.To the contrary, it's great news. What better could we hope for than for Frankie to obstinately assert heresy as part of his authentic magisterium?
This is bad news.
.
.It is just more proof that the NO church is not the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church cannot possibly promote or approve of evil or sin.
This is bad news.
.
It is just more proof that the NO church is not the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church cannot possibly promote or approve of evil or sin.No pope for how many years now? As the years roll on this thesis seems to be more problematic.
No pope for how many years now? As the years roll on this thesis seems to be more problematic.For at least four years anyway.
No pope for how many years now? As the years roll on this thesis seems to be more problematic.Not as problematic as the thesis that a pope in union with the bishops can teach and promulgate heresy, because the former is at least possible.
.
This is bad news.
.
Three views of AL on the internet, but the most lengthy is that of "Brother Diamond."Meg, with all due respect, we don't hold that there is no magisterium, we believe that the magisterium is not readily accessible. No matter how strange this seems to you and to many people, it does not contradict Church teaching. What is absolutely impossible is that the Church can promote sin or evil. Do you see that?
Why should a sedevacantist care about this latest turn of events (which comes as no surprise) when sedevacantists believe that there IS NO MAGISTERUIM? Since they believe it's a completely false church and false pope, then why should they care about what they believe to be a false magisterium?
Meg, with all due respect, we don't hold that there is no magisterium, we believe that the magisterium is not readily accessible. No matter how strange this seems to you and to many people, it does not contradict Church teaching. What is absolutely impossible is that the Church can promote sin or evil. Do you see that?
Here's the subtlety of Amoris Laetitia. It's not so much about approving objectively the reception of Holy Communion when not in a state of grace. It's about claiming that one can be in a state of grace even if one is aware that what one is doing is objectively a grave sin.Good post.
It's about making morality SUBJECTIVE. So, for example, Bergoglio claims that people can be subjectively in good conscience even if they're in a state where they're objectively committing sin. I can be divorced and remarried but if I'm in good conscience about it (after my own discernment) that trumps the objective external forum reality of the fact that I am living in sin.
So Bergoglio's predecessors subjectivized faith and doctrine. Now Bergoglio finishes the job by subjectivizing morality.
Obviously there's a subjective element to conscience and to degree of guilt and culpability in sin. But this subjective element does not trump and cannot override the objective fact that one is committing a sin.
Someone leaves a thousand dollars on the table. I pick it up thinking that it's mine (not looking at the amount) and take it home. Did I commit a sin? No, because subjectively I did not realize it was a sin. But the minute I discover my error, if I persist in keeping it, then it becomes a sin subjectively as well. So believing that I'm not sinning in divorcing and remarrying doesn't fly because the Church tells you otherwise ... just as someone informed me that the money I had was not mine. At that point it's no longer possible for me to persist in that state without subjective sin as well. But Begoglio thinks you can. He's perverted all of moral theology with this.
This kind of thinking has long been applied in the realm of morality particularly to solitary sins of impurity. Because the person is perhaps to some degree habituated to (or even addicted to) the sin, a lot of Novus Ordo moralists would say that the solitary sin of impurity would not be a mortal sin. Is it hypothetically possible that under some circumstances, in the internal forum, this sin might not be a mortal sin? Perhaps. Nevertheless, since only God can discern degree of guilt in the internal forum, in the external forum people must consider it a mortal sin and confess it as such and work to avoid it as if it were such. But for Bergoglio the individual can, together with his spiritual director, discern whether or not the person is subjectively committing mortal sin in the internal forum and then apply that to their behavior in the external forum, i.e. receive communion. By analogy with the solitary sin I mentioned earlier, this would mean the person, after having discerned it not a mortal sin, would be able to receive Communion before confessing it and would not actually be bound to confess it at all ... since it's been deemed not a mortal sin.
Three views of AL on the internet, but the most lengthy is that of "Brother Diamond."Brother Dimond's has the most lengthy view because he wants to warn people who are under the misapprehension that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists believe that the post-Vatican II magisterium is not the magisterium of the Catholic Church. But they have to care as many of them were once either fully Novus Ordo or with R&R, and they feel it is their duty to inform others who are still stuck in those places. The Dimond brothers once attended SSPX chapels. Fr Morrison of Traditio once believed that the 1962 Missal was OK, but he doesn't any more.
Why should a sedevacantist care about this latest turn of events (which comes as no surprise) when sedevacantists believe that there IS NO MAGISTERUIM? Since they believe it's a completely false church and false pope, then why should they care about what they believe to be a false magisterium?
