|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 21, 2022 13:37:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 21, 2022 13:40:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 26, 2022 16:37:52 GMT -5
BUMP I am shocked no has comments on this
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Jun 1, 2022 13:31:47 GMT -5
BUMP I am shocked no has comments on this I finally managed to listen to most of part 1 one morning when the boys woke up late. Watching videos is hard when they are awake because then they pester me for their shows instead. 😅 As an historian, Charles had some good points about the "claimed 40 heretical popes". However, he fails to mention the fact Saint Robert Bellarmine actually explained each case individually in his book "On the Roman Pontiff". Also, I have just been reading in an old book on the Life of Leo XIII how in the discussions during the First Vatican Council it was discussed and emphasized that no pope had ever been a heretic. There had been cases where popes temporarily privately held something erroneous that had never been officially defined by the Church but they NEVER held a belief against any professed dogma of the Church. In this same book the father's of the 1st Vatican were quoted as saying that if it was ever possible that such an occasion ever happen and that a pope hold a heresy against a defined dogma of the Church that he would no longer possibly be Pope. Hopefully, one of these days I can finish the videos. They were fun. 😅 Oh, and Bellarmine said that the popes concerning the Formosas case erred in fact not doctrine. Bellarmine claims that a pope can declare something false about facts if people give him the wrong information.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Jun 4, 2022 15:48:42 GMT -5
Finally got around to finishing the second video. 😅
Lots of good info. It was nice to hear someone else talk about L'action française, Pius XII and all of that. I have been reading a lot about it recently. Some of the most prominent clergy under Pope Pius X were taken out of their positions for having been "royalists". Henri le Floch who was the holy leader of the College in Rome where Archbishop Lefebvre studied... Cardinal Billot even made a huge scene when he resigned from being a cardinal... It was awful how some of the best defenders of the Faith were treated by Pius XI. 😣ðŸ˜
On another note... Honorius...
He was not technically a heretic. What he wrote in a private letter about the two wills of Our Lord had never yet been proclaimed by the Church. The Council that condemned his errors was were that was first explained. The popes and saints after that condemned his error but said that he never technically fell from the faith because it was not a defined heresy at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 5, 2022 18:10:59 GMT -5
Yeah I think I agree with you but I think Charles position is his heresy his heresy was saying that his predecessors consecrations were invalid ?
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Jun 6, 2022 6:55:26 GMT -5
The above quote was me yesterday. Sorry for the messy way it was put on. By the time I got the quote typed up my phone logged me out and I couldn't copy it over probably again at the time. Here is an easier version to read. 😅
Here is Saint Robert Bellarmine's explanation from what I have been reading in his book "On Controversies of the Roman Pontiff":
"It is certain from Platina and others, that Stephen invalidated the acts of Pope Formosus, his predecessor, and commanded those ordained by him to be ordained again. Hence he thought that the Sacrament depended upon the virtue of the minister, which is a manifest error in faith. For that reason, Pope John IX afterward invalidated the acts of Stephen VI and approved the acts of Formosus. But a little afterward, Sergius III again invalidated the acts of Formosus, and hence also of John, and approved the acts of Stephen. Necessarily, one of these Popes was opposed to the others and erred, as the Centuriators diligently observed. 523"
I respond: Stephen VI and Sergius III erred in a question of fact, not of law, and gave a bad example, not false doctrine. This is the history. Formosus, the Cardinal bishop of Portus, was deposed by Pope John VIII, and demoted and returned to the lay state, after which he swore that he would never return to the city, or the episcopate. A little after the death of John VIII, his successor, Martin II, absolved Formosus of his careless oath, and restored him to his original dignity.
Not long after that, Formosus was created Pope. He lived for five years and died. Stephen VI succeeded him who, being enkindled with great hatred against Formosus (or else unaware or not believing that he was absolved of his oath by Pope Martin), decreed publicly in a council of bishops that Formosus was never a legitimate Pope and therefore, all his acts were invalid. He compelled all those who had received orders from him to be ordained again, just as if they had received nothing.
This deed displeased everyone, and therefore three Popes in succession, Roman I, Theodore II and especially John IX, after calling another Episcopal Council, judged that Formosus was a true Pope and invalidated the sentence of Stephen VI. Next, Sergius III succeeded him and imitated Stephen VI in all things. The particular question was whether Formosus was a legitimate Pope. We do not deny that in such questions Popes can err, and Stephen and Sergius erred in fact. But you will object: Stephen and Sergius not only judged that Formosus was not a true Pope, but even the sacred orders which he conferred were not valid; such is a manifest error against faith. Even if Formosus was not a Pope, and always remained deposed and demoted, still, because he was at one time a true bishop, and insofar as the character and power of orders cannot by any means be taken away, it is an error in faith to say thatthe sacred orders he conferred were not true orders.
I respond: Stephen and Sergius did not publish some decree whereby they determined the orders by a demoted bishop, or the orders that Formosus by name conferred after he had been demoted, must be conferred again; rather, they only de facto commanded them to be conferred again. Such a command proceeded not from ignorance or heresy, but from hatred against Formosus. Sigebert remarks in his Chronicle for the year 803 that Stephen VI was forcefully opposed by all those who were ordained by Formosus
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 6, 2022 9:58:12 GMT -5
I posted this response on the youtube comments
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Jun 7, 2022 5:37:43 GMT -5
I posted this response on the youtube comments Great!!! The Saint Robert Bellarmine book is truly amazing. It is on Amazon Kindle if you are interested. It is really the best defence for sedevacantist and explains almost every possible case and solution in reference to the Sovereign Pontiff's and heresy.
|
|