Author Topic: Definitive Refutation of Sede Use of "cuм Ex Apostolatus" (Read 4217 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** October 01, 2011, 05:22:09 PM »

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_Salza's_rebuttal_of_Dimond_on_sedevacantism_(2).pdf

DIMOND FAILS TO UNDERSTAND cuм EX APOSTOLATUS

Next, and not surprisingly, Dimond turns to cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, which I also addressed at length in my article. As my article pointed out, Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex declared that a heretic loses his office without the need for ecclesiastical censure. I granted this principle up front, and even argued that the principle is part of the divine law (although this principle has never been dogmatized by the Church). As I have repeatedly stated, the formal heresy causes the self-expulsion (affirmed by cuм Ex, Dimond and Salza), and thus a declaration of the self-expulsion is not required (affirmed by cuм Ex, Dimond and Salza), unless notoriety/pertinacity is not definitively proven (affirmed by canons 2197.3 and 1325.2; Salza; harmonized with cuм Ex; denied by Dimond); in which case a declaratory sentence is required if the “common good requires it so” (affirmed by canon 2223.4, Salza, Cajetan, Suarez; harmonized with cuм Ex; denied by Dimond).

As an aside, note that Dimond assumes the loss of office would automatically prevent the heretical pope from governing the Church. While many theologians have held that position (I believe it is the more probable position based, in part, on Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum), the position is far from dogmatic as other theologians have held different opinions on the matter. In fact, as we will see, canon law allows heretics to perform acts of jurisdiction, which may even admit of certain acts of governance. This is another example of Dimond making assumptions to support his thesis without acknowledging that other opinions exist.

We should admit that it could be possible for Christ to maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope until the issue of his heresy formally resolved. In this way, God could still speak through the pope like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam’s ass (Num 22:28-30). This is why theologians call the incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction in radice (in the root), for an uprooted plant can still stay green for a while. Father Billuart further affirms that “According to the more common opinion, Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (De Fide, Diss. V, A. III No. 3, Obj. 2).

The great theologian Garrigou-LaGrange holds a similar opinion, by making a distinction between the “physical” head of a heretical pope (who may no longer be able to exercise jurisdiction by commanding the Church) and the “moral” head of a heretical pope (who can exercise jurisdiction through preaching and confecting the sacraments, even if he is no longer a member of the Church; as St. Thomas teaches, heretics can still confect the sacraments) (De Verbo Incarnato, p. 232). Peter Dimond completely ignores these and other important authorities and distinctions; he simply concludes that the conciliar popes lost their jurisdiction and hence Catholics are heretics for being in communion with them, even though he holds a different standard for himself when it comes to his regular attendance at a non-sedevacantist parish. It is quite the double standard.
Let me once again re-emphasize Peter Dimond’s mischaracterization of my position. I am not saying Catholics can never know if someone is a heretic without a declaration from the Church. Dimond is incorrectly accusing me of that position. If someone says, “I was baptized, and I deny the Immaculate Conception,” and such person obstinately perseveres in that error after being rebuked and corrected or shown evidence of his error, Catholics should rightfully conclude that such a person is a heretic (pertinacity would be proven) without an accompanying ecclesiastical censure. But if pertinacity or notoriety is not proven, then canon 2223.4 requires a declaration of heresy if it is for the “common good” of the Church. If it is for the good of the Church to know if we have a pope (it most certainly is, for nothing more important for the Church could be imagined), a declaration is required, unless the pope’s heresy is morally imputable, which sedevacantists cannot prove.

The Dimond brothers can compile all the heterodox quotes of the conciliar popes that they wish and “adjudicate” them on their website as if they are the Magisterium. But non-sedevacantists can do the same thing. We can compile thousands upon thousands of orthodox statements from these popes which would far surpass the volume of their quasi-heretical statements. I don’t say this to downplay the gravity of the unorthodox papal statements or say that proof of heresy is a mathematical formula or balancing act. No, I make this point to highlight that the sedevacantism debate comes down to a factual question of proof. Because it comes down to a question of proof between two opposing sides demonstrates that a higher authority (the Church) must resolve the issue. When it is a question of evidence which can deprive one of an ecclesiastical office, an ecclesiastical authority must resolve the question.

While a Catholic may claim that some of the conduct of the conciliar popes raises questions about their fidelity to Church dogmas (e.g., “No Salvation Outside the Church”), these Popes have never declared that they deny the dogmas in question. If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ,
and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary (although it would most likely still be given), and canon 188.4 and cuм Ex would apply.

But because John Paul II has also publicly declared Christ’s divinity (and much more than he can be accused of denying it), we cannot conclude he is a formal heretic for denying Christ’s divinity on the grounds that he kissed the Koran. In other words, we cannot say John Paul II acted with malice when he kissed the Koran, even though it was an incredibly scandalous act to do. Wouldn’t Dimond use the same argument to defend his parish worship with “heretics” and “apostates?” The same can be said for the rest of the “heresies” of the conciliar Popes – they will affirm a dogma one day, and then raise doubts about their affirmations another day (yes, I am aware of Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei concerning the errors of using ambiguous language, but that decree does not say that the one communicating the ambiguity is automatically a formal heretic; it says only that we must expose and condemn the error that the ambiguity can give rise to).

