Author Topic: Election of a Pope  (Read 623 times)

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2017, 03:04:11 AM »
The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

This isn't even remotely true.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 
The following users thanked this post: Anonimus

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2017, 06:04:29 AM »
The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

This isn't even remotely true.

Apparently, you must be thinking that when I said "the only thing" it's just this one thing and nothing else in the whole world of theology?  No, I mean on the point of what happens when a pope becomes a manifest heretic, the Church has decided just what I said.
 

Anonimus

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2017, 07:44:23 AM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

Translation: "Gee, that's a good point.  Not sure how to respond, so I will maintain my answer without addressing the question." 

Rather habitual.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you now since you cannot comprehend what just happened:   If something compels a response, it does NOT mean it is good just because it compelled a response, since pure error and evil most often compel a response.

That's dodge #2.

At Dodge #3, I will bid adieu.

Sum up concisely in your own words what question or truth I am avoiding.

Rube-

Manifest heretic according to who: You, or the Church?

Common sense says that the Church (not armchair quarterbacks) must declare the Pope a manifest heretic, else what may be manifest to some may not be manifest to others, and the unity and government of the Church become ruptured.

It is not possible that a Pope could fall (or be removed) from office, with the Church having no part of it, and simply allow people to perceive it (or not) in their own good time.

It would be the grossest of negligences, and overt dereliction of duty.

But even that can't be your position, since by your "ipso facto" position, there is nobody left in the Church to make such a declaration (i.e., Those who hold your position are actually worse than sedevacantists.  They are ecclesiavacantists: The entire Church is empty, and therefore it can never be restored, there being nobody with authority to restore it).

As for the "lone bishop in the woods," presuming such a mythical figure actually existed (there only being about 6 bishops left who were consecrated by Pius XII), he would not have any jurisdiction in the Church, having long since been replaced by another who has title and authority.

But this is a "take it or leave it" post.

I have been around long enough to know not to waste my time in endless sede entanglements: There is at this moment on Cathinfo a thread approaching 50 pages, in which the initial OP simply observes 5 of 15 sedes were online at that time.

Thanks anyway.

I stay engaged in a thread long enough to test my arguments, and make my own judgments one way or the other, then out.  Everything else is frivolity.

But before I go, just to be precise again, here is the question you are not answering:

"Manifest heretic" according to who: You, or the Church?"

 
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2017, 09:53:23 AM »
Anonimous, what I doubted is that S&S translated it.  They're notorious for maligning the credibility of sedevacantists while relying almost exclusively on the translative groundwork that sedevacantists have provided over the last thirty years.

Their book is full of translations they lifted from Bellarmine forums (which are usually the work of J.S. Daly, sometimes of James Larabee and others).  That quote from Billot was translated, at the soonest, more than ten years ago on BF.  That's where NOW got it, and that's where Chips and Salsa got it.

The quote itself is good. 

(Incidentally, I have no problem with people using other people's translations-- do it myself all the time!  It's the combination of using others translations while at the same time treating them as idiots and ne'erdowellers.  A despicable tactic)

Mith-

Not sure where NOW or Siscoe/Salza got their Billot citations, but they had to be from different sources (e.g., Siscoe cites the quote on p.o. 612-613, whereas NOW cites p. 623), unless you are implying both had appeared on BF over the years, and NOW chose one, and S/S the other.  But not sure how that would be knowable, barring an admission or something.

Interesting, I'm not sure where NOW got their citation-- that might just be a typo.  S&S may have actually gotten it from da Silveira, then (after a bit more digging I think that's where BF got it, and it's on BF as early as 2006).
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2017, 04:45:59 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

Translation: "Gee, that's a good point.  Not sure how to respond, so I will maintain my answer without addressing the question." 

Rather habitual.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you now since you cannot comprehend what just happened:   If something compels a response, it does NOT mean it is good just because it compelled a response, since pure error and evil most often compel a response.

That's dodge #2.

At Dodge #3, I will bid adieu.

Sum up concisely in your own words what question or truth I am avoiding.

Rube-

Manifest heretic according to who: You, or the Church?

