Zone1 What the Church does when a pope is a heretic

forkintheroad7

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2024
2,073
1,388
893
I have read up on this issue and am still researching, which means I only have a few conclusions at this point.

It appears to be a complex issue, probably because it is human nature to complicate things? I dunno. But in any case, I think I "know" the following:

Apparently, in Catholic teaching (the original teachings, NOT what is falsely being taught today by many clergy including the [supposed] pope), even if a pope is thought to be a notorious heretic (has not kept his heresy secret), he can only be deposed if he walks away from the papacy. Actually, I am not even sure that is correct because I don't really trust the authors of the material I am reading.

I am reading the material on this because the Sedevacantists believe one thing about how to deal with a heretical pope and the novus ordo people believe something else. So far, I am not clear on what makes the most sense (who is right). I'd have to research authentically-Catholic literature to attain perfect understanding.

However, there is this: The person who wrote the material says that people in the CIMRI Church (Sedevacantists) are not Catholic!

That is not true! The person who wrote the material seems to think he has to steer people away from the Sedevacantist position, and apparently thinks he may have to go to the point of being dishonest. It's like he is saying "Don't be a Sede or you will be called a schismatic or "un-Catholic." I have been in the CIMRI Church and it is a traditional CATHOLIC Church, using missals from 1962...

So I tend to think the writer of the material I am wading through is dishonest... which makes me not want to bother w/ the un-read parts.

But it does kind of make sense that the pope (alleged pope) cannot easily be removed.

In any case, we were all, fortunately, given a brain, so we don't need to listen to "popes" who teach anti-Catholic nonsense
 
Its not a problem at all, if you understand precedent. In January 897, Pope Formosus was indicted for heresy, so they just dug up his corpus and put him on trial.

If Francis, or a subsequent pope gets accused of the same thing, the precedent is there.
 
Its not a problem at all, if you understand precedent. In January 897, Pope Formosus was indicted for heresy, so they just dug up his corpus and put him on trial.

If Francis, or a subsequent pope gets accused of the same thing, the precedent is there.
Precedent is only (somewhat) important in US law.

Church law is not always comparable. I think it was utterly ridiculous to dig up Formosus and have the corpse there for a trial. I mean, who can trust people who do that kind of thing-- RE heresy and removal of a heretical pope?

Also, there is this. Heresy is defined ( and I am 99% certain of the following) as disbelieving a DOGMA formally taught by the Church Magistarium.

So, it looks like the pope in question would have to be publicly declaring that, say... the dogma of Hell (for instance) is not true

for anyone to even accuse him of heresy, much less get rid of him..
 
I have read up on this issue and am still researching, which means I only have a few conclusions at this point.

It appears to be a complex issue, probably because it is human nature to complicate things? I dunno. But in any case, I think I "know" the following:

Apparently, in Catholic teaching (the original teachings, NOT what is falsely being taught today by many clergy including the [supposed] pope), even if a pope is thought to be a notorious heretic (has not kept his heresy secret), he can only be deposed if he walks away from the papacy. Actually, I am not even sure that is correct because I don't really trust the authors of the material I am reading.

I am reading the material on this because the Sedevacantists believe one thing about how to deal with a heretical pope and the novus ordo people believe something else. So far, I am not clear on what makes the most sense (who is right). I'd have to research authentically-Catholic literature to attain perfect understanding.

However, there is this: The person who wrote the material says that people in the CIMRI Church (Sedevacantists) are not Catholic!

That is not true! The person who wrote the material seems to think he has to steer people away from the Sedevacantist position, and apparently thinks he may have to go to the point of being dishonest. It's like he is saying "Don't be a Sede or you will be called a schismatic or "un-Catholic." I have been in the CIMRI Church and it is a traditional CATHOLIC Church, using missals from 1962...

So I tend to think the writer of the material I am wading through is dishonest... which makes me not want to bother w/ the un-read parts.

But it does kind of make sense that the pope (alleged pope) cannot easily be removed.

In any case, we were all, fortunately, given a brain, so we don't need to listen to "popes" who teach anti-Catholic nonsense
I think that you don't understand the basics. Those who are running the Catholic church, aren't believers. Their main belief is in the preservation of the future of Catholicism as a commercial business.

There can't be a deeper cut into the faith than the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. The Catholic powers that be, considered it to be necessary, due to the accepted facts of modern science, but their honesty blew back in their faces. The question could have likely gone unspoken for another hundred years, to at least keep the business profitable.

No matter how much they dance around the question, they can't have Darwin and Genesis together.
 
I think that you don't understand the basics. Those who are running the Catholic church, aren't believers. Their main belief is in the preservation of the future of Catholicism as a commercial business.
ha ha... You don't think I understand that? You don't know me very well

Basically, this is the reason I am researching the topic
 
ha ha... You don't think I understand that? You don't know me very well

Basically, this is the reason I am researching the topic
What could be left to declare as heretical, after the acceptance of Darwin?
Maybe spend your time trying to invent some way of believing in Darwin and Genesis together?

The only reason you still have questions is because religion's child abusers got their hook under your skin when you were a child. You can't be 'free' until you shake that hook.
 
What could be left to declare as heretical, after the acceptance of Darwin?
Maybe spend your time trying to invent some way of believing in Darwin and Genesis together?

The only reason you still have questions is because religion's child abusers got their hook under your skin when you were a child. You can't be 'free' until you shake that hook.
Get lost, Hater
 
Get lost, Hater
Most who were hooked in childhood, will never be able to shake religion's hook. It's as compelling to them as it is to a duckling that accepts the fox as it's mother because the fox already ate its mother.