Here is where canon 2223.4 – which Dimond never even addresses – comes into play. A declaration of heresy would be necessary in such a case to prove formal heresy exists. And this would follow only after the Pope were warned (under canon 2314.2) of his putative heresy and disregarded those warnings. We simply don’t know whether John Paul’s kissing of the Koran was an act of apostasy, a desire to gain the praise of men, or a manifestation of his worsening dementia and senility, much less whether he was given any warning for his behavior. Of course, the conciliar popes have never said they know they are departing from Catholic teaching. Expulsion from the Church must be based on malice, not speculation. Note also that Padre Pio, the great mystic who communicated with God throughout his life (and whom the Dimond brothers greatly admire), revealed to Karol Wojtyla when he met him: “some day you will be pope.” Obviously, Padre Pio’s prophecy came true. I would rather wager my conclusions (and salvation) on the divine prophecies of St. Pio than on the private judgment and false prophecies of the Dimond brothers.

Dimond would say that my analysis makes it a question of how obvious the heresy is. That is true, for that is precisely how canon law frames the question. Again, to be a formal heretic, the heresy must be “public and notorious.” To be public, the heresy does not have to be widely known among the faithful as Dimond correctly points out, but it does have to be practically impossible to stop it from becoming widely known. In my article, I argued that Cardinal Roncalli’s pre-election “heresies” were not public under canon 2197 of the Code because they were not widely known by the Church, or at least there was some doubt as to whether they would become widely known.

There is no definitive evidence, for example, that Cardinal Roncalli’s “heresies” were commonly known as evidenced in part by the fact that Pope Pius XII never rendered any negative judgments against Roncalli. Dimond recharacterized my position to mean that the conciliar popes’ “heresies” are not public, but I was addressing only the putative heresies of Cardinal Roncalli, not the “heresies” of the conciliar popes (cuм Ex applies to Cardinals being elevated to the papacy, and not to reigning popes). I agree that the words and actions of the conciliar popes would be considered “public” in accordance with canon 2197.

But even if Roncalli’s “heresies” were public (and this goes for the conciliar popes as well), they would still have to be notorious or pertinacious, as I state in my article. Like most sedevacantists, Dimond does not address the “notorious” prong of canon law, and that is because he cannot prove notorious heresy exists (which means he cannot prove formal heresy at all). For a heresy to be notorious, it would not only have to be widely known, but the moral imputability (in other words, the criminal liability) would also have to be widely known. The pope’s words and actions could not be excused by any self-defense, such as the pope’s desire (as is the case with liberals) to please the world, or the pope’s weakness, or old age, or imprudence. To put it simply, there is no proof that the conciliar popes have acted with criminal intent or malice, much less is such “proof” widely known by the Church. In fact, most people believe that Pope John Paul II was deeply convinced that he was serving the Church – albeit, at times, in a very damaging way.

Further, as I have pointed out, Dimond attempts to apply cuм Ex to the “heresies” of the conciliar popes as popes, even though cuм Ex applies only to heresies committed by these men prior to their election to the office in question. Pope Paul IV makes this clear: “If...the Roman Pontiff…prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff has deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy…” Moreover, Dimond cannot prove that the alleged heresies of Roncalli or Wojtyla or Ratzinger – prior to their elevation as Cardinal or Pope – were “notorious” as required by canon 2197 or “pertinacious” as required by canon 1325.2. If Dimond cannot prove that they acted with malice against the Faith before their elevations, the provisions of cuм Ex do not even apply.

Dimond further uses (abuses) cuм Ex to prove that Catholics can know a heretic without a declaration, which he then uses to justify his separation from the conciliar popes because Pope Paul IV says Catholics “shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated.” But as I have said, the issue is not whether we can ever know whether formal heresy exists (we can). The issue is whether a declaration of such heresy of an elected pope is necessary to serve the “common good” of the Church (it is), and whether Dimond can prove the pre-election heresies of the conciliar popes were notorious (he cannot).

Gregory I · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2011, 10:32:00 PM »

Ok, Challenge accepted Stevus :)

DIMOND FAILS TO UNDERSTAND cuм EX APOSTOLATUS

Next, and not surprisingly, Dimond turns to cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, which I also addressed at length in my article. As my article pointed out, Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex declared that a heretic loses his office without the need for ecclesiastical censure. I granted this principle up front, and even argued that the principle is part of the divine law (although this principle has never been dogmatized by the Church).

That is amazing. We are off to a good start.

As I have repeatedly stated, the formal heresy causes the self-expulsion (affirmed by cuм Ex, Dimond and Salza), and thus a declaration of the self-expulsion is not required (affirmed by cuм Ex, Dimond and Salza),

Agreed.

unless notoriety/pertinacity is not definitively proven (affirmed by canons 2197.3 and 1325.2; Salza; harmonized with cuм Ex; denied by Dimond); in which case a declaratory sentence is required if the “common good requires it so” (affirmed by canon 2223.4, Salza, Cajetan, Suarez; harmonized with cuм Ex; denied by Dimond).

Okay, here is the problem; while it may be to the Church's greater BENEFIT that such a declaration is made (It would be nice to See SSPX,SSPV CMRI and Independent Bishops Make a joint statement on this), it is by no means necessary.
As has been stated before, canon 2200 states clearly that whenever a positive violation of the Law has been established, Malice is PRESUMED.
Now, it has previously been admitted that formal heresy results in self-expulsion, so in what sense is a common declaration of the Church's hierarchs of necessity?
Canon 2197.3 simply states what an offense IS, and section 3 renders it as an offense that is notorious and widespread and of such a nature that there is no possible excuse for it having been commited.
The post VCII Popes reveal this about themselves by giving the traditional definition to the doctrines they later seek to redefine. in regards to canon 1325.2 they exhibit the fact that they have knowledge of the true teaching and then deny it and replace it with their own. This is indicative of obstinancy, and they have no excuse.

As an aside, note that Dimond assumes the loss of office would automatically prevent the heretical pope from governing the Church. While many theologians have held that position (I believe it is the more probable position based, in part, on Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum), the position is far from dogmatic as other theologians have held different opinions on the matter.

