|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 22, 2017 14:13:27 GMT -5
I recently came across this passage from a Papal Bull by Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559. He wrote: "Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: — Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void. — It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. — Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . . — Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” I freely admit that I have not had an opportunity to read the original source of this passage and I am only beginning to wrap my head around the power of popes to make these kinds of decrees, so all of this may be out of context, but from what I read it seems very clear that anyone professing ANY heresy or deviation from the Catholic faith cannot be pope. Are there exceptions or some nuance to this I'm missing? Perhaps this bull is advisory only or only limited to a particular set of facts rather than a universal rule? If not, it would appear (at least to me) that the only debate left on this issue is relegated to whether any of the popes had actually "deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy" prior to taking on St. Peter's office. If yes, then they were/are not a pope. Is there evidence available to us of any pope actually falling into any such heresy or deviation of faith? Your understanding of the matter is correct, if a Pope or any other office holder is a public heretic, then by that fact alone, even prior to the judgment of the Church, he would lose his office, as he would no longer be a member of the Church. There is evidence that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have professed public heresy. There is also other evidence supporting the primary accusation of heresy against these men, showing their guilt, and that it is not just a misunderstanding. They professed public heresy before becoming pope? Then why were they elected? Could you recommend a good source discussing these instances of public heresy? Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 14:16:55 GMT -5
Your understanding of the matter is correct, if a Pope or any other office holder is a public heretic, then by that fact alone, even prior to the judgment of the Church, he would lose his office, as he would no longer be a member of the Church. There is evidence that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have professed public heresy. There is also other evidence supporting the primary accusation of heresy against these men, showing their guilt, and that it is not just a misunderstanding. They professed public heresy before becoming pope? Then why were they elected? Could you recommend a good source discussing these instances of public heresy? Many thanks. They certainly professed heresy during the time they claimed to be Pope. Regarding Paul VI, a case would be more difficult to be made of the time prior to his claim. Regarding the others, I believe a solid case could be made both prior to and during their claims. Give me a little time and I will give you some sources.
|
|
|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 22, 2017 14:43:15 GMT -5
Thanks for your help Pacelli.
It looks like Pope Paul IV makes the qualification that such heresies be professed prior to taking office, as opposed to after. I assume it is because a true pope cannot be judged by any man whereas someone who is a professed heretic before taking office is no true pope and therefore open to judgment by anybody.
Perhaps this is why I find myself gravitating to the sedevacantist position rather than positions that recognize the current pope but work to resist his agenda. If he is the true pope, no matter how apparently wrong he may be, who are we to resist him? He is above our private judgments, right? Wouldn't that be a form of schism? Which seems ironic given that sedevacantists actually do not recognize the current occupant of the Vatican as the pope nor even Catholic. What a topsy turvy post Vatican II world we live in, where those who do not recpgnize the current pope at all are the ones most loyal to the papacy.
Is there a position or group that believes that a pope exists but confesses that they don't know who he is?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 22, 2017 15:05:37 GMT -5
I agree with you, it is a strange irony that the defenders of the papacy are the one's rejecting the papal claims of the men commonly believed to be the legitimate Popes. This is is a beautiful explanation of how a Catholic loves and obeys the Pope by St. Pius X. The people that hold the resistance idea would be hard pressed to justify themselves in relation to this teaching: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/105/obligation-love-obey-pope-piusIf a legitimate Pope were to become a heretic, he would still lose his office, although this seneraio was thought be unlikely. Fwiw, and I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, decades actually, my opinion is that Paul VI was a legitimate Pope but lost his office on November 21, 1964, the date of promulgation of Lumen Gentium. In my opinion, that was the beginning of the state of sedevacante, which has continued to our current day.
|
|
|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 22, 2017 15:35:27 GMT -5
I agree with you, it is a strange irony that the defenders of the papacy are the one's rejecting the papal claims of the men commonly believed to be the legitimate Popes. This is is a beautiful explanation of how a Catholic loves and obeys the Pope by St. Pius X. The people that hold the resistance idea would be hard pressed to justify themselves in relation to this teaching: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/105/obligation-love-obey-pope-piusIf a legitimate Pope were to become a heretic, he would still lose his office, although this seneraio was thought be unlikely. Fwiw, and I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, decades actually, my opinion is that Paul VI was a legitimate Pope but lost his office on November 21, 1964, the date of promulgation of Lumen Gentium. In my opinion, that was the beginning of the state of sedevacante, which has continued to our current day. I once read, and I don't know if this is accurate or not, that Pope Paul VI gave up his papal tiara during Vatican II and no successor since has used it. I am sure some would say it was for noble reasons (and I don't have enough knowledge about it to dispute them) but I always thought that was a very telling act-giving up such an important symbol of papal authority. Isn't that how kings give up their royal claim? I can't imagine what other reason soneone would do that.
