Author Topic: Safeguards are in Place if a True Pope Publicly Defected from the Faith (Read 9606 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** October 15, 2014, 04:00:09 AM »

While it is true that St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. For this reason he proceeded to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic.

"The fifth opinion (regarding a heretical pope) therefore is true; a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact (per se) ceases to be pope and head (of the Church), just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian (sic) and a member of the body of the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
-St. Robert Bellarmine, Church Doctor, De Romano Pontifice, ch. xxx.

"The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith."
-Pope Innocent III, Billot, Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610.

Any pope who "wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition" would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed.
-Francisco Suarez, S.J., (1548-1617), "Most Exalted and Pius Doctor",
De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1

"All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation ... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith."
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188, no. 4.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2014, 04:24:25 AM »

Quote from: Guest

While it is true that St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. For this reason he proceeded to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic.

I just posted this and should have made the title more clear that St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith, and hence the papacy, however he considered this opinion not theologically certain.

poche · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2014, 04:31:10 AM »

Vatican I teaches us that the Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2014, 06:21:25 AM »

Quote from: poche

Vatican I teaches us that the Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals.

This is true. Which means, of course, that if Wojtyla and Ratzinger were popes, than God changed the faith and morals, because they taught new doctrines on both.

BTNYC · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2014, 07:05:24 AM »

Well, what you've posted are merely the passages that Sedevacantists use to justify their position, with which most, if not all of us are familiar.

Where exactly are the "safeguards" referred to in the title? I thought I'd finally be seeing some kind of groundwork or blueprint for the election of a true pope in the event that the sedevacantist position is correct.

To my mind, that's something that the SV school of thought needs to look into as the years of the purported sede vacante roll into decades and - sooner or later - into centuries. Vatican I states that the St. Peter would have "perpetual successors." I know that Sedevacantists counter by saying that "perpetual" does not obviate the possibility of interim periods of sede vacante (such as the periods between the death of a pope and the election of a successor - which has some times taken several years) and this is, of course, true. However, I would think that if that period of sede vacante grows so long that entire generations of Catholics are born and die without ever knowing a pope, then that effectively destroys the concept of "perpetual successors" and makes a liar of the First Vatican Council.

Sedevacantism has no end game. And its proponents really have to start thinking about one if it is going to remain a viable solution to the crisis. Come the day when those "safeguards" are brought to light, I will be interested in learning about them.

claudel · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2014, 07:42:18 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Sedevacantism has no endgame.

This sentence is blazingly true. For its economy of thought and utterance, it is also worthy of admiration and applause.

Quote from: BTNYC

… [Sedevacantism's] proponents really have to start thinking about [an endgame] if [sedevacantism] is going to remain a viable solution to the crisis. Come the day when those "safeguards" are brought to light, I will be interested in learning about them.

So too will I. It strikes me that even Nicholas Wansbutter and Stephen Heiner, who are by a considerable margin the smartest and most articulate SV laymen I know anything of in the anglophone world, have never managed to satisfactorily address this critical objection.
___________

A reminder to other commenters, anonymous and otherwise: The use of full caps, excessive boldfacing, and larger-than-usual type succeeds only in highlighting the hollowness of weak arguments and diminishing the impact of good ones. It also makes the user look variously like a fool and a pub brawler.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2014, 08:28:01 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Well, what you've posted are merely the passages that Sedevacantists use to justify their position, with which most, if not all of us are familiar.

Where exactly are the "safeguards" referred to in the title? I thought I'd finally be seeing some kind of groundwork or blueprint for the election of a true pope in the event that the sedevacantist position is correct.

