CathInfo.com

Quote from: Belloc

but read the post:

"Siscoe's idea that the Pope can be warned or judged by an inferior is ridiculous, and also heretical (the "judging" part at least). The Pope has no superior on earth and is not subject to anyone's judgment (canon law says so, can't remember the canon right now)."

so, is this only for a validly elected Pope after his election? does it not count for man elected? both? Are we saying that?

I think you're confusing apples with oranges here. You have to distinguish the formal, legal act of judgment, which requires jurisdiction, from the personal discernment of an individual. No one who does not have the required jurisdiction and the required office can formally, legally "judge" another; but that doesn't mean you cannot, as a private individual, form a judgment of knowledge regarding a person.

So, from the legal point of view, the Pope has no superior on earth and cannot be judged by anyone in that sense. But people can certainly discern whether a man be a Roman Catholic or not, because that is a public matter.

Now this is where it gets most interesting and where sedevacantism is triumphant: Those who hold the idea that a Church judgment is needed to make a papal claimant into a non-Pope (absent which he is to be considered a true Pope) run into a contradiction here, because the only way the Church could even proceed to make the judgment, is if it is already apparent that the man in question is not the Pope, else she would be judging a true Pope, which she cannot do, because she has no authority over the Pope.

So, no matter which position you take, you must admit the sedevacantist principle, namely, that even a papal claimant can be privately discerned to be a heretic, even apart from a Church judgment, because any such Church judgment presupposes this ability and authority of private discernment, on which the Church's own judgment is based, since she cannot judge a true Pope.

Well stated.

We can judge a heresy to be a heresy just as we judge an heretical act to be an heretical act.  Divine Law shows the public heretic to be already judged without any need for a declaration.  We just agree with God on the point.  If one teaches heresy and or engages in heretical acts we have the right and duty to presume him a heretic plain and simple.  And then to avoid him, but no Catholic would avoid a valid Pope or set themselves up to parse what he says to be either true or not true, were that the case, the Pope would not be the visible head but second in command under some other visible head, such as the SSPX perhaps.

Additionally, and more importantly, a valid Pope would not and could not bind what the V2 leaders have bound on their Church.

Quote from: Nishant

I grant that the common theological opinion here is at first glance squarely on the sedevacantist side, namely that public heretics are not members of the Church. But in the case of the Pope, a few additional points need to be kept in mind.

It appears to me, and there are significant authorities on both sides, in saying that as a matter of necessity, a public material heretic would be outside the Church, whereas an occult formal heretic would still be included in her as a member, involves some discordance.

To remedy this, some have proposed that Christ, by a singular and exceptional providence, would continue to give jurisdiction to a secretly heretical Pope. But if that were conceivable, then it is at least conceivable also that, as Billouart says, and as traditional Dominicans today have argued, that Christ could sustain said jurisdiction just a while longer even, namely until he is declared a manifest heretic by the Church.

Quote

The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church

If we are talking about a *public* heretic, then this idea is neither for the good of the Church - as the last 50 years of the Novus Ordo Church prove very well - nor is it sustainable in light of the fact that the Church has no authority to depose a true Pope.

But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose for a moment that he would be a true Pope. By what reasoning or authority, then, do the "recognize-and-resist" adherents restrict the authority of such a "true" Pope and treat him, in practice, like any heretic, that is, they avoid him, refuse his teaching, dispute the validity of his acts (such as promulgation of laws, canonizations, etc.)?

If he is a true and valid Pope, then all the Church's teachings about the papacy necessarily apply to him, and he is fully vested with all pontifical authority. It seems to me that the SSPX has created a new category of Pope. In addition to "true Pope" and "false Pope," the SSPX has invented the concept of "true Pope but...".

It doesn't work that way. There is no such thing in Catholic theology as a true Pope who doesn't need to be submitted to. In my opinion, this shows that the SSPX merely accords the Pope a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction, which is heresy against Vatican I. Saying Benedict XVI is the Pope entails a bit more than just saying it.

Well stated again.

It is dogma that a valid Pope must be submitted at the peril of our souls.

If the concilliar Popes are valid then we must accept what they have bound which is V2, the new Sacraments, the new Mass, the new Canon Law, and the new Catechism.  Am I forgetting anything?  Yes.  The new rite of exorcism, and the example that it is okay take part in false worship and break the first commandment as the V2 leaders do.  

Have I forgotten anything?  Yes.

We must accept Communion in the hand and girl altar boys as being perfectly acceptable.

Have I forgotten anything?  Yes.

The true altars being smashed and the Priest facing the people during Mass, and eucharistic ministers and laypeople doing the readings also must be accepted as perfectly legitimate.

Have I forgotten anything?  Sure.

The woodstock Masses where countless purported Eucharists are dropped on the ground and stomped upon, rock music and single couples who sleep over night in the field is perfectly acceptable.

I do not know why the preconciliar Popes did not think of such things.  How unecuмenical of them.

Quote from: Nishant

It appears to me, and there are significant authorities on both sides, in saying that as a matter of necessity, a public material heretic would be outside the Church, whereas an occult formal heretic would still be included in her as a member, involves some discordance.

Please quote these authorities and define these terms.

We've been through all of this before!

It has to do with the visibility of the Church.  If they keep their heresies to themselves the visibility is not affected.  A private heretic who does not engage in the heretical act of worshipping with false religions, does not kiss the Koran, receive sacred cow dung on his head, or receive symbols of false religion with esteem, or does not teach heresy, and has never taught it, causes no harm to the visibility of the Church.  We can only judge what we see, not what we don't see.  A private heretic, insofar as he is to be reacted against, and avoided, is no heretic at all.  

Distinguishing between material and formal is a tool of the Devil in that it gets us caught up in nonessentials.  It is essential for that particular soul yes, but not in regards to the visibility of the Church.  

All (or at least the vast majority I have read) the Saints, Doctors and Theologians who speak to the issue never distinguish material/formal but private/occult vs. public/manifest.  What a great disservice to the Church if they leave out such a key distinction (manifest/formal) if such is indeed a key distinction.  But it is not, in regards to the person affecting the visibility of the Church and leading souls to Hell.

How can he lead souls to Hell by his heresies if no one knows about them?