Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

... Vatican II is not from the Holy Spirit..
It would've been better if the that Council had been guided by Mumbly and the Cartoons, or that the that Council had never been born.

But there's a clear reality to the material-formal distinction.  Let's say the Siri thesis is not correct, these men would have had the Church's designation to the papacy ... which was never repudiated.  Had they converted some time after their election, they would then have formally assumed the office.  Heretics cannot formally assume or exercise office, but they can in fact be designated for office.
Suppose that happened, and an Antipope repudiates his errors and converts; since it would necessitate them to publicly abjure their errors, given they were acting as the apparent Pontiff, would not a new conclave need to be called? His office was null and void, as was his election, in this case, with these Antipopes being manifest heretics preceding their "election", one would have to conclude that they were not, in-fact, selected by the Holy Ghost and therefore a new conclave would be necessary.


Quote
We have many heretical bishops even before Vatican II.  Let's take Cardinal Cushing, for instance.  Obvious manifest heretic.  Due to the fact that he remained designated for office by Pius XII, he did in fact to some extent remain in office.  He was able to still serve as a conduit for jurisdiction for the priests who were subject to him.  He could appoint priests to be pastors.  And so on.

Yes, but, wouldn't that be just a testimony to the nature of their office rather than the ability to command after becoming a manifest heretic? In the same way that Eastern "Orthodox" bishops can create priests illicitly, as they are heretics? And I could see, in Cushing's case, while the See of Boston is vacant because he is a manifest heretic, losing jurisdiction, the jurisdiction could still be supplied by means of, as you say, a "conduit" much like jurisdiction is supplied to SSPX priests in confession, when they do not possess any jurisdiction.

Yet, again, this is based upon the fact that Cushing was already the valid Archbishop of Boston, allowing him to remain the "conduit" of supplied jurisdiction in that See, kind of like how Bishops and Cardinals can still be appointed during a sede vacante of the Papacy; whereas, JPII, for example, was never validly the Bishop of Rome given he was a heretic beforehand, and would not have any possession of universal jurisdiction regardless, preventing him from even serving as a "conduit" for the appointment of Bishops, Cardinals, and priests by this means.


Yet, again, this is based upon the fact that Cushing was already the valid Archbishop of Boston, allowing him to remain the "conduit" of supplied jurisdiction in that See, kind of like how Bishops and Cardinals can still be appointed during a sede vacante of the Papacy; whereas, JPII, for example, was never validly the Bishop of Rome given he was a heretic beforehand, and would not have any possession of universal jurisdiction regardless, preventing him from even serving as a "conduit" for the appointment of Bishops, Cardinals, and priests by this means.
And, furthermore, in Cushing's case, given what Canon 2340.2 states above, it's likely that those appointments were also null since he had no jurisdiction to do so. Obviously the ordinations would be valid, but not their appointments. Albeit, you could argue that they were ratified as legitimate through their acceptance by the Holy Office...

Four Creeds, the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, and Tridentine, and traditional Latin Mass and Vigils or Matins and Hours of Office, etc., ... and that the Moon that God created goes from East to West around the Earth every day in about 24 hours and 54 minutes, which also proves that Galileo and Copernicus and Newtown were wrong, and that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were right, is all I need to know. and then Vatican II is obviously messed up with modernism and Freemasons and Jews.

Don't accept ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA's fake trips to the Moon and Mars and outer space, or the Feral Rezerve Bank and Wall Street Corporate Scam, or Vatican II, or the story that the Moon that goes the wrong way ... etc. ... and in the wrong time ... and that lying stories about the Moon should cost so much money.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm

Mystici Corporis
The Mystical Body of Christ, the Church
Pope Pius XII - 1943




Quote
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” 17 As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.



Dogmatic Theology: Volume II, Christ's Church, Van Noort

https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n131/mode/2up


Page 241:



Quote
b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates ) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy ”

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Marys Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or wilfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership.




Sacrae Theologiae Summa, On the Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, Joachim Salaverri

https://archive.org/details/salaverri-de-ecclesia/page/424/mode/2up

Page 424:



Quote
1) That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church can well be said to be the unanimous opinion among Catholics.




Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, I De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione

https://archive.org/details/BillotDeEcclesiaChristiI/page/n145/mode/2up


Page 294:

English Translation:


Quote
the unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever, it follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. For then there would be a division in the profession of faith, and division is contradictory to unity. But notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Therefore they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church, and even though they are signed with the baptismal character, they either have never been part of its visible body, or have ceased to be such from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism.



SSPX article: Eucharistic hospitality: an ecuмenical novelty

https://sspx.org/en/eucharistic-hospitality-ecuмenical-novelty



Quote
There are also souls who, though having been incorporated into the Church by baptism, break off from this Body and cease to be members of it. The bond of communion produced in them by baptism is broken by heresy, schism, or excommunication. Unlike the case of sinners who though dead remain attached to the Body, these souls cease completely from being members of the Church, and that is why they cannot licitly approach the sacrament of Holy Communion.