But some will never stop trying to find the freedom that they sense is somehow missing.

What better place than this forum where they can receive the input they crave., both positive and negative.
 
Most who were hooked in childhood, will never be able to shake religion's hook. It's as compelling to them as it is to a duckling that accepts the fox as it's mother because the fox already ate its mother.

But some will never stop trying to find the freedom that they sense is somehow missing.

What better place than this forum where they can receive the input they crave., both positive and negative.
Quit acting like you know everything about everyone

it's very annoying
 
Quit acting like you know everything about everyone

it's very annoying
It's not rocket science! What power could there be that allows you to believe that man could live in the belly of a 'big fish' for three or four days? You have to shake the hook!

You're working on it!

Just as I'm going to suggest that all Christians who are airing their laundry on this forum have come to asking questions.
 
At this time, we need to research whether it is true or false that

The first See is judged by no one

If that is true (true Catholic doctrine/dogma), we really are stuck with Francis because lesser clergy cannot judge the "pope."
 
At this time, we need to research whether it is true or false that

The first See is judged by no one

If that is true (true Catholic doctrine/dogma), we really are stuck with Francis because lesser clergy cannot judge the "pope."
You're asking for shit and abuse on this forum and you're not going to be happy until you get it.
Let me know if you would prefer to not get it from me? I could care less!
 
I think that you don't understand the basics. Those who are running the Catholic church, aren't believers. Their main belief is in the preservation of the future of Catholicism as a commercial business.

There can't be a deeper cut into the faith than the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. The Catholic powers that be, considered it to be necessary, due to the accepted facts of modern science, but their honesty blew back in their faces. The question could have likely gone unspoken for another hundred years, to at least keep the business profitable.

No matter how much they dance around the question, they can't have Darwin and Genesis together.
Did I say you could post here?
 
I think that you don't understand the basics. Those who are running the Catholic church, aren't believers. Their main belief is in the preservation of the future of Catholicism as a commercial business.

There can't be a deeper cut into the faith than the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. The Catholic powers that be, considered it to be necessary, due to the accepted facts of modern science, but their honesty blew back in their faces. The question could have likely gone unspoken for another hundred years, to at least keep the business profitable.

No matter how much they dance around the question, they can't have Darwin and Genesis together.

I remember when I was in Catholic Prison Camp #225 where they tried to reconcile Evolution and the Bible and really couldn't do it before admitting that the Bible is a fairy tale.

I don't think this is a big theological problem that there wasn't a talking snake any more than any of the more fantastical elements of the Bible.

The bigger problem I see with the Church is that Francis is the first 'Third World" Pope. He represents third-world concerns, which is fair, as the vast majority of the world's Catholics live in Third world countries.

But the Church's wealth comes from the 20% of the world's Catholics who live in wealthy countries.
 
I remember when I was in Catholic Prison Camp #225 where they tried to reconcile Evolution and the Bible and really couldn't do it before admitting that the Bible is a fairy tale.
Those weren' true Catholics.

A true Catholic does not believe Catholicism is a myth or fairy tell.

I myself KNOW it be Christ himself.. The Real Presence is awesome. Too bad people close their minds to the one thing that can help them
 
I remember when I was in Catholic Prison Camp #225 where they tried to reconcile Evolution and the Bible and really couldn't do it before admitting that the Bible is a fairy tale.

I don't think this is a big theological problem that there wasn't a talking snake any more than any of the more fantastical elements of the Bible.
I think it's a bigger theological problem than you realize. It embarrasses most of them to admit that they are believers in a literal bible, so they don't. There a few exception, but very few. Or 'Back Again' is the only one on this board.

So rather, they sit and wait for some priest, Cardinal or whatever, to prove that it's really possible to live in the belly of the big fish, the talking snake, the ark, and so on.
The bigger problem I see with the Church is that Francis is the first 'Third World" Pope. He represents third-world concerns, which is fair, as the vast majority of the world's Catholics live in Third world countries.
Yes, it could be that he is motivated by church's proclaimed ideals. But I doubt if any intelligent human being can still believe in the nonsense.
But the Church's wealth comes from the 20% of the world's Catholics who live in wealthy countries.

That sounds like a rational theory for the explanation for the church's evil. Can you back it up with more of the same?

I think their biggest problem is that children aren't being brainwashed and indoctrinated into the bullshit in large enough numbers to keep the churches alive in modern countries that have experienced the truths of modern science. Religions stand a better chance in backward countries.
 
I think their biggest problem is that children aren't being brainwashed and indoctrinated into the bullshit in large enough numbers to keep the churches alive in modern countries that have experienced the truths of modern science. Religions stand a better chance in backward countries.

There is an old saying, "no one can take advantage of you without your permission!"

I come from a pretty large extended Catholic family. My brother walked away from the Church about the same time I did, but his daughter is a very devout Catholic. Other relatives work for the Church. I really want nothing to do with it.
 
There is an old saying, "no one can take advantage of you without your permission!"
Maybe without the society's permission in the case of the churches?
And then there are the children who have been indoctrinated when very young?
I come from a pretty large extended Catholic family. My brother walked away from the Church about the same time I did, but his daughter is a very devout Catholic. Other relatives work for the Church. I really want nothing to do with it.

I don't think we can afford to be quiet about criticizing religion.
 
I remember when I was in Catholic Prison Camp #225 where they tried to reconcile Evolution and the Bible and really couldn't do it before admitting that the Bible is a fairy tale.
Tell us more about how they tried to do that?
How could they ever reconcile the step the CC made on accepting Darwin. Ding's attempts at an explanation always fell short of being rational.
 

Forum List

Back
Top