|
Post by lamentabili on Sept 21, 2023 19:57:08 GMT -5
It's often taken for granted by sedevacantists that they certainly were not, but recently, some interesting points have been brought to my attention. I currently still doubt that they were ever Popes, but I am not as sure as I am with Wojtyla or Bergoglio. In the case of Roncalli/John XXIII, here are some reasons in favour of him being a true Pope: - It appears that he was universally and peacefully adhered to by basically all of the faithful as the proximate rule of faith. This would be an infallible sign that he was the Pope, according to Billot.
- At least some of his canonisations, probably all of them, were accepted by all of the bishops. This may be an example of an infallible moral judgment of his being accepted by the whole Church.
- It is difficult to establish that he pertinaciously denied or doubted any doctrine to be believed with divine and Catholic faith before or after his election.
- Pope Pius XII made him a Cardinal.
And some reasons against: - He claimed that Catholics and Eastern schismatics have the same faith before he was elected.
- He spoke as though the true and unique Church of Jesus Christ was not present as long as the Eastern schismatics were outside of the Church.
- He openly denied the unity of the Church in his opening speech at Vatican II.
- He established the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity', probably to engage in the ecumenical movement in a manner condemned by Pius XI, and beyond the boundaries set by the Holy Office under Pius XII.
- He allowed many of the theologians that were censured under Pius XII to serve as periti during Vatican II.
I won't list his statement in Pacem in Terris on religious liberty, because it's ambiguous. Sources can be provided if necessary. The arguments that I listed on both sides vary in their strength, I think. But I'd like to know other people's thoughts. Similar can be said about Paul VI, although it is certain in my mind that he was not Pope at least after November 1964, when he approved multiple of the Vatican II documents that contain heresies and other errors against the faith.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 22, 2023 18:27:28 GMT -5
lamentabili , Thank you for your excellent post. I would like to examine with you your arguments against John XXIII in more detail. Could you post references, for the assertions you made so we can discuss more in detail. I don't need the opening text of v2, just the others that were not cited.
|
|
|
Post by lamentabili on Sept 24, 2023 2:45:13 GMT -5
lamentabili , Thank you for your excellent post. I would like to examine with you your arguments against John XXIII in more detail. Could you post references, for the assertions you made so we can discuss more in detail. I don't need the opening text of v2, just the others that were not cited. I found the first claim two claims here: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html?m=1I verified the source, and it checks out. I will quote more than what was quoted in the article above, for context, and with the footnote. Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, 1998, pp. 18-19 (my emphasis): This statement is clearly heretical. Apart from the fact that I have not seen the autograph, I have little reason to not trust this. Even if I saw it, I could raise questions about its authenticity, etc. Here is a source for the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity being founded in 1960: iarccum.org/org/?o=444Wikipedia(!) claims that it was responsible for drafting Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, and Dei Verbum. However, I am not sure how much involvement John XXIII had with that. Either way, the problems with opening such a Secretariat while claiming to be the one Church of Christ are quite clear. The claim about the modernist periti is widely reported. Here is a source mentioning how John XXIII invited modernist periti/allowed modernist periti—like Congar and de Lubac,—to serve at Vatican II: web.archive.org/web/20130201102857/http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/3940These were not the only modernist periti at the council. Edit: I assumed you only needed sources for the claims against him.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 24, 2023 11:52:26 GMT -5
