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

Author Topic: Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa  (Read 12057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LordPhan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1171
  • Reputation: +827/-1
  • Gender: Male
Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2012, 07:27:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Thursday
    Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: KofCTrad
    And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.


    Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

    Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).



    The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.

    From Nuvos Ordo Watch
    http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm

    Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly

     Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope as follows:

     None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.

     (Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)

     What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)

     

    What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.

     

    We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.

     

    Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.

     

    For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope



    You believe what this article states because you want to believe it. The Divine Law is what you will be judged on by God. The Church and Church Laws and institutions do not judge based on this. Heresy and Apostosy are covered in the Code of Canon Law. They state quite clearly that there is a difference between being excommunicated for being a heretic or apostate in the internal forum and being excommunicated in the external forum. The Sedevacantists have lots of arguments that they believe to be true but very little understanding of the basic rules that govern the church. If you commit the crime of Murder you have broken a Divine Law. You are internally excommunicated, that is until you repent and are absolved. If you now state that a Pope is not a Pope because he once commited Murder or Theft or Adultery etc. You are a Donatist Heretic.

    So too, you cannot say that since one person has commited an act of Heresy that he is not the Pope, 1: To be a formal Heretic and thusly excommunicated in even the internal forum you must be obstinate in that error, how the church has always judged this was when the individual did not correct themselves after being admonished by a Superior. 2: You cannot judge his internal forum, Cardinals do not incur Ipso Facto Excommunication in the External Forum except in one case in the 1917 Code of Canon Law(Yes they are exempt from most penalties in Canon Law) that being Putting themselves as the Pope's Judge. Which of course is what you are doing, judging whether someone is or is not the Pope based on his internal disposition because there has been no external decree in the external forum.


    Offline Thursday

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 698
    • Reputation: +519/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #46 on: April 11, 2012, 07:39:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you're 100% sure Roncalli was pope?


    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #47 on: April 11, 2012, 08:35:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Thursday
    So you're 100% sure Roncalli was pope?


    I am morally certain that Roncalli was a true pope.

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #48 on: April 11, 2012, 08:36:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: Cupertino
    So...Paul VI was not to be recognized as a true pope because the Holy Ghost allowed him to enter harmful things into the magisterium and liturgy....and we know the Holy Ghost, as a dogma, will not allow that with a true pope.


    You are twisting the meaning of papal infallibility.  This dogma pronounced at Vatican I was not meant to establish or determine whether the man sitting on the throne of Peter is a true pope; rather, it assumes that he is a true pope and that we can determine the dogmatic force of his teachings by the fulfilling of the necessary conditions.


    I am not speaking of papal infallibility. I am speaking of the dogma that the Holy Ghost will not allow a true pope to approve of something that will go into the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium (which is pertains to the Church's infallibility). It is impossible. And when it does happen, we know for certain that the man is not a true pope. The Church said so. Argue with the Church.





    Please provide me a reference for this dogma.


    Cupertino, I am really interested in learning more about this dogma.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7174/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #49 on: April 11, 2012, 08:39:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    Watch your tongue boy.


    This is an arrogant comment.

    Quote
    His comment was true, he is aguing with Sirinites and you are changing the subject


    He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.

    Quote
    As for the past four Popes being Heretics, Materially they are, we agree on that. There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.


    Benedict knows what the Church teaches, have you read some quotes of his criticizing past dogmas and actions of the Church? You can't hold anything against me for having issues with Benedict. Bishop Tissier, though he is not a sede, said a book Ratzinger wrote in the 1960s contained many heresies and blasphemies.

    Anyway, I'm not here to discuss sedevacantism.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.


    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #50 on: April 11, 2012, 08:46:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Thursday
    What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.”


    The Church cannot make judgements on one's internal disposition/conscience, so how then do you think you or I can, unless you have some special gift.

    The Church can only make judgements on what it hears and sees externally and therefore can only make canonical judgements that portend the internal disposition.  That is why someone can die excommunicated (St. Joan of Arc) and still go to heaven.

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #51 on: April 11, 2012, 08:53:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.


    We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections.  My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis.  cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.  

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7174/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #52 on: April 11, 2012, 08:56:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.


    We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections.  My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis.  cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.


    I brought up cuм because you made this incorrect statement:

    Quote
    Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7673
    • Reputation: +645/-417
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #53 on: April 11, 2012, 09:00:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Thursday
    Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: KofCTrad
    And cuм ex Apostolatus Officio certainly is still valid. It is cited in the 1917 code of canon law dealing with the issue of heretics holding office and is based in divine law not ecclesial law and therefore is true in perpetuity.


    Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

    Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).



    The problem with this seems to be "ecclesiastical impediment" as opposed to divine impediment.

