Author Topic: Dogmatic Sedevacantists do not exist. (Read 4217 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #15 on:** October 22, 2011, 09:24:39 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

You don't think it's something akin to a dogma that a public, manifest heretic can't be Pope? While it may not have been explicitly defined, isn't it Pharisacal to brush it aside on that basis? It's more like common sense than like a dogma, I'll grant you. So maybe the SSPX is not so much heretical as just irrational; and it really is.

Because if a manifest heretic who teaches soul-damning error to the universal Church can be Pope, the Church makes no sense; it's like saying that God can lie. How would we ever know the truth in those circuмstances? The only way would be to appoint a de facto Pope to sift the sayings of the nominal Pope. That is what SSPX has done, the head of the SSPX is in reality, for those who are in SSPX, a de facto Pope, who is looked to the way that Catholics should only look to the Pope. Because if he can tell us when to listen to the Pope and when not to, if he has veto power over the Pope, what does that make him? That's right, kids -- bigger than the Pope, more powerful than the Pope, ergo, the de facto Pope.

Then there are others in SSPX who just deny that they are heretics, as you go on to say ( excellent post by the way ). That is even more irrational.

Quote
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing.

And to try to prove their point, they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. It reminds me of that line from A Day at the Races with Groucho Marx. He is dressed up as a doctor, pretending to be a doctor, but with bare hairy legs sticking out of his lab coat, looking like a madman, etc. Someone comes in and isn't quite sure they trust him, for obvious reasons. Groucho keeps telling him he's a doctor, and when it's still not working, he says "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Genius line that so accurately describes the superstitious, hoaxed, scared-of-their-own-shadow masses: "Oooh, we might go to hell if we say the obvious non-Catholic who they show on TV is not a Pope." Even if you were WRONG, God does not work like that; if you are sincerely wrong, you wouldn't go to hell for being a sede. I said it before and I'll keep saying it, despite our age of technology and the information superhighway, we are more superstitious and less able to think clearly than illiterate medieval peasants with common sense.

This post is also schismatic, it is also akin to heresy. Lots of rhetoric, of course Luther was good with Rhetoric too.

LordPhan · « **Reply #16 on:** October 22, 2011, 09:27:09 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Gregory, I think Liberius actually remained Pope and Felix was the Anti-Pope, according to most theologians who studied the issue and even perhaps official Church lists. That being said, I think St.Robert Bellarmine's comments on it are illumininating, for he says the opposite also applies.

He says what Raoul said, that men are not bound to read hearts, and even if they are wrong, in being sedevacantists, as it would seem those who attempted to declare Pope Liberius deposed were, God would not hold that alone against them.

Of course, even as someone who does believe there is a Pope, I grant the common teaching of theologians on this point, that a Pope cannot be a manifest heretic. However, I still think a future ecclesiastical court will have to decide the question, for all faithful Catholic Christians to have the necessary certainty we need in such a matter.

Obviously, even if the good God, in His mercy, will choose to forgive us, we must still act in accordance with known truth. But I think, frankly, it is hard, to be sure about this, either way or the other. I've tried. Now, I prefer to leave it to God, and devote myself to prayer and the spiritual life. If at all I'm wrong, and it is God's will for me to know the truth in this matter, I trust that in any case prayer will help me in coming to that knowledge more than theology alone.

Liberius was always the True Pope. Felix II was an Anti-Pope. Liberius was pressured and compromised himself, eventually however he stood up to the Arian Emperor and the Arian Bishops in the concillar circles. They deposed him, and set up Felix II to be their puppet. Eventually Liberius repenting for his past sins joined up with St. Athanasius they deposed Felix II and restored Liberius to the Papal Chair. They then condemned the enemies of the church who were inside the church.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 22, 2011, 10:02:59 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: Raoul76
You don't think it's something akin to a dogma that a public, manifest heretic can't be Pope? While it may not have been explicitly defined, isn't it Pharisacal to brush it aside on that basis? It's more like common sense than like a dogma, I'll grant you. So maybe the SSPX is not so much heretical as just irrational; and it really is.

Because if a manifest heretic who teaches soul-damning error to the universal Church can be Pope, the Church makes no sense; it's like saying that God can lie. How would we ever know the truth in those circuмstances? The only way would be to appoint a de facto Pope to sift the sayings of the nominal Pope. That is what SSPX has done, the head of the SSPX is in reality, for those who are in SSPX, a de facto Pope, who is looked to the way that Catholics should only look to the Pope. Because if he can tell us when to listen to the Pope and when not to, if he has veto power over the Pope, what does that make him? That's right, kids -- bigger than the Pope, more powerful than the Pope, ergo, the de facto Pope.

