Posted on 08/31/2018 7:36:48 AM PDT by sitetest
Three questions to begin:
1. Why did the World Meeting of Families, which took place in [Ireland last week], all but exclude from its panels and speakers people who had been active in recent Irish referenda relating to family and children?
2. Why did virtually every panel of commentators covering the World Meeting of Families and papal visit on Ireland’s national radio and television station comprise at least 50 percent LGBT activists?
3. Why did the Irish media play down the explosive intervention of the former Vatican diplomat Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò until Pope Francis was preparing to leave Ireland on Sunday afternoon?
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
Also of interest to me, at least.
He may well not be factually the Pope. There are real questions as to how he got there. Process questions, to be sure, but his conduct appears to be free of the protection the Paraclete has afforded other “bad” Popes that have avoid material heresy. A ‘secular pope’ is not Catholic, imho. (Your mileage may vary.)
Agreed!
Mother Gaia, illegals, that damned captialism, communists are the true christians, etc.
My elder son would argue that although bergoglio is a personal heretic, he has not yet attempted to formally, universally promulgate heresy as dogma or doctrine. He has walked up to the line, but not crossed it. He has tried to blur the lines so that people believe, incorrectly, that his heresies are infallibly defined, but they’re not.
My son points out this is actually the mark of a bad, but true pope: Would like to teach heresy ex cathedra, but finding he is unable.
This was the case with Pope Vigilius, who conspired with the empress to murder his predecessor pope so that he could become pope himself, and proclaim as dogma the heresy of monophysiticism, a pet heresy of the empress. Upon being elected to the Chair of Peter, he would not proclaim the heresy as dogma; this didn’t go over well with his imperial sponsors. He was ultimate taken prisoner, and died in captivity, having never proclaimed heresy as dogma.
But, in spite of my son’s more-detailed knowledge of Church history, and the fact that he’s fluent in Latin and Greek, and can read the ancient documents in their original languages, I still have doubts about the election of bergoglio, too.
He is a personal heretic. But he could still be pope even while being a personal heretic. John XXII was a personal heretic. But he was pope. And ultimately, he repented of his heresy.
My point is that the fact that he is a personal heretic does not mean he is not validly the pope.
I think he became a formal heretic when he published the Argentinian bishops’ heretical instructions on giving Holy Communion to those in mortal sin, along with his own letter of approval of those instructions in the Apostolic Signatura.
Just my opinion.
Sure, but those events don’t seem to argue that he’s not validly pope. Just a very bad one guilty of personal heresy.
Here we disagree. I believe that act to have been one of formal heresy.
The question isn’t whether he’s a formal heretic, but whether he has taught heresy ex cathedra. If he had, that would seemingly violate the charism of papal infallibility. Unless he wasn’t validly the pope.
But as far as I can tell, he hasn’t attempted to formally define doctrine or dogma ex cathedra that is, in fact, heretical.
What he may say, as a personal theologian, may be formal heresy, but his teaching as a personal theologian is not subject to infallibility.
As well, even if he personally holds to a formal heresy, that doesn’t make him a formal heretic. A formal heretic is one who holds obstinately to his heresy in the face of clear correction by a superior.
The pope has no superior.
One theory goes that an imperfect general council of the Church could formally recognize his heresy, and upon that recognition, declare him deposed. But according to that theory, it would take a general council of the Church for him to do it.
Narses was bringing up questions about the validity of his election, questions that I wonder about, as well. But 1) Ed Peters, the canonist, asserts that the election was valid, and 2) that doesn’t directly have to do whether he is a personal heretic after his election.
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
“He may well not be factually the Pope.”
They had their “election.”
The white smoke came out of the chimney.
The College of Cardinals publicly stated he’s pope.
He’s the pope.
Period
L
“You are not catholic.”
Prove that assertion.
L
I am no theologian, but I have seen folks who I respect (Father Z for one) indicate questions exist regarding the process leading to and during the conclave.
In the end, way above my paygrade, but my faith in the Promise of the Keys and the power of Our Lord and the Paraclete remains firm.
Your own posts where you talk about walking away and joining the Lutheran Synod of some sort. Or have you returned to Holy Mother the Church?
*I, too, question the validity of Bergoglio's election. And if it was invalid, infallibility is a mute point.
*Secondly, even if valid, infallibility is only applicable when a pope speaks on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra. No post-VCII pope has ever done so. A pope can certainly be a formal heretic without preaching heresy ex cathedra.
Look, this is a Caucus thread - are you Catholic?
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.