Author Topic: a question about sedevacantism (Read 1214 times)

spouse of Jesus · « **on:** June 03, 2009, 12:40:39 AM »

Pope means bishop of Rome.
If Heresy makes a man loose his bishop-ness, why do eastern schismatics have valid bishops???
If a man, who doesn't believe in filique and some other dogmas can be a bishop, why a modernist cannot be so?
And if benedic is still a bishop and his seat is Rome, then he must be bishop of Rome! :confused1:

DeMaistre · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2009, 12:43:27 AM »

If a man is a heretic than he loses his office ipso facto (that is, if he is a cleric). So, if Benedict XVI is a heretic, then he is not a bishop, therefore, he cannot be bishop of Rome.

If you don't believe in a dogma, then you aren't even Catholic.

(I'm tired at the moment, sorry for the mediocre reply)

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2009, 01:02:50 AM »

Quote

If a man is a heretic than he loses his office ipso facto (that is, if he is a cleric). So, if Benedict XVI is a heretic, then he is not a bishop,

So why so called orthodox christians (schismatics) have valid bishops?

trent13 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2009, 02:32:23 PM »

I suggest researching the difference between validity and licitness - they have a valid hierarchy (although, I'm wondering if that has changed via any change in their wordiing like with the novus ordo), but it's illicit.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2009, 08:39:17 AM »

Quote from: trent13

I suggest researching the difference between validity and licitness - they have a valid hierarchy (although, I'm wondering if that has changed via any change in their wordiing like with the novus ordo), but it's illicit.

I know that in the Russian "Orthodox" Church there is some sort of schism between the "Old Believers" and the modern church. I am not sure why though.

Lybus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2009, 09:33:41 PM »

Benedict XVI cannot be condemned a heretic by any living man on the face of this planet. He is the highest, and therefore there is no one short of the supernatural to judge him.

He can only be judged and proven a heretic by another pope or by an ecuмenical council. Thus, we have to consider him a pope until some valid council deems him a heretic.
If this were not hte case, then there's no point in there being a pope; for we'd all be popes, if we were all to be judges.

And as for the Eastern Orthodox Churches, some of them acknowledge the pope as the Bishop of Rome, but not that he has infallibility in the sense of faith and morals. They still have the valid mass, so i guess they can be used i nthe case of an emergency.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2009, 01:54:39 AM »

I am at work, so this will be brief...

Losing an office, and losing the episcopacy, are TWO DIFFERENT things. An impeached President is still a citizen and a man - he just does not hold the office any longer.

Likewise, a priest who is defrocked does not lose the sacerdotal character imprinted upon his soul, nor his powers - just the right to USE said powers.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2009, 02:07:15 AM »

The so-called Orthodox DO HAVE a valid Episcopacy - i.e., there are REAL bishops and priests among them - just no right to exercise such powers.

CM · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2009, 03:25:35 AM »

Lybus, you have a faulty understanding of the principle that the "Holy See is judged of no man,"

This is not in reference to the person at all. If a pope is sinful and begets children, YES YOU CAN judge him as a sinner, indeed.

If a pope teaches heresy - he is no longer a Catholic, he loses his office. Period. And YES we have the right and duty to make this judgment. If your ridiculous position were correct, then you would have to wait until a subsequent pope condemned the previous one as a heretic, and only then could you have a right to reject his heretical teachings. NO! You have a duty to reject heretical teachings AND those who teach them as being alien to the Catholic Faith and murderers of souls!

So what does "The Holy See is judged of no man," mean?

It relates to the doctrinal authority of the office of the papacy, and the fact that the Holy See has the final say in ending any and all theological disputes with whatever decrees come froth from said See.

And you seemed like such a smart kid.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2009, 06:25:25 AM »

[/code]It relates to the doctrinal authority of the office of the papacy, and the fact that the Holy See has the final say in ending any and all theological disputes with whatever decrees come froth from said See. [code]
Even if it is a sinful decree or a heretical one?

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2009, 06:26:34 AM »

Quote

It relates to the doctrinal authority of the office of the papacy, and the fact that the Holy See has the final say in ending any and all theological disputes with whatever decrees come froth from said See.

Even if it is a sinful decree or a heretical one?

CM · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2009, 05:16:36 PM »

Spouse, do you not know your theology yet?

By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess THE ONE
CHURCH, NOT OF HERETICS, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.

If a validly elected pope promulgates heresy, he loses all rights as the supreme shepherd of the flock, is no longer Catholic and becomes an ANTIPOPE.

If he declares that something which is immoral is actually moral (like if he says, "Oh it's actually okay to commit fornication, or to steal - OR TO PRAY WITH APOSTATES AND INFIDELS"), then he is likewise teaching heresy, and loses office.