Brother Dimond's has the most lengthy view because he wants to warn people who are under the misapprehension that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists believe that the post-Vatican II magisterium is not the magisterium of the Catholic Church. But they have to care as many of them were once either fully Novus Ordo or with R&R, and they feel it is their duty to inform others who are still stuck in those places. The Dimond brothers once attended SSPX chapels. Fr Morrison of Traditio once believed that the 1962 Missal was OK, but he doesn't any more.
Do the R&R factions care? Why are they quiet?
But the sedes really have no say in the matter, since they don't believe that the church in Rome, or the Vatican, or the Pope, have anything to do with the Catholic Church or the Catholic faith.Curious, you say, "an idiot conniving modernist pope" , "That's how modernism works"
The Dimonds once attended SSPX chapels. Okay. But they are just laypersons with an opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre was much more than that, so I take his word for the situation.
I am not at all surprised by this latest turn of events. An idiot conniving modernist pope with few Catholics convictions is trying to make as many progressive changes to the Church while he can. That's how modernism works.
The sedes can heckle Catholics from the sidelines all they want, but they have left the Church. They have no right to an opinion.
Curious, you say, "an idiot conniving modernist pope" , "That's how modernism works"
My question would be: Modernism is defined as heresy by the Catholic Church, right?
As Catholics, shouldn't we say "an idiot conniving heretic..., and "That's how a false sect works'?
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.I asked a question, and it wasn't whether sedevacantists are going to hell, as you claim.
I asked a question, and it wasn't whether sedevacantists are going to hell, as you claim.
I don't have to answer a question that is a wrong question to ask in the first place.
Archbishop Lefebvre took the steps that he felt were needed in order to maintain the Catholic priesthood and Tradition. He consecrated four bishops, without a mandate from Rome. This is as far as he went in order to maintain tradition. You'll notice that he did not continually accuse the modernist hierarchy of heresy, nor did he become a sedevacantist.
There's a theological way of viewing things, which says that we do not take the most extreme measures when confronted with a serious problem. Canon Hesse explained this very well in a video that I think Incredulous posted a few months ago, but I can't remember the name of the thread. It just isn't Catholic to take the most extreme measures possible in dealing with a severe crisis.
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.
ABL was a sede-doubtist ... just like myself.What are you doubting exactly? The conclave? If he is accepted by all the Roman clergy then how can you have doubts?
ABL is not the Catholic Church. He was a fallible and heretical Bishop who believed souls could be saved dying in their false religions.
That's because he himself was a heretic. Whether he was truly a material heretic or not is not the concern of a Catholic (God knows).
What are you doubting exactly? The conclave? If he is accepted by all the Roman clergy then how can you have doubts?
ABL was a sede-doubtist ... just like myself.
The state of mind, volition... etc. is irrelevant and does not reduce mortal sin to venial.
Three views of AL on the internet, but the most lengthy is that of "Brother Diamond."Ummm ... presumably because they actually care about people's souls? And this latest news constiutes not only proof that Frankie is a manifest heretic, but it is an unambiguous teaching of heresy through a popes authentic magisterium, which, at the very least if left unchallenged, unrecanted and uncorrected, violates indefectibility?
Why should a sedevacantist care about this latest turn of events (which comes as no surprise) when sedevacantists believe that there IS NO MAGISTERUIM? Since they believe it's a completely false church and false pope, then why should they care about what they believe to be a false magisterium?
Archbishop Lefebvre was much more than that, so I take his word for the situation.Reject the authoritative teachings of the Pope - argue from authority for the teachings of a lone bishop. Only R&R can be this logically inconsistent.
What are you doubting exactly? The conclave? If he is accepted by all the Roman clergy then how can you have doubts?
Is that how +ABL described himself? I don't recall that he did.
In +ABL's last book, in 1986 (I think it was his last), which was called "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," he wrote this in the last chapter on page 175:
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within that Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition."
+ABL wrote that he had not ceased to repeat that he will not separate himself from the Pope. Is that what sede-doubtists' believe? Though, of course, sede-doubtism is probably a recently made-up term, and may not have been in existence when +ABL was alive.
Typical Pharisede response.Typical non-response. :sleep:
:jester:
What are you doubting exactly? The conclave? If he is accepted by all the Roman clergy then how can you have doubts?