To my mind, that's something that the SV school of thought needs to look into as the years of the purported sede vacante roll into decades and - sooner or later - into centuries. Vatican I states that the St. Peter would have "perpetual successors." I know that Sedevacantists counter by saying that "perpetual" does not obviate the possibility of interim periods of sede vacante (such as the periods between the death of a pope and the election of a successor - which has some times taken several years) and this is, of course, true. However, I would think that if that period of sede vacante grows so long that entire generations of Catholics are born and die without ever knowing a pope, then that effectively destroys the concept of "perpetual successors" and makes a liar of the First Vatican Council.

Sedevacantism has no end game. And its proponents really have to start thinking about one if it is going to remain a viable solution to the crisis. Come the day when those "safeguards" are brought to light, I will be interested in learning about them.

So the Sedevacantists believe that after the death of Pope Pius XII that his Cardinals held a Conclave in 1958 and all of the 51 Cardinals who walked into the Conclave, as the old saying goes, walked out as Cardinals?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2014, 12:41:06 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: BTNYC
Sedevacantism has no endgame.

This sentence is blazingly true. For its economy of thought and utterance, it is also worthy of admiration and applause.

Quote from: BTNYC
… [Sedevacantism's] proponents really have to start thinking about [an endgame] if [sedevacantism] is going to remain a viable solution to the crisis. Come the day when those "safeguards" are brought to light, I will be interested in learning about them.

So too will I. It strikes me that even Nicholas Wansbutter and Stephen Heiner, who are by a considerable margin the smartest and most articulate SV laymen I know anything of in the anglophone world, have never managed to satisfactorily address this critical objection.

1. not about an endgame; but avoiding the contradiction in saying he's the Pope yet 'ignoring' all of his directives. Not a Catholic stance. It is a definition of schism however.

2. that you can teach ‘heresy’ and still be in the body of the Church - what damning error this inculcates to its adherents. Catholic Church cannot be apostate. Schismatics stance believes the Pope to be always a Catholic no matter what he does.

3.claim to have a visible Pope yet reject his false church and critique all of his teachings. Making ‘fun’ of the new Church and poke fun pointing out all of the errors -

4.creates a fog to the faithful; causing a where you can’t find out what’s going on and your left never getting to the bottom of how to act upon current heretical information; because you are constantly having to shift the bullshit coming out of Rome.

4. if you hold that they are legitimate popes… - it will inevitably bring you back into sifting out V-II… and since the papacy is held not to error in truth or moral; the flock will inevitably be brought back into the other teachings of heresy by V-II and will not be able to cut through all of this bullshit and truly take a stand for Christ in their life. In particular on Satanic Ecuмenism, the greatest heresy of V-II and a tenant of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The error of the false traditionalists is believing that you can separate belief in the pope from he stands for and organization as a whole. It’s simply being a schismatic. Leads to holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Believing a theory in this situation; but not in this…lose the ability to see the truth.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2014, 12:49:19 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: poche
Vatican I teaches us that the Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals.

This is true. Which means, of course, that if Wojtyla and Ratzinger were popes, than God changed the faith and morals, because they taught new doctrines on both.

Wrong and...wrong.

Vatican I taught that the Pope was infallible under certain conditions only, which were explicitly described.

Their "teaching new doctrines" means nothing if they were doing so merely as private theologians. Remember, not every utterance of Pope Francis is done "as Pope". This is Catholic teaching.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2014, 12:54:03 PM »

Quote from: Guest

1. not about an endgame; but avoiding the contradiction in saying he's the Pope yet 'ignoring' all of his directives. Not a Catholic stance. It is a definition of schism however.

2. that you can teach ‘heresy’ and still be in the body of the Church - what damning error this inculcates to its adherents. Catholic Church cannot be apostate. Schismatics stance believes the Pope to be always a Catholic no matter what he does.

3.claim to have a visible Pope yet reject his false church and critique all of his teachings. Making ‘fun’ of the new Church and poke fun pointing out all of the errors -

4.creates a fog to the faithful; causing a where you can’t find out what’s going on and your left never getting to the bottom of how to act upon current heretical information; because you are constantly having to shift the bull#### coming out of Rome.