    From Nuvos Ordo Watch
    http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm

    Salza Error #4: The Claim that Sedevacantism ignores the fact that the law of the Church allows even excommunicated cardinals to be elected Pope validly

     Surprisingly enough, John Salza saw fit to repeat an old long-refuted argument against sedevacantism from Pope Pius XII’s constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, promulgated in 1945, regarding the election of a Pope. Salza quotes the Pope as follows:

     None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.

     (Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; qtd. in Salza, “Errors,” p. 3)

     What may seem at first like a powerful strike against sedevacantism is easily refuted simply by drawing the proper distinctions, which Mr. Salza fails to do. What the Pope is doing here is lifting all ecclesiastical censures, including that of excommunication, which any cardinal may be laboring under at the time of the conclave, for the purposes of allowing him to licitly elect the Pope – and licitly be elected himself. In other words, the Pope is saying that no one may bar from the conclave a cardinal who has any ecclesiastical penalty against him. Note that the emphasis is on the word “ecclesiastical.” The Pope, obviously, can only dispense from ecclesiastical penalties, not from divine ones, for he has no power to reinstate into the Mystical Body of Christ those who have been cut off from it by the divine law. (The same Pius XII alludes to this in his 1951 address to midwives, where he refers to the “natural law, from which . . . not even the Church has the power to dispense” [Pope Pius XII, “Address to Midwives on the Nature of their Profession,” Oct. 29, 1951; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm)]. Of course, if the Church has no power to dispense from the natural law, then, all the more so, she does not have the power to dispense from the divine law, either.)

     

    What this means, quite simply, is that heretics, schismatics, and apostates are, of course, banned from a conclave, but not because they are excommunicated by the Church, but because they are not members of the Church to begin with, because of their heresy, schism, or apostasy. Put differently: The heretic is excluded from the valid election of the Pope not under the aspect of being ecclesiastically excommunicated, but under the aspect of being a heretic, i.e., a non-Catholic. Note that Pius XII’s legislation merely speaks of “any . . . ecclesiastical impediment.” However, being a non-Catholic is not per se an ecclesiastical impediment, it is, first and foremost, a divine impediment, and, naturally, not one the Pope has any power to dispense from. If the Pope, hypothetically, had wished to do the impossible and include even heretics as “licit” electors or recipients of an election, he would have said so – he would have written, “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any apostasy, heresy, schism, excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical or divine impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” But of course, such a statement would have been absurd on the face of it, especially considering that, just as a “heretical Pope” is no Pope at all, neither is a “heretical cardinal” even a cardinal.

     

    We recall here, as seen earlier, what Pius XII explicitly taught regarding apostasy, heresy, and schism in Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” These three sins are such as to expel a man from membership in the Church by their very nature (meaning that they are in and of themselves incompatible with being a Roman Catholic) – not because of some ecclesiastical punishment, such as an excommunication. The reason why an apostate, then, is not a Catholic, is not because a bishop or a Pope has excommunicated him, but because the sin of apostasy is in and of itself incompatible with being a Roman Catholic, just as it is in and of itself incompatible for a triangle to have no angles.

     

    Therefore, the fact that Pius XII lifted all excommunications from cardinals for the purposes of holding a licit conclave is irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism. Salza is merely demonstrating his ignorance on this point, failing to realize that Pius XII is speaking of Catholics who are excommunicated, not of non-Catholics. As this may be somewhat confusing for some, let me try to give an example of where this papal legislation would apply. Imagine a wayward cardinal who directly violates the seal of confession. By doing so, he incurs an automatic excommunication from which only the Pope can absolve him (see Canon 2369 §1). Let’s say that before the cardinal can reconcile with the Holy See and have his excommunication lifted, the Pope dies. Now what? Is the cardinal allowed to participate in the conclave, and could he even validly and licitly be elected Pope himself, even though he is under excommunication? Pius XII’s legislation says “yes.” That’s all we’re talking about. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that someone can become Pope who denies the Catholic religion again and again in his words and actions.

     

    For more on the argument from Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, please see this article:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2007/06/25/can-an-excommunicated-cardinal-be-elected-pope


    Pius XII was not the first Pope to allow an ex-communicated Cardinal into a conclave.

    I don't really see how there could be something called a 'heretical pope'. Such an oxymoron would immediately render himself an anti-pope.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #54 on: April 11, 2012, 09:05:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    He brought up cuм refering to heretics, I responded to it. That isn't changing the subject. I agree with him on the Siri thesis, I never claimed I didn't.


    We (not you and I) were discussing the Siri thesis and you brought cuм in response to my posting of an extract regarding canonical elections.  My post was meant to reference the subject matter of the Siri thesis.  cuм did not relate to my posting, so it was you who changed the subject matter.


    I brought up cuм because you made this incorrect statement:

    Quote
    Because they were accepted by the Visible Church as pontiffs, they became true popes.