Ummm ... presumably because they actually care about people's souls? And this latest news constiutes not only proof that Frankie is a manifest heretic, but it is an unambiguous teaching of heresy through a popes authentic magisterium, which, at the very least if left unchallenged, unrecanted and uncorrected, violates indefectibility?The R&R can’t win here. Either they destroy what they were trying to protect (traditional doctrine) or they submit and lose their identity. It’s like a Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
There's no wiggle room for a get-out-of-jail-free card here as there arguably is for Vatican II. As a Catholic you HAVE TO submit to this teaching. Canon law DEMANDS that you do. The FSSP can't argue the "hemeneutic of continuity " here, because it's unambiguous. The SSPX can't say that this teaching is just some kind of list of suggestions from a get-together of bishops with the Pope. It's not a private opinion expressed in a letter. It's not an off-the-cuff remark during an interview. It's not a blunder in a sermon. This is the Pope teaching as pope and to the Church. It's AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM concerning FAITH AND MORALS, in particular the every nature of morality itself.
Submit to the pope's teaching.
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.This site calls itself catholic-hierarchy.org and it says that ABL left the Church.
Meg, with all due respect, we don't hold that there is no magisterium, we believe that the magisterium is not readily accessible. No matter how strange this seems to you and to many people, it does not contradict Church teaching. What is absolutely impossible is that the Church can promote sin or evil. Do you see that?Meg is blinded by her rabid dogmatic anti-sedevacantism.
So Bergoglio's predecessors subjectivized faith and doctrine. Now Bergoglio finishes the job by subjectivizing morality.Exactly.
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.Show me where ABL stated that sedevacantists are non-Catholic, out of the Church or going to Hell.
From Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, 1559...And yet, Cum Ex assumes a trial.
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation.
Show me where ABL stated that sedevacantists are non-Catholic, out of the Church or going to Hell.
I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.I was wondering where he came up with that considering what you actually said.
And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.
I was wondering where he came up with that considering what you actually said.
And yet, Cum Ex assumes a trial.
Cum Ex...
"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"
So, an HEARING is presumed in Cum Ex. That means, this declaration is only a guideline for determining within an hearing that someone proven guilty of heresy, Pope included, must be treated as written. But an hearing is presumed.
Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and UNIVERSAL SYNOD justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.
I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.So non-Catholics aren't going to Hell?
And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.
So non-Catholics aren't going to Hell?
Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter.Meg,
Meg,
Yesterday you made this comment... this is why you are being questioned.
You are saying sedevacantists are not Catholics... non-Catholics are not saved... or are they?
And yet, Cum Ex assumes a trial.No. You've totally misread those words.
Cum Ex...
"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"
So, an HEARING is presumed in Cum Ex. That means, this declaration is only a guideline for determining within an hearing that someone proven guilty of heresy, Pope included, must be treated as written. But an hearing is presumed.
The above is my understanding as well. There needs to be a determination of whether or not heresy or deviation from the Faith exists. That determination isn't made by laymen, but rather by a synod or council (a body made up of members of the hierarchy). The accused must then has chance to recant and repent of his heresy, after the determination is made that heresy exists.Repeat after me: nobody can judge of a pope.
Repeat after me: nobody can judge of a pope.
That means that nobody is invested with the authority level official judgments against a pope. It's not possible to drag someone recognised as the Pope before the Inquisition or to have a body of bishops judge him. He can be corrected, but he cannot be judged.
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’”
Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”
What was that comment specifically about?This is what you said:
No. You've totally misread those words.Ok, I'll accept that. What about the Council of Constantinople?
What they plainly state is that if the person in question is a judge, then he has henceforth lost all power to judge and no cases are to be brought before him for judgment.
The "hearing" mentioned is not a hearing held in order to judge the judge; it is rather a case brought before that judge for judgment (case brought to their hearing).
Is English not your first language?
Yes Meg, we're aware that you have a level of reading comprehension similar to happenby's.Calm down, you're so crotchety.
Calm down, you're so crotchety.
We're not talking about a juridical sentencing but a discernment by the Church about the orthodoxy or lack thereof of a particular Pontiff. Quite a few theologians hold that the Church would have to make a declaratory statement regarding this discernment. Rejection of a Pope as a non-Catholic cannot come from Joe Sixpack in the pew. Yes, yes; once it's been determined that the Pope is a heretic he loses office regardless of whether or not he had received Universal Acceptance as pope. Problem at hand is how does that determination get made and by whom?As I said, he can be corrected, which amounts to discernment of heresy. But she spoke of an "accused". And how does anyone make such a declaratory statement to the universal Church without it coming from bishops in union with a pope?
Your comment is much kinder than that which I was contemplating.Temporary insanity
... We enact, determine, decree and define ... that if ever at any time it shall appear that ... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy ...
