(Controversial; TAW only) Orthodox position on the first Assisi event of 1986?

[zippy2006]

Sedevacantism, from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"Sedevacantism is the position, held by some traditionalist Catholics,[1][2] that the present occupier of the Holy See is not truly pope due to the mainstream church's espousal of what they see as the heresy of modernism and that, for lack of a valid pope, the See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. The term "sedevacantism" is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which means "with the chair [of Saint Peter] vacant".[3] The phrase is commonly used to refer specifically to a vacancy of the Holy See from the death or resignation of a pope to the election of his successor."

You have said:
"Nickles and dimes. Problematic leaders are indicative of problematic cultures, and problematic cultures influence institutions just as much as they influence leaders. A strong central authority can impede or catalyze problematic cultures (e.g. Pope Paul VI)."

"A man loses the papacy when he becomes a public heretic. Nothing confusing about this. A man also loses his salvation when he commits apostasy. It's not "No True Scotsman." Keep tryin'."

"Because the Papacy is not a sacramental office and confers no indelible mark."

"The incompatibility of the Roman See with error is precisely the reason why public heresy would mean that he is no longer the Pope."

"If a pope tried to declare a heresy infallible, thus contradicting a previous dogma, he would become a public heretic and would no longer be pope."

A belief in Sedevacantism to me is literally what the etymology of the word provides: "A belief that the Chair of Peter is empty." There are some Sedevacantists who believe that, the chair has been empty since Pope John XXIII, some since Pope Paul VI, since Pope John Paul I, etc., so the exact chronology of when the period of Sedevacantism began for the individual Sedevacantist is irrelevant to me.

The fact that you are contemplating the belief of the Chair of Peter being empty, in combination of criticisms of previous Popes like Pope Paul VI, means you are contemplating "Sede Vacante - ism", or the belief that the Chair of Peter is empty.

You seem to be misunderstanding me, as I do not believe the Chair of Peter is empty. My reference to Paul VI was an indication of impeding rather than catalyzing a problematic culture a la Humanae Vitae. I realize that may have been confusing since the parenthetical remark directly followed the catalyst option. For clarity I probably should have written, "A strong central authority can catalyze or impede problematic cultures (e.g. Pope Paul VI)."

At the same time, let us suppose that Paul VI did catalyze a problematic culture. That fact alone would not mean that he was not the Pope, as catalyzing a problematic culture is not heresy.

That's not to mention that you are repeating oft-quoted arguments by committed Sedevacantists, who I've discussed repeatedly with online, about a heretical Pope "ipso-facto" becoming deposed, an opinion stated by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine that isn't actually dogma.

Cabrera's point becomes relevant. If a pope dies the seat will be temporarily empty until the conclave concludes. Similarly, if a pope becomes a public heretic the seat will be temporarily empty until the conclave concludes. A basic difference between someone like myself and a Sedevacantist (capital 'S')--apart from our opinion about the current pope--is that I do not believe in invisible Sedevacantism. A judgment about the emptiness of the Seat would come from the Church as a whole, and would be addressed by the Church as a whole by calling for a conclave. I don't think the theology flowing from Bellarmine intended anything like the SSPX.

 

[prodromos]

You seem to be misunderstanding me, as I do not believe the Chair of Peter is empty.

You misunderstand him. Your argument is that the chair can become empty, which is no different to Sedevacantist belief, only they believe it currently is empty.

 

[TheLostCoin]

To be fair, there has been times in History when there wasn't a real Pope, rather an anti-Pope, yet nobody is called a sedevacantist.

True, but it should be noted that there wasn't really a time where an anti-Pope, however, existed alone instead of coexisting with a legitimate Pope; most anti-Popes came into existence as Pretenders claiming the Papal Throne.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Cabrera's point becomes relevant. If a pope dies the seat will be temporarily empty until the conclave concludes. Similarly, if a pope becomes a public heretic the seat will be temporarily empty until the conclave concludes. A basic difference between someone like myself and a Sedevacantist (capital 'S')--apart from our opinion about the current pope--is that I do not believe in invisible Sedevacantism. A judgment about the emptiness of the Seat would come from the Church as a whole, and would be addressed by the Church as a whole by calling for a conclave. I don't think the theology flowing from Bellarmine intended anything like the SSPX.

And again, Vatican I says that the Pope is subject to no judgment.

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (that which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were a higher authority to the Roman pontiff.

Can you show me one Magisterial text (not just a speculative theologian) which claims that a Pope loses the Papacy if he becomes a heretic, and that the Church may judge the Pope if he is a heretic?

