Salvation outside the church

[SFD]

The pope possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. Even more important, just as St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Holy Father, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles are united among themselves. It is not a grouping, it is a college (‘collegium’). The pope is the Bishop of the Roman Church, he is not just Bishop of the church of Rome. He is the Shepherd of the Universal Church. (canons 330-333)

The Pontiff has supreme power in the Catholic Church. Canon 333 states that no appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them.

The Pope possesses exclusive rights regarding an ecumenical council and other activities of the college of bishops. (c 337-338; c 341)

I have been saying all of this repeatedly, and yet we hear recalls of Robert Bellarmine. With what has been said, and what the Code says of the Pope’s powers., please tell me what Robert Bellarmine would say today about his probable opinion.?

When the See of Peter is vacant, (‘sede vacante nihil innovetur’) there can be no innovations in the governance of the Church (canon 335). In answer to your question, during this time, the tasks and rights of the college of cardinals and of the Roman Curia are regulated by the Apostolic Constitution Universi Domenici gregis. The Conclave is called according to this Apostolic Constitution. When the See of Peter is vacant, the college of cardinals regulate the daily business of the church, but they cannot take upon themselves the power of the pope (canon 359)

It is the Roman Pontiff alone who can convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it, transfer, suspend or dissolve a council (c 338). The Pope even oversees the agenda of a General Council. It is the sole right of the Pontiff to approve the decrees of a general council. Decrees of an ecumenical council does not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Holy Father.

Nothing can knock Peter off his throne but death. The Code of Canon law does not foresee a vacant see except in this case. The case of a ‘heretic’ pope is foolishness, and not foreseen or provided for in the Law of the Church.

You see, it is all controlled by the Code of Canon Law, and the Law gives to the Pope Supreme Power in the Church. Sedevacantists are knocking their heads against the Bark of Peter.

peace

What the above has to do with the below is unclear. Do you always answer rhetorical questions?

SFD:

Neil Anthony:

If we don’t know if there’s a pope, who calls the council to determine who the pope is?

Who calls the conclave after a pope dies? The dead pope?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

What the above has to do with the below is unclear. Do you always answer rhetorical questions?

Who calls the conclave after a pope dies? The dead pope?

SFD

That was a rhetorical question? You had the answer to it?

You would have said what? A cardinal convokes a conclave? The CDF convokes a conclave?

If I am not answering the question for you, I am answering it for the rest of us out there.

But, you miss the point. The Pope is in charge, and he stays in charge until death. The Code, moral theology, dogmatic theology has no provision, nor does it contemplate the heresy of a pope.
The Roman Pontiff has Supreme, unlimited authority within and over the Church.

You quoting CE which is nearly 100 years old, and contemplates a Code of law which has been abrogated, and no longer exists.

You find an opinion from a theologian which is hundreds of years old, in different times, under a different law.

The Code of Canon Law, as it is written today, would overwhem Robert Bellarmine, and he would cast aside his probable opinion to the contrary.

No one can oppose the power of the Pope. Who would dare to stand in the way of his decrees. I wonder what I would do if I were the recipient of “Ecclesia Dei”? Hopefully, I would fall on my knees, and return to the heart of the Church.

This will convince Sedevacantists to return to the fold? I guess not, from your response, but, most charitably, they are in our prayers.

peace

 

[bobzills]

Why do we make life so difficult for ourselves and for others?

This is a good question. I guess some posters on this thread like to do such.
If I understand what a poster on this thread has been saying, he claims that I have anathematised myself when I simply offered the opinion that it is possible for a Pope to change what had been previously declared.

 

[mgrfin]

SFD quote:
And if he becomes a heretic…then and only then can he be judged by the Church unquote.

The law of the Church says he answers to no one, as I have proved elsewhere. His power is Supreme, absolute, without exception, without limitation.

And what canon of the Code of Canon law provides for the pope to be judged by the Church? In the Pope’s madness, his infidelity, his ‘manifest heresy’, the law would have to provide for this? It provides by saying absolutely nothing except that he has absolute power. No cardinal, no bishop, no commission, no committee, no congregation, no dicastery, no synod, no general council has the power to stand up to him.

There is no such canon, there is no such law, there is no such provision.

You are suggesting a revolt, but the revolters have no power from the Church or from the law. That is how the Holy Spirit rules his Church.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

I don’t beleive that someone can be anathematised for following a teaching of the Pope who has declared as contrary to the truth: the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.
Notice this idea has been declared contrary to the truth and if you don;t agree with it you should be aware that “Therefore [it is in nowise licit] to any man [to infringe this page of Our declarations, statements, composition, command, constitutions, judgments, and dispositions, nor it is licit to such a one to oppose this by rash daring: if any one however would presume to attempt this, let him know that he has incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

And you’ve been looking for how many days for some sort of response, and this is it?

Though some are legitimately concerned or confused regarding Quo Primum, I don’t think it can be confused with defined dogma or doctrine. What else ya got?

DustinsDad

PS - Sorry if my laughing smilie up there is offensive…It’s getting late and I need to hit the sack. Perhaps my jugement is off, but you gotta admit, he’s kind of funny.
[/quote]

 

[bobzills]

http://www.fisheaters.com/forumpix/pointandlaff.gif

And you’ve been looking for how many days for some sort of response, and this is it?

Though some are legitimately concerned or confused regarding Quo Primum, I don’t think it can be confused with defined dogma or doctrine. What else ya got?

DustinsDad

PS - Sorry if my laughing smilie up there is offensive…It’s getting late and I need to hit the sack. Perhaps my jugement is off, but you gotta admit, he’s kind of funny.

Regardless of your cartoons, I am still not convinced that a Catholic would be anathematised for opposing the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

 

[DustinsDad]

Regardless of your cartoons…

And the really bad thing is, when put my post in quotes, it looks like I’m laughing at myself! Talk about your self depricating humor!

 

[mgrfin]

And the really bad thing is, when put my post in quotes, it looks like I’m laughing at myself! Talk about your self depricating humor!

http://www.fisheaters.com/forumpix/stoogesmiley.gif

The humor seems out of place in a serious discussion. It gives the impression that you are laughing at someone who holds an opinion which is not the same as yours.

Charity should be the rule here - actually, that is the rule here.

Now, as for your point, how does that anathema of Vatican ! fit in with the theory of Galileo:

“By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to “hold or defend” the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.”

I would appreciate your response.

thanks

peace

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Regardless of your cartoons, I am still not convinced that a Catholic would be anathematised for opposing the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

This only applies to infallible declarations of previous popes, not everything they say.

 

[bobzills]

This only applies to infallible declarations of previous popes, not everything they say.

A poster on this thread claims that I have anathematised myself and supports this false assertion by posting various cartoons. I simply assert that a Catholic would not anathematise himself if he opposes the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

A poster on this thread claims that I have anathematised myself and supports this false assertion by posting various cartoons. I simply assert that a Catholic would not anathematise himself if he opposes the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.

If you said that the Jews can be saved without Jesus, I would agree with him. Nothing personal though! I don’t hate heretics

Well, I guess you would have to be obstinate about it to be anathema… are you obstinate?

 

[bobzills]

If you said that the Jews can be saved without Jesus, I would agree with him. Nothing personal though! I don’t hate heretics

Well, I guess you would have to be obstinate about it to be anathema… are you obstinate?

I am obstinate to the extent that I follow the declaration of Pope John XXII on the subject that I have been talking about. Regardless of the cartoons and statements from a poster implying otherwise, I don’t think that a Catholic would be excommunicating himself or anathematising himself for following a solemn declaration of the Pope on this matter as I have done.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am obstinate to the extent that I follow the declaration of Pope John XXII on the subject that I have been talking about. Regardless of the cartoons and statements from a poster implying otherwise, I don’t think that a Catholic would be excommunicating himself or anathematising himself for following a solemn declaration of the Pope on this matter as I have done.

Do you mean John XXIII? What was the quote?

That reminds me of a very relevant thing about Pope John XXII (1249 – December 4, 1334), wasn’t he a heretic through most of his life about whether the dead in Christ get to see the Beatific Vision immediately after death? I read that he recanted on his deathbed. Is that an example of a heretic pope? Or is that belief not serious enough to make one a heretic?

 

[DustinsDad]

…Now, as for your point, how does that anathema of Vatican ! fit in with the theory of Galileo

It is as irrelveant as Quo Primum. Neither liturgical rubrics nor the physical structure and scientific mechanisms of the interplanitary and intergalactic systems have been infallibly defined in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church.

Vatican I anathema again, just to refresh your memory.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Got anything else?

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

I am obstinate to the extent that I follow the declaration of Pope John XXII on the subject that I have been talking about. … I don’t think that a Catholic would be excommunicating himself or anathematising himself for following a solemn declaration of the Pope on this matter as I have done.

Are you saying Pope John XXII said defined dogmas could change or evolve to mean the contrary of what the Church has previously understood? Please provide the text of this “solemn declaration”.

And if this is your basis for rejecting the canon in question from Vatican I - why on earth have you not yet put it up as supporting evidence for your position?

DustinsDad

 

[t68ware]

Are you saying Pope John XXII said defined dogmas could change or evolve to mean the contrary of what the Church has previously understood? Please provide the text of this “solemn declaration”.

And if this is your basis for rejecting the canon in question from Vatican I - why on earth have you not yet put it up as supporting evidence for your position?

DustinsDad

Boy, has this thread taken a life of it’s own!!

 

[DustinsDad]

Boy, has this thread taken a life of it’s own!!

Nawwww - 55 pages? Where just getting started! :hypno:

 

[bobzills]

Are you saying Pope John XXII said defined dogmas could change or evolve to mean the contrary of what the Church has previously understood? Please provide the text of this “solemn declaration”.

And if this is your basis for rejecting the canon in question from Vatican I - why on earth have you not yet put it up as supporting evidence for your position?

DustinsDad

My position has always been very simply that of endorsing what was said by Pope John XXII and I don’t think that a Catholic could in any way be anathematised or excommunicated for following a papal proclamation.
Further, no Catholic anathematises himself. If a Catholic were to be anathematised, the anathematisation would take place by the Church or Church officials.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

My position has always been very simply that of endorsing what was said by Pope John XXII and I don’t think that a Catholic could in any way be anathematised or excommunicated for following a papal proclamation.
Further, no Catholic anathematises himself. If a Catholic were to be anathematised, the anathematisation would take place by the Church or Church officials.

Oh so you’re saying that the Saints will not enjoy the beatific vision until the Judgement. That sounds like heresy

 

[bobzills]

Oh so you’re saying that the Saints will not enjoy the beatific vision until the Judgement. That sounds like heresy

This has nothing to do with that. I am speaking about my opposition to the proposition that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.