How should Joe Sixpack in the pew decide which declarations from which bishops to believe?
Repeat after me: nobody can judge of a pope.
That means that nobody is invested with the authority level official judgments against a pope. It's not possible to drag someone recognised as the Pope before the Inquisition or to have a body of bishops judge him. He can be corrected, but he cannot be judged.
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 32: “… As the hinge while remaining immoveable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’”
Canon 1556, 1917 Code of Canon Law, On trials in general: “The First See is judged by no one.”
It shall appear to WHOM? To Grandma Jones? I knew a guy who considered Pius IX a non-pope because it "appeared" to HIM that Pius IX had embraced heresy.
It shall appear to WHOM? To Grandma Jones? I knew a guy who considered Pius IX a non-pope because it "appeared" to HIM that Pius IX had embraced heresy.That's between him and God. But there is such a thing as manifest heresy which clearly and explicitly contrary de fide teachings. Why is the ability to know this constantly questioned in general because many people don't possess the necessary faculties to discern it?
He can be judged by a body of men.
No ONE PERSON can judge a Pope, that's true. And there isn't a set doctrine in regards to how to deal with a heretical Pope. Surely you know that. Various theologians have different formulas for dealing with the possibility for a Pope who is in heresy.No, not "no one person". Read it again:
Sedevacantists tend to believe that the Pope is equal to God,Hyperbolic lies.
but he isn't. He can be judged by a body of men. How it is that they separate a heretic Pope from the papacy is not clear.
You can quote canon law till the cows come home in defense of your position, but quotes can be provided to the contrary.The quotations still stand, they have legal force, you have not addressed them, and nothing you can quote can contradict that fact.
We do not live in the wild west, where law doesn't matter, and where the populace then takes matters into their own hands and administers frontier justice. That's not how the Church works.Irrelevant.
Pope St. Nicholas
“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’"
What is it about this quote that you don't understand, Meg?
And yet, Cum Ex assumes a trial.
Cum Ex...
"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"
So, an HEARING is presumed in Cum Ex. That means, this declaration is only a guideline for determining within an hearing that someone proven guilty of heresy, Pope included, must be treated as written. But an hearing is presumed.
Bellarmine’s thinking regarding this matter is perfectly consistent with the mind of the Church, as we see expressed in Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. In response to the schism of Photius, the Council attached the grave penalty of excommunication to any layman or monk who, in the future, separated himself from his patriarch (the Pope is Patriarch of the West) before a careful inquiry and judgment by a synod.
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault’. And does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and UNIVERSAL SYNOD justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices. (…) If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e. excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled”.
How it is that they separate a heretic Pope from the papacy is not clear.
That's why theologians such as John of St. Thomas felt that one would, practically speaking, need an Imperfect Council to issue a declaration of heresy. Otherwise, as he said, there would be complete chaos in the Church.And there is not chaos amongst those who claim Bergoglio is a true Pope? A publically heretical Pope will always produce chaos, regardless. Just look at all of the divisions currently in those who claim Bergoglio the clown is a true Pope. You have the Resistance (which is divided), the SSPX, St. Benedict Center, FSSP, Conservative NOers and Flaming NOers. That's just off the top of my head. No declaration is needed for public defection from the faith and dolus is always presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven...
They don't separate anyone; separation is ipso facto an immediate consequence of the heresy itself.
Canon 188.4
“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: ...4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)
Alright, so please tell what doctrine tells us EXACTLY how we are to deal with a heretical pope. Please be specific. Notice that I'm asking about how to deal in a practical manner with a Pope who is in heresy. What does the Church teach on how to exactly go about it?There is no such doctrine. That it doesn't exist doesn't change any facts. It's like asking if doctrine existed specifically to deal with the Western schism and antipopes - that's probably also the best case to look at to guess how things might resolve themselves. If one denies valid orders to the Novus Ordo bishops, it becomes more difficult to imagine.
So what is Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy? Where does it say that laypersons are to proclaim that the seat is vacant, and that we then are also required to force others to believe the same thing?That's not my business. It's up to the bishops to deal with the Church.
Where does it say that laypersons are to proclaim that the seat is vacant
There is no such doctrine. That it doesn't exist doesn't change any facts. It's like asking if doctrine existed specifically to deal with the Western schism and antipopes - that's probably also the best case to look at to guess how things might resolve themselves. If one denies valid orders to the Novus Ordo bishops, it becomes more difficult to imagine.Good point!
