Is This Heretical?

[mortify]

Pope Benedict XII condemned his predecessor Pope John XXII for preaching heresy on the fate of the dead and the last judgment.

 

The doctrine of saved souls seeing the Beatific Vision after death was not defined at the time of Pope John XXII's election. That said, prior to his election he certainly did believe that souls enjoy the beatific vision only after the resurrection, but after consulting theologians he retracted this view and accepted the now formative teaching. Unfortunately I'm not sure the same argument can be used for Blessed John Paul II. And just as an aside, where did Benedict XII condemn John XXII? The former solemenly defined the dogma of the immediacy of the beatific vision.

[Apotheoun]

The doctrine of saved souls seeing the Beatific Vision after death was not defined at the time of Pope John XXII's election. That said, prior to his election he certainly did believe that souls enjoy the beatific vision only after the resurrection, but after consulting theologians he retracted this view and accepted the now formative teaching. Unfortunately I'm not sure the same argument can be used for Blessed John Paul II. And just as an aside, where did Benedict XII condemn John XXII? The former solemenly defined the dogma of the immediacy of the beatific vision.

It didn't have to be defined because it was always believed prior to Pope John XXII teaching heresy on the issue. The only reason Pope Benedict issued his decree, which Easterners did not even know about at the time, is because Pope John XXII taught error.

[havok579257]

what is the point of harping on what the Pope who is now dead said years ago?  If this one statement changes you from accepting catholisim to rejecting it then I suspect you need to speak to a priest or a spiritual director.  Cause if your going to deny the complete truth of the catholic church due to one non infallable statement then there are probobly bigger issues deep down inside.

[Apotheoun]

The idea that something is only true after it is defined on a certain date, in a certain document, is quite foreign to the Patristic tradition of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[Apotheoun]

what is the point of harping on what the Pope who is now dead said years ago?  If this one statement changes you from accepting catholisim to rejecting it then I suspect you need to speak to a priest or a spiritual director.  Cause if your going to deny the complete truth of the catholic church due to one non infallable statement then there are probobly bigger issues deep down inside.

It is important because words have meaning. Now, it is likely that the pope in question was speaking off the cuff and probably said something that he would not have said had he given it more thought. After all, no one can pray for God or the saints to protect error, or heresy, or evil. The whole idea is nonsensical.

[havok579257]

It is important because words have meaning. Now, it is likely that the pope in question was speaking off the cuff and probably said something that he would not have said had he given it more thought. After all, no one can pray for God or the saints to protect error, or heresy, or evil. The whole idea is nonsensical.

 

 

words have meaning yes but one non infalliable statment should not drive someone from the faith.  If it does there must be more deep down that they are dealing with.

 

Not to mention the Pope is dead now, it is a non infalliable statement and there is no point to harp on something that happened years ago.  time to move on.

[Apotheoun]

words have meaning yes but one non infalliable statment should not drive someone from the faith.  If it does there must be more deep down that they are dealing with.

 

Not to mention the Pope is dead now, it is a non infalliable statement and there is no point to harp on something that happened years ago.  time to move on.

I agree. I certainly wouldn't renounce faith in Christ because of something said by a bishop or a priest.

[Apotheoun]

One of the reasons that the debate table is so dead, and by that I mean reduced to nonsensical threads on the "historical Jesus," is that people seem to be hypersensitive to anything that they don't want to discuss.

[mortify]

It didn't have to be defined because it was always believed prior to Pope John XXII teaching heresy on the issue. The only reason Pope Benedict issued his decree, which Easterners did not even know about at the time, is because Pope John XXII taught error.

 

At the time of John XII's election it was the general belief but not defined. He can't be charged with formal heresy anymore than Thomas Aquinas for rejecting the immaculate conception. But either way, the point is that with John XXII he retracted his private opinion and died accepting the general belief. His successor first formally defined the Beatific Vision immediatly post death as dogma. This does not mean that is when the belief became into being, just that when it was formally defined.

[mortify]

words have meaning yes but one non infalliable statment should not drive someone from the faith.  If it does there must be more deep down that they are dealing with.

 

Not to mention the Pope is dead now, it is a non infalliable statement and there is no point to harp on something that happened years ago.  time to move on.

 

Yes, of course the issue is much greater than one statement. I've simply focused in on this one very specific comment for the sake of discussion. We can say that maybe this was an off cuff the remark and the Pope confused "Islam" with "Muslims" or just mispoke, never intending that God protect falsehood. But there are other issues which paint a particular pattern when it comes to our late Holy Father. This itself is a large issue of an even greater issue, namely the transformation the Church has made since the 1960s.

[havok579257]

Yes, of course the issue is much greater than one statement. I've simply focused in on this one very specific comment for the sake of discussion. We can say that maybe this was an off cuff the remark and the Pope confused "Islam" with "Muslims" or just mispoke, never intending that God protect falsehood. But there are other issues which paint a particular pattern when it comes to our late Holy Father. This itself is a large issue of an even greater issue, namely the transformation the Church has made since the 1960s.

 

 

so do you think the church has been in error on things since its "supposed change" in the 1960s?

[mortify]

so do you think the church has been in error on things since its "supposed change" in the 1960s?

 

No, I don't think the Church is in error. Theologically speaking the Church can not be in error. What I see is a problem and I'm trying to understand it. The first impression is that our holy religion has been changed, but this may simply be my misinterpretation, I simply don't know right now.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, of course the issue is much greater than one statement. I've simply focused in on this one very specific comment for the sake of discussion. We can say that maybe this was an off cuff the remark and the Pope confused "Islam" with "Muslims" or just mispoke, never intending that God protect falsehood. But there are other issues which paint a particular pattern when it comes to our late Holy Father. This itself is a large issue of an even greater issue, namely the transformation the Church has made since the 1960s.

So, for a moment here, let us assume that everything you say here is true. What then do you think is the proper response to this widespread crisis of faith?

[Apotheoun]

At the time of John XII's election it was the general belief but not defined. He can't be charged with formal heresy anymore than Thomas Aquinas for rejecting the immaculate conception. But either way, the point is that with John XXII he retracted his private opinion and died accepting the general belief. His successor first formally defined the Beatific Vision immediatly post death as dogma. This does not mean that is when the belief became into being, just that when it was formally defined.

If it was the general belief of the Church then it was already, even by modern Roman Catholic standards, infallibly taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and as a consequence Pope John XXII publicly taught error in his sermons in defense if his novel position.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

So, for a moment here, let us assume that everything you say here is true. What then do you think is the proper response to this widespread crisis of faith?

 

That's a really good question. If the worst case scenerio is true in that the teaching aparatus of the Church has taught heresy, then the Sedevacantists were right, though such a position is self defeating and one would ultimately have to seek spiritual safety outside of contemporary Roman Catholicism.