Author Topic: How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"? (Read 10020 times)

snowball · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2016, 12:04:50 PM »

The Second Lateran Council of 1139 stripped the approval of
the regular clergy and the laity from the papal approval process.
Perhaps it is time for another adjustment.
How can we stop the continuing modernity, under the current
system ? Electors retiring at 80 (Paul VI), assures those appointed
as Cardinals in the Vatican II system are capable of self-promotion.

Does anyone know exactly when the parishes of Rome were
sent in titular form to sees abroad, so that non-Roman bishops
first became electors for the Bishop of Rome ?

The Papal Election Decree (1059) of Pope Nicholas II
insists that the pastoral clergy of Rome is to be the well from which
the new Pontiff is drawn, and the approval of Rome's laity is
required. He decreed, that ONLY if no good candidate may be
found in Rome, should the electors seek elsewhere.

TKGS · « **Reply #26 on:** June 30, 2016, 07:49:46 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn

But what about Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII saying: No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;

They did not say "unless the excommunication is for heresy".

However, Stubborn in order for a man to be a Cardinal he must be Catholic in the first place, not some infiltrator. BTW ... no wonder you defend Francis, you sound more like him when I read your replies. "Who am I to judge"

Please note what the requirement is: "excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment".

The word, "other" is very important here. The excommunication, suspension, or interdict would have to be impediments imposed by Canon Law; he is not talking about issues of Divine Law. A cardinal could be excommunicated for a variety of reasons, for example, he consecrated bishops without a papal mandate and the pope excommunicated him for that reason. Because this was one of many "ecclesiastical impediments" he could not be excluded from the conclave. But heresy, apostasy, and schism are not "ecclesiastical impediments" that can be lifted. The heretic, apostate, and schimatic have rejected Christianity. They are outside the Church. They are anathema. They are not valid matter for the papacy. They are still excluded even by Pope Pius's rules.

It really is not difficult to understand unless you have another agenda.

Stubborn · « **Reply #27 on:** July 01, 2016, 06:42:57 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Ibranyi is a giant nutter whom I used as an example, a prime example of why it is not up to us to determine loss of office. Who is to say he is wrong and you are right? I assure you that for every teaching you have to support your opinion, he probably has 3 to support his.

I understood your point. That's why I said you must judge everything according to Dogma.

Exactly which dogma qualifies the faithful to declare the pope is not the pope based on our knowledge of his sins? Which dogma or law decrees that our knowledge of his sins qualify us or otherwise make it our responsibility to do that?

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
But what about Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII saying: No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;

They did not say "unless the excommunication is for heresy".

Let's assume that a heretic can somehow be elected as pope. As soon as the election is over the person elected ceases to be pope because he is a heretic. The Church is quite clear that a heretic can't be pope.

This idea makes the whole election process a colossal waste of time.

First, the cardinals, who can only become cardinals by papal appointment and specifically are appointed primarily for the election of popes, just elected a pope. The man is instantly pope upon accepting the election - period. This according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This is the official teaching of the Church. But as if you can, you contradict this with the idea that, "no he isn't", because far as you are concerned based on your scrupulous study in the matter, "he is a heretic", even though the cardinals just elected him. How is that not assuming to be an authority you are not?

I say your claim that he is not the pope is false, that you're saying this is based on a presumed authority that neither you nor anyone in the world possess. That if in fact you are correct, and all indications as regards validity are against you here, but if you are correct, 1) there is no way to prove it and 2) there is nothing you can do about it and finally 3) we are not relieved of our obligation as faithful Catholics from being bound to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful - for the simple reason that he was elected according to the teaching and tradition of the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #28 on:** July 01, 2016, 06:46:36 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn

But what about Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII saying: No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;

They did not say "unless the excommunication is for heresy".

However, Stubborn in order for a man to be a Cardinal he must be Catholic in the first place, not some infiltrator. BTW ... no wonder you defend Francis, you sound more like him when I read your replies. "Who am I to judge"

Please note what the requirement is: "excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment".

You missed a word, it says:
any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment".

TKGS · « **Reply #29 on:** July 01, 2016, 01:57:26 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

You missed a word, it says:
any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment".

No. I didn't miss the word. It would not change the meaning of the sentence. If the cardinal had become a Lutheran and was thereby excommunicated, he would not be welcomed into the conclave. If you believe he would, then you are willfully blind and all Christians are called upon to simply shake the dust from their feet.