Katholic Kiwi Kathedral (Catholocism General) - Byzantine? Ethnic? Roman? It doesn't matter. It's a place for Catholic Kiwis to discuss Catholicism and inquirers to inquire

Who is the best Catholic apologist alive today?

  • Bishop Robert Barron

    Votes: 42 47.7%
  • Fr. Mike Schmitz

    Votes: 39 44.3%
  • Trent Horn

    Votes: 23 26.1%
  • Jimmy Akin

    Votes: 14 15.9%
  • Joe Heschmeyer

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Matt Fradd

    Votes: 6 6.8%
  • Scott Hahn

    Votes: 13 14.8%
  • Brayden Cook - TheCatechumen

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Taylor Marshall

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Christian Fagner

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • James White

    Votes: 7 8.0%

  • Total voters
    88
You are doing the classic “durr how can pope be bad and be pope”.
This is another RC thought-terminating cliche. I'm not a Donatist.

Indefectibility protects official church teaching, not personal beliefs so there was no “formal heresy.”
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364.— § 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4.


Honorius was declared a Heretic by an Ecumenical Council; because under Roman Catholic Canon Law heresy automatically excommunicates you atae sententiae (meaning instantly and without the need of any formal or juridical recognition), this means that Honorius wasn't just anathematized after death—he removed himself automatically from the Church at the time.

It's also not true that you can have personal heresies as the Pope. That's the pop-Catholic view of it. Vatican I follows Bellarmine on this question.

Let's look at Vatican I:
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

7 .This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Except Honorius was a Heretic and removed himself.

As for Leo, you are really showing your lack of understanding here of both theology and history. I already answered this fully, the inscription lacked ex cathedra status because it was a localized, symbolic act, which precludes it from being an "Ex Cathedra" statement which must:
  • Have the pope address the universal Church in his official capacity
  • Explicitly define a doctrine
  • Clearly intend the teaching to be obligatory for all Catholics, invoking his supreme authority
  • Speak with definitive intent
incidentally, and while you're not making this exact argument, I'd like to point out something a lot of Catholics like to say (that isn't true). You don't only have to follow the Ex Cathedra statements.

From Pious IX's Catalogue of Errors:
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
 
Pope Leo XIII had a big influence on my personal development and thought, especially in my approach to capitalism and politics. I’m glad we have another Leo, hope he is very similar to the last (minus the cocaine wine (maybe))

IMG_2812.webp
 
If His Holiness supports open borders I guess I do too now.
One big headache if you ask me. To willingly bend your politics over one mans words, no matter who, it's difficult to digest. I can say I support all His Holiness' beliefs but deep down inside that's not true. How do you stop yourself from holding old beliefs in order to follow a new set that you wish to uphold. Does that even make any sense.
Been off my meds so might not but I'm hoping someone understands what I'm trying to say
 
One big headache if you ask me. To willingly bend your politics over one mans words, no matter who, it's difficult to digest. I can say I support all His Holiness' beliefs but deep down inside that's not true.
I get it, tying yourself to one man's word is a headache. But hey, if God tells me His Holiness will get the important things, like theology, right then surely his politics can't be too bad.
How do you stop yourself from holding old beliefs in order to follow a new set that you wish to uphold. Does that even make any sense.
Been off my meds so might not but I'm hoping someone understands what I'm trying to say
Don't really understand what this part means. Also hope you are doing well fren.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fillet-O-Fishh
It's also not true that you can have personal heresies as the Pope. That's the pop-Catholic view of it. Vatican I follows Bellarmine on this question.
Do you read your own sources?

“The [First Vatican] Council Fathers ultimately dismissed the case of Honorius as irrelevant, however, since contemporary theologians, such as Fr. Paul Bottalla, SJ (1823–96), had used Bellarmine’s arguments to successfully demonstrate that Honorius never actually subscribed to the heresy of monothelitism in his fateful letter to Sergius.”

Bellarmine was explicitly speaking of FORMAL heresy, not material.

Dumbass.
 
If you look at other conservative bishops from America, it's understood that there's a difference between economic migrants and refugees.
Making that difference can be left to the politicians, and questioning the humanity of the politicians' choices is for the Church.
 
What do I say to the missionaries when they arrive upon my heathen shores? Are they gonna try and Jehovah's Witness me? :thinking:
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Law
Back