He may have been a material heretic. I may be a material heretic. Formal heresy is really the key issue.
You completely missed my point - Pope John Paul II was rebuked by Ratzinger and by a significant portion of the Catholic Faithful about his syncretism, yet he continued to do so to his death, which includes the infamous Juan Diego Canonization Mass; I find it ridiculous to claim that he could not know that his practices were counter to what the Catholic Church always did in, and were innovative such that no Pope has ever done what he did in the history of the Catholic Church, or that he was mentally incapable of his acts;
Let's look at Eutyches. Now, Eutyches was a confused soul who was fighting against Nestorians using Cyril's "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" formula; however, it's very clear that what he was teaching was logically implying heresy and he misunderstood what "One Incarnate Nature" actually meant. He was ordered by Saint Flavian to confess a more Orthodox Confession, and he refused. During the Council of Ephesus 449, he allegedly gave an Orthodox confession, but after the council, he went straight back to teaching his heresy such that he would be anathematized by both the Chalcedonians and Oriental Orthodox Churches for heresy.
What, did he remain a material heretic? Did he not know what he was doing? No. He became a formal heretic because he was ordered by the Church to reject his heresy, and he continued in it to his grave.
How does Pope John Paul II, after receiving rebuking from much of the Catholic Faithful and the Prefect for the CDF, have an excuse of "not knowing better?" Eutyches may have actually thought that what he was doing was morally right. So do all the heretics. Yet he continued after being condemned by several councils because he was told by the Church to cut it out and he continued.
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.
The article doesn't say so, only that Pope Benedict had reservations and changed the subsequent event he himself (Benedict) hosted; when did Pope John Paul II change the event the second time around in 2002? According to Wikipedia, he still seemed to repeat the exact same thing, but Benedict was the one who removed the interdenominational prayer service.
Day of Prayer - Wikipedia
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:
This just flatly contradicts what you just said, as you claimed that all the Popes resigned so that the Council could move forward.
Did he accept the 4th Session, which says the same thing? And if it truly wasn't accepted, why is it still preserved? The Tome written at Chalcedon (as an alternative to Leo's Tome) wasn't accepted by the the Council and didn't make it the definition of Faith; yet we don't have that, because it wasn't a part of the Council.
It's the same apologetics argument with the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, which the Eastern Churches all accepted. The Pope didn't accept the 28th canon, therefore it never existed, even though it's still preserved in the East and still on New Advent.
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.
Okay, sure.
Francis criticizes traditionalist Catholics who 'safeguard the ashes' of the past