|
|
|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 22, 2017 15:52:31 GMT -5
I agree with you, it is a strange irony that the defenders of the papacy are the one's rejecting the papal claims of the men commonly believed to be the legitimate Popes. This is is a beautiful explanation of how a Catholic loves and obeys the Pope by St. Pius X. The people that hold the resistance idea would be hard pressed to justify themselves in relation to this teaching: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/105/obligation-love-obey-pope-piusIf a legitimate Pope were to become a heretic, he would still lose his office, although this seneraio was thought be unlikely. Fwiw, and I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, decades actually, my opinion is that Paul VI was a legitimate Pope but lost his office on November 21, 1964, the date of promulgation of Lumen Gentium. In my opinion, that was the beginning of the state of sedevacante, which has continued to our current day. Thank you for the link to Pope Pius X's quote. It is a powerful argument.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 22, 2017 22:57:18 GMT -5
I agree with you, it is a strange irony that the defenders of the papacy are the one's rejecting the papal claims of the men commonly believed to be the legitimate Popes. This is is a beautiful explanation of how a Catholic loves and obeys the Pope by St. Pius X. The people that hold the resistance idea would be hard pressed to justify themselves in relation to this teaching: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/105/obligation-love-obey-pope-piusIf a legitimate Pope were to become a heretic, he would still lose his office, although this seneraio was thought be unlikely. Fwiw, and I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, decades actually, my opinion is that Paul VI was a legitimate Pope but lost his office on November 21, 1964, the date of promulgation of Lumen Gentium. In my opinion, that was the beginning of the state of sedevacante, which has continued to our current day. I once read, and I don't know if this is accurate or not, that Pope Paul VI gave up his papal tiara during Vatican II and no successor since has used it. I am sure some would say it was for noble reasons (and I don't have enough knowledge about it to dispute them) but I always thought that was a very telling act-giving up such an important symbol of papal authority. Isn't that how kings give up their royal claim? I can't imagine what other reason soneone would do that. I don't know the date but he wanted to auction it off and Cardinal Spellman saved it. It's in Washington DC.
|
|
MiriamM
TC spellcheck
TC quality control
Posts: 55
|
Post by MiriamM on Jul 10, 2017 6:15:19 GMT -5
To pull away from. In this case, once we privately determine that someone claiming to be Pope is a heretic and we are not able to contact the legitimate authorities to take authoritative action, we are still duty bound to avoid the heretic on our own, even prior to the judgment of the Church. Catholics cannot avoid their own head, so they must treat the heretic as a non-Pope, as public heretics automatically lose their membership in the Church, and by that cannot hold any office. I do avoid him.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 11, 2017 1:47:17 GMT -5
To pull away from. In this case, once we privately determine that someone claiming to be Pope is a heretic and we are not able to contact the legitimate authorities to take authoritative action, we are still duty bound to avoid the heretic on our own, even prior to the judgment of the Church. Catholics cannot avoid their own head, so they must treat the heretic as a non-Pope, as public heretics automatically lose their membership in the Church, and by that cannot hold any office. I do avoid him. To me, Miriam, you are a practical sedevacantist. You have a cardboard 'pope' and that is no pope at all.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 11, 2017 4:59:07 GMT -5
To me, Miriam, you are a practical sedevacantist. You have a cardboard 'pope' and that is no pope at all. Im sure you mean to rephrase this...so its less harsh and accusatory. The second sentence should start "Its like...."
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 11, 2017 5:18:38 GMT -5
To me, Miriam, you are a practical sedevacantist. You have a cardboard 'pope' and that is no pope at all. Im sure you mean to rephrase this...so its less harsh and accusatory. The second sentence should start "Its like...." I view a lot of people as practical sedevacantists---even some Novus Ordites. They have the pope on ignore in regards to their spiritual lives and that is a very smart move. I don't mean any disrespect to Miriam in particular. She seems like a very nice person and I enjoyed chatting with her on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 11, 2017 8:28:03 GMT -5
Catholics who ignore the Pope may not necessarily hold the sede opinion...they could also just be bad Catholics...as is the Average new church pew sitter. Now Miriam is sincerely unsure what to think...and this incredible crisis has left all of us in a sea of doubt. There is no sede dogma in the context of the crisis.
|
|
MiriamM
TC spellcheck
TC quality control
Posts: 55
|
Post by MiriamM on Jul 11, 2017 10:33:22 GMT -5
Catholics who ignore the Pope may not necessarily hold the sede opinion...they could also just be bad Catholics...as is the Average new church pew sitter. Now Miriam is sincerely unsure what to think...and this incredible crisis has left all of us in a sea of doubt. There is no sede dogma in the context of the crisis. Thank you.
|
|