Author Topic: Can the "Sede" question be discussed academically? (Read 61632 times)

ubipetrus · « **Reply #315 on:** November 04, 2015, 08:53:09 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: ubipetrus
Therefore, the only remaining provisions would be those that, being rooted in Divine Revelation, cannot be rescinded by man, even Churchmen and even a Pope. A heretic (and remaining as such openly and in his teachings instead of repenting or else at least keeping utterly to himself) cannot be Pope, but it is a matter of discipline as to whether a person with a history of heresy is to be barred from election to the papacy, providing of course that once Pope, they do not use the papal teaching authority to spread their heresy.

The point remains valid however that, as the Pope did enact (which therefore makes it possible) that even universal consent would not make a Pope of someone who is not canonically qualified (unbaptized, female, heretic, lacking the use of reason, etc.)

I'm confused. So are you saying that a heretic can be elected pope or not? Your first post seemed to suggest that he can and that there are numerous examples of such a thing happening in the history of the Church. Here you seem to be saying no, it can not happen.

I think it depends what we mean by a heretic. A formal heretic would be prevented by God's promises from being elected (or else removed by some circuмstance?), and a material heretic who simply looks elsewhere other than the Church (some Protestant group, for example) would also be barred or excluded (or even exclude himself), but someone who is simply materially in error might simply be "set straight" by the power of infallibility. I don't get the idea that any of the four examples I cited were formally heretical and obviously they had not gone an joined any heretical sects; they just had some sincerely mistaken and materially heretical assumptions which the Holy Ghost could protect the Church from during their reigns.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #316 on:** November 04, 2015, 09:04:33 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I think he is suggesting that heretics have been elected in the past but their infallibility has prevented them from erring while Pope. We know one who teaches error after he is elected or tries to bind or maintain on the Church things that a valid Pope can't cannot be Pope.

That's it, thank you.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #317 on:** November 04, 2015, 11:25:44 AM »

Quote

The decretal of Gregory X on this subject is called "Ubi periculum majus". For the later regulations governing papal elections see CONCLAVE. According to certain ancient canons (can. "Oportet", 3; can. "Nullus", 4, dist. 79), only cardinals should be chosen pope. However, Alexander III decreed (cap. "Licet", 6, "De elect.") that "he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the cardinals." As late as 1378, Urban VI was chosen, though not a cardinal (consult, however, Constitut. 50 of Sixtus V "Postquam", § 2). A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V (1294). Even the election of a married man would not be invalid (c. "Qui uxorem", 19, caus. 33, Q. 5). Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church. A papal election, therefore, needs no confirmation, as the pontiff has no superior on earth.

http://newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

2Vermont · « **Reply #318 on:** November 04, 2015, 03:06:37 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

McFiggly, your posts seem to be anti-SV and anti-Resistance. How would you describe yourself these days? Are you completely on board with the post Vatican II church?

Did McFiggly answer these questions? I don't see it. Should I assume, based on his comments, he has converted to the Novus Ordo (with perhaps a preference for the Latin Mass)?

Edit: Nevermind. I found it...apparently I didn't go far enough back. And I guess my assumptions were correct.

McFiggly, if you think the traditional movement is not legitimate, why do you post here? Even those of us who are sede or resistance (despite our differences) at least recognize its validity and legitimacy. Your posting here is like if I post at Catholic Answers.

MMagdala · « **Reply #319 on:** November 04, 2015, 03:14:38 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

For example, I don't see how the abandoning of the papal tiara is an abandoning of the faith. Christ did not crown St. Peter with that tiara. It is not a part of revelation. It was a sign of power and empire when there really was a Christian empire, a sign that Christ was the King of Kings above all the kings of Europe. That time is gone though. It's an anachronism, not a part of the eternal faith that will endure forever.

The successors of St. Peter will always be Christ's representative (vicar), but Christ does not always need to be represented as a monarch to attract admiration, respect, love. It made sense for Christ to be represented that way when kings ruled over the nations.

The popularity or even existence of earthly monarchies has zero to do with Christ the King. You might want to learn both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition before posting on a traditionalist Catholic board.

The Messiah was always a kingly fixture in the OT -- anticipated with great hope as a monarchical ruler. The entire NT is the story of the realization of Christ's kingly power and his triumph over The World. Christ's reign is absolute. It was and it is. That has nothing to do with later European history.

Christ, today, is, not "was," King. Christus vincit; Christus regnat; Christus imperat. (Present tense.) His power was and is absolute because he was and is eternally God. King of the Universe, not of a country, a region, a culture, or a time period. There is nothing anachronistic about his kingship, which is in fact part of revelation.

While yes, different customs of respect belong to different eras in history, all cultures have differentiated their leaders with some clear indication of respect accorded to those with power or rank. Francis, OTOH, loathes all gestures of respect. If Christ Himself had felt that way He would have ordered the people waving palm branches at Him and shouting "Hosanna" to stop doing that, but he didn't, did he?

I have never heard of an ordained Catholic who seems to understand Jesus as poorly as Jorge Bergoglio does. His understanding is not even Scriptural or even Second Vatican Council. It's invented and patronizing.