    I posted a whole extract from a website where I got this information.  I also posted the link to that website. I meant to make reference to the Siri thesis in that a seemingly invalid election because of outside pressure on the elected person to refuse his election may still indeed be valid.  

    Offline jlamos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 305
    • Reputation: +209/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #55 on: April 11, 2012, 10:31:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.


    Quote from: Dictionary.com
    ip·so fac·to
    noun
    by the fact itself; by the very nature of the deed: to be condemned ipso facto.


    One is not "declared" ipso facto excommunicated, one simply is so.

    Quote from: LordPhan
    I suggest you read the commentary I posted on the Code of Canon Law, read the part about Simony, if someone were to bribe their way into the Papacy it may be valid even though they and whomever they bribed would be ipso facto excommunicated. The excommunication would be internally since he would not declare himself to have incurred it.


    Someone who is ipso facto excommunicated, even for private sin, is still excommunicated.

    That is, however, not relevant to this case. We are discussing here the manifest heresy and apostasy of the recent "popes". Manifest, as in public.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +827/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #56 on: April 11, 2012, 11:01:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: jlamos
    Quote from: LordPhan
    There has never been a pronouncement or a declaration that they incured the Ipso Facto excommunications, and thus they are not canonically excommunicated even if they are excommunicated in the internal forum.


    Quote from: Dictionary.com
    ip·so fac·to
    noun
    by the fact itself; by the very nature of the deed: to be condemned ipso facto.


    One is not "declared" ipso facto excommunicated, one simply is so.

    Quote from: LordPhan
    I suggest you read the commentary I posted on the Code of Canon Law, read the part about Simony, if someone were to bribe their way into the Papacy it may be valid even though they and whomever they bribed would be ipso facto excommunicated. The excommunication would be internally since he would not declare himself to have incurred it.


    Someone who is ipso facto excommunicated, even for private sin, is still excommunicated.

    That is, however, not relevant to this case. We are discussing here the manifest heresy and apostasy of the recent "popes". Manifest, as in public.



    You should read the Code of Canon Law, on another thread I have posted 50 or so pages from it relating to this. One who commits an offence with an Ipso Facto excommunication incurs it immediately in the internal forum but not on the external forum until it is declared at which time it becomes retroactive to the time it was incured. That is one does not lose offices, one does not suffer any penalty whatsoever in the external forum until such an offence is declared to have been incurred.

    So it is semantics, yes the person is excommunicated, but in the internal forum, not the external until it is declared which was my point since no effects are incurred in the external forum until it is declared.

    I believe the relavant pages of the Code of Canon Law are in the thread "I'm curious" somewhere around pages 7 or 8.

    Offline Mathieu

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 128
    • Reputation: +156/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #57 on: April 12, 2012, 06:56:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan

    Secondly if the Law cuм ex was cited in the 1917 Code, then cite it. I have the 1917 Code of Canon Law in 2 different commentaries and it does not mention cuм Ex at all. Furthermore it states the same decree that Pope St. Pius X made and was cited by Ecclesia Militans.

    I believe you have recieved faulty information.


    I just wanted to post here that "cuм Ex" is cited in the footnotes referring to Canon 188.4 which, I think, deals with the loss of office due to the defection from the faith.

    The copy I am referring to was published by PJ Kennedy and Sons, in 1918 and the text in reference is located on p. 47.  If a scan is requested, I can probably come up with that.  Either way, I am doing this to support Thursday and KofCTrad.

    Also, St. Thomas refers to an act of worship that is directed to an end that is not God is an act of apostasy (worshiping at the tomb of Mahomet is the example).  

    These men (Paul VI, JPII, B16) have done far worse - not only engaging in false worship, they have promoted it among their hierarchy and forced it on the faithful and encouraged members of false religions to continue and promote their false religions.  They have taken part in pagan, muslim and judaic worship.

    It really is not complex - they are not Catholics.  

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #58 on: April 12, 2012, 07:01:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    The Church's official acts (without papal infallibility) are protected from any harm by the Holy Ghost.


    I have stated on another post that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible.  The pope is not always so.  Therefore, he can teach err, even to the Universal Church.  However, you need to define "the Church's official acts".  Was Pope Paul VI signing onto Vatican II and promulgating the New Mass "the Church's official acts"?  I would say "NO"!

    If the pope can teach doctrinal error (doctrine being the fundamental of our Catholicism), it only stands to reason that he can promulgate rites that are not beneficial and even harmful.

    Offline Ecclesia Militans

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +14/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Siri and the Dissent of Genoa
    « Reply #59 on: April 12, 2012, 07:03:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mathieu

    I just wanted to post here that "cuм Ex" is cited in the footnotes referring to Canon 188.4 which, I think, deals with the loss of office due to the defection from the faith.


    As a footnote??? Doesn't sound too convincing to me.  Anyhow, Pope Pius XII took care of that.