So in essence, it is a contest between who has the most votes for each theologian. You believe what you want and selectively choose your theologians, and criticize the sedevacantist for believeing the more common opinon from the MAJORITY of theologians? That sounds hypocritical.

In fact, as we will see, canon law allows heretics to perform acts of jurisdiction, which may even admit of certain acts of governance. This is another example of Dimond making assumptions to support his thesis without acknowledging that other opinions exist.

Well, what are they, canon law or opinons? Make up your mind. One is binding, the other is not.

We should admit that it could be possible for Christ to maintain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope until the issue of his heresy formally resolved.

Why? The majority of theologians do not hold to this. Here is ONE Theologian from 1950:

Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy.

1. What is required by divine law for this appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . ”

“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”

In this way, God could still speak through the pope like He spoke through the mouth of Balaam’s ass (Num 22:28-30). This is why theologians call the incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction in radice (in the root), for an uprooted plant can still stay green for a while.

Yes, but this is the case in immoral Popes, not heretical ones that have contradicted the faith in their magisterial teaching.

But in those who are heretical and doctrinally compromised it is an illusion, a farce; From the moment that plant was uprooted it CEASED to be a part of the ground to derive or contribute anything to it. The appearance of green is NOT proof of life. The APPEARANCE of a "Pope", especially ones that contradict the very definition of the nature and being of the church, is not proof of a valid papacy.

Father Billuart further affirms that “According to the more common opinion, Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (De Fide, Diss. V, A. III No. 3, Obj. 2).

WOW. So because Jesus doesn't want to inconvenience us with a trial by fire...he won't?

Let's see how common this opinon is...

A. Bull: cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV

— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void... Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

B. Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III

— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

C. Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata

— “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”

D. St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]

— “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”

E. St. Antoninus [1459]

— “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

F. St. Francis de Sales [1622]

— “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”

G. Canon Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal

— “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.

H. Introductio in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste

— “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.”

I. Epitome Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch

— “At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

The great theologian Garrigou-LaGrange holds a similar opinion, by making a distinction between the “physical” head of a heretical pope (who may no longer be able to exercise jurisdiction by commanding the Church) and the “moral” head of a heretical pope (who can exercise jurisdiction through preaching and confecting the sacraments, even if he is no longer a member of the Church; as St. Thomas teaches, heretics can still confect the sacraments) (De Verbo Incarnato, p. 232).

An excommunicate Bishop who has no official office in the church can confect valid sacraments? Of course. But that is not the issue. Bringing it up clouds it, the POINT is does a self-excommunicate former "Pope" have the right to rule the church of God? Plainly, No.
Why pass over Garrigou? Because he represents a minority opinion that is not fully supported by the dogmatic fact: A heretic is not a part of the church.

Peter Dimond completely ignores these and other important authorities and distinctions; he simply concludes that the conciliar popes lost their jurisdiction and hence Catholics are heretics for being in communion with them, even though he holds a different standard for himself when it comes to his regular attendance at a non-sedevacantist parish.

I agree with that. We cannot label each other as heretics so easily, especially over non-dogmatic issues such as these. Still, it is worth holding the true opinion and supporting the truth. St. Hypathisu and Eulalius.

It is quite the double standard.
Let me once again re-emphasize Peter Dimond’s mischaracterization of my position. I am not saying Catholics can never know if someone is a heretic without a declaration from the Church.

Good, that would be a direct contradiciotn of St. Robert Bellarmine, and about 20 other theologians.

Dimond is incorrectly accusing me of that position. If someone says, “I was baptized, and I deny the Immaculate Conception,” and such person obstinately perseveres in that error after being rebuked and corrected or shown evidence of his error, Catholics should rightfully conclude that such a person is a heretic (pertinacity would be proven) without an accompanying ecclesiastical censure.

I agree so far.

But if pertinacity or notoriety is not proven, then canon 2223.4 requires a declaration of heresy if it is for the “common good” of the Church. If it is for the good of the Church to know if we have a pope (it most certainly is, for nothing more important for the Church could be imagined), a declaration is required, unless the pope’s heresy is morally imputable, which sedevacantists cannot prove.

Uh, canons 2220-2225 fall under the heading: "The Coercive Power of Having a Superior." TITULUS V: De Superiore potestatem coactivam habente.

According to the Church's teaching, a Pope has no superior. Now, if you wish to say that a heretical Pope remains Pope and is capable of maintainig jurisdiction, then you have to show that he, as Pope, which you maintain HE IS, can have a Superior. This is non-sensical. How then can you consistently apply THIS canon to the need to show that he is a heretic for the good of the Church? These canons are about people who are UNDER THE AUTHORITY of a SUPERIOR. They don't apply, by your very logic to the situation at all.

The Dimond brothers can compile all the heterodox quotes of the conciliar popes that they wish and “adjudicate” them on their website as if they are the Magisterium.

No, they can show how they are "already judged" for good and logical reasons. Although I do think they throw around the word heretic a bit much, especially at the laity who are simply ignorant.

But non-sedevacantists can do the same thing. We can compile thousands upon thousands of orthodox statements from these popes which would far surpass the volume of their quasi-heretical statements.

What is quasi-heretical about saying heretics and schismatics make up the Church of Christ? That is grave and formal heresy given by those whose job it is to know better. Wait, I take that back, it is NOT their job, because they are not even a part of the same institution...

I don’t say this to downplay the gravity of the unorthodox papal statements or say that proof of heresy is a mathematical formula or balancing act. No, I make this point to highlight that the sedevacantism debate comes down to a factual question of proof.