lamentabili wrote: The statement is in my opinion not clear enough to make a charge of heresy. What specific dogma is being denied? The first statement boldfaced above said by John XXIII was: When he said we are not enemies, what exactly did he mean? When he said, "We have the same Faith," was this based on the common manner of treating the Orthodox as strictly schismatics and not heretics? Much of the treatment of them by pre-Vatican II writers, always focused on the schism, clearly labeling them as schismatics not heretics. As far as the term "brothers," Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII used the softer term, "separated brethren," i.e. separated brothers, rather than schismatic or heretic. Roncalli in his statement was not calling them "separated brethren," but the context of the letter indicates that he did believe that as he said we are divided. This is clearly incorrect to the Greeks being merely schismatics and not heretics, but it was how this was treated, by others, not just by then Bishop Ronalli who wrote on the eastern schismatics. If I had more time, I could dig up many such treatments but here is one from the 1913 CE: In this, Fr. Fortesque seems to be saying that when the Orthodox deny these teachings, they are not really denying them, as they are objecting to a misrepresentation of them, not the actual teachings themselves. Was this also John XXIII's view? I have no idea. The statement he made is certainly problematic as there is a question of what he meant by it, and in my opinion incorrect, but it doesn't directly deny a dogma, and could have been based on an incorrect idea of what the Greeks held, or whether they were truly denying dogma, or were they just denying what was in their thinking something other than the dogma, and due to that whether the Greeks were to be regarded strictly as schismatics rather than heretics. It seems to me this statement also poses a problem: This could certainly be understood as heresy, but in my opinion, it's not a slam dunk. Was he saying that the Church would be unique in this new situation that there were no more Orthodox and by that Our Lord would be pleased by an end to these schisms? It is possible that he may have meant that but the statement could also be interpreted as saying that the end of the schism will make the Church true and unique, thereby saying that until then, it was not true and unique, which if he did mean that, it would be heretical. Fwiw, I have read much on John XXIII, and my opinion on him was that he was not very smart. I think he was simple, and did not have a great mind for theology or precision. I am not faulting him for that, as not everyone is the brightest bulb, but I think with that understanding, it gives a better context to what he said and did. For a smart man to make ambiguous statements it is far easier to conclude guilt, as his intelligence would allow him to see exactly what his words mean and not mean, but for a less intelligent man, he may speak and write in such a manner that he does not see any problem with less precise wording, and in his mind, he sees it clearly, but for others, it is ambiguous and not clear. To accuse another Catholic of heresy prior to the judgment of the Church, the strictest standard must be used ruling out all possible innocent explanations. If there is an innocent possible explantation, the questionable statement may be used in context with other statements, as possible evidence to the charge, but it cannot be used as stand alone proof to that charge. I would have to see a complete case made against him, with any other statements that give a certainly heretical understanding to these statements, showing with certainty that he was in fact denying dogma.
|
|
|
Post by lamentabili on Sept 24, 2023 21:06:49 GMT -5
What specific dogma is being denied? The unity of the faith, and the truth of the solemn definitions of papal supremacy, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, etc. It is heretical to say that a Catholic and a heretic share the same faith. This is not the issue. They were often understood under that aspect, but it was not denied that they were heretics, at least not by the more sound theologians. It was certainly not said that they have the same faith as Catholics. Roman Catholicism and heresy are not the same faith. It is heretical to deny papal supremacy, the Filioque, etc. The Orthodox deny them. Ergo etc. Conceded, this is not the issue. Whoever spoke this way erred. Pointing to Fortescue's blatant error, even if he was probably just mistaken and not pertinacious, does not exonerate Roncalli. In one sentence, Fortescue said "it is not a heresy," and then said that "they deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory..." These are dogmas. Although he said that they misunderstand them (which is a gratuitous assertion and not always the case), they do not accept them in their orthodox sense either. And, the essence of heresy consists in submitting to a rule of faith other than the Roman Magisterium (cf. Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 3rd ed. (Prati: ex officina libraria Giachetti, 1909), p. 292). The Eastern schismatics do that. Ergo etc. St Bonaventure, and many others, call them heretics. Here is Siméon Vailhé, speaking about their adoption of Palamism: "The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "the infallible guide of the Christian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism."