4. if you hold that they are legitimate popes… - it will inevitably bring you back into sifting out V-II… and since the papacy is held not to error in truth or moral; the flock will inevitably be brought back into the other teachings of heresy by V-II and will not be able to cut through all of this bull#### and truly take a stand for Christ in their life. In particular on Satanic Ecuмenism, the greatest heresy of V-II and a tenant of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The error of the false traditionalists is believing that you can separate belief in the pope from he stands for and organization as a whole. It’s simply being a schismatic. Leads to holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Believing a theory in this situation; but not in this…lose the ability to see the truth.

Steven Heiner and Nicholas Wansbutter might be articulate and intelligent, but this person clearly is not!

1. You are dead wrong, my man. You suffer the same delusion of obedience to the Pope as the Novus Ordo Catholics -- you merely decide he's not pope, rather than obeying his every utterance. But the fundamental error is the same. And you're both wrong.
1b. Schism is cutting oneself off from the Catholic Church. Sticking with Tradition is the very definition of NOT being in Schism. The Conciliar Church is who went into Schism. We can either be in communion with the first ___ popes, or the last few. It is they who broke with Tradition.

3. I complain about this all the time. I'm not a fan of Dimond Bros or NovusOrdoWatch. I think Sedevacantists are more guilty of this than anyone else -- giving clever nicknames to the recent Popes, etc. I think we should oppose the Conciliar errors while maintaining respect for the office as well as our own dignity!

You can like it or lump it, but it's not up to us. One is obligated to disobey a sinful command. It's not up to us to depose an authority if he gives more than ___ sinful commands. Sorry. Just build up your virtues of patience and perseverance.

4. It's not that difficult to know what is Catholic and what is not.

4 (second). This point was far from clear. I'd have to re-read it several times to understand what you were getting at -- and I don't have time for that today. A clear writer or skilled teacher you are NOT.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2014, 01:31:55 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I think we should oppose the Conciliar errors while maintaining respect for the office as well as our own dignity!

How does one show respect for the office, by speaking ill of the pope from the pulpit?

Instead of nick names just call the pope a heretic? Next debating if formal or manifest heretic.

Removing the Papal Flag from your sanctuary?

Pointing out the sins daily of your pope, the Vicar of Christ, to your children?

Changing the definition of Pope to suit the liberals?

This is my favorite: Allow the "Father of Modernism", Immanuel Kant with his strange
philosophy, one can never really know what that is, we only know what it looks like, way of thinking to explain the Roman Pontiff of today.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2014, 01:41:33 PM »

Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron with no end. Without a functioning hierarchy, the Church will never be able to choose a new Pope. They end up with an invisible Church composed of tribes that answer to no one but another sedevacantist "priest" of dubious orders, if that. It is objective schism because they withdrawn themselves from communion with the visible reigning Roman Pontiff as well as other Catholics.

~ Cantarella

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2014, 02:07:09 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Matthew

I think we should oppose the Conciliar errors while maintaining respect for the office as well as our own dignity!

How does one show respect for the office, by speaking ill of the pope from the pulpit?

Instead of nick names just call the pope a heretic? Next debating if formal or manifest heretic.

Removing the Papal Flag from your sanctuary?

Pointing out the sins daily of your pope, the Vicar of Christ, to your children?

Changing the definition of Pope to suit the liberals?

This is my favorite: Allow the "Father of Modernism", Immanuel Kant with his strange
philosophy, one can never really know what that is, we only know what it looks like, way of thinking to explain the Roman Pontiff of today.

Poor confused woman! (I have to assume you're a woman, since you sound like one and you lack the manly fortitude -- and "potency" -- to post your "wisdom" and ideas under your own name!)

You don't need to obsess over the pope. But sedevacantists wouldn't understand that concept, would they? Trust me, as a non-sedevacantist, I give the pope very little thought on a weekly basis.