It depends on which tack you take: The Holy See can be proven vacant in two different ways: Demonstrate the heresy of those involved, OR demonstrate that the institution in question is NO LONGER the Catholic Church based on the docuмentation at Vatican II and its re-definition of the nature of the Church and, ergo, the papacy.

Because it comes down to a question of proof between two opposing sides demonstrates that a higher authority (the Church) must resolve the issue. When it is a question of evidence which can deprive one of an ecclesiastical office, an ecclesiastical authority must resolve the question.

When it is a question of to different theological schools, I agree that the Church needs to declare definitively what is true. HOWEVER, there is an OBJECTIVELY TRUER side already, and it can be known. The truth is that the church has already ruled on issues that establish the same pprinciple, namely the case of Hypathius, Eulalius and Nestorius. As told by St. Alphonsus Ligouri:

St Hypathius and Nestorius

"Another historical example has been invoked in favour of the position of those who condemn all misguided traditionalists as heretics or schismatics: the case of St Hypathius. This Bythinian monk insisted on omitting the name of the heretic Nestorius from the diptychs from the moment when he began to preach his heresy, denying the unity of person in Our Divine Lord. His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council. Hypathius replied: "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)

But in fact this case merely illustrates what all sedevacantists are agreed upon: given a case in which one clearly sees, in all prudence, that one is dealing with a heretic, one must at once withdraw from communion with him. That is of course the correct position to hold with regard to Karol Wojtyla and many others in our days.

But when some sedevacantists withdraw from communion with other sedevacantists on the grounds that the latter remain in communion not with Karol Wojtyla but with certain traditional clergy or laity that the first group consider heretics...they are quite mistaken to quote the case of St Hypathius in their favour. For Hypathius, though he withdrew from communion with Nestorius, clearly did not withdraw from communion with Eulalius, who, though orthodox, mistakenly thought it right to remain provisionally in communion with Nestorius until the Church should have formally pronounced him a heretic.

Hence those who today condemn those of us who reject John-Paul II without rejecting misguided traditionalists ought by the same token to condemn St Hypathius whose example we follow. They ought to hold that he should never have been considered a saint after such a disgraceful example of liberalism and of schismatic dispositions!

And curiously enough, one sedevacantist of those who feel that they are more faithful to the Church the more people they consider excommunicated in our days, has even reached that extreme, for when the example of St Hypathius was quoted to him he replied that Hypathius must have repented of the incident to have been considered a saint by the Church. In other words he made the saint's chief glory into an act of shame which he spontaneously compared with the youthful indiscretions committed by St Augustine before his conversion!

Taken From http://www.sedevacantist.org

While a Catholic may claim that some of the conduct of the conciliar popes raises questions about their fidelity to Church dogmas (e.g., “No Salvation Outside the Church”), these Popes have never declared that they deny the dogmas in question. If, for example, Pope John Paul II made known to the Church that he kissed the Koran because he denies the divinity of Christ,
and he persisted in his error after being rebuked, the Church would know at that point that he is a formal heretic. A declaration of heresy for “the common good” of the Church in such case would be unnecessary (although it would most likely still be given), and canon 188.4 and cuм Ex would apply.

Wow, ok, there is such a thing as tacit heresy and doing actions that signify adherence to heresy. Read the magisterial teaching of Pius X, Mortalium Animos:

2. "A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."

Assisi 1 and 2 and now 3. These are ALL Actions which constitute a tacit apostasy and explicit communication with heretics.

But because John Paul II has also publicly declared Christ’s divinity (and much more than he can be accused of denying it), we cannot conclude he is a formal heretic for denying Christ’s divinity on the grounds that he kissed the Koran.

No, but the theologians have said that one who would pray at the tomb of mohamed would be an apostate. Much less kissing the Koran...

In other words, we cannot say John Paul II acted with malice when he kissed the Koran, even though it was an incredibly scandalous act to do. Wouldn’t Dimond use the same argument to defend his parish worship with “heretics” and “apostates?” The same can be said for the rest of the “heresies” of the conciliar Popes – they will affirm a dogma one day, and then raise doubts about their affirmations another day (yes, I am aware of Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei concerning the errors of using ambiguous language, but that decree does not say that the one communicating the ambiguity is automatically a formal heretic; it says only that we must expose and condemn the error that the ambiguity can give rise to).

Okay, granted.

Here is where canon 2223.4 – which Dimond never even addresses – comes into play. A declaration of heresy would be necessary in such a case to prove formal heresy exists. And this would follow only after the Pope were warned (under canon 2314.2) of his putative heresy and disregarded those warnings. We simply don’t know whether John Paul’s kissing of the Koran was an act of apostasy, a desire to gain the praise of men, or a manifestation of his worsening dementia and senility, much less whether he was given any warning for his behavior.

Once again, these canons don't apply because they apply to those who are under the authority of superiors. According to you, a heretical Pope is still Pope, so these canons don't apply.

Of course, the conciliar popes have never said they know they are departing from Catholic teaching.

Uh, yes they have:
"...there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian."

AND...Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks made in an interview he gave in 2000 to the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine:

"Vatican II did not use Pius XII's expression according to which 'the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.' Instead it preferred the expression 'The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…' because, he said, 'it wished to affirm the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.'"

Expulsion from the Church must be based on malice, not speculation.

THANK YOU! And in the External forum, whenever a law is broken The Church Presumes the malice involved.

Continued later...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2011, 12:38:58 AM »

Excellent post Gregory I.

It's very telling that the straw man opposition of the Dimonds is usually addressed when sedevacantist arguments are attacked.

One thing it tells you is that the Dimonds are very effective messengers.