www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htmNo, he said that the union of the Catholic Church with the Eastern schismatics will form the "true and unique Church of Jesus Christ." That means that the Catholic Church, on its own, is not the true and unique Church of Jesus Christ. Which is heretical. It's also wrong to talk as though the union of schismatics with the Church brings anything substantial to her. I respectfully disagree. Agreed. His pertinacity is a different question. But the statement he made is, to me, clearly heretical. He persisted in his denial of the unity of the Church, like ecumenists generally did. This was not a one-off. For example, this is from his opening speech at Vatican II (my emphasis): "The Church’s solicitude to promote and defend truth derives from the fact that, according to the plan of God, who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, men without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds, with which are associated true peace and salvation. Unfortunately, the entire Christian family has not yet fully attained this visible unity in truth. The Catholic Church, therefore, considers it her duty to work actively so that there may be fulfilled the great mystery of that unity, which Jesus Christ invoked with fervent prayer from his heavenly Father on the eve of his sacrifice (That they may all be one [Jn. 17:11])."
Perhaps one may argue that he was only using "Christian" in an improper sense here to refer to heretics and schismatics, and was not denying that the Church (the Christian family) is already visibly united, and that heretics and schismatics need to return to it. One may point to Pius XII's title for the prayer for heretics and schismatics in the new Holy Week as an example of this. I doubt, however, that John XXIII meant this in an orthodox sense, in light of statements he made like the one I posted before. In my opinion, the previous statement is clear enough on its own, as I said above, and all that can reasonably be questioned is his pertinacity. I take it that you believe that he was Pope?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 24, 2023 22:08:39 GMT -5
lamentabili wrote: Did you read my post? My point was that he may not have believed they were heretics at all. It has not yet been established that he believed that. Of course it's heresy to deny any Catholic dogma, but you haven't proven that John XXIII denied these dogmas. Your statements only show that he might have, not that he did say or believe anything against the Faith. There are possible innocent explanations as mentioned in my post. You are preaching to the choir, and missed my point. I am not agreeing with Fortesque, and I believe that Fortesque's understanding is incorrect, but it's certainly not heretical. Do we agree? If not, explain the heresy? What dogma did John XXIII explicitly deny? I am not asking for a multi step reasoning from you in regards to his statements, I am asking for a direct statement from him that denies a Catholic dogma and there is no way to innocently interpret it. My point was that there was a way to look at this, that is in my opinion incorrect, but not heretical. We don't know the reasoning of John XXIII on this point, which is why I said to you that what you presented does not in my opinion stick to a strict standard as far as accusing him of heresy. You are interpreting his words and what he meant by them. Where did he say "That means that the Catholic Church, on its own, is not the true and unique Church of Jesus Christ?" That's fine. The onus remains on you if you plan to accuse him of heresy, not me. You are asking me my opinion, and you've not convinced me based on what you have shown so far. Did he directly deny a Catholic dogma in his statements? Secondly was there any innocent manner of understanding the statement other than with a heretical meaning? I don't think the statements that you presented gets past both tests. I think you answered your own question on this point, and see that it might have an innocent interpretation. As I have said in the past, there is no smoking gun with John XXIII. I don't know why you take that from what I wrote. I have no idea if he was pope with certainty, but I also do not have it in my mind that he certainly wasn't pope. I have a high standard, as I believe we must before accusing anyone of a crime, and in our case, heresy is a heinous crime to accuse a Catholic of, and I will not accuse John XXIII or anyone of that without being morally certain that they are guilty. I am not morally certain he was guilty of being a heretic, ergo... There really is no practical difference as far as I see it. His laws were never evil, and they would have been supplied by the Church, as they were universally accepted and served the common good, so, in my opinion, they would be the laws of the Church as exist in the Roman rite to this day. So my view is this, why worry about him, its a waste of time, in my opinion, especially as we are being confronted with a man claiming to be pope that is, in my opinion, stating openly heretical teachings unambiguously. My last point, since I don't have certainty about him, and I don't need to worry about him, as there is no practical reason to do so, I just leave him to the future Church, and the Church may judge him in the future, but in the meanwhile, it's not troubling me, as there really is no reason I must look at his case. I think with Paul VI, we are forced to look at his case, as there are severe and practical implications if he was Pope, but that doesn't exist with John XXIII.
|
|