Posted on 06/16/2004 8:33:58 PM PDT by gbcdoj
Viva Christo Rey has claimed here before that the last four Popes were formal heretics - but this is shown to be false.
Take a look at this, will you? I'd appreciate a response that isn't just pictures of the Pope.
On "papa haereticus non est depositus, sed deponendus", Suarez also takes this position, calling it "common". Billuart calls it the "more common" opinion:
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church. (De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.)
You cite Innocent III, but the quote I've found from him is: "The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith."
St. Francis de Sales says:
Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced;
As for St. Liguori, he also said that we should believe the Pope couldn't become a heretic. I've seen Hermann post the cite before - you can ask him for it. St. Robert said the same, although he didn't consider it certain. It isn't just a "hope", but a theological opinion founded on Christ's promises.
As for Felix II, the Catholic Encyclopedia classes him as an Antipope and says he was given the status of a Saint because of confusion with the martyr Felix. St. Liberius never fell from the Pontificate.
As for the "material" "formal" distinction, as far as I am aware this was an innovation of des Lauriers. Furthermore, it contradicts Journet in what he says in (5) of the OP, and what the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter".
If you could, I'd appreciate if you'd respond to the first section I posted, which says that the acceptance of a Pope by the Church is infallible and demonstrates all conditions for validity. You've claimed in the past that Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II were all formal heretics before being raised to the pontificate. This disproves that, as far as I can see. The Catholic Encyclopedia and other theologians say the same thing:
Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. ("Dogmatic Facts").
I'm not kidding either. There are a certain few in here (at least you're not alone) whose focus is incessantly directed at traditionalist posters, worshipers and sympathizers. I've come to believe that they either have mental problems or are just trouble making trolls, or maybe both.
Post something that isn't geared toward your anti-trad jihad, just so I know you have a life and can talk about something else. Humor me.
Bless you sir.
I mean that too. Not the annoyance part, but the blessing part. :)
Muchas gracias, amigo.
Once again, documentation demonstrates that the Church is EMINENTLY the Church of Common Sense.
Unfortunately, you will not persuade Viva (among others) of the liceity of JPII's reign and decisions. It matters not if you bring all of the Fathers and all of the Canon Law to bear.
The holy jihad against the schismatics is perfectly acceptable, insofar as schism is only a micron away from apostasy.
It is the duty of the Christian to warn, cajole, and argue forcefully with those who would separate themselves from the Church and, consequently, endanger their soul's salvation.
I would think you owe GBC a massive debt of gratitude for his well-thought-out and extraordinary research postings. I certainly do.
"The holy jihad against the schismatics is perfectly acceptable, insofar as schism is only a micron away from apostasy."
Fitting you would resort to a Muslim term that Islamist maniacs use when they engage in their peculiar form madness.
At least you're admitting you're jihadists, it's been apparant for quite some time.
From my experience, AAABEST tends to be not one of "those" whom you are describing.
Yeah, that last part was uncharitable, and that's why I used the word "tends."
**There are a certain few in here (at least you're not alone) whose focus is incessantly directed at non-traditionalist posters, worshipers and sympathizers.**
Wholeheared agreement!
To be fair to sandy there are some traditionalist here and elsewhere that I'm not proud of. I've told her that before. Heck I'm not proud of myself at times, being that I'm in a near constant state of sin here and elsewhere.
This being said, I certainly do NOT see the same focused fervor from traditionalists as I see coming from these anti-trad squads. It truly is pathological to be so obsessively perturbed by folks who worship Jesus in the fashion that has been done for centuries. They contend that it's because of their concern for our well being but that's nonsense and everyone knows it.
This is the same quirky mania that caused the modernist deconstrcutors to literally decimate our music, catechism and liturgy (among everything else they've destroyed).
What's worse is that many of them are far more upset with tradition than they are with homosexuality, modernism, heresy, loss of faith, the clergy crisis, wayward youth and the plethera of other hardships we're experiencing in our "springtime".
It doesn't make any sense and I honestly don't understand the bug-eyed determination that the hardcore anti-trads share.
I realize I'm dreaming here - to the point of being comical - but as long as others are behaving in a reverent and orthodox fashion don't we have far more numerous and severe problems to address (such as irreverence and unorthodoxy)?
Perhaps I can regain your good graces, although I don't really care...
I would be happy to execute (that means kill) Bishops who have molested children, or those who have knowingly and willingly conspired to cover (that would be obstruction of justice) for their priests who have done same.
However, I think that schismatics do not deserve execution. They should be forced, by whatever means, to confess that Peter is the head of the Church, and swear loyalty, OBEDIENCE, and fealty to him.
Of course, if they can't do that, then they are not to be preserved from the fate of the Bishops (above.)
Fair trials for all, first, of course. Torquemada shall be our model in all these things.
I know I can take this advice, for the most part, but I know there are others who simply can abide to do so, for varying reasons.
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.