Then there are others in SSPX who just deny that they are heretics, as you go on to say ( excellent post by the way ). That is even more irrational.

Quote
A priori, I think most of us accept the theological possiblity of the thing itself: But there are some who contend the "popes" have not done such and such, but they actually make the point; for their argument hinges on the same proposition as ours: That he did NOT DO what we accuse him of doing.

And to try to prove their point, they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. It reminds me of that line from A Day at the Races with Groucho Marx. He is dressed up as a doctor, pretending to be a doctor, but with bare hairy legs sticking out of his lab coat, looking like a madman, etc. Someone comes in and isn't quite sure they trust him, for obvious reasons. Groucho keeps telling him he's a doctor, and when it's still not working, he says "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Genius line that so accurately describes the superstitious, hoaxed, scared-of-their-own-shadow masses: "Oooh, we might go to hell if we say the obvious non-Catholic who they show on TV is not a Pope." Even if you were WRONG, God does not work like that; if you are sincerely wrong, you wouldn't go to hell for being a sede. I said it before and I'll keep saying it, despite our age of technology and the information superhighway, we are more superstitious and less able to think clearly than illiterate medieval peasants with common sense.

This post is also schismatic, it is also akin to heresy. Lots of rhetoric, of course Luther was good with Rhetoric too.

I love it. LordPhan with the 'hit-and-run', as usual.

Where's your evidence? Cite some sources. Gime something concrete. Want some more words to accuse Raoul of ? Here , let me help.

Liar
Heretic
Prideful
Calumny
Sophist
Strawman builder
Illogical
Repugnant
Bitter
Faithless
Young
Ignorant
Unexperienced
Immature
Hateful
Protestant
Schismatic...oh you already used that one
Apostate
Reprobate
Arrogant
Evil
Blind following the blind
"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
"You can't judge the Pope"
"Why can't we be friends"
"Where are my dentures, Mildred?"

OK, so I got off point at the end... but seriously LordPhan, come up with something new at the sedevacantists because we've heard it all and I'm getting tired of seeing these same lame accusations in the Crisis section. If you want to beat up the Sede Pinata, go to General or Catholics in the Modern section, maybe even Resistance... but not in the very section where we strive to seek for truth. It's growing weary.

This note goes for all you of like him too.

LordPhan · « **Reply #18 on:** October 22, 2011, 10:11:43 PM »

Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.

Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.

Gregory I · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2011, 12:27:48 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.

Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.

Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?

This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?

Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.

If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.

That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!

Why could that be...?

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.

Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.

How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.

Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.

Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.

LordPhan · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2011, 12:56:42 AM »

I did not call them schismatic for doubting the validity of the Popes, I called them Schismatics for their denying communion with Catholics who hold the true faith. That is an act of schism.

You may rest assured, that I did not find your post in this thread schismatic.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #21 on:** October 24, 2011, 12:02:30 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

I did not call them schismatic for doubting the validity of the Popes, I called them Schismatics for their denying communion with Catholics who hold the true faith. That is an act of schism.

You may rest assured, that I did not find your post in this thread schismatic.

Rejecting a mass una cuм Benedict XVI is not denying communion with Catholics who hold the true faith. It is refusal to offer mass at "one with" a known heretic because people who hold the traditional doctrine are not "one with" someone who hold the complete opposite doctrine.

If Catholics who hold the true faith "doubt the validity" of the pope for reasons of manifest obstinate, repeated heresy and actual apostasy, it would be false to offer mass "una cuм". It would be lying. It would be condoning that heresy and apostasy.

I could understand if there was confusion as to whether he were elected validly, but still promoted the acknowledged and traditional Catholic Dogma. We would have no real way of knowing and would easily be justified, but this is not questionable in this case. There is no confusion here because it is a matter of rejecting false doctrine.

That is not to say we stop converting novus ordo church members. But it is ridiculous to offer mass together with a non-believer as if nothing is contradictory. It is demeaning and injurious to the one true faith. It is a source of scandal.

It is the basic fundamental debate of ecuмenism and indifferentism, isn't it?

roscoe · « **Reply #22 on:** October 24, 2011, 01:54:50 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: LordPhan
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.

Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.

Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?

This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?

Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.

If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.

That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!

Why could that be...?

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.

Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.

How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.

Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.

Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.

None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2011, 09:48:42 AM »

Another problem with the una cuм declaration is that it is a sin against the profession of the Faith.