 

[TheLostCoin]

Let's cut the BS. Do you think that Pope John Paul II, in all his actions, writings, and speeches, has no heresy and if you follow his life, you will get to Heaven?

 

[TheLostCoin]

HG 20 is not talking about divine faith, it is talking about "consent" (which would be understood as either de fide tenenda or assensus religiosus).

The Church can't bind the entire faithful into heresy or immoral beliefs, otherwise the promise made by Christ about the gates of hell not prevailing to Peter would be meaningless, correct?

Therefore, if something demands consent by the whole Faithful, it cannot possibly be so erroneous that it would cause someone to become a heretic by professing those beliefs, correct?

Therefore, there is some level of infallibility in the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium, such that Rome can't mandate apostasy, heresy, etc. on the Faithful.

I am not contemplating Sedevacantism, and in general I prefer Eastern Catholic liturgies to the Tridentine form.

I have respect and recognition for the Orthodox churches, but I would be surprised to ever find myself Orthodox. Further, although a reconciliation is needful, I see more hope of that reconciliation from the Catholic side, with our Eastern Catholic Churches, etc.

When Rome repudiates it's heresy on how it views itself in place to other religions, when Rome repudiates its heresy on the Evolution of dogma, when Rome has a consistent, liturgical ethos, and when Rome deals with the horrible cover-up networks in the Vatican, sure, assuming such a re-union doesn't compromise the Orthodox Faith.

I see no benefit as to why the Orthodox should deal with all the petty drama at the hands of a network of condescending juveniles, wearing lace and white / red, who have the audacity and nerve to belittle the simple faith of those who just want to follow fundamental Christian dogma and moral teaching, even though those faithful are the ones who pay for these juveniles' mansions and their expensive lifestyles, and whom without the money of the faithful, are really just nobodies who would've gone on and been social losers.

"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

(while this is often quoted to refer to child abuse, and because Christ is omniscient, it probably does, I believe most Fathers interpreted this verse to those who held on to a simple Faith in Christ).

Also, the Carpatho-Russian diocese, as well as some portions of the OCA, tend to be more Ukrainian / Ruthenian Catholic in their liturgical use than say ROCOR. The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox actually came into existence in America when several Ruthenians left the Catholic communion for Orthodoxy.

I don't follow. Are you a Sedevacantist?

No, but considering that you have suggested Sedevacantism as a possibility, and have parroted Sedevacantist theologumenon, even though you deny being a Sedevacantist yourself, I want to show you how illogical the position actually is.

 

[zippy2006]

And again, Vatican I says that the Pope is subject to no judgment.

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (that which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were a higher authority to the Roman pontiff.

This is an article countering Conciliarism. If Popes could contradict one another (or dogma) then Catholicism would be an inherently contradictory system.

Can you show me one Magisterial text (not just a speculative theologian) which claims that a Pope loses the Papacy if he becomes a heretic, and that the Church may judge the Pope if he is a heretic?

"The Church isn't in the habit of crossing bridges before She arrives at them." We have the scaffolding.

Let's cut the BS. Do you think that Pope John Paul II, in all his actions, writings, and speeches, has no heresy and if you follow his life, you will get to Heaven?

I do not believe that John Paul II was a formal or public heretic.

When Rome repudiates it's heresy on how it views itself in place to other religions, when Rome repudiates its heresy on the Evolution of dogma, when Rome has a consistent, liturgical ethos, and when Rome deals with the horrible cover-up networks in the Vatican, sure, assuming such a re-union doesn't compromise the Orthodox Faith.

I see no benefit as to why the Orthodox should deal with all the petty drama at the hands of a network of condescending juveniles, wearing lace and white / red, who have the audacity and nerve to belittle the simple faith of those who just want to follow fundamental Christian dogma and moral teaching, even though those faithful are the ones who pay for these juveniles' mansions and their expensive lifestyles...

You trailed off there.

No, but considering that you have suggested Sedevacantism as a possibility, and have parroted Sedevacantist theologumenon, even though you deny being a Sedevacantist yourself, I want to show you how illogical the position actually is.

What you said was illogical to the point of unintelligibility, which is why I asked for clarification. But apparently you have too much blood in your eyes for a calm conversation.

 

[dzheremi]

This is an article countering Conciliarism. If Popes could contradict one another (or dogma) then Catholicism would be an inherently contradictory system.