Common sense says that the Church (not armchair quarterbacks) must declare the Pope a manifest heretic, else what may be manifest to some may not be manifest to others, and the unity and government of the Church become ruptured.

It is not possible that a Pope could fall (or be removed) from office, with the Church having no part of it, and simply allow people to perceive it (or not) in their own good time.

It would be the grossest of negligences, and overt dereliction of duty.

But even that can't be your position, since by your "ipso facto" position, there is nobody left in the Church to make such a declaration (i.e., Those who hold your position are actually worse than sedevacantists.  They are ecclesiavacantists: The entire Church is empty, and therefore it can never be restored, there being nobody with authority to restore it).

As for the "lone bishop in the woods," presuming such a mythical figure actually existed (there only being about 6 bishops left who were consecrated by Pius XII), he would not have any jurisdiction in the Church, having long since been replaced by another who has title and authority.

But this is a "take it or leave it" post.

I have been around long enough to know not to waste my time in endless sede entanglements: There is at this moment on Cathinfo a thread approaching 50 pages, in which the initial OP simply observes 5 of 15 sedes were online at that time.

Thanks anyway.

I stay engaged in a thread long enough to test my arguments, and make my own judgments one way or the other, then out.  Everything else is frivolity.

But before I go, just to be precise again, here is the question you are not answering:

"Manifest heretic" according to who: You, or the Church?"

I am assuming the question you think I was dodging was the one you now asked twice - at the beginning and end of your post. I have no intention of dodging anything, so thank you for restating it, and I will proceed to address it directly.

There are two judgments, one moral, and one juridical. The moral judgment always comes before the juridical so that the truth be known to all those who could not come to a judgment on their own.

Reason, enlightened by Faith, is an authoritative judgment, so says "Liberalism is a Sin", which was praised by the Holy Office. It's the way history has always proceeded before juridical judgments.

The men who are in charge of the juridical judgment first must come to a certain moral judgment of the truth of it before scheduling to declare that truth. In this case, they judge the man has become a manifest, or explicit, heretic, and therefore is no longer pope. They cannot schedule the council unless they were certain of the fact....because nobody can judge a pope.

This goes without saying, that some people cannot come to that conclusion. They may have something wrong with their reasoning, their facts, and/or their Faith. An admixture of fear and bias makes it more difficult.
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2017, 08:01:40 PM »
Apparently, you must be thinking that when I said "the only thing" it's just this one thing and nothing else in the whole world of theology?  No, I mean on the point of what happens when a pope becomes a manifest heretic, the Church has decided just what I said.

No, I mean that the Church has never dogmatized Bellarmine's fifth opinion as you seem to imply.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2017, 06:04:28 AM »
Apparently, you must be thinking that when I said "the only thing" it's just this one thing and nothing else in the whole world of theology?  No, I mean on the point of what happens when a pope becomes a manifest heretic, the Church has decided just what I said.

No, I mean that the Church has never dogmatized Bellarmine's fifth opinion as you seem to imply.

What is "dogmatized"?  Is everything in a catechism dogmatized?
 

2Vermont

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2017, 06:59:19 AM »
It's interesting that we're having a similar discussion on CI also....
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

TKGS

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2017, 05:13:47 PM »
What I think is interesting is that people who ask silly questions such as:

Quote
Manifest heretic according to who: You, or the Church?

seem to forget that the Church has already told us what the Church teaches and when a person rejects what the Church teaches, it is not any individual who is declaring the person a heretic, the Church has already established the fact.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, MyrnaM, annamack

Anonimus

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2017, 01:09:53 PM »
What I think is interesting is that people who ask silly questions such as:

Quote
Manifest heretic according to who: You, or the Church?

seem to forget that the Church has already told us what the Church teaches and when a person rejects what the Church teaches, it is not any individual who is declaring the person a heretic, the Church has already established the fact.

And sillier still, is the refusal to recognize that were this the case, the Church would be plunged into chaos immediately and perpetually, as various armchair quarterbacks intermittently intervened to pronounce the see vacant, based on their own subjective judgment of whether or when a heretic became manifest...kind of like today. :wagfinger:

« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 01:12:22 PM by Anonimus »