Author Topic: Does Canon Law support sedevacantism? (Read 8627 times)

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **on:** October 06, 2013, 10:35:52 PM »

1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2227.2:

Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]

Let's talk.

Mabel · « **Reply #1 on:** October 06, 2013, 10:39:13 PM »

Suspension is entirely different than automatic excommunication. I don't see that there is much to talk about.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #2 on:** October 06, 2013, 10:48:39 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Suspension is entirely different than automatic excommunication. I don't see that there is much to talk about.

So a bishop is not subject to automatic suspension (unless expressly named) but a Pope can be subject to a much harsher penalty of automatic excommunication? Please explain.

Also please explain how a Cardinal is not under penal law (unless expressly named), but a Pope is.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #3 on:** October 06, 2013, 11:09:24 PM »

Mabel, I am also assuming you mean "banned excommunicate" when you say automatic excommunication. Canon Law speaks also of "tolerated excommunicates." Tolerated excommunicates are not suspended from many of their duties.

Mabel · « **Reply #4 on:** October 06, 2013, 11:21:51 PM »

Suspension is a mechanism which the authorities of Church might use for a disciplinary measure, same with interdict. If you are suspended or put under interdict, you may be permitted to do certain things, it isn't the same as excommunication and it doesn't mean you have severed yourself from membership in the Church.

Excommunication, formal and automatic break that bond. An excommunicate is not a member of the Church, nor is he a Catholic.

Have you read this? It is on the loss of offices, since I assume that is what you are getting at.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html

The second link is Bellarmine, from De Romano Pontifice
http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

I think both are worth brushing up on, if you've read them already.

Mabel · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2013, 11:24:24 PM »

I'm not sure in which context the quote defines penal law, I'd have to have a commentary handy to understand it better.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2013, 11:44:53 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Suspension is a mechanism which the authorities of Church might use for a disciplinary measure, same with interdict. If you are suspended or put under interdict, you may be permitted to do certain things, it isn't the same as excommunication and it doesn't mean you have severed yourself from membership in the Church.

Excommunication, formal and automatic break that bond. An excommunicate is not a member of the Church, nor is he a Catholic.

Mabel, please read your Canon Law. It speaks of both tolerated and banned excommunicates. That is why I correctly assumed that you referred to a banned excommunicate in your reply. A tolerated excommunicate still performs certain functions in the Church, while one who is suspended can be suspended from all functions. You still have not addressed the heart of my questions.

How can a bishop not be subject to automatic suspension (which does not entail a loss of office), yet a Pope be subject to an automatic penalty such as banned excommunication?

Why is the Pope under penal law and not a Cardinal?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** October 07, 2013, 02:04:29 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2227.2:

Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]

Let's talk.

The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.

Canon 188:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

But more importantly Divine Law supports it.

A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.

You can do that but not me.

Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.

What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?

I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.

To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #8 on:** October 07, 2013, 02:43:52 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2227.2:

Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]

Let's talk.

The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.

Canon 188:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

But more importantly Divine Law supports it.

A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.

You can do that but not me.

Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.

What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?

I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.

To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."

Canon 188.4 pertains to an automatic penalty. Bishops and Cardinals must be expressly named to fall under Canon 188.4, how much more a Pope. Individual laymen and clerics have no authority in this regard.

Canon 2220.1:

Whoever has the power of opposing laws or precepts can also attach penalties to a law or precept, but one who only [has] judicial [power] can only apply penalties legitimately established according to the norm of the law.

You and I nor your favorite sedevacantist priest and bishop has the judicial power to apply an automatic penalty to a Pope. The Pope must be judged with a formal judgment in order to apply an automatic penalty. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). Canon Law can not be read in a box, like protestants read Scripture.

Also, whether it be Divine or Ecclesiastical Law, if it entails an automatic penalty, it must be applied by one with judicial power.