I'll tell you what wasn't anyone's position during those times, though: we recognise you as the true pope but refuse to submit to you and your teaching.
There is no such doctrine. That it doesn't exist doesn't change any facts. It's like asking if doctrine existed specifically to deal with the Western schism and antipopes - that's probably also the best case to look at to guess how things might resolve themselves. If one denies valid orders to the Novus Ordo bishops, it becomes more difficult to imagine.
I'll tell you what wasn't anyone's position during those times, though: we recognise you as the true pope but refuse to submit to you and your teaching.
Alright, so please tell what doctrine tells us EXACTLY how we are to deal with a heretical pope. Please be specific.
There is no doctrine, but there is a precedent that was established in the early Church, and Saint Robert Bellarmine uses this precedent as an example to back up his teaching on the Roman Pontiff.
Let's go back to your original statement where you said: "He can be judged by a body of men."
The POPE cannot be judged by any power on earth - period. Now, if a pope were to become a manifest (public) heretic, he ceases to be pope, thus he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.
I understand that there are theologians with differing opinions, but St. Robert's teaching stems from a precedent established during the Arian crisis.
St. Roberts says in De Romano Pontifice:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."
He continues:
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union."
He goes on to further explain what happened to Pope Liberius during the Arian crisis:
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act, as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus.
Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."
Seems pretty Catholic to me.
However, does anyone really believe that the heresiarchs in Rome are going to actually do anything about their fellow heretic?
So what is Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy? Where does it say that laypersons are to proclaim that the seat is vacant, and that we then are also required to force others to believe the same thing?
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.
A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 : “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
...the situation with a Pope regarding heresy is different than that of other Catholics.
How so? A heretic is a heretic, no?
Are you sure that there's no doctrine on how to deal with those who are in schism? I'm pretty sure that there is.How are we jumping from the question of how the Church is to deal with a pope who becomes a heretic to the question of how to deal with schismatics?
The situation with the anti-popes is a different situation.
There HAS to be a method (Church teaching), if you are going to adopt the Ipso Facto methodology on how to deal with a heretic Pope, after he is proclaimed by laypersons to no longer be the Pope.No, there doesn't. That's a non sequitur.
if you are going to adopt the Ipso Facto methodology on how to deal with a heretic Pope, after he is proclaimed by laypersons to no longer be the Pope.
Though, of course, there is no doctrine which says that laymen are to proclaim and judge that the Pope is not a Pope. If you could find such doctrine, I would be interested in seeing it.Again: nobody can judge a pope. You're confusing issues here. It's always, in the final anaylysis, going to be the individual who decides to recognise or not to recognise someone as the pope: usually that comes from simply accepting, as one is bound to, what the whole Church and his superiors appear to accept - the man elected as pope - but if there's obvious manifest heresy then that acceptance begins to conflict with ones conscience and reason.
You are venturing into unknown territory when dealing with a heretical Pope, and yet you sedes act as if the there's a specific doctrine that says that laypersons are to judge and proclaim as to whether the seat is empty or not.
Well, as sedes are so fond of pointing out, no person can judge the Pope. He technically has no earthly authority above him.Pronouncing juridical judgment - making factual discernment: two different things.
Do the above quotes apply specifically to the Pope? Because the situation with a Pope regarding heresy is different than that of other Catholics.
Pronouncing juridical judgment - making factual discernment: two different things.
Heresy is heresy no matter who preaches it. St. Paul said...
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8-9)
This was so important, St. Paul said it twice. When he says "though we", he refers to the apostles (including St. Peter). He then says anyone in verse 9. So when he says, "we", "an angel" and then "anyone", it becomes obvious that Bergoglio is not excluded. He does not say to wait for an official judgement.
St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy , pp. 305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."
Evidently, you are not aware of Church teaching regarding the Pope.
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.
A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 : “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
Well, as sedes are so fond of pointing out, no person can judge the Pope. He technically has no earthly authority above him.
Evidently, you are not aware of Church teaching regarding the Pope.Please tell me the teaching you are referring to.
Again, you do not give ANY quotes regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. I specifically asked about Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. When you provide the quotes I asked for, I'll respond to you further.
Again, you do not give ANY quotes regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. I specifically asked about Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. When you provide the quotes I asked for, I'll respond to you further.
They are not two different things.Yes, they are two different things.
They are the same thing, since you proclaim that anyone (such as R&R's) who do not not accept your view of the situation is a schismatic.Firstly, that's a bizarre non sequitur. What does the very real distinction between possessing authority to pass juridical judgment upon a pope and possessing the ability to make an intellectual judgment of the presence of manifest heresy have to do with calling you a schismatic?
