You’re the one very confused:

Quote

Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

 b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church.  They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).

    By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

Why do you even quote this if this refutes what you're saying? Van Noort makes it very clear that -even in the best-case scenario (for you) that they are merely "material heretics"- they would STILL not be members of the Church.

And if you're not even a member of the Church, YOU CANNOT BE HER HEAD.

You’d have to establish willfulness and guilt to prove formal heresy - I don’t think you can make out that case with regard to Bergolio or any of his predecessors.

You have just quoted something which sates that even material heretics are not members of the Church, so what do you care about proving formal heresy? Do you have alternate understandings of being OUTSIDE the Church?

Anyways, when you're dealing with clerics, no you don't have to establish wilfulness and guilt. It is they who have to explain themselves.

"If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (McDevitt, 48.)

“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… [E]xcusing circuмstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, 35.)

I always find it incredible how people can even suggest such a thing, that perhaps this whole thing, this entire APOSTASY, is all a mere accident and they are all unaware of what they're saying and doing and in the end may all be "innocent". Amazing! Do you ever even stop to think for a moment about what you're saying here?

All the antipopes have had Doctorates in theology, they taught in seminaries themselves etc. They climbed to the very top of the Ecclesiastical ladder, for crying out loud.

They have absolutely no excuse for their heresies and modernism because they are fully aware of what the Church taught about all this.

Why did they get rid of the Oath against Modernism? Was that just accidental?

They are all bold and boastful modernists, and people like you are only doing the work of the Devil by trying to excuse them when even they themselves don't excuse themselves and have made it very clear they have adopted modernism with full awareness.

Bergoglio himself was a Professor of Theology in the San Miguel Seminary, later in 1980 he was named the rector of the Philosophical and Theological Faculty.

More importantly, one can be a public and manifest material heretic, and that places one outside the faith and the Church, which is professed (the faith) and visible - as Van Nort notes.

Yes, so why do you still think they're Popes? You just said they're outside the faith and the Church! You kidding me?

It is you who do not understand heresy and the relation between the external forum and internal forum in that regard. If there are no statements indicating willfulness and guilt, formal heresy is a matter between the individual and God, inaccessible to us.

Now you switch to formal heresy. Weren't you talking about material heresy?

This was already refuted above.

If Bergolio, as I said, were to say, “Trent said this but I disagree, and say this,” then you have grounds to hold him as a formal heretic.

Yes, "as you say", because no theologian says such a thing. Where did you get this? Where did you get the idea that ONLY something this explicit makes you a formal heretic? Can you show me?

I don't know where you got that from, but i can show you something which doesn't say it has to be that clear-cut:

The heretic may deny the doctrine in explicit or equivalent terms, through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition. R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638.;Michel, DTC 6:2213.

Do you know what a contrary proposition is?

Why do you even quote this if this refutes what you're saying?

And how, pray tell, does Van Nort refute what I’m saying when I called Bergolio a public, material heretic and claimed he was outside the Church and then cited Van Nort in response to your saying there was no such thing as a public, material heretic because public and material were “different”?

 :roll-laugh2:

Your position that Bergolio is a formal heretic is dubious. But more importantly, it doesn’t matter to me or you. It does to Bergolio, but not to me or you.

They are all bold and boastful modernists, and people like you are only doing the work of the Devil by trying to excuse them when even they themselves don't excuse themselves and have made it very clear they have adopted modernism with full awareness.

Do I have to write my responses to you in big, bold letters and in different colors, as if I were writing in crayon?

I called Bergolio a heretic. Father Hesse called Paul VI and the lot of them heretics. He was not a Sedevacantist.

I couldn’t give a fig for your labels and you can play your little academic scholastic game all you want. I’ve been called a Sedevacantist myself here, so your claim that I support and defend the Conciliar popes is a hoot. You not only are constantly shifting the ground, but make assumptions - first I’m a Feeneyite, then I’m a Feeneyite who supports Bergolio and the authority of the Conciliar Church.

I reject the NO and Conciliar Church, and pay no attention to Bergolio. You are obsessed with this label, “sede vacante.” I hold he is a heretic and thereby outside the Church, but his arse is sitting in the chair and he was elected pope. The bishops over which he presides and who cling to him are the successors of bishops going back to the Apostles in Catholic sees.

We agree the clowns are owed no authority. You run along now and “figure that out.” No, wait, you already have it figured out. You’re a dogmatic Sedevacantist windbag.

Before I’m done with you: Dude, when I post something it is in reply to you and what you said. You were claiming B and his compadres were “formal” heretics; you disputed that one could be a “public, material heretic” . . . these are what I was responding to.

Frankly, you’re a knucklehead and not worth more time. Take your last shot. And I know how good you are at taking shots.

Take ‘em (us) all down O great Defender.  

 :boxer:

Go get ‘em, Tiger.

You and all the dogmatic Sedes who, as Ladislaus has repeatedly pointed out, make the same errors of soteriology and ecclesiology as the Conciliarists you despise.

Think about this: one thing you guys have in common is you both despise me and all “Feeneyites.”

You say you believe one must have the Catholic faith to be saved. Hmmm. I think I’ll go back and look at your posts to since what your idea of the Catholic faith is.

That should be interesting.

Quote

Why do you even quote this if this refutes what you're saying?

And how, pray tell, does Van Nort refute what I’m saying when I called Bergolio a public, material heretic and claimed he was outside the Church and then cited Van Nort in response to your saying there was no such thing as a public, material heretic because public and material were “different”?

Your position that Bergolio is a formal heretic is dubious. But more importantly, it doesn’t matter to me or you. It does to Bergolio, but not to me or you.

My main issue with you is your calling them material heretics, because they can't be and it's wrong.

According to St. Augustine, material heretics are those who "...do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected."

This is not the case of these antipopes at all. They created this whole situation and imposed their heresies on the Catholic faithful; they weren't innocently seduced by their parents nor were they seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected.

Do you not realise how wrong it is to call them material heretics?

The bishops over which he presides and who cling to him are the successors of bishops going back to the Apostles in Catholic sees.

How can public heretics be successors to the Apostles?

You say you believe one must have the Catholic faith to be saved. Hmmm. I think I’ll go back and look at your posts to since what your idea of the Catholic faith is.

Why don't you tell me what you think "the Catholic faith" is?

Think about this: saying that baptism is necessary at least implicitly proves its absolute necessity because it means you must absolutely have it in some way.