As far as teaching heresy publically, you are being mislead. Popes have taught or allowed heresy publically, yet remained Pope. Pope Liberius, Pope John XXII, Pope Honorius I come to mind immediately. The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them. Unity is obtained by standing fast and holding the traditions, not by claiming judicial power for yourself. By standing fast and holding the traditions (in a crisis), the heretics create a schism. By applying penalties to superiors we have many schisms.

Mabel · « **Reply #9 on:** October 07, 2013, 02:52:55 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2227.2:

Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]

Let's talk.

The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.

Canon 188:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

But more importantly Divine Law supports it.

A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.

You can do that but not me.

Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.

What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?

I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.

To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."

Canon 188.4 pertains to an automatic penalty. Bishops and Cardinals must be expressly named to fall under Canon 188.4, how much more a Pope. Individual laymen and clerics have no authority in this regard.

Canon 2220.1:

Whoever has the power of opposing laws or precepts can also attach penalties to a law or precept, but one who only [has] judicial [power] can only apply penalties legitimately established according to the norm of the law.

You and I nor your favorite sedevacantist priest and bishop has the judicial power to apply an automatic penalty to a Pope. The Pope must be judged with a formal judgment in order to apply an automatic penalty. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). Canon Law can not be read in a box, like protestants read Scripture.

Also, whether it be Divine or Ecclesiastical Law, if it entails an automatic penalty, it must be applied by one with judicial power.

As far as teaching heresy publically, you are being mislead. Popes have taught or allowed heresy publically, yet remained Pope. Pope Liberius, Pope John XXII, Pope Honorius I come to mind immediately. The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them. Unity is obtained by standing fast and holding the traditions, not by claiming judicial power for yourself. By standing fast and holding the traditions (in a crisis), the heretics create a schism. By applying penalties to superiors we have many schisms.

This is your misinterpretation, have you read Bellarmine? When pope becomes a heretic he automatically loses his office and can do so prior to a formal judgement. He deposes himself by adopting heresy.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** October 07, 2013, 03:21:36 PM »

Quote

Objection 1.

Canon 2314 states:

All apostates from the Christian Faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
i. Incur ipso facto excommunication;
ii. Unless they come to their senses when warned, are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office or other function they may have in the Church, are to be declared infamous, and in the case of clerics, after a second warning, are to be deposed;
iii. If they have joined or publicly adhered to a non-Catholic sect they are ipso facto infamous and, canon 188 §4 remaining firm, if clerics, after a previous warning has proved fruitless, are to be degraded.
Absolution from the excommunication referred to in §1, to be imparted in the forum of conscience, is reserved speciali modo to the Apostolic See.
If, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy or schism shall be in any way brought before the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, the said Ordinary - but not the Vicar General without a special mandate - can absolve the penitent by his own authority in the exterior forum after previous abjuration juridically made and the observance of whatever else the law requires; and the one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved of the sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered to have been juridically made when it takes place in the presence of the local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.

This canon would appear to directly contradict Canon 188 §4, which states: "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." (Emphasis added). In other words, it is objected that Canon 2314 implies that offices are retained until after a public judgement.

Answer to Objection 1.

This assertion is evidently absurd. What is immediately obvious is that Canon 188 is in the section of the Code dealing with offices, and it defines the ways in which a cleric resigns an office automatically. Canon 2314, however, is in the section of the code dealing with penalties, which are of course punishments. Canon 188 merely recognises a fact which already exists - that an office has been resigned by its incuмbent and is therefore now vacant. Therefore there is no contradiction at all between the two canons.

In addition, notice carefully the respective wording of the two canons. Canon 188 states that if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith he loses any offices he may possess. Canon 2314 relates to "all apostates from the Christian Faith and each and every heretic or schismatic." Hence it can be seen that even heretics whose crime is not public are to be warned and then deposed if their heresy is discovered. This is because while heresy that is not public does not destroy the bond of faith joining the person to Holy Church, it is evidently not to be tolerated on account of its gravely sinful nature and the danger that heretics pose to others. So, while heresy remains private it does not produce the automatic loss of offices, but when it is made public it does. As Charles Augustine has commented: "Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold…"27 (Emphasis added).