As much as it is necessary for the Catholic priest to mention the name of the reigning pontiff as a sign of his communion with him and the Catholic Church as a whole, it is equally necessary for him to avoid mentioning the name of anyone who is not in communion with the Catholic Church. When schismatics were reconciled to the Catholic Church, they had to omit, as part of their sign of adherence, the names of their schismatic Patriarchs from the canon of the Mass. In his Bibliotheca, Fr. Ferraris cites the case of a schismatic bishop who was reconciled to Rome. The papal legates reassure the pope that, during the course of the Mass, no name was mentioned which was odious to the Catholic Faith:

“Finally the legates of [Pope] Hormisda recount to the Pope with these words what happened to them during the reconciliation of the bishop of the city of Troili Scampina: We confess, they said, that it would be hard to find in another people so much devotion to you Holiness, so much praise to God, so many tears and so much joy. Nearly all the people received us into the city , both the men and the women with candles, and the soldiers with crosses. Masses were celebrated, and no name which is loathsome to religion was mentioned but only that of Your Holiness.”

He also mentions that it is licit to pray for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics in the Memento of the living, since it is a private and not a public prayer, thereby implying that it would not be licit to mention them publicly:

“The priest should be warned however [with Azor. lib X, cap. 22, quæst. 3,] that he can correctly pray in the Memento for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this is a private and not public prayer.”[4]

Benedict XIV (14) himself ordered the Italo-Greeks to mention the name of the Pope and local bishop, lest there be any suspicion of schism among them, and furthermore forbade from mentioning the name of a schismatic Patriarch:

“The second part of the same warning follows in which, as was noted above, the Greek priest is enjoined, during the Mass, after he has prayed for the Roman Pontiff, to pray also for his own bishop, and for his Patriarch, provided that they be Catholic; for if one or the other or both were a schismatic or a heretic, he would not be permitted to make a mention of them.”[5]

Pope Benedict, in fact, makes frequent warning of the necessity not to mention the name of anyone who is a schismatic or a heretic:

“...but let him carefully avoid making mention of the names of schismatics or heretics.”

“Nor is he [the Greek priest] generally prohibited, in the often cited Monitum, from making mention of the Patriarch, but only in the case where the Metropolitans or Patriarchs should be schismatics or heretics...”[6]

He then cites three cases in which priests were specifically forbidden by the Holy Office to mention the name of schismatic prelates, in 1673, 1674 and 1732 respectively. The one in 1673 is of special interest, since the priest’s motive in mentioning the name of the schismatic was to attract the schismatics to the Catholic Church. The answer was it is absolutely forbidden. Put that in your ecuмenical pipe and smoke it.

Pope Benedict states that the reason for this prohibition is that heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to pray publicly for excommunicates: “The Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates...And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with the traditional discipline...”[7]He furthermore quotes St. Thomas: “One can pray for excommunicates, although not in those prayers which are offered for the members of the Church.”
- taken from Sanborn

roscoe · « **Reply #24 on:** October 24, 2011, 12:03:26 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: LordPhan
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.

Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.

Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?

This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?

Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.

If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.

That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!

Why could that be...?

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.

Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.

How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.

Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.

Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.

None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.

IOW-- St Vincent Ferrer did not support an anti-pope.

Gregory I · « **Reply #25 on:** October 24, 2011, 08:53:14 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: LordPhan
Last time I checked this was a SSPX board, futhermore I stated a fact. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to be obstinate in your refusal to hear the truth. Then you come on our general section and accuse Bishop Williamson of being sympathetic to sede's or even considering being one, which is absolute culumny.

Get real, you believe that this is YOUR section? no it is just the only one you're supposed to be allowed in.

Do you not understand that those who DOUBT the Popes election cannot be considered schismatic for their refusal to adhere to him?

This is the general consensus of theologians: Even if it were an objectively wrong FACT that the Pope is NOT the Pope, you can't call us schismatics to not adhere to him. The BASIS for our refusal to submit to him is because we perceive him to have no office within the Church. How is that schismatic?

Gimme Dogma.
Gimme a Council
Gimme a THeologian.
Gimme a Cardinal, or saint or Bishop or SOMETHING.

If we are Schismatics, then so was St. Vincent Ferrer.

That's right, he supported Anti-Pope Benedict XIII- but guess what, he is a saint and was never censured or condemned as a schismatic!

Why could that be...?

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Here the theologian Vidal EXCUSES those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff on account of RUMORS of his invalid election! RUMORS! Sedevacantists have ALOT more to go on than rumors, seriously.

