Posted on 09/15/2019 10:55:13 AM PDT by daniel1212
Well, we have it about 9 to 0 negative toward Francis. However, as the article correctly states, no one can depose a pope unless he affirms it.
Well, since I am a former RC, he may also advocate my being forcibly censored.
I've lived Catholic all my life. I doubt that will change for the few years I have remaining. I never understood until I was in my mid-forties that the evangelist, John, wrote his contribution for me personally.
I was raised very devout, and served as altar boy, lector and CCD teacher in my life as a RC, but in deep repentance and faith become manifestly born again at age 25, and which led to my prayerfully leaving Rome, due to its conflict with Scripture in word and in spirit , and into evangelical fellowship. Thanks be to God. Its not too late to do the same.
Jesus said, "The Gates of Hell will not prevail." The Catholic Church survived Alexander VI who had to be about as bad as it gets. I think our current Pope Bozo wants to take a run at that. He may not have a shot at that since he admits to no offspring.
But nowhere in Acts onward is Peter and successors said or set forth as being the rock upon which the church was built, as instead that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
Jesus also said, "I am the way the truth and the life." When it comes to saving souls, I wish Pope Bozo would concentrate on that rather than the hoax of global warming.
But Pope Francis Bans Plastic From The Vatican To 'Save The Environment'
“was not a validly-elected pope”
That is the history of Catholicism
To paraphrase Yoda:
There IS no 'true' pope;
there is only pope.
Yoda again states:
"All elected popes, valid they are."
“thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). .. “
As papal imposter Francis has discovered (but it’s between him and the Holy Ghost).
Seems God made a mistake...
Perhaps no one can depose the pope, but they sure should judge him since he isn’t speaking of God but of matters of man.
Surprised the calendar policy haven’t showed up!
The argument is that the ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid pope is not an infallible decision, even though if it was one defining true doctrine it would be.
The College of Cardinals does not have the charism of infallibility. The Pope acting on his own can (the "Extraordinary Papal magisterium"), and an Ecumenical Council can. (An Ecumenical Council requires all bishops in the world to at least be invited; a group of cardinals only would not qualify.)
I'm not sure what "an ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid Pope is not an infallible decision" even means.
Are you referring to a Papal election? That is "infallible" in the sense that, once a validly elected Pope has validly accepted election, the College of Cardinals can't simply reverse their act "because we want to".
Perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "infallibility". An "infallible act" is not guaranteed to be perfect or ideal, merely free from doctrinal error and therefore irreversible (although perhaps subject to better explanation and broader understanding -- as I said, it's not necessarily perfect).
If you are referring to a Pope being deposed because either (a) it is determined that he was not validly elected; or (b) it is determined that he is a contumacious public heretic and has thereby relinquished his office, that would require an Ecumenical Council, not merely an agreement by a group of Cardinals. I'm still not sure what "infallibility" would mean in that context. It's an administrative act, not a doctrinal one.
I hope that defense wasn't too "venomous".
In English history, the solutions were armed rebellion to force concessions (Magna Carta), refusal of Parliament to vote taxes until reforms were made (many cases), or execution (Charles II).
As for the Holy Spirit guiding conclaves... The Holy Spirit may provide guidance or inspiration, but the cardinals do not necessarily follow it.
Pray for the conversion of the Pope to Catholicism. In the meantime, put in the appropriate mental reservations if you pray for the intentions of the Pope.
But which is not how the NT church began, which was in Scriptural dissent against those who sat in the seat of Moses, but not as anarchists.
As for the Holy Spirit guiding conclaves... The Holy Spirit may provide guidance or inspiration, but the cardinals do not necessarily follow it.
If there is no assurance that they will in no less a matter than the successor to Peter, then there is none that they will follow the Spirit in matters of doctrine. And Scripturally there is no promise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome..
Pray for the conversion of the Pope to Catholicism.
By no means, for Catholicism, which gave us this pope, is itself a deviant form of the NT church, for distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
May God peradventure grant you and all "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Yes, although some RCs argue otherwise, I believe you are correct on this (as representing RC teaching), and my hasty remark was contrary with how I myself have described collegial infallibility, even though it seems that how many bishops are necessary for collegial infallibility is subject to debate. Sorry for so speaking off-the-cuff.
I'm not sure what "an ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid Pope is not an infallible decision" even means
Correctly insofar as the above, it means an ecumenical body of cardinals deciding who is the valid Pope is, and confirmed by the pope (via acceptance), is not held to be an infallible exercise of the Sacred Magisterium.
Are you referring to a Papal election? That is "infallible" in the sense that, once a validly elected Pope has validly accepted election, the College of Cardinals can't simply reverse their act "because we want to".
Here is some of what Robert Siscoe at https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/ argues,
The renowned Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, wrote what is likely the most thorough treatise of the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope that has ever been penned, explaining each aspect of the doctrine with Thomistic precision. He compares the election of a pope by the cardinals to a doctrine defined by a council. He then explains that just as the infallibility of a conciliar decree is dependent upon its acceptance by the Roman pontiff, so too the infallible certitude that the legitimacy of the man elected by a conclave is dependent upon his acceptance by the Church. In both cases, it is the acceptance that ultimately provides the infallible certitude, and which renders the proposition de fide. Because of this, John of St. Thomas goes on to say:
Wherefore, if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [i.e., that the one elected is the true pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the Pope himself defines anything. For it is not [just] any acceptance on the part of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the Pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.”[2]
The Legitimacy of a Pope is a Dogmatic Fact. As soon as the entire Church accepts the man as pope, his legitimacy becomes a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of infallibility.
But as per the OP article, that would require the consent of the pope, due to the power Rome has ascribed to that office.
I hope that defense wasn't too "venomous".
Not at all. Precision is important.
As if Frances were a true pope....
“And damned are those who do resist.”
If said king places rules contrary to the Word of GOD then it is the Christian’s place to resist to the point of death.
“Pray for the conversion of the Pope to Catholicism.”
So he can still be head of the whore of Babylon? The right prayer would be that all romans would see GOD’s Word and follow it thereby being saved by grace through faith.
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.