Canon 2314, §1, n.3 explicitly states that public adherence to, or membership in, a sect produces the effects prescribed by Canon 188, §4. Other public heresy does likewise, but it would not automatically result in the censure of infamy, since this is only prescribed for the particular crime of adhering to or joining a non-Catholic sect.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #11 on:** October 07, 2013, 09:27:33 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2227.2:

Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]

Let's talk.

The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.

Canon 188:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

But more importantly Divine Law supports it.

A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.

You can do that but not me.

Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.

What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?

I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.

To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."

Canon 188.4 pertains to an automatic penalty. Bishops and Cardinals must be expressly named to fall under Canon 188.4, how much more a Pope. Individual laymen and clerics have no authority in this regard.

Canon 2220.1:

Whoever has the power of opposing laws or precepts can also attach penalties to a law or precept, but one who only [has] judicial [power] can only apply penalties legitimately established according to the norm of the law.

You and I nor your favorite sedevacantist priest and bishop has the judicial power to apply an automatic penalty to a Pope. The Pope must be judged with a formal judgment in order to apply an automatic penalty. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). Canon Law can not be read in a box, like protestants read Scripture.

Also, whether it be Divine or Ecclesiastical Law, if it entails an automatic penalty, it must be applied by one with judicial power.

As far as teaching heresy publically, you are being mislead. Popes have taught or allowed heresy publically, yet remained Pope. Pope Liberius, Pope John XXII, Pope Honorius I come to mind immediately. The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them. Unity is obtained by standing fast and holding the traditions, not by claiming judicial power for yourself. By standing fast and holding the traditions (in a crisis), the heretics create a schism. By applying penalties to superiors we have many schisms.

This is your misinterpretation, have you read Bellarmine? When pope becomes a heretic he automatically loses his office and can do so prior to a formal judgement. He deposes himself by adopting heresy.

This is not a misinterpretation. It is not that automatic penalties do not exist, and heretics do not depose themselves. The penalties are just not applied in real time by individual laypersons and clergy etc. who lack the proper authority to do so. This is unheard of in the Church[/u]. The penalty must be applied by proper authority, at which time it is decided when the heretical activity began. The heretical prelate is then deposed retroactively from the time of the first offense. Any promulgations, decrees etc. that he made from that time would have no force. As for us, we are under no obligation to follow a wayward Pope who commands us to abandon our Catholic faith, just as St. Athanasius refused to abandon the faith and was excommunicated by Pope Liberius for it. Pope Liberius after initially resisting the Arian heresy, eventually "made peace" with the Arians. By the way, only one Pope out of the first 49 Catholic Popes was not made a saint. Pope Liberius was that Pope. By usrping authority unlawfully, Sedevacantists and others who unlawfully apply penalties (such as Conclavists) make a bad problem worse, and create more schism.

Sigismund · « **Reply #12 on:** October 07, 2013, 09:34:10 PM »

I think a more basic question is, does canon law even envision sedevacantism?

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #13 on:** October 07, 2013, 09:59:15 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

I think a more basic question is, does canon law even envision sedevacantism?

Canon law does not envision Sedevacantism, because it is a false doctrine. The Church does not feed her children poison. Individual laypeople and clergy have no authority to apply penalties to a Bishop, Cardinal or Pope.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #14 on:** October 07, 2013, 10:39:46 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2227.2:

Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]

Let's talk.

Okay. Let's talk.

You are mistaken here.

The Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons, as he has the plenitude of jurisdiction over the entire Church, reigning supremely and unquestionably upon individuals singly as well as groups (be it Religious Orders or Institutes, Confraternities, Dioceses, &c.). It is not logical, therefore, to use Canon Law to address the matter of sedevacantism.

The more cogent of the sedevacantists do not base their views on Canon Law alone, but rather on the principles of divine and positive law that animate the Sacred Canons.