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

Wow, so here we have a DOCTOR of CANON LAW, a qualified EXPERT saying that if one merely SUSPECTS the Pope to be invalid, his refusal to submit does not constitute an act of schism. I think it is right to suspect the validity of any "Pope" who allows such things as Assisi III, praying with Muslims in THEIR Mosques in THEIR prayer postures, and TAKES OF HIS BLOODY SHOES when entering, who venerates the "Altars" of Lutheran Heretics, who denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Tabernacle according to its proper mode of subsistence, etc.

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

The Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, Juan de Lugo, on eof the Church's greatest theologians is also on the sede side.

Here's a fact concerning the Legitimacy of Benedict's Power: He can only exercise the office of Pope if he IS Pope. But a Pope is the Supreme and Universal Head of the Visible Members of the Church of Christ, with Jurisdiction over all of them. This is what Vatican I defined. But now Benny is saying that schismatics and heretics make up the Church of Christ too! That means that they are ALSO visible member sof the Church of Christ. But guess what? He has no Jurisdiction over them! Nor do they acknowledge him as their head. Therefore, by Definition of Vatican I, he CANNOT be the Pope, for the Pope has full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the visible members of the church of Christ which he can freely exercise at any time. You won't see Benny do that to the Archbishop of Canterburry will you? Nope. But according to him, he is a visible member of the church of Christ.

How can he then be the Pope if he has not the POWER of the Papacy? He cannot be.

Therefore, LP, we are not now, nor can we ever be considered Schismatics. That is something the semi-trads have to deal with, not us.

Show me a canonist or a theologian who teaches otherwise. Just ONE.

None of the Fr Popes of GWS have ever been defined as anti-popes.

IOW-- St Vincent Ferrer did not support an anti-pope.

So, you are telling me that Benedict XIII was the true papal claimant?

roscoe · « **Reply #26 on:** October 24, 2011, 10:45:24 PM »

My understanding from von Pastor is that a compromise was reached as the Council dragged on. It was then decided that because the schism was only political in nature, one was left free to recognise either the Fr or It faction as Pope. John repented and he was the only one accused of heretical views so I do not believe even he is an antipope.

I am not aware of any Church docuмent declaring the Fr faction as anti-popes. The only thing I have ever seen claiming them as anti-popes is the Catholic Almanac list reprinted in Fr Radecki's book and that is not official. To my knowledge, no one has ever posted a Catholic Dictionary or Encyclopedia reference claiming this.

BTW-- my apologies to Fr Radecki as it was the Catholic Almanac list published in his book and not him specifically that accuses the Fr Popes are anti-popes.

Gregory I · « **Reply #27 on:** October 24, 2011, 11:10:06 PM »

So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?

But the Point I was making Still stands: Between Boniface IX and Benedict XIII ONE of them was schismatic and an anti-pope. There were saints on both sides of the issues. In other words, you had saints supporting people who were objectively NOT the Pope; and yet they were not considered schismatic.

So, if a sedevacantist, in a similar manner, refuses to recognize Benedict because of his manifest heresy, it cannot be an act of schism. It is an act of prudence and taking the safer course.

The Vatican II God forgives all, so surely he will accept us if we err.

That was my point, and I think it is still a valid one.

roscoe · « **Reply #28 on:** October 24, 2011, 11:18:58 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

So there has never been a definitive decision as to who was the Pope and who was Anti-pope?

But the Point I was making Still stands: Between Boniface IX and Benedict XIII ONE of them was schismatic and an anti-pope. There were saints on both sides of the issues. In other words, you had saints supporting people who were objectively NOT the Pope; and yet they were not considered schismatic.

So, if a sedevacantist, in a similar manner, refuses to recognize Benedict because of his manifest heresy, it cannot be an act of schism. It is an act of prudence and taking the safer course.

The Vatican II God forgives all, so surely he will accept us if we err.

That was my point, and I think it is still a valid one.

U are missing the point. Just because one of either Boniface or Benedict was a political schismatic does not make him an anti-pope. Atwater agrees he says---' The Clementine popes of GWS are not called anti-popes owing to the historical uncertainty of their status,'

Gregory I · « **Reply #29 on:** October 24, 2011, 11:27:24 PM »

"Political Schismatic?"

That's a Euphemism.

The term is Anti-pope.

The defintion: When there is a valid living pope, and another man claims, in opposition to the living pope, to be pope.

It is manifest that the Roman Popes were the true Popes. All others must therefore be anti-popes.

Why is that wrong?