Your contending that it's "moot" completely misses the argument, as usual.  I never said that it wasn't legislative ... just that there are elements / aspects of divine law within it as premises, particularly the rejection of convalidation by UA.

In any case, I didn't know you've suddenly become a follower of Bishop Sanborn.  He would denounce your ecclesiology as manifest heresy (and rightly so).

Please refute Bishop Sanborn.

Please refute Bishop Sanborn.

“But, as we have seen, there is no legal condemnation of Ratzinger. Before the law of the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds him guilty of heresy.”

Sorry Bishop Sanborn, but where in cuм Ex or in Canon 188 does it state that there needs to be a “legal condemnation”? Where does it state that “he himself” or a “legitimate superior” need to hold him guilty of heresy? (This was horribly worded, because I know he knows that a true pope doesn’t have a “legitimate superior”) 


Total garbage! Frankly, Sean you need to find a better “authority” than him to support your position.

As an aside, Ryan Grant also makes an interesting argument regarding DR's contention that cuм ex can't be abrogated, because parts of it allegedly pertain to divine law:


"But that assumes the prescriptions of cuм ex are of Divine Law, whereas in reality they are not. This bull was abrogated by the 1917 Code of Canon Law which incorporated these penalties, but never for a pope prior to his election (let alone after). It only says:

Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso jure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus A fide Catholica publice defecerit. (Can. 188.4)

And:

Omnes a christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut schismatici incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem. (Can. 2314 1.1)

Again, none of these address what to do about the Roman Pontiff. If cuм Ex Apostolatus was still in force, the Code of Canon Law would have taken note of it. The editors of the 1917 Code did not put it in because of the problematic nature of actually enforcing cuм Ex. No dogmatic theology textbook references it, and not one work of ecclesiology from any of the authors you site (Dorsch, etc.) or other recent authors such as Billot, Franzelin, Van Noort, Palmieri or Berry. As the Sedevacantist journal Sodalitum frankly admits:

'This task [proving an election invalid by the precepts of cuм Ex] however in the current state of affairs, shows itself doubly arduous. To begin with, it is necessary to prove the formal and notorious heresy of the errant one. Failing a (hypothetical) admission of the guilty party, an intervention of the Church and its Magisterium then takes place, in accordance with the words of St. Paul to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” What Paul IV perhaps did not foresee—like all the classical writers on the question of the “heretical pope”—was that no authority would arise in such a case to make the admonitions required by scripture and canons.

The second difficulty consists in the current juridical value of the Constitution of Paul VI. The sixth canon of the Code of Canon Law prescribes that what is not taken up again in the 1917 Code should be considered as abrogated, unless the law is evidently by divine right. Now the prescriptions of Paul IV are only partially resumed by the Code (Can. 188.4 and 2314.1) without any mention of the case of the supreme pontiff. Doubt therefore remains about the character of Paul IV’s proclamation—whether it belongs to divine law, and thus is always valid, or to ecclesiastical law.' (Sodalitium, no. 14 pp. 9-10)

Why would the major Sedevacantist journal in Europe not consider it obvious that the bull of Paul IV still applies if it was so evident that it is of divine right and still in force? For the simple reason that it does not."

https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2022/10/23/cuм-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office/

In the commentary, Canon 188 references cuм Ex, NOT 2264! YOU brought Sanborn into the picture, please show me where he mentions Canon 2264?


 Why do you keep changing the goalposts?

Quo-

Isn't it just possible that you don't understand the issue?

How is it that I'm able to enlist both sedeprivationist (Sanborn) and sedevacantist (Sodalitium) authorities for my argument, in addition to R&R autorities (Hess; Siscoe/Salza) and pre-conciliar canonists (Fr. Coronata) all stating cuм ex is dead?

Are you prepared to declare the rest of the world is wrong, so that you can be right, and go the way of Ibranyi?

Canon 188….

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. 

1) cuм Ex is alive and well in Canon 188 as referenced by Gasparri.

    No, its mentioned in a footnote as an historical reference, alongside other historical references, but its provisions are not included in the Code (and for this reason cuм ex is not mentioned in any manuals since 1917, except to note it has been derogated).

2) The “rest of the world” can take a hike, only the truth matters.

      A better attitude would be to take measure and reflect on the matter.  If you don't, how can you lay claim to a concern for the truth?

3) Your “authorities” are either faulty, ignorant, shoddy, or dishonest. Honestly, I find many of Bishop Sanborn’s opinions irrelevant and poorly researched. Siscoe and Salza? PLEASE!

    Authorities from every faction in tradition converge to reach the same conclusion, minus a few internet jockies like Ibranyi, but your response is, "They are all wrong, and I am right."  I'd reflect upon that attitude as well.

4) It shocks me how much new found respect you have for Bishop Sanborn’s opinions, why is that?

    A broken clock is right two times/day.  In any case, I quoted him because I knew you would reject any authority outside the sede orb a priori.

Comments in red

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

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



Quo and DR: I don't want to argue with you guys anymore.  Hope I didn't give any offense.

Carry on without me; I'll follow along, and maybe I'll learn something.

Pax.

Agreed Sean, God bless you!

More fallacious reasoning: Canon 188 is not under discussion, but cuм ex.

Red Herring
A red herring is an argument that uses confusion or distraction to shift attention away from a topic and toward a false conclusion. Red herrings usually contain an unimportant fact, idea, or event that has little relevance to the real issue.
Red herrings are a common diversionary tactic when someone wants to shift the focus of an argument to something easier or safer to address.

You're just randomly spamming these off some logical fallacy website aren't you?  Thus far not a single one has been applicable to the comment you were pasting it against.