Does anyone remember how this thread veered into another sede vs RR debate?

Oh yeah, Loudestmouth brought us there...again.

Where did the person get their faith - from the NO religion? I don't think so because the virtues you grant the hypothetical person are not taught within the NO religion - it is in fact utterly adverse to their lex orandi lex credendi.

Which is to say that you are describing an impossible hypothetical, but if it were possible that such a person existed, God, if seeing the person would cooperate with the graces, would give the person all the graces necessary to leave the NO, get themself completely out of that situation and direct them to the True faith and Mass.....just as He has done for the rest of us who reject the NO religion for the true faith.
 
Very simply, if God arranged for you to know the truth, it is by the very same Providence that He can arrange for anyone else seeking it to know the truth. God has no need of the internet to do this.

Your 1st pic (p.159) makes my point precisely: It says the loss must be decreed.

In the 2nd pic (p. 160), continues with the presumption a loss is decreed (it does not overturn what has just been stipulated as a preamble on the previous page).

Your 3rd pic says it must be public, and has in mind not unorthodox or heretical doctrines, but a public adjuration of the Catholic faith.

Well, I had already declared that I wished to bow out of the conversation, as I don't like getting acromonious all the time (especially at Christmas), but you guys are calling me back in, so here we go again:


cuм Ex Apostolatus and Canon 188, §4

      Faced with the proof that cuм Ex Apostolatus was abrogated when the 1917 Code came into force, some Sedevacantists will argue that its penal legislation was not merely based on ecclesiastical law, but on Divine law, and therefore remains in force. They will then point to the fact that cuм Ex Apostolatus is referenced as a footnote to canon 188, §4 (1917 Code), and claim that this proves its automatic penalties are still in effect. This argument is erroneous for the following reasons.

      First, there is no Divine Law (nor has there even been an ecclesiastical law) teaching that a prelate who falls into the sin of heresy, and is judged by private judgment to be a heretic, automatically loses his office.  As we saw above, the impediment would have to be legally proven before it would have any juridical effect.  Without being legally established, the titulus coloratus would suffice for the acts of the office holder to remain valid.

      Second, as we saw in Chapter Eight, canon 188, §4 applies to clerics validly elected to office, who publicly defect from the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect (or publicly apostatizing) after being elected, whereas the penalties contained in cuм Ex Apostolatus pertain to pre-election heresy.  cuм Ex did not teach that a validly elected cleric who later “deviates from the faith” automatically loses office. So the penalties contained in cuм Ex Apostolatus and canon 188, §4 are clearly not the same.

      Third, footnotes are not part of the Church’s law (they have no authority in themselves), and are often cited (by editors) to show legislative history related to certain canons. As applied here, the footnote to cuм Ex Apostolatus is nothing more than a reference to prior legislation which prevented certain clerics from holding office in the Church. The purpose is to simply provide some legislative precedent for the current legislation, not to affirm a mythical “Divine law” that prevents heretics from holding office based upon individual private judgment.[39]

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html

1. What SS say about RR has no bearing on the present issue;

Oh, it most certainly does.  Either the principles of S&S are valid or they are not.  If they are valid, then the condemnation of R&R holds.  If they are not valid, then they're not valid ... and therefore not applicable here either.