And so it is, as per the example already given by Fr. Matt on the filioque. The problem is that the RCC's ecclesiology does not allow anyone to recognize what has already happened, since to do so in cases like this would invalidate the system that has been built up in that particular Church for centuries now. It's a shame, as this is probably a very crucial point to which the RCC itself will have to come before reunion with the rest of apostolic Christianity becomes a realistic option, and I don't know that they've given themselves the proper room (ecclesiologically, conceptually, etc.) to do so. It's funny (not 'ha ha' funny) that you should then mention "(having) the scaffolding" elsewhere in your post, as it very much does not look like that is the case from the outside. You have an edifice, sure, but the RCC has largely not maintained the structure that would need to be in place for it to even return to its own Orthodox past: You can't condemn a Pope for heresy, so you can't face a new Honorius; you can't correct a Pope in his decision making, so you're unprepared to deal with a St. Cyprian kind of situation; you can't place the judgment of a council over that of a Pope, so you can't handle another Western Schism; etc., and instead of coming to the reasonable conclusion from all of this that you need these options in your Church based on what has already happened in history, the modern RCC simply denies that anything like what has already happened could ever happen.

But apparently you have too much blood in your eyes for a calm conversation.

The pattern you are beginning to display of personally insulting your interlocutors really does not represent your Church very well.

 

[zippy2006]

And so it is, as per the example already given by Fr. Matt on the filioque.

That's just begging the question.

You can't condemn a Pope for heresy, so you can't face a new Honorius;

Again begging the question at hand.

you can't correct a Pope in his decision making, so you're unprepared to deal with a St. Cyprian kind of situation;

Simply false. Ratzinger even corrected JPII regarding prayer at the Assisi event, the very subject of this thread, and JPII accepted the correction and stopped the communal prayer events.

you can't place the judgment of a council over that of a Pope, so you can't handle another Western Schism;

The Council that ended the Western Schism was convened/confirmed by the Pope. It simply doesn't contradict Catholic teaching.

The pattern you are beginning to display of personally insulting your interlocutors really does not represent your Church very well.

Irascible bias is a common Orthodox trait. I have a bad habit of calling a spade a spade.

...the reason I'm not interested in conversations about things like Papal Infallibility is because all that ever happens is that everyone trots out the superficial arguments from their apologetics club and it eventually devolves into complete question-begging. I guess we're getting there.

 

[dzheremi]

That's just begging the question.

How is it begging to the question to observe that different popes at different times held to different views on the filioque?

Again begging the question at hand.

And again how? Do you know what begging the question is? Or rather, how is it any more begging the question than the RCC stance

Simply false. Ratzinger even corrected JPII regarding prayer at the Assisi event, the very subject of this thread, and JPII accepted the correction and stopped the communal prayer events.

Good. I'm glad Cardinal Ratzinger did not feel overly burdened by your church's defective ecclesiology, and was able to take this right step to put an end to publicly manifested heresy. I always liked Ratzinger, myself. He was at least much more precise than his replacement.

The Council that ended the Western Schism was convened by the Pope. It simply doesn't contradict Catholic teaching.

I am no expert on Chalcedonian councils, so I looked it up and Wiki and it said that Constance was convened by anti-Pope John XXIII. Is an anti-Pope considered the Pope in this situation?

Irascible bias is a common Orthodox trait. I have a bad habit of calling a spade a spade.

So the answer to this is to add more personal insult towards the other in the conversation, and on top of that some exaltation of yourself, with the calling a spade a spade comment? Alright. I don't have any words for this. Best to follow the example of our father among the Romans Abba Arsanios, then. Lord have mercy.

 

[zippy2006]

How is it begging to the question to observe that different popes at different times held to different views on the filioque?

Catholicism is inherently contradictory because there wasn't uniformity of opinion regarding the filioque across all lands and times? And the post you are referring to is about as well-sourced as a cracker jack box. We're entering a new phase of straw-grasping.

And again how? Do you know what begging the question is?

Because you completely assumed the entire question of this thread: whether a heretical pope is insurmountable. Do you know what begging the question is?

Good. I'm glad Cardinal Ratzinger did not feel overly burdened by your church's defective ecclesiology, and was able to take this right step to put an end to publicly manifested heresy. I always liked Ratzinger, myself. He was at least much more precise than his replacement.

The idea that one cannot correct or critique a decision of a pope is not part of Catholic ecclesiology.

I am no expert on Chalcedonian councils, so I looked it up and Wiki and it said that Constance was convened by anti-Pope John XXIII. Is an anti-Pope considered the Pope in this situation?