The main thing though is that there isn't an attempt to really come to grips with actual substance of the argument. I can't believe this nonsense that someone is not a heretic if they often say things that agree with the religion. It doesn't matter that x y z were said because he "affirmed" Christ's divinity. It shows you the desperation of the anti-sede position.

Gregory I · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2011, 01:03:39 AM »

Note also that Padre Pio, the great mystic who communicated with God throughout his life (and whom the Dimond brothers greatly admire), revealed to Karol Wojtyla when he met him: “some day you will be pope.” Obviously, Padre Pio’s prophecy came true. I would rather wager my conclusions (and salvation) on the divine prophecies of St. Pio than on the private judgment and false prophecies of the Dimond brothers.

False. This is from the Vatican Insider:

"The life of John Paul II and that of Padre Pio were closely linked long before the canonization of that Friar from the Campania region which, on Sunday, June 16, 2002 Karol Wojtyla wanted to celebrate with great ceremony and in record time. Padre Pio had died a few years before, in 1968. The closeness between the two men was something mystic. They had met only once, in 1948. Karol Wojtyla, a young priest studying in Rome, went to San Giovanni Rotondo to meet the mysterious monk with the stigmata. He also managed to be confessed by him. That meeting marked the future Pope, even though, years later, John Paul II denied that Padre Pio had told him that one day he would be "dressed in white".

Free yourself from Propaganda and make an effort to learn the truth.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/beatificazione-di-giovanni-paolo-ii-karol-wojtyla-giovanni-paolo-ii-padre-pio-92/

Dimond would say that my analysis makes it a question of how obvious the heresy is. That is true, for that is precisely how canon law frames the question. Again, to be a formal heretic, the heresy must be “public and notorious.” To be public, the heresy does not have to be widely known among the faithful as Dimond correctly points out, but it does have to be practically impossible to stop it from becoming widely known.

I think any "Authentic" "Papal" magisterial docuмents that teach plainly heretical ideas qualifies as public and hard to stop.

In my article, I argued that Cardinal Roncalli’s pre-election “heresies” were not public under canon 2197 of the Code because they were not widely known by the Church, or at least there was some doubt as to whether they would become widely known.

I will grant that in Roncalli's case it is difficult, but there are other reasons to doubt him BESIDES public heresy. Cardinal Tisserant, the Cardinal Camerlongo of the 1958 conclave:

"In another letter, Cardinal Tisserant told a priest teaching canon law that the election of John XXIII was illegitimate because it was willed and planned for by forces alien to the Holy Spirit. (“Vita” 18 September, 1977, p.4: “Le profezie sui papi nell’elenco di San Malachia”)-[“Prophecies on the popes by Saint Malachy”] These letters confirm that the election of John XXIII really was “programmed.”

There is no definitive evidence, for example, that Cardinal Roncalli’s “heresies” were commonly known as evidenced in part by the fact that Pope Pius XII never rendered any negative judgments against Roncalli.

Really? Being dismissed from a seminary for teaching modernism is not considered a "judgement"?

Quote from book "The Vatican Exposed", "The Pink Pope" chapter, pgs. 90-92 and NOTES, p. 243: ...the age of eleven he entered a minor seminary and twelve years later was ordained a priest. In 1918, after serving as a chaplain, Roncalli was assigned to teach church history at the Pontifical Lateran Seminary in Rome. He was dismissed from this position because of his Communist sympathies and modernist ideas, including approval of "mixed marriages" (the marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics). The so-called pink priest came to serve as a letter copier in the Oriental Congregation of the Holy See before receiving a commission to serve as the apostolic visitor to Bulgaria--a post that required he be made a bishop.(2)

At the close of World War II, Roncalli was sent to Paris as papal nuncio, where he became close friends with French President Vincent Auriol; Maurice Thorez, the leader of the French Communists; and Edouard Herriot, leader of the Radical Party. Thorez had sent a glowing report about Roncalli to the Kremlin. Roncalli was an ideal prelate, Thorez wrote to the Soviet officials, he understood Marxism like a Marxist, and if the Communist Party had not been sponsoring a program of militant atheism, he might have been the best "Christian comrade" in the Roman Catholic Church.(3)

Dimond recharacterized my position to mean that the conciliar popes’ “heresies” are not public, but I was addressing only the putative heresies of Cardinal Roncalli, not the “heresies” of the conciliar popes (cuм Ex applies to Cardinals being elevated to the papacy, and not to reigning popes). I agree that the words and actions of the conciliar popes would be considered “public” in accordance with canon 2197.

No beef.

But even if Roncalli’s “heresies” were public (and this goes for the conciliar popes as well), they would still have to be notorious or pertinacious, as I state in my article. Like most sedevacantists, Dimond does not address the “notorious” prong of canon law, and that is because he cannot prove notorious heresy exists (which means he cannot prove formal heresy at all). For a heresy to be notorious, it would not only have to be widely known, but the moral imputability (in other words, the criminal liability) would also have to be widely known.

If notoriety = Criminal Liability, i.e. MALICE...
1917 code of canon law:

"Can 2200 §1. Dolus heic est deliberata voluntas violandi legem, eique opponitur ex parte intellectus defectus cognitionis et ex parte voluntatis defectus libertatis.
§2. Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.

Section 2: "Positing an external violation of the law, DECEIT (Malice, Fraud=dolus) in the external forum is presumed until the contrary has been proven."

In addition, canon 2207.2 indicates that the imputability and gravity of the offense given is INCREASED if the offense results from an abuse of office.

Can 2207. Praeter alia adiuncta aggravantia, delictum augetur:
1º Pro maiore dignitate personae quae delictum committit, aut quae delicto offenditur;
2º Ex abusu auctoritatis vel officii ad delictum patrandum.

