/traditionalcatholics/ - Traditional Catholics

I was reading in "Sources of Catholic Dogma" about the Pope in the Systematic index.

Popes can be evil. Several times true Popes have said that it is an error to say that an evil Pope isn't Pope because he's evil. And there were five Popes who did wicked things: A Pope who kept a bunch of nuns as his sexual harem comes to mind.

The only sure "false Pope" is one that buys his way into the papacy, or one where the college of Cardinals is force to appoint a false Pope, which may have happened with Pope Francis.

I guess that's why even the SSPV is not officially sedes.

How these infallible teachings are logically reconciled with church teaching that those who say that the Mass can be said in the local vernacular are an anathema, and that those who say that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in the hand are an anathema, or that heretics are not Catholic, is beyond my understanding.

Perhaps it is because the set of evil, while it includes heretics is more inclusive. All the Papal encyclicals and bulls about evil popes are in decrees of error; e.g. and to paraphrase, "It is an error to say 'an evil Pope is no longer Pope'"

Is he evil if he is a sodomite or keeps nuns in sexual bondage and still Pope, but outside the Church if he is a heretic and thus not eligible to be Pope?

I don't know and way above my pay grade.

So I was reading about the Blessed Virgin yesterday in SCD (Sources of Catholic Dogma) Systematic Index.

Pretty sure that settled it, as she was born without original sin, she didn't die just as Adam and Eve didn't suffer death until they committed the original sin, but was taken body and soul together into heaven. She is the Saint that gives us the graces to resist sin, as she never committed any actual sin.

I was also thinking that this book contains (most of) the Catholic faith, what you have to believe to be Catholic. Which left me to contemplate all the "Catholic" lower case t traditions that aren't in there.

Having grown up in California I saw some things done by Mexican Catholics that seemed entirely strange to my understanding of the faith. Now that I reflect on this book, we Europeans have some equally strange beliefs, as do the Eastern Rite Catholics. SCD is an effort to define the core beliefs that the Holy Mother Church teaches to us all.

The English edition of "Sources" is a translation of the French, so the papal bulls and encyclicals are an English translation of the French translation of the Latin originals.

Which makes them confusing and befuddled at parts, e.g. the translation of the First Vatican Council.

Also, it's pretty clear that some Catholic teaches were omitted as having no content of faith and morality when they clearly did - they just offend modern ideas of morality e.g. the Council of Florence/Basel.

You have to go to the source

You have to remember Jesus gave the Keys to Heaven, which is the power to say what sins are held and what are not, and what you have to believe to be part of the Body of Christ, to Saint Peter. Only Saint Peter can define what faith and morals. "Peter" was the first papal name, given to Simon.

And when you go to the Ex Cathedra from the Chair of Saint Peter, the infallible and indefectable teachings of the Church, the sins are listed. Avoiding sin and the 9 ways to avoid taking part in someone else's sin, seems quite do-able.

Others catechisms include avoidable occasions of sin, both proximate and remote as sins. I'm looking at you Saint Thomas Aquinas. For example, Saint Aquinas says even a mere thought of sex is a mortal sin and that it is even possible to commit sin against no one but yourself! And Saints who are doctors of the Church are right, right? Not always! The Church teaches that Saints like Saint Aquinas are right unless the Pope says something else.

I'll see you a saint, and raise you a Pope

Saint Bellarmine's catechism says that a sin is against someone else; either GOD (first three commandments) or another person (the remaining commandments). Pope Saint Pius X echoes this and says that occasions of sin should be avoided. I think there is also a difference in how they describe an impure thought: e.g. King David plotting to kill Uriah so he could have sex with Bathsheba is an impure Thought. As the Lord said, "He that looks at a woman to lust after her commits adultery". IIRC, (debate me) Pope Saint Pius X also said that the kings who wanted to marry Sarah committed no sin because they didn't know she was Abraham's wife. Thus, wanting to have sex and raise kids with a woman is not, in and of itself a sin if you have good reason e.g. Abraham's lie, to believe she is not married. Saint Thomas Aquinas leaves me wondering how do people even get married since he seems to forbid thinking about it. I think I understand it now.