The Council was convoked by both John XXIII and Gregory XII, and all three 'popes' resigned, thus allowing the Church to move forward via council (source).

So the answer to this is to add more personal insult towards the other in the conversation, and on top of that some exaltation of yourself, with the calling a spade a spade comment? Alright. I don't have any words for this. Best to follow the example of our father among the Romans Abba Arsanios, then. Lord have mercy.

Excellent virtue signaling. Didn't you leave this thread four pages ago?

 

[prodromos]

Simply false. Ratzinger even corrected JPII regarding prayer at the Assisi event, the very subject of this thread, and JPII accepted the correction and stopped the communal prayer events.

We agree that some Catholic doctrine is false then.

The idea that one cannot correct or critique a decision of a pope is not part of Catholic ecclesiology.

Not ecclesiology, it is Catholic doctrine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

how is it grasping at straws when 2 Lyons in the 13th century condemns us for not using the Filioque, but then you have the Uniates which are allowed to not use it?

 

[TheLostCoin]

I do not believe that John Paul II was a formal or public heretic.

While I actually don't what exactly your position is on Pope John Paul II, I can assume by the fact that you are using the explicit term "public heretic" instead of heretic, that you simply believe that Pope John Paul II is a "material heretic."

I wonder how true this can really be, because it's not like Pope John Paul II ever really changed his opinions or apologized for his opinions, from the moment he started his Papacy to the end (see below), nor can it be the case that he was mentally incapable of knowing what he was doing of his actions.

To quote Marcel Lefebvre: "This Pope is doing things that are so contrary to the Faith, against the Church, so destructive to the Faith of the Church, and the Church itself. Well, here's one solution. The Pope is a prisoner, the Pope is a martyr, the Pope is locked in, the Pope isn't free to do what he wants, the Pope is drugged, the Pope is half-crazy, the Pope is I don't know what, he's a human wreck who is led around and manipulated....I admit that when you see him move around and talk, personally, I haven't seen him for two years, I haven't seen him in the flesh, I mean privately, but only in a public audience, I saw him put aside his paper and his script, speaking with a skill, a fluidity, getting to the point, with intelligence but in full possession of his faculties, not a man who had been drugged, or who has been given a shot or who....Not at all! The farthest thing from it! Well then, when he blessed the Pentecostals, was there a revolver pointed at his head? When he kissed the feet of the Orthodox...No, this is absurd, it's not possible."

Simply false. Ratzinger even corrected JPII regarding prayer at the Assisi event, the very subject of this thread, and JPII accepted the correction and stopped the communal prayer events.

Source? I ask for the source that Pope John Paul II accepted the correction because this claim seems contradictory to the fact that not only do we have Liberal articles from NCR in which Pope Benedict is criticized for making communal prayer optional and removing liturgical religious rites from Assisi, which seems counter-intuitive to the claim that JPII changed his opinion on the matter and didn't do it again, but we also have the canonization Mass of Juan Diego, which happened far after the Assisi event near his death, in which the Pope was given an Aztec Purification ritual during Mass, which he approved of.

You trailed off there.

It's not trailing off in the slightest; it's completely relevant to your argument. You have said that re-union is absolutely necessary and beneficial, and I'm telling you no - it isn't. I think that a re-union would do so much more harm than good in the state Rome is in, and I personally have no interest until many of the issues in Rome regarding corruption and Modernism is fixed. It would contaminated what's good in the Orthodox Church and reduce it to a much lower level denominator.

The idea that one cannot correct or critique a decision of a pope is not part of Catholic ecclesiology.

You are absolutely correct. I fully agree; St. Catherine of Siena would send scourging letters to the Pope telling him to be a religious leader rather than a politicians. With that being said, you must submit to his decisions whether or not you agree with it. Cardinal Newman thought Vatican I was, at the very least, very very imprudent, yet he still submitted to it.

 

[TheLostCoin]

The Council was convoked by both John XXIII and Gregory XII, and all three 'popes' resigned, thus allowing the Church to move forward via council (source).

From Session 5 of the Council of Constance

"In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God’s church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God’s church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.

First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.

Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.

Next, the said holy synod defines and ordains that the lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from the city of Constance to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the said officials to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties, against the said officials or any other adherents of this sacred council, to the effect that they should follow him, then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod h being held in the said City.