The pope’s words and actions could not be excused by any self-defense, such as the pope’s desire (as is the case with liberals) to please the world, or the pope’s weakness, or old age, or imprudence. To put it simply, there is no proof that the conciliar popes have acted with criminal intent or malice, much less is such “proof” widely known by the Church. In fact, most people believe that Pope John Paul II was deeply convinced that he was serving the Church – albeit, at times, in a very damaging way.

Once again, SILENCE about Canon 2200: Malice is presumed when the law is broken until another explanation is given. The offender has not given one, therefore his malice and deceit are presumed.

Further, as I have pointed out, Dimond attempts to apply cuм Ex to the “heresies” of the conciliar popes as popes, even though cuм Ex applies only to heresies committed by these men prior to their election to the office in question. Pope Paul IV makes this clear: “If...the Roman Pontiff…prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff has deviated from the faith or fallen into some heresy…” Moreover, Dimond cannot prove that the alleged heresies of Roncalli or Wojtyla or Ratzinger – prior to their elevation as Cardinal or Pope – were “notorious” as required by canon 2197 or “pertinacious” as required by canon 1325.2. If Dimond cannot prove that they acted with malice against the Faith before their elevations, the provisions of cuм Ex do not even apply.

That is fair, as far as that particular line of argument goes. However, when a priest of the Catholic Church Publishes books that teach decidedly DIFFERENT doctrines from the Catholic Faith for ALL to read, what part of this is neither public nor notorious?

Dimond further uses (abuses) cuм Ex to prove that Catholics can know a heretic without a declaration, which he then uses to justify his separation from the conciliar popes because Pope Paul IV says Catholics “shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated.” But as I have said, the issue is not whether we can ever know whether formal heresy exists (we can).

Thank goodness.

The issue is whether a declaration of such heresy of an elected pope is necessary to serve the “common good” of the Church (it is), and whether Dimond can prove the pre-election heresies of the conciliar popes were notorious (he cannot).

Might I call to mind the PAPAL CORONATION OATH, taken by Paul VI:

Since the "Popes" WILLFULLY have decided NOT to take the papal coronation oath, we may indeed WONDER if they intend to do anything contained in that oath at all:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

"Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." Papal Coronation Oath: Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificuм, P.L. 105, S 54.

It could be very easily argued, that if Paul VI were a valid Pope, he violated this oath, which means he EXCOMMUNICATED HIMSELF upon his approval and close of the vatican council. Therefore his succesors are not real Popes.

By his actions, including the signing into action the second Vatican Council whihc taught both error and heresy and betrayed the Catholic Faith, Paul VI has IN THE SIGHT OF GOD EXCOMMUNICATED HIMSELF from the Church. Therefore he has no authority, he is fully excommunicate, and his successors are anti-popes; for he was neither formally deposed, nor did he rescind his decrees, ESPECIALLY Lumen Gentium which re-defined the nature of the Church and therefore the Roman Pontificate.

Anathema sit.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2011, 01:26:38 AM »

Quote

The great theologian Garrigou-LaGrange holds a similar opinion, by making a distinction between the “physical” head of a heretical pope (who may no longer be able to exercise jurisdiction by commanding the Church) and the “moral” head of a heretical pope (who can exercise jurisdiction through preaching and confecting the sacraments, even if he is no longer a member of the Church; as St. Thomas teaches, heretics can still confect the sacraments) (De Verbo Incarnato, p. 232).

This is somewhat of a mis-contextualization.

I beleive that the author of this article is citing Rev. Father Garrigou-Lagrange's tangential ecclesiological remark in De Christo Salvatore: Commentarius in IIIam partem Summæ Theologicæ Sancti Thomæ [Taurini: R. Berruti & C., 1945], Q. VIII. De gratia Christi, ut est caput Ecclesiæ, art. iii. Utrum sit caput omnium hominum, dubium I: An sit actu caput hæreticorum baptizatorum et occultorum, which was translated in English as Christ the Savior: A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1950], Ch. X “Christ’s Grace as Head of the Church,” art. iii. “Whether Christ Is the Head of All Men,” first doubt, pp. 319-320). The pertinent texts are herewith attached.

As I have written sometime before:

From what I have read from the book and the corresponding passage of the Summa whereupon it comments (for it is a commetary upon the Summa, so reading it is necessary to understand the book) your conclusion that Rev. Fr. Reginald's statement contradicts sedevacantism is wrong. St. Thomas in the pertinent question of the Summa was dicussing the "gratia capitis" of Christ, whereby He has been constituted as Head of all the faithful. Fr. Reginald's commentary was meant to prove and clarify that St. Thomas was correct. As a possible problematic objection, he discusses the subject of a "heretical pope," and concludes that such a Pope may retain his jurisdiction by way of a very extraordinary exception of the rule (modo omnino anormali). But he was speaking of the case wherein the Roman Pontiff privately succuмbs to a theologically heretical opinion. This is immaterial to the sedevacantists' arguments, as the case of a public heretic is pertinent to their discussion, not a private heretic. Canon Law makes this crucial distinction also.

By the way, Rev. Fr. Reginald speaks of the wicked in the same chapter, but he does not mean heretics, but Catholics in the state of mortal sin (wherein the soul still has infused faith and hope but not infused charity), transgressing any or all but the First Commandment, against which heresy and apostasy is a horrible sin, theologically insofar as it extinguishes the light of infused faith in the soul, and Canonically as an ecclesiastical crime which presupposes the pre-existing reality of heresy already committed and having cut off the individual's soul from the Mystical Body of Christ. This is important because it shows that he was trying to validate St. Thomas' teaching of Christ's "gratia capitis," which is what led him to that curious tangent regarding a Pope who may have privately lapsed into heresy. This tangent ought to be reviewed in light of the principles of the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi.

