I must have missed something. How was Pope Paul VI a heretic? I know many traditionalists don’t like him because of the Novus Ordo Mass, and many modernists don’t like him because of Humanae Vitae, but I had not yet heard anyone accuse him of heresy.
Really? Look in the Catechism again! To my EC delight, its treatment of Original Sin and rejection of Limbo are very non-Augustinian.
Is St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic? Is St. Bernard of Clairveaux? Both denied the Immaculate Conception in their writings.
In fact many of the things done in the NO were not in the TLM a sticky issue with Orthodox bishops. So we put them in the NO. Really the NO if done right was ment to draw the Catholic liturgy closer to the Eastern in some ways, and return to a truer roman rite, instead of the heavy Gallican influenced Roman rite that we had. NO can get abused, and when it does that is heresy.
Am I the only person here who finds this ironic?…Like I said, you then begin to pick and choose. It then comes down what YOU deem as valid. The RCC recognizes Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin as Truth. What makes you the authority to claim it as not so? And why is he not rejected as a heretic by your Church if you believe his teachings to be false?
Yes it is ironic isn’t it Michael? The same could be said about his understanding of Peter and Peter’s confession.
So tell me, what is the authority then?
Well mostly I don’t like him. I don’t think he was a heretic, however I think he was a moron for not just translating the TLM into the vernacular.
Show me where they denied the Immaculate Conception so that we know that you are not taking something out of context. Furthermore many Early Church Fathers did agree with the Immaculate Conception.
He did, when my dad was a kid he went to a parish where the did the TLM in english. I have my Uncles daily missal from back then, it is the TLM in english only (with a few bits of latin in perenthisis in case you didnt want to do it all in english.)
It would be better than the NO.
Well, since Holden asked for help on another forum, I’ll jump in. Pope Stephen I (254-257) didn’t ‘vainly pretend’ anything; he opposed St. Cyprian’s rebaptizing ideas with the words nihil innovetur, “let there be no innovation.” In other words, St. Cyprian was the innovator.
How is St. Cyprian a St then if he was also a heretic? Thanks JJ.
Was His Holiness Pope Paul VI the only Pope in the RCC who you say was a moron, or were there others, in your opinion?
All that is beside the point. St Cyprian is often cited by Catholic apologist when trying to defend their modern concept of the papacy. If St Cyprian truly believed that Pope Stephen was an infallible universal ordinary he sure wasn’t behaving that way.
Good one. Hey you caught me. Not really, just because the Pope is the supreme leader does not mean he cannot make mistakes. Read Vatican I. Regardless my quotes from Pope St. Leo I prove without a doubt the Catholic point of view.
Pope Clement VII
Regardless St. Cyprian was obviously in the wrong as you cannot Baptize someone more than once. I’m confused as to how he was a saint if he obviously taught heresy.