In his encyclical, Immortale Dei, Leo XIII endorsed masonic forms of government. This contradicted Papal writings going back to the fifth century as well as the Two Swords doctrine in the Gospels. It is demonstrable heresy.
1 year ago0 points(+0/-0)Edited 2022-06-24 16:06:091 child
This is kind of another unresolved question in the "sedevacantist" world: how far back does the vacancy go? The common agreement is Pius XII as the last pope, which I agree with.
A few others put it as far back as Pius X.
Then of course there is the eclectic example of RJMI who believes there have been no popes since the 1100s.
I do think some attention should be given to resolving these questions. Although I think the common view of Pius XII as the last pope prevails.
Anyway, Leo XIII did speak positively of the founding of America, or at least called Washington "great": https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/22/pope-leo-xiii-on-america-and-george-washington/
Therefore most sedevacantists would have to defend this as being acceptably Catholic, or at least not heretical.
So I guess then the question would be why this would be considered to be heretical? Would you accuse the American government of being a kind of condemned liberalism, as in the "liberalismisasin.com" book? I'm not sure if any Catholics really at that time had argued such an opinion though. Therefore I think the prevailing opinion is that the American form of government is lawful, whereas something like Communism is not. Catholics are allowed to have a wide range of political views, so long as they are not condemned views - not everyone has to believe monarchy to be the best form of government, for example.
So I guess I'd ask for more unpacking of this claim of Leo XIII allegedly being an heretic and about the implications of this.
Such accusations are made against other such popes in the past like by "Our Lady's Resistance" and "Mike4Dogma" online I believe (examples of those who believe the vacancy goes back to Pius X, I think)
edit: so to refute RJMI's view, to be clear I'm not just dismissing just because it's a different view. He claimed that popes since 1100s were heretics because of allowing non-Catholic gods to be painted in churches, of allegedly glorifying philosophy and pagan philosophers, or allowing indecent images to be painted in churches like the Sistine chapel. I argue these do not constitute heresy or apostasy: to the first, even the Bible mentions false gods, and art in churches often was used to educate the illiterate, hence it would not be a sin to depict false gods. I have also been concerned with the quoting on pagan philosophers, however if you read the substance of scholastic writing like with Aquinas, he found things that were true that pagan philosophers said and rejected that which was opposed to Christianity. Hence I also think this was not a charge that stands of proving apostasy. And lastly, it is conceded that indecent imagery has circulated in art, even religious art. The Sistine chapel's nudity was painted over, and then put back on display by the Vatican 2 modernists. Ultimately even if this was wrong, it would be sinful, and not a heresy or apostasy. I believe this same process of collecting and working through objections would probably happen with the popes from before papal claimant "John XXIII".
without having read it the impression I get is whatever government that exists, it should be based on Catholic principles. but i do't recall this implying the necessity of monarchy to the exclusion of other systems. unless you want to consider republicanism and othe systems as a kind of monarchy as there's frequently a single leader, like there being a president in the U.S. or even in anarchy there are private organizations frequently with one leader like a CEO
A few others put it as far back as Pius X.
Then of course there is the eclectic example of RJMI who believes there have been no popes since the 1100s.
I do think some attention should be given to resolving these questions. Although I think the common view of Pius XII as the last pope prevails.
Anyway, Leo XIII did speak positively of the founding of America, or at least called Washington "great": https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/22/pope-leo-xiii-on-america-and-george-washington/
Therefore most sedevacantists would have to defend this as being acceptably Catholic, or at least not heretical.
So I guess then the question would be why this would be considered to be heretical? Would you accuse the American government of being a kind of condemned liberalism, as in the "liberalismisasin.com" book? I'm not sure if any Catholics really at that time had argued such an opinion though. Therefore I think the prevailing opinion is that the American form of government is lawful, whereas something like Communism is not. Catholics are allowed to have a wide range of political views, so long as they are not condemned views - not everyone has to believe monarchy to be the best form of government, for example.
So I guess I'd ask for more unpacking of this claim of Leo XIII allegedly being an heretic and about the implications of this.
Such accusations are made against other such popes in the past like by "Our Lady's Resistance" and "Mike4Dogma" online I believe (examples of those who believe the vacancy goes back to Pius X, I think)
edit: so to refute RJMI's view, to be clear I'm not just dismissing just because it's a different view. He claimed that popes since 1100s were heretics because of allowing non-Catholic gods to be painted in churches, of allegedly glorifying philosophy and pagan philosophers, or allowing indecent images to be painted in churches like the Sistine chapel. I argue these do not constitute heresy or apostasy: to the first, even the Bible mentions false gods, and art in churches often was used to educate the illiterate, hence it would not be a sin to depict false gods. I have also been concerned with the quoting on pagan philosophers, however if you read the substance of scholastic writing like with Aquinas, he found things that were true that pagan philosophers said and rejected that which was opposed to Christianity. Hence I also think this was not a charge that stands of proving apostasy. And lastly, it is conceded that indecent imagery has circulated in art, even religious art. The Sistine chapel's nudity was painted over, and then put back on display by the Vatican 2 modernists. Ultimately even if this was wrong, it would be sinful, and not a heresy or apostasy. I believe this same process of collecting and working through objections would probably happen with the popes from before papal claimant "John XXIII".
https://thejosias.com/2020/03/30/famuli-vestrae-pietatis/