Next, that all translations of prelates, or depositions of the same, or of any other beneficed persons, officials and administrators, revocations of commendams and gifts, admonitions, ecclesiastical censures, processes, sentences and whatever has been or will be done or accomplished by the aforesaid lord pope John or his officials or commissaries, since the beginning of this council, to the injury of the said council or its adherents, against the supporters or participants of this sacred council, or to the prejudice of them or of any one of them, in whatever way they may have been or shall be made or done, against the will of the persons concerned, are by this very fact, on the authority of this sacred council, null, quashed, invalid and void, and of no effect or moment, and the council by its authority quashes, invalidates and annuls them.

Next, it declares that the lord pope John XXIII and all the prelates and other persons summoned to this sacred council, and other participants in the same synod, have enjoyed and do now enjoy full freedom, as has been apparent in the said sacred council, and the opposite has not been brought to the notice of the said summoned persons or of the said council. The said sacred council testifies to this before God and people."


papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum16.htm

This was also repeated in Session 4, but in less clear terms.

"In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God’s church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God’s church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.

First, that this synod, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council, representing the catholic church militant, has power immediately from Christ, and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith and the eradication of the said schism. [19 ]

Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from this city to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the persons of the said offices to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod; this refers to those officials or offices by whose absence the council would probably be dissolved or harmed. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties against the said officials or any other adherents of this council, to the effect that they should follow him then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void, and they are invalid. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod is being held in the said city."

 

[TheLostCoin]

how is it grasping at straws when 2 Lyons in the 13th century condemns us for not using the Filioque, but then you have the Uniates which are allowed to not use it?

It should also be mentioned that the allowance of it is a recent phenomenon; pre Vatican II, the Catholic Church forced the Eastern Rites to use it in the native tongues, which kind of nullifies "Oh it was just a linguistic problem" argument made by certain Ecumenists.

 

[TheLostCoin]

And so it is, as per the example already given by Fr. Matt on the filioque. The problem is that the RCC's ecclesiology does not allow anyone to recognize what has already happened, since to do so in cases like this would invalidate the system that has been built up in that particular Church for centuries now. It's a shame, as this is probably a very crucial point to which the RCC itself will have to come before reunion with the rest of apostolic Christianity becomes a realistic option, and I don't know that they've given themselves the proper room (ecclesiologically, conceptually, etc.) to do so. It's funny (not 'ha ha' funny) that you should then mention "(having) the scaffolding" elsewhere in your post, as it very much does not look like that is the case from the outside. You have an edifice, sure, but the RCC has largely not maintained the structure that would need to be in place for it to even return to its own Orthodox past: You can't condemn a Pope for heresy, so you can't face a new Honorius; you can't correct a Pope in his decision making, so you're unprepared to deal with a St. Cyprian kind of situation; you can't place the judgment of a council over that of a Pope, so you can't handle another Western Schism; etc., and instead of coming to the reasonable conclusion from all of this that you need these options in your Church based on what has already happened in history, the modern RCC simply denies that anything like what has already happened could ever happen.

Cardinal Manning of England I would say gets really blunt to the point. In all fairness, it's a single Cardinal who lived in a different time when there was greater stability in Roman doctrine and praxis than what is manifest now, but I think it's demonstrable of what the Ultramontanists intended and believed in at Vatican I, considering that he had warm and friendly relations with Pope Pius IX.

"The appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is treason because it reject the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine."
From "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost" - 4th Edition, Page 238.

He also repeated this again: "The appeal from the living voice of the Church to any tribunal whatsoever, human history included, is an act of private judgment and a treason because that living voice is supreme; and to appeal from that supreme voice is also a heresy because that voice by divine assistance is infallible."

From The Daily Telegraph, October 8th 1875, page 5.

 

[zippy2006]

A quick response. This thread isn't a high priority for me, and that will be doubly true on tomorrow's feast. All the same, your ambition is noted and appreciated.

While I actually don't what exactly your position is on Pope John Paul II, I can assume by the fact that you are using the explicit term "public heretic" instead of heretic, that you simply believe that Pope John Paul II is a "material heretic."

I wonder how true this can really be, because it's not like Pope John Paul II ever really changed his opinions or apologized for his opinions, from the moment he started his Papacy to the end (see below), nor can it be the case that he was mentally incapable of knowing what he was doing of his actions.

