For Some Who Believe "Francis" is Pope · Joe Heschmeyer Gives an Excellent Case for the Church Needing Infallibility (We are Both Papists, so Think the Infallibility Resides in some capacity in the Pope)
Here is his case, then a comment I made, with the thread under it, then a transition to another and shorter thread:
The Biblical Case for Infallibility
Shameless Popery Podcast | 21 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2djx9lESGgA
Now give the Biblical case for whether Infallibility resides in "Francis" or in Michael II ...
- Master Chief
- @masterchief8179
- Infallibility resides in the Church through the Successor of Peter and bishops gathered in Ecumenical Councils in communion with him, when issuing to teach the universal church and other specific circumstances.
Or you can buy a cheaper seat to watch Pastor Bob preach in a garage with his interpretation of the Bible that fell from the sky, saying you - and everybody - should stick with this guy’ interpretation:
“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught, or whoever condemns me therein, he condemns God and must remain a child of hell” (LUTHER, Martin. German answer of Martin Luther to the Book of King Henry of England, 1522 Deutsche Antwort Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch). In: Dr. Martin Luther's Sämtliche Werke, Polemische Deutsche Schriften, Johann Konrad Irmischer, Erlangen, 1833, vol. 28, p. 347).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @masterchief8179 The question is not about Pastor Bob.
It's about whether "Francis" or Michael II is successor of St. Peter.
- Susan D
- @susand3668
- Dear @hglundahl , you are kidding, right? Pope Francis is accepted as pope not only by his followers, but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on.
Who is Michael II?
- Master Chief
- @hglundahl You can’t be serious.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @masterchief8179 I am at least not going to be A-rious instead of C-rious. A-rious was a heretic!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @susand3668 "not only by his followers,"
Which is also the case with Pope Michael II. Even with Peter III, whom I don't count as Pope.
"but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on."
So? From their pov it means "head of the Vatican state" (usually) and that was founded in 1929, between Pius XI and Mussolini.
"Who is Michael II?"
Pope Michael II Passion Sunday 2024
vatican in exile | 19 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kso2_JY3QM
- Shameless Popery Podcast
- @shamelesspopery
- I know more about Antipope Michael I (David Bawden, Rogelio Martinez's predecessor) because he's from here in Kansas. He was "elected" by his family and some friends in his family's thrift store in 1990 when he was 30. None of his alleged electors were Cardinals of the Catholic Church (obviously). In no way, shape, or form is such an "election" valid, regardless of what you think about the real pope. I mean "Michael I" wasn't even an ordained priest (by his own admission!) during the time he was claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome.
Let's say that you decide that the 2024 presidential election is stolen, and so you and your family and friends declare you the president of the United States. That absurdity would actually be MORE valid than Michael I or Michael II's claims to be popes, since (unlike in a papal election) your family and friends can presumably vote in a secular election.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @shamelesspopery Thank you for your input, Sir, let's break this down:
"None of his alleged electors were Cardinals of the Catholic Church (obviously)."
Cardinals electing is of human positive Church law, not divine law, since otherwise the Popes elected before the Cardinals would have been invalid.
One of the friends was Theresa S. Benns, who later left him.
She has so far NOT used the idea that his invitations to conservative (sede+) bishops and (perhaps) conservative cardinals were bogus.
In other words we have an important witness to misproceedings, if there were such, who hasn't spoken up about them.
In other words, until the opposite is proven, we do not have the wherewithals to present the election as finally held, with 6 laymen, as being what he had planned all along (among these laymen he was the star theologian, along with ineligible Theresa).
I think we should therefore presume he had hoped that clergy would come and he would not be elected.
"I mean "Michael I" wasn't even an ordained priest (by his own admission!) during the time he was claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome."
During the 21 first years of the time. He did get ordination and consecration on the Gaudete Weekend of 2011. I congratulated him on the occasion, without yet accepting him as Pope. I had known him online since the early 2000's.
A bishop can be elected before he is ordained, before he is consecrated. Otherwise, the election of the Catechumen St. Ambrose would have been invalid.
"Let's say that you decide that the 2024 presidential election is stolen, and so you and your family and friends declare you the president of the United States."
Usurpation without tyranny is not necessarily a cue for legitimate insurrection. Especially if the usurper would be deposed if not reelected four years from hence.
"since (unlike in a papal election) your family and friends can presumably vote in a secular election."
Again, you are judging the case of laymen voting from positive Church laws of the second millennium. The exclusion of laymen from episcopal elections, including that of Rome, was first of all never put into place in the East, and second, a kind of security measure against powerful laymen rigging elections for their friends.
Given the six laymen were presumably nobodies, the risk of them being so manipulated is negligible.
@shamelesspopery Think about my answer to your first objection:
Cardinals electing is of human positive Church law, not divine law, since otherwise the Popes elected before the Cardinals would have been invalid.
I was somewhat incomplete, I left out the idea that in a case of emergency, you can never set divine law aside, but positive human law (like disciplinary Church law) can be set aside.
But, as you wrote a book about the first 200 years of the Church, you would normally be aware of lay participation in episcopal elections including in Rome.
Where did I get this about his book from? Here, other thread under the youtube:
- Skarlet
- @Skarlet-ju8sr
- You should write a book about the history of the early Church, first 400 years. The title would be this perfect catchphrase in common use back then:
"Rome Has Spoken."
- Patrick Steil
- @PatrickSteil
- I think he did. It’s called the Early Church is the Catholic Church. Great book and he shows this taking only the first 200 years before any Protestant claims of the corruption of the church.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @PatrickSteil If that's the case he should be aware of laymen electing bishops, including of Rome, meaning his case against Pope Michael I is not just wrong but also less than perfectly candid, perhaps even dishonest
- Patrick Steil
- @hglundahl Can you elaborate, I am not following?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @PatrickSteil His view on the election in Kansas in 1990 involves it being invalid because all the participants were non-cardinals.
The fact is, "By decree of a synod of 769, only a cardinal was eligible to become Bishop of Rome." -- and papal elections being between cardinals only is even later, seems to be 1059 or sth, i e, the law he is referring to was not applied in the early Church, and can therefore be set aside in a case of dire necessity, as David Bawden, when calling the election, judged the situation in the Church.
As he has studied the early Church, he should be aware of this.
Other thing:
- Tom Tyrone Beiron
- @TyroneBeiron
- It may be necessary in these times to consider the Orthodox Churches not in communion with the Catholic Church to be ‘Protestant’ as well, mainly because of the various new emerging narratives from their commentators, apologists, synods and canons which very much hold seriously anti-Catholic and anti-Papal statements which they have never removed or corrected in spite of the dialogues, joint-statements etc. In a similar way, these autocephalous churches vary in teaching and biblical interpretation, sometimes even holding commentary by their own saints to be held as magisterial authority. Catholics nowadays are hardly vehement towards these others - I am old enough to remember when priests and bishops did not mince their words towards schismatics and Protestants; not anymore today. 🤔
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "sometimes even holding commentary by their own saints to be held as magisterial authority."
That's actually Catholic, except for post-schism ones being on the wrong side of 1054.
The principle is also there in Trent Session IV.
In fact, Trent Session IV sets a kind of safety rule, what you must take as magisterial is all of the CCFF agreeing, but even so.