A tangential ecclesiological remark in a Christological treatise must be contextualized and understood [and cited] correctly, lest the author and his readers commit the error for which the author is condemning the Dimonds.

Just thought it would be best to clarify this point and provide the actual texts.

Also, heretical clerics can administer valid Sacraments in virtue of their Sacred Orders, which leaves an indelible mark upon the cleric's soul, but he may not do so licitly, and he cannot claim supplied jurisdiction for his acts, unless a Catholic comes to him in danger of death. A bishop who by public heresy or schism is no longer the Roman Pontiff can still offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, etc., but he no longer has the liceity to do so, much less would it e possible for him to exercise the supreme jurisdiction peculiar to the Supreme Pontiff alone upon the clergy and faithful, since the cleric in question would be bereaved of all jurisdiction as a public heretic cut off from the Mystical Body of Christ.

So the analogy the author of this article draws at the end of the above-cited text does not hold, it seems.

As TKGS wrote in another thread:

Quote

I find the sedevacantist theory quite simple, actually. It's not complicated at all. What is complicated is explaining why a manifest and pertinacious heretic can be the head of the Catholic Church.

Just my two cents.... :reporter:

Gregory I · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2011, 01:33:45 AM »

Thank you Hobbled, I think most sedes agree on that point anyway; a secret heretic remains a member of the church, as would a secretly heretical Pope. No beef there.

It just shows you the certain kind of deceit that is used to drive a point home when a person is utterly convinced of its truth...

Daegus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2011, 07:51:07 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Thank you Hobbled, I think most sedes agree on that point anyway; a secret heretic remains a member of the church, as would a secretly heretical Pope. No beef there.

It just shows you the certain kind of deceit that is used to drive a point home when a person is utterly convinced of its truth...

If a heretic is a validly baptised human being who has severed themselves from the bosom and unity of Holy Mother Church by pertinacious heresy, why assume that they would somehow retain office simply because we don't know of their heresy? Nowhere has it been defined that a "secret heretic" somehow retains office in actuality.

Now, why do I say this? Well.. I can perfectly agree with the notion that such a person would superficially (meaning: in appearance only) retain their office, but not in actuality. All of the Catholic faithful would be bound to assume the legitimacy of their pontificate/episcopacy/priesthood/diaconate unless something they did or said would prove otherwise. But how would they somehow retain their office in actuality if their beliefs ipso facto cause them to expel themselves from the Church without declaration?

For instance, let's say that for the sake of argument I am a bishop. I could claim to believe that Jesus Christ is God to everyone I know, but if in my heart I obstinately deny that, I would still be a heretic regardless of who knew I thought this way. By being a heretic, I would lose my office without declaration even if I could still validly confect sacraments. Unless it can be proven that I am a heretic, everyone should assume that I am not one even though I am one in secret.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2011, 09:41:48 AM »

Dear Daegus, you are walking on very thin ice there.

If your proposition is true, then we would have a Church which could be devoid of any authority or jurisdiction. If I were bad willing, I would say your opinion is proximate to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church.

Please consult the theological manuals prior to any such statements.

I attached an excerpt of Canon Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Volume I, Paris 1929, art. 525 No. 2b

Daegus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2011, 09:53:54 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Dear Daegus, you are walking on very thin ice there.

If your proposition is true, then we would have a Church which could be devoid of any authority or jurisdiction. If I were bad willing, I would say your opinion is proximate to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church.

Please consult the theological manuals prior to any such statements.

I attached an excerpt of Canon Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Volume I, Paris 1929, art. 525 No. 2b

Instead of trying to covertly accuse me of Protestantism, why can't people here just be honest with me and tell that I'm wrong when I'm clearly wrong?

I'm not so hardheaded that I can't concede to the truth. That is, after all, what I'm after.

But no, you'd rather dance around the issue and imply that I'm a Protestant in some way. Are you afraid of "judging" me or something? Come on now. This is why I'm getting increasingly tired of even visiting these forums.

Besides, in what way is my position "proximate to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church"? That makes no sense whatsoever, nor have you even explained how that statement makes any sense. Please explain how my opinion is "proximate" to believing in an invisible Church, which I do not. Besides, my position is not illogical. It is based off of what I know. It is a valid argument. Is it necessarily a sound argument? No. But that's up for further clarification.

Please don't make ridiculous statements without backing them up.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2011, 10:11:37 AM »

I particularly said this, because you are continuously accusing Catholics of being heretics. In this way I was hoping to show how ridiculous and uncharitable this kind of assumptions and accusations are.

In your proposition, you are saying that Bishops lose their office through interior sins. This is repugnant to Catholic doctrine and was continuously brought up by various heretical groups through the ages.
As the most notorious deniers of the visibility of the Church are the Protestants, I brought them up as an example.

The scan I provided clearly show how this questions pertains to the visibility of the Church.

Obviously, I do not accuse you of Protestantism or any other heresy or error.

Daegus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2011, 10:26:51 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

I particularly said this, because you are continuously accusing Catholics of being heretics. In this way I was hoping to show how ridiculous and uncharitable this kind of assumptions and accusations are.

By this you've proven how dishonest you are. You think I'm accusing true Catholics of being heretics, which is a ridiculous, nonsensical position that you've established and attributed to me. A true Catholic cannot be a heretic, because heretics are non-Christians and true Catholics are Christians.

Unfortunately, it's becoming a trend here to accuse those who have acerbic tendencies of being heretics simply because they accuse others of being heretics based off of what can be demonstrated.