The Pope is judged by divine law. Heresy severs all (including a Pope) from the Church "ipso facto". The Church does not judge the Pope, because by his heresy he is no longer the Pope. Rather he is a heretic, and therefore the Church can judge him (as a heretic).She doesn't seem to get that this is something of a metaphysical matter, not a positive law of the Church with a penalty that is effected by the Church's judgment.
When you explain how the divinely effected reality of ipso facto loss of office for heresy logically depends on there existing specific Church doctrine laying out how to proceed in the situtation of a pope turned heretic, then your question might be of relevance to your argument against Sedevacantism.
Again, you do not give ANY quotes regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. I specifically asked about Church teaching regarding how to deal with a Pope who is in heresy. When you provide the quotes I asked for, I'll respond to you further.
That's between him and God. But there is such a thing as manifest heresy which clearly and explicitly contrary de fide teachings. Why is the ability to know this constantly questioned in general because many people don't possess the necessary faculties to discern it?
If my priest stands before the congregation and says:" I've converted to Islam", is his apostasy, in good conscience, not to be taken as an objective fact? If a bishop states publically that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh and die on the cross, is there some reaosonable doubt left somewhere as to my obligation to shun him as a heretic? And if an apparent pope teaches moral relativism and gradualism as part of his authentic magisterium and, after being corrected, persists in this, what am I to think?
Yes, I've listed the different scenarios before:
1) "I am becoming a Buddhist." --- ipso facto gone
2) "I know that the Church teaches x but I don't believe it anyway." --- ipso facto gone
3) "I believe x and don't consider it to be heresy." -- complicated
Ratzinger and Wojtyla certainly believed that they were being consistent with Tradition ... in applying their "hermeneutic of continuity".
But Bergoglio seems to know that he's breaking with Church teaching. In the case of #3, the Church would have to discern that what he's saying is indeed heresy. Then if he recanted, there would not have been any deposition ... even though the heresy had become "manifest". If he then persisted, the "Church" could come back and reaffirm her judgment and warn Bergoglio that she would consider him a heretic if he persisted. Then, after that, if he persisted, the Church could declare him deposed. Undboutedly he would still have backers, and then what? Call in someone to forcibly remove him from the Vatican when as a point of law the Pope owns Church property. This would get messy very quickly.
I didn't say that I take +ABL's view of whether or not sedes are Catholic or not, or out of the Church. That in itself wasn't the point of the argument.Suddenly it's just the "dogmatic ones" that aren't Catholic.
And I never said that sedes are going to hell. They are just nuts, that's all. And the dogmatic ones aren't Catholic.
Suddenly it's just the "dogmatic ones" that aren't Catholic.She posted this to Stubborn (who is still trying to figure out exactly how he identifies dogma). Basically whatever Stubborn says is dogma "is dogma". If he doesn't like your dogma, it's not dogma. He also gets to interpret his dogmas however he wants. This religion (in which Stubborn is the Magisterium), is the Catholic faith according to Meg. Pretty sad.
Meg stated in another thread:
Sometimes people can't see the obvious: that it's the Catholic faith you're giving them, rather than the sedevacantist faith (which isn't the Catholic faith).
The truth of the matter is that Meg doesn't think ANY sede is Catholic.
Yes, I've listed the different scenarios before:My question is this: in the scenarios presented, aren't 2 & 3 the same in reality?
1) "I am becoming a Buddhist." --- ipso facto gone
2) "I know that the Church teaches x but I don't believe it anyway." --- ipso facto gone
3) "I believe x and don't consider it to be heresy." -- complicated
Ratzinger and Wojtyla certainly believed that they were being consistent with Tradition ... in applying their "hermeneutic of continuity". But Bergoglio seems to know that he's breaking with Church teaching. In the case of #3, the Church would have to discern that what he's saying is indeed heresy. Then if he recanted, there would not have been any deposition ... even though the heresy had become "manifest". If he then persisted, the "Church" could come back and reaffirm her judgment and warn Bergoglio that she would consider him a heretic if he persisted. Then, after that, if he persisted, the Church could declare him deposed. Undboutedly he would still have backers, and then what? Call in someone to forcibly remove him from the Vatican when as a point of law the Pope owns Church property. This would get messy very quickly.
Ultimately God will need to intervene and solve this mess.
In the meantime, there certainly exists grave positive doubt about their legitimacy. And that's enough for me to refuse my submission without schism.