To quote Marcel Lefebvre: "This Pope is doing things that are so contrary to the Faith, against the Church, so destructive to the Faith of the Church, and the Church itself. Well, here's one solution. The Pope is a prisoner, the Pope is a martyr, the Pope is locked in, the Pope isn't free to do what he wants, the Pope is drugged, the Pope is half-crazy, the Pope is I don't know what, he's a human wreck who is led around and manipulated....I admit that when you see him move around and talk, personally, I haven't seen him for two years, I haven't seen him in the flesh, I mean privately, but only in a public audience, I saw him put aside his paper and his script, speaking with a skill, a fluidity, getting to the point, with intelligence but in full possession of his faculties, not a man who had been drugged, or who has been given a shot or who....Not at all! The farthest thing from it! Well then, when he blessed the Pentecostals, was there a revolver pointed at his head? When he kissed the feet of the Orthodox...No, this is absurd, it's not possible."

He may have been a material heretic. I may be a material heretic. Formal heresy is really the key issue.

Source? I ask for the source that Pope John Paul II accepted the correction because this claim seems contradictory to the fact that not only do we have Liberal articles from NCR in which Pope Benedict is criticized for making communal prayer optional and removing liturgical religious rites from Assisi, which seems counter-intuitive to the claim that JPII changed his opinion on the matter and didn't do it again, but we also have the canonization Mass of Juan Diego, which happened far after the Assisi event near his death, in which the Pope was given an Aztec Purification ritual during Mass, which he approved of.

The information may come from his book Truth and Tolerance, but some information can be found in this article. If memory serves, after Ratzinger objected and abstained from the first Assisi event John Paul II, in consultation with Ratzinger, changed the nature of the communal prayer offered at the event.

You are absolutely correct. I fully agree; St. Catherine of Siena would send scourging letters to the Pope telling him to be a religious leader rather than a politicians. With that being said, you must submit to his decisions whether or not you agree with it. Cardinal Newman thought Vatican I was, at the very least, very very imprudent, yet he still submitted to it.

Okay, sure.

From Session 5 of the Council of Constance...

The Catholic understanding is that a Council is not autonomous apart from a pope, and that the canons of a council must be 'ratified' (in some sense) by the Pope. Martin V did not accept these decrees. For example:

It is to be noted that of the twelve cardinals present at Constance only seven or eight assisted at the fifth session, and they solely to avoid scandal (among the absent was d'Ailly). Nor would any cardinal announce these decrees; that office fell to a bishop, Andrew of Posen. The emperor was present at their promulgation, also 200 members, mostly doctors, etc. These decrees it must be remembered, though adopted at Basle and often quoted by the disciples of Gallicanism and other opponents of papal supremacy, were formulated and accepted at Constance amid quite unusual circumstances, in much haste, and in quasi despair at the threatened failure of the long-desired general council; they ran counter to the immemorial praxis of the Church, and substituted for its Divine constitution the will of the multitude or at best a kind of theological parliamentarism. They were never approved by the Apostolic See (Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Paderborn, 1897, I, 489-98) and were almost at once implicitly rejected by Martin V (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXVIII, 200). (Catholic Encyclopedia)
​

Cardinal Manning of England I would say gets really blunt to the point. In all fairness, it's a single Cardinal who lived in a different time when there was greater stability in Roman doctrine and praxis than what is manifest now, but I think it's demonstrable of what the Ultramontanists intended and believed in at Vatican I, considering that he had warm and friendly relations with Pope Pius IX.

"The appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is treason because it reject the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine."
From "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost" - 4th Edition, Page 238.

He also repeated this again: "The appeal from the living voice of the Church to any tribunal whatsoever, human history included, is an act of private judgment and a treason because that living voice is supreme; and to appeal from that supreme voice is also a heresy because that voice by divine assistance is infallible."

From The Daily Telegraph, October 8th 1875, page 5.

That is an accurate depiction of the period, but those ideas were not incorporated into Church teaching, especially after the allowance of the historical sciences in the early 20th century.

 

[zippy2006]

how is it grasping at straws when 2 Lyons in the 13th century condemns us for not using the Filioque, but then you have the Uniates which are allowed to not use it?

I said it was grasping at straws because it took a short unsourced internet post and used that as a foundation for a complex argument.

Although I don't have any substantial knowledge of the issue, I do understand that the question of whether Eastern Catholics need to adopt the filioque has been controversial. A big part of the debate concerns the manner in which the filioque is understood. Further, some Eastern Catholics do include it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It should also be mentioned that the allowance of it is a recent phenomenon; pre Vatican II, the Catholic Church forced the Eastern Rites to use it in the native tongues, which kind of nullifies "Oh it was just a linguistic problem" argument made by certain Ecumenists.

interesting