Quote

In your proposition, you are saying that Bishops lose their office through interior sins. This is repugnant to Catholic doctrine and was continuously brought up by various heretical groups through the ages.
As the most notorious deniers of the visibility of the Church are the Protestants, I brought them up as an example.

No, you brought them up to accuse me of being a Protestant because you, like many others here, cannot stand my rigoristic point of view on many issues. You want to accuse me of being a Protestant because you'd love the idea of me being a heretic. You'd love the idea of me being in Hell, wouldn't you?

All my argument was was this:

1) A heretic is a baptised member of the Church who has severed themselves from bosom and unity of the Church by an obstinate denial of any matter of divine or Catholic Faith.
2) Heretics lose office without declaration. For the sake of argument, I am a heretical bishop who will not admit his heresies to anyone's face yet obstinately holds them without anyone's knowing.
3) Because heretics lose office and all jurisdiction that comes with it and I am technically a heretic regardless of whether anyone knows I am or not,(remember.. without declaration) I conclude that I have lost office without declaration.

That is my opinion and it is a valid (but not necessarily sound) argument. I have not attempted to teach it as fact. You claim that my opinion was proximate to Protestant heresy without explaining yourself only because you WANT me to be a heretic. The issue of an invisible Church is much
more complex than me saying that a heretic loses office. It involves much more than that (i.e. not believing in a hierarchy AT ALL which I do not believe), but for the sake of your ridiculous argument and your petulance in calling me a Protestant, it doesn't surprise me that you would conceal that fact.

Quote

The scan I provided clearly show how this questions pertains to the visibility of the Church.

You can't just copy and paste arguments and not explain yourself.

Did you also notice how I admitted I was wrong? Do Protestants admit that they're wrong on a regular basis?

Quote

Obviously, I do not accuse you of Protestantism or any other heresy or error.

Yes you do. Many people here are convinced that I am evil and out to deceive people with my Protestant heresy. To be quite honest, I need a break from these forums. I'm getting very tired of having arguments like this with people.

I originally said I was going to quit but was only saying that with a light heart. Now I might just give that proper consideration. CathInfo will send me to Hell if I continue posting here too much.

SJB · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2011, 10:48:05 AM »

Quote from: daegus

1) A heretic is a baptised member of the Church who has severed themselves from bosom and unity of the Church by an obstinate denial of any matter of divine or Catholic Faith.
2) Heretics lose office without declaration. For the sake of argument, I am a heretical bishop who will not admit his heresies to anyone's face yet obstinately holds them without anyone's knowing.
3) Because heretics lose office and all jurisdiction that comes with it and I am technically a heretic regardless of whether anyone knows I am or not,(remember.. without declaration) I conclude that I have lost office without declaration.

You fail to distinguish between occult and public heretics. It is precisely because of the visibility of the Church that you must make the distinction. Bellarmine very clearly states that occult heretics are still members by an external bond.

Gregory I · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2011, 10:55:46 AM »

Daegus, I have always understood that in order for a cleric to lose office in the church, their heresy must be PUBLIC manifest and NORTORIOUS.

I think theologians are generally divided as to whether a secret heretic is in or out of the church. I have read manuals that say a secret internal heretic who believes heresy but never tells anyone is indeed still a member of the church, but a dead member; like the whithered arm that has not been severed. Again, other theologians maintain that a secret EXTERNAL heretic IS cast out of the church. I think this is similar to a catholic who secretly attends protestant services and doesn't tell anyone.

But, for the sake of LAW and for the loss of ecclesiastical office, the heresy must be Public, Manifest, and obviously morally wrong (notorious).

That's what I have read. You can find that in the Google ebook "A history of persecution."

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:41:46 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Daegus, I have always understood that in order for a cleric to lose office in the church, their heresy must be PUBLIC manifest and NORTORIOUS.

I think theologians are generally divided as to whether a secret heretic is in or out of the church. I have read manuals that say a secret internal heretic who believes heresy but never tells anyone is indeed still a member of the church, but a dead member; like the whithered arm that has not been severed. Again, other theologians maintain that a secret EXTERNAL heretic IS cast out of the church. I think this is similar to a catholic who secretly attends protestant services and doesn't tell anyone.

But, for the sake of LAW and for the loss of ecclesiastical office, the heresy must be Public, Manifest, and obviously morally wrong (notorious).

That's what I have read. You can find that in the Google ebook "A history of persecution."

Who are these theologians?

Also, you need to understand what the Church considers "public." I'll post something on that later today, if possible.

Gregory I · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2011, 12:13:28 PM »

I honestly do not know SJB, I think I just remember that distinction somewhere way back when I was reading theology manuals...

I have done so much research ont he 'net, it starts to blend, you know?

However, I do know this:

""Forum means in general a place for the transaction of official business, judicial or administrative. In the present connection it designates rather a field or province of action than a physical place.

"1. The external forum is the forum of the Church's external government. Jurisdiction in the external forum: (a) concerns actions whereby the faithful are innocent or guilty in the eyes of the Church as members of the Church; and (b) it is exercised publicly, and has juridical effects.

"2. The internal forum is the forum of conscience. Jurisdiction in the internal forum: (a) concerns actions whereby the faithful are innocent or guilty before God; and (b) it is exercised privately, and has no juridical effects, unless these are specially provided for."10 (Some emphasis added).

Note that crime is a juridical concept. A crime is essentially a wrongdoing in relation to the public order, and as such it is judged in the external forum. The key point to grasp is that secret heresy is a sin but not a crime. Therefore it has no juridical effects. Public heresy, though, always has juridical effects for the obvious reason that it is a crime. The crime is, by definition, the refusal of a person to profess the true faith outwardly. (This will be further explained below.)

Taken from http://www.Sedevacantist.org