And you don't have to call names at all -- even "heretic". You can talk about the Pope's "heresies" like Bishop Tissier de Mallerais did. That's not the same as excommunicating him or calling him a heretic. We don't know if he's a material or formal heretic, and it's not our place anyhow to judge a pope. Talking about the Pope's "heresies" is sticking to the facts, and keeping it doctrinal rather than personal. But I suppose the difference is lost on you.

You sound like a sentimental novus ordo liberal. Criticizing bad actions is getting all "mean" and "non-nice"? Give me a break. Criticizing bad, PUBLIC, SCANDALOUS behavior is not the same as "speaking ill" of a man. But women weren't meant to reason about these issues. They were meant to deal with more practical matters, like managing a household and raising children.

In other news, saying the Jєωs need to convert (getting all "mean" according to some) is the ultimate way to show your true charity (love) for them, by caring about their eternal salvation.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2014, 02:09:28 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Catholicism without the Pope is an oxymoron with no end. Without a functioning hierarchy, the Church will never be able to choose a new Pope. They end up with an invisible Church composed of tribes that answer to no one but another sedevacantist "priest" of dubious orders, if that. It is objective schism because they withdrawn themselves from communion with the visible reigning Roman Pontiff as well as other Catholics.

~ Cantarella

This is so painful and confusing. I was taught what you say Cantarella, but the person who posted in numerical order made two points that describe my evolving sede position

Quote

2. that you can teach ‘heresy’ and still be in the body of the Church - what damning error this inculcates to its adherents. Catholic Church cannot be apostate.

Quote

4.creates a fog to the faithful; causing a where you can’t find out what’s going on and your left never getting to the bottom of how to act upon current heretical information; because you are constantly having to shift the bull#### coming out of Rome.

I'm most definitely in a fog.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2014, 03:05:15 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Matthew

I think we should oppose the Conciliar errors while maintaining respect for the office as well as our own dignity!

How does one show respect for the office, by speaking ill of the pope from the pulpit?

Instead of nick names just call the pope a heretic? Next debating if formal or manifest heretic.

Removing the Papal Flag from your sanctuary?

Pointing out the sins daily of your pope, the Vicar of Christ, to your children?

Changing the definition of Pope to suit the liberals?

This is my favorite: Allow the "Father of Modernism", Immanuel Kant with his strange
philosophy, one can never really know what that is, we only know what it looks like, way of thinking to explain the Roman Pontiff of today.

Poor confused woman! (I have to assume you're a woman, since you sound like one and you lack the manly fortitude -- and "potency" -- to post your "wisdom" and ideas under your own name!)

You don't need to obsess over the pope. But sedevacantists wouldn't understand that concept, would they? Trust me, as a non-sedevacantist, I give the pope very little thought on a weekly basis.

And you don't have to call names at all -- even "heretic". You can talk about the Pope's "heresies" like Bishop Tissier de Mallerais did. That's not the same as excommunicating him or calling him a heretic. We don't know if he's a material or formal heretic, and it's not our place anyhow to judge a pope. Talking about the Pope's "heresies" is sticking to the facts, and keeping it doctrinal rather than personal. But I suppose the difference is lost on you.

You sound like a sentimental novus ordo liberal. Criticizing bad actions is getting all "mean" and "non-nice"? Give me a break. Criticizing bad, PUBLIC, SCANDALOUS behavior is not the same as "speaking ill" of a man. But women weren't meant to reason about these issues. They were meant to deal with more practical matters, like managing a household and raising children.

In other news, saying the Jєωs need to convert (getting all "mean" according to some) is the ultimate way to show your true charity (love) for them, by caring about their eternal salvation.

What a joke, you know who I am, this is your forum.

I am one of the few here who always post under my own name, throughout this forum, most here use a moniker.

You are just touchy today, just like a man, maybe your just :ready-to-eat:.

Author Topic: Safeguards are in Place if a True Pope Publicly Defected from the Faith (Read 9606 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus