|
Post by marcellusfaber on Jun 3, 2023 9:03:41 GMT -5
Recently, I have been considering the question of how certain we can be of the vacancy. I am attempting to answer this question based on the table translated by Mr Daly, posted by Pacelli in this thread: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/345/theological-notes-church Following the explanations, it first seemed to me that the Bellarminist position regarding Popes falling into heresy would be labelled as either 'very common/commoner' or 'probable'. However, I then remembered Cum Ex Apostolatus and canon 188, which would seem to place the opinion as at least 'safe'. Or would the note be higher even than that? I do not know how to balance this against the fact that weighty theologians (we all know the names: Cajetan, John of St Thomas, Suarez, Bouix, etc.) held the contrary opinion. I have also considered the strongest argument for the vacancy: we have evidence that the putative Popes were manifest heretics before their supposed elections, and, since manifest heretics cannot be elected, they cannot have been validly elected. There does not seem to be any controversy whatsoever concerning the point that manifest heretics cannot be elected to the Papacy. The note applied to the major premise of this second argument seems to therefore be 'certain' or 'common'. I do plan to read the book which Mr Daly partially translated at some point, but every other page of the version on archive.org seems to be illegible.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 30, 2023 7:06:30 GMT -5
Recently, I have been considering the question of how certain we can be of the vacancy. I am attempting to answer this question based on the table translated by Mr Daly, posted by Pacelli in this thread: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/345/theological-notes-church Following the explanations, it first seemed to me that the Bellarminist position regarding Popes falling into heresy would be labelled as either 'very common/commoner' or 'probable'. However, I then remembered Cum Ex Apostolatus and canon 188, which would seem to place the opinion as at least 'safe'. Or would the note be higher even than that? I do not know how to balance this against the fact that weighty theologians (we all know the names: Cajetan, John of St Thomas, Suarez, Bouix, etc.) held the contrary opinion. I have also considered the strongest argument for the vacancy: we have evidence that the putative Popes were manifest heretics before their supposed elections, and, since manifest heretics cannot be elected, they cannot have been validly elected. There does not seem to be any controversy whatsoever concerning the point that manifest heretics cannot be elected to the Papacy. The note applied to the major premise of this second argument seems to therefore be 'certain' or 'common'. I do plan to read the book which Mr Daly partially translated at some point, but every other page of the version on archive.org seems to be illegible. Hello MarcellusFaber, Sorry I missed this post before, so I'm getting to it now. There are two routes to forming moral certainty about the status of the papal claimants Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. The first is to see if they actually stated a heresy, and it was done publicly and from all appearances that it was done pertinaciously, not innocently or mistakenly. The second route is to see if these alleged popes did things that they would have been prevented from doing if they were popes: binding the Church to evil laws, canonizing as saints persons that are in Hell, although this is impossible to prove for obvious reasons, teaching doctrine as "pope" to the universal Church that is either heretical or contains serious doctrinal error (unsafe), teaching moral matters to the universal Church that is immoral. Going back to Vatican II, I realize there is wiggle room with the Council documents as there is ambiguity, but since the Council, more clarity has been given by the "popes" who have taught on many of these matters. For example, the new idea that the Old Covenant is still in force is heretical, this is directly against the Faith. The Council blurred the secondary end of marriage with the primary end. I think this could also be argued as heretical, especially as we have seen more teaching since then that makes it clear what the Council meant. If a doctrinal matter that was once clear is being blurred, then the first thing that a Catholic should do is wonder why? Is it just a poorly thought out statement or sermon by a bishop or priest? Maybe in that case, it could be innocent. But, for an ecumenical Council to blur once clear doctrine is not something like just a bishop making a mistake, as Council texts are clearly prepared after much deliberation and review, so what it is teaching is deliberately intended. Why would the fathers of Vatican II muddy the waters of doctrine on purpose, leaving enough ambiguity to leave open the possible interpretation of orthodoxy but clearly giving the Church and the world the impression that the Church now held new doctrine at odds with the former constant teaching? It makes no sense unless something nefarious was going on. What happened after the Council, however, with "papal" teaching on the once ambiguous documents, is what, in my opinion, solidifies moral certainty that the Council and what came after was not of the Church. The new doctrine is directly at odds with the Catholic doctrine, and no matter how much some try to bridge the two, it always fails. Look at religious liberty, read the document Dignitatis Humanae, and also post V2 "papal"teaching on this, and compare it with the papal teaching prior to V2, for an easy one to see this point. I realize this new doctrine of religious liberty would not carry the note of heresy, but that's besides the point, it's certainly gravely erroneous, so it leads to another question, can the Church bind Catholics to believe is serious doctrinal error, short of heresy? The theologians say, no, that such teaching must be infallibly safe, as the Church cannot lead us astray.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Jun 30, 2023 11:27:06 GMT -5
There are two routes to forming moral certainty about the status of the papal claimants Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. The first is to see if they actually stated a heresy, and it was done publicly and from all appearances that it was done pertinaciously, not innocently or mistakenly. The second route is to see if these alleged popes did things that they would have been prevented from doing if they were popes: binding the Church to evil laws, canonizing as saints persons that are in Hell, although this is impossible to prove for obvious reasons, teaching doctrine as "pope" to the universal Church that is either heretical or contains serious doctrinal error (unsafe), teaching moral matters to the universal Church that is immoral. Why do the sededeprivationists insist on not approaching using either of these two sure routes?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 1, 2023 9:53:10 GMT -5
There are two routes to forming moral certainty about the status of the papal claimants Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. The first is to see if they actually stated a heresy, and it was done publicly and from all appearances that it was done pertinaciously, not innocently or mistakenly. The second route is to see if these alleged popes did things that they would have been prevented from doing if they were popes: binding the Church to evil laws, canonizing as saints persons that are in Hell, although this is impossible to prove for obvious reasons, teaching doctrine as "pope" to the universal Church that is either heretical or contains serious doctrinal error (unsafe), teaching moral matters to the universal Church that is immoral. Why do the sededeprivationists insist on not approaching using either of these two sure routes? Well, the best thing to do is look carefully at their written works to see exactly what they are saying. If you have one or some of their writings in mind, post them here and we can look at them.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Jul 2, 2023 1:32:58 GMT -5
Why do the sededeprivationists insist on not approaching using either of these two sure routes? Well, the best thing to do is look carefully at their written works to see exactly what they are saying. If you have one or some of their writings in mind, post them here and we can look at them. Thanks, I think samuelsede probably has a better idea. I'm staying away from the Thesis as I see it as unnecessary and potentially heretical. It hasn't brought good fruit along with it.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Jul 2, 2023 1:42:08 GMT -5
Well, the best thing to do is look carefully at their written works to see exactly what they are saying. If you have one or some of their writings in mind, post them here and we can look at them. Thanks, I think samuelsede probably has a better idea. I'm staying away from the Thesis as I see it as unnecessary and potentially heretical. It hasn't brought good fruit along with it. They do take the second route.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Jul 2, 2023 3:37:03 GMT -5
Thanks, I think samuelsede probably has a better idea. I'm staying away from the Thesis as I see it as unnecessary and potentially heretical. It hasn't brought good fruit along with it. They do take the second route. The second route is to see if these alleged popes did things that they would have been prevented from doing if they were popes: binding the Church to evil laws, canonizing as saints persons that are in Hell, although this is impossible to prove for obvious reasons, teaching doctrine as "pope" to the universal Church that is either heretical or contains serious doctrinal error (unsafe), teaching moral matters to the universal Church that is immoral. Ok, well at least we have this. So they don't claim that personal heresy is the problem but rather that their actions prove they lack Papal infallibility.
|
|