Posted on 11/27/2023 3:40:08 PM PST by ebb tide
If only for the fact that he was more subtle than Bergoglio, and that he died before a single document of Vatican II was promulgated. Given the transitional period between Pius XII (definitely a true Pope) and Paul VI (definitely not a true Pope), it is only natural that the ostensible pontificate of John XXIII would be more ambiguous. As I said, I’m of the opinion that he **was not** a true Pope; the exact *point* at which that occurred is something I’m less certain of (whether he lost the pontificate due to manifest heresy, or if he was ineligible for election due to being a pertinacious heretic prior to that point, public appearances notwithstanding).
(And to answer your other question, given that John Paul I publicly adhered to Vatican 2 in its entirety - even to the point of remarking that they “must have been wrong” on the question of religious liberty as it was understood prior to V2 - I’m inclined to say no.)
Is there a particular point to your inquisition with regards to my thoughts regarding who was or was not a Pope?
Yes, there is. It seems you're decisive about the legitimacy of some "popes" but indecisive about that of other "popes".
And I'm wondering why and by whose authority you make such decisions.
If, by the hand of God, Bishop Strickland, is elected Pope at the next, hopefully soon, conclave, would you acknowledge his as a true Pope?
Why? Can you explain this to me?
And you've been unable to gather from my prior posts that Vatican II is the rather prominent dividing line? How is that decisive or indecisive?
And I'm wondering why and by whose authority you make such decisions.
I can't bind anyone's conscience but my own, as I lack canonical authority. But I can determine that "A" and "Not A" are mutually exclusive. If the Church taught "A" prior to Vatican II (to the point of outright condemning "Not A" as heretical or erroneous), and the 'Church' teaches "Not A" after Vatican II, then faith demands that I hold fast to what came before in light of the Church's own indefectibility. It's as simple as that.
(Though, I find it rather interesting that you would lecture me about by what "authority I make such decisions" when you have numerous posts criticizing the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, etc.)
If, by the hand of God, Bishop Strickland, is elected Pope at the next, hopefully soon, conclave, would you acknowledge his as a true Pope?
I don't know.
Because through Vatican II, he attempted to impose a non-Catholic religion upon Catholics. Through the Novus Ordo Missae, he attempted to impose a non-Catholic rite of worship upon the faithful.
In light of prior magisterial teaching regarding the Papacy and the Church's own indefectibility, Paul VI did things that were simply impossible for a true Roman Pontiff — protected as they are by the Holy Ghost with regards to the charism of the papal office — to do.
I agree that VC II is the root of the crisis in the Catholic Church.
But do you think we'll never have a true Catholic pope because of that?
The Church always retains the capacity to choose another head. How that will manifest is something I do not claim to know with certitude, given the extensive and unprecedented nature of the crisis.
You might find this article (and the series it belongs to) to be a worthwhile read: Papal elections, including without cardinals - Journet & Cajetan
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.