Die folgenden zwei Nachrichten postete ich auf einem amerikanischen katholischen Internetforum, doch wurden sie unverzüglich liquidiert. Deswegen poste ich sie jetzt einmal hier, in der Hoffnung, daß sie nicht sogleich getilgt werden und eine umfrangreiche, verständliche Beantwortung erfahren.
Dear folks,
one question has been driven forcibly into my mind: Who is the true pope? I am just reading some critical Protestant commentaries on the alleged "unbroken line of successors" from St. Peter onwards. The saeculum obscurum is especially treated. Insofar as I can discern the matter, mayn times in church history the question, who is the true pope, was not so much decided by any votes(people, clerics or cardinals), but murder, force of arms and treachery.
Well, in the beginning the local church of Rome, clerics and laity alike, voted their bishop. LAter on, this right to vote passed on solely to clerics(there were some bitter fights before this was accomplished; I read that the laity once was against the candidate of the clerics and forced their own favoured man on the throne of Rome). In the saeculum obscurum, there were no votes at all, but just some Roman families bitterly striving with murder and weapons for gaining the throne of St. Peter.
Just imagine that the greatest part of laity decided today that Pope Benedict should be taken away - he's too conservative, isn't he? - and that another, more gentle pope - say, Cardinal Kaspar - should be installed. Imagine that riots take place and Benedict is forced to leave his throne, and he's followed by Kaspar. Who's the true pope now? Benedict? But if you would follow him, you would also have followed those to whom this happened in church history, but who where nevertheless afterwards classified as anti-popes. And why shouldn't the löaity take their right to vote again, the very right they possesed in the early church? There is no ius divinum on the cardinals-vote.
It also happened in church history that kings dethroned popes and installed their own candidates - who nevertheless reigned as accepted popes!
Well, it could be objected that par in parem non habet imperium. That means, Pope Benedict would be able to publish a decree to the effect that the laity of the city of Rome may vote the next pope again. But he couldn't be simply be dethorned and a laity-vote being taken place AGAINST HIS WILL. Because to him, as pope, belongs the plenitude of jurisdiction, and so long as he holds the decree in effect, that popes must be voted by cardinals, the next true successor of St. Peter must be voted by cardinals - this successor MAY revoke the decree concerning the cardinals-vote and install the laity-vote again - but before he can do so, he must be, as Benedict set it out, canonical soundly voted by cardinals, to be a true pope.
BUT there are many cases in church history, and especially in the saeculum obscurum, where we can safely conclude that the way opoes forced their way to the papal throne were illegitime and not at all approved by their predecessors.
But this would mean that, say, in the saeculum obscurum the papal throne was completely empty - what is certainly against the Vatican I definition, threatening everyone with anathema who denies that St. Peter has in an uninterrupted line successors on his throne.
But if we ddo not know who's the true pope, how can we know sho is to decide infallible in matters concerning faith and morals?
Still another question troubles me: according to canonical law he who denies even ONE article of faith, or just strongly and continually doubts is, is a heretic IPSO FACTO excommunicated. Now it would be easy to show that many popes were heretics. So does assert, for instance, Pope Adrian IV.:
Maybe I'll spend a further post to show that John Paul II. was somehwat heretical in his views. If this is true, he was no true pope, because, as a heretic, he was less than any Catholic."It is beyond question that the opoe can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics."
But I don't want to base my argument on this, so you may scip and over.
Yours,
Whim
The Council of Florence solemnly defined:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
John Paul the Great teaches in Ut unum sint:
Note that John Paul the Great teaches us that the Proestants shedding their blood for their Protestant faith are doing something meritious in the sight of God(Vatican II also already alludes to this, but in more cautious terms). But this view was explicitly and infallibly condemned at the Council of Florence, as quoted above. Therefore, this viwe is heretical. But remark how he goes on:84. In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself.138 The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).
Vatican II also already indulged in this heresy, by stating that the non-Catholic communities are "not without importance in the mystery of salvation". John Paul the Greast highlights this heresy, explicitly stating that the Proestants are saved by means of, THROUGH their Proestant faith, that gives them entrance towards heaven. This runs counter against the traditional Catholic teaching, proclaimed for centuries by the ordinary magisterium, even shaped into solemn dogmatic definitons, that nobody can be saved through his Proestant faith, but only DESPITE his Proestant faith. Even though the devil may torture him with all the Proestant nonsense - so runs the traditional teaching - God may act upon his soul individually and despite this devil's work that surrounds him. NO Proestant community can give you any entrance whatsoever into heaven. Rather it SHUTS the gates if heaven! If you still get through these gates, then this happened because by an inner act of faith you rejected Protestantism and desperately longed for the true Catholic religion!While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.
Well, I could, I belive, extensively quote from John Paul to show you he was somehwat heretical. His public acts(like Assisi) conform this even more than his official documents.
Maybe we should not even focus on ecumenism. Let's choose religious liberty. The viwe of the church towards religious liberty was since the time of Constantin confirmed in an abundant number of public acts, including the crusades and the Inquitsition. Since the French revolution, this century-held discipinary way of conduct was transformed into papal teaching and most elaborately presented by Leo XIII. in "Libertas Praestantissimum". Check out http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... ht=TheWhim to see that what Vatican II makes out as Divine Revelation is nothing else than shipwreck with ecclesiastical tradition - in other words, a heresy. Therefore, every pope who has since subscriped to Vatican II is a heretic.
And don't object that papa a nemine iudicatur. This is quite true, but canon law asserts an IPSO FACTO, automatical, excummincation in case of heresy for EVERY Catholic. And the pope is, in despite of his exalted position, after all not a semi-god, but simply this: a Catholic.
Well, if my thesis on John PAul the Great is too far-fetched for your taste, scip it over. This is not my primary consideration. Check out my first post again to be sure of my principal aim in posting these postings.
Yours,
Whim