cephasministry.com/masonic_influence_on_the_vatican_1.html. Note that this link is for entertainment purposes only, please do not delude yourselves into taking this seriously.
Provided the bishops aren't heretics themselves. Then what happens?
Thanks for this link, which was interesting. However, it is only the caption of a picture on Wikipedia which makes it not entirely reliable and unusable as a source.
It can't. The Church will persevere until the end of time and it will always be ruled by bishops:
OUR Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church ... (St. Cyprian, Epistle 26)
San Jose Bishop McGrath and Los Angeles Roger Cardinal Mahony have both taught heresy, whether you want to call it informal, material or formal doesn't matter.
Aquinas taught that not only can bishops be heretics, but they lose jurisdiction when they do.
You certainly like to cut and paste. The problem is, you pull citations from anywhere out of context in an attempt to prove your point. The piece you quoted speaks to bishops who keep the Faith. It does not say it is impossible for a bishop to fall into heresy.
If His Excellency Bishop McGrath and His Eminence Cardinal Mahoney have in fact pertinaciously believed something contrary to a truth of divine and catholic faith, they have fallen from their sees and are no longer Catholic bishops (cf. c. 194). However, there will always be at least some true Catholic bishops.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I note you don't actually try to argue, just post the picture of that evil heresy: the Pope holding a plant.
How about you respond to this: Do you believe and confess with Sixtus IV that the doctrine "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is a manifest heresy?
I want the tiara back.
The Church can never defect from the Faith.
Individuals can, however, defect from the Faith and hence are no longer any part of the Church.
In this case MANY did.
Also there have been too, too, many bogus quotes fabricated from thin air and disseminated in all areas by members of the apostate church - such as a recent citation made on FR from a work which turned out to have been condemned on the Index.
Those who cite bogus quotes corresponds with the same who witness every heresy in the book spewed forth from "JP2" and other apostate bishops and then go through gymnastic contortions to attempt to excuse away the heretical actions and heretical teaching.
You strain at a gant and yet allow a camel to pass.
Your quote from Sixtus does not apply for the reasons I cited above. I do NOT, however, in any way, accept it, or any other pedantic references from the spawn of satan, as genuine in the first place - and neither should any others.
If they presented truth, they would not strive so hard to flee from it, e.g. the photographs of JP2 engaging in one epsiode after another of "communicatio in sacris", worship with false religions. One only has to glance at one document, Mortalium Animos, - let alone any other citation from the TRUE CHURCH - to know that his actions constitute irredeemable apostasy.
Why bother explaining things in words to those who even have the temerity to ignore photographic evidence! You demonstrated to all, quite nicely I might add, the level of your veracity in attempting to explain the latest, as well as all the others, away.
A note to all, wise up, don't accept one item from them on face value, and do NOT let them continually evade confronting their mentors' and their own falsehood.
Do not concede them one inch.
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.