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.

Private opinions are one thing, judging who is and is not a office holder nad then blasting it all over is another.......look at the example of the former CI poster known as CM/Catholic Martyr.....I predicted at his rate, he would kick Peter to the curb eventually, last time I had the stomach to read his blog, he has no excommunicated Pius X and Leo XIII.......working his way back and doing it was logical articles and quotes, links,etc....not walking around all  :shocked:

Private opinions are one thing, judging who is and is not a office holder nad then blasting it all over is another.......look at the example of the former CI poster known as CM/Catholic Martyr.....I predicted at his rate, he would kick Peter to the curb eventually, last time I had the stomach to read his blog, he has no excommunicated Pius X and Leo XIII.......working his way back and doing it was logical articles and quotes, links,etc....not walking around all  :shocked:

You bring up a very important point. We sedevacantists do not - or at least, ought not - discern somebody to be a heretic merely on an odd-looking quote, and scream "Heresy!" at every turn. This is, I think, what this CM fellow is doing, and it is a grave injustice, as is clearly evident.

No, instead, legitimately discerning someone to be a heretic involves at least the following things:

(1) examine his teaching
(2) examine his actions
(3) examine his manner of speaking
(4) examine whether he manifests good will or ill will --> pertinacity

Now, if for example Pope Leo XIII taught heresy, as this CM guy claims, then not only should he produce a quote which looks suspicious, but he should also demonstrate that the Church's authorities, theologians, commentators, etc., understood him to be teaching this heresy and started to incorporate this heresy in their own teachings/books/publications. Because, if this is not so, if they did not so understand him, then CM's understanding of the quote is flawed.

And this is where we find a clear line between pre-V2 Popes and post-V2 impostors. I am sure one can find some select few statements made by pre-V2 Popes that appear odd or false in individual cases - for example, if they're taken out of context, mistranslated, etc.

But this is not the case with most of what the post-V2 impostors have said. For one thing, their false teaching has been corroborated by their actions. Good case in point: ecuмenism. The V2 church clearly does not believe that only the Catholic Church is divinely instituted by Christ, that she alone has an apostolic mission to convert the world, that she is in the world but not of the world, and that salvation is found only in her.

And even better example is religious liberty, as the V2 church forced Catholic countries to change their constitution in favor of religious liberty - so much for the "hermeneutic of continuity." The rest is history, of course.

So, in the case of the post-V2 false "Pontiffs", we can see that not only was their teaching erroneous, but they acted according to the error, everyone understood them to be teaching the error (not as error but as different from what was taught before), and their pertinacity in the matter is also reasonably established.

This is the difference between the sedevacantist position and the nonsense of CM. It's not about a witch hunt. It's not a "gotcha" game. It's about a reasonable, realistic assessment of the true situation.