Author Topic: How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"? (Read 9254 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #45 on:** July 03, 2016, 03:01:51 PM »

No, Stubborn. When a heretic is elected, the election is null and void even if he has the "unanimous assent of all the Cardinals".

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:26:52 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

No, Stubborn. When a heretic is elected, the election is null and void even if he has the "unanimous assent of all the Cardinals".

Your answer leaves the Church without a pope and without hope for one.
First, if possible, remember that the popes who made the law were non-sedevacantists. An argument can even be made saying those popes could be considered staunchly anti-sedevacantist if the term, as it is used today were around back then.

Your original answer that there is nothing to stop a heretic cardinal from being elected pope is based on PPX and PPXII's law - and is correct.

Yet here you are completely neglecting to take into consideration that same law of PPX and PPXII which lead you to conclude such a thing is possible in the first place. My guess is this is presumably because while you admit the outcome, you, as a sedevacantist, cannot possibly accept it without risking your SVism, as such, the only way out for you or any sedevacantist is to ignore the papal law completely and declare the election is null no matter what, based on a previous law or canon law.

Regardless of all that, this boils down to the fact that popes made a law that favors or risks that a heretic could be elected pope, but since such an election is null, the reason that the popes made the law, must have been just for the sake of going through the motions of a papal election for nothing. This is because "when a heretic is elected, the election is null", which means the election leaves the Church without a pope and without any hope for one.

The conclave disperses after they've accomplished their job of electing a new pope, the cardinals all go home satisfied with their election, yet the Church is left without a pope but the whole Catholic world is content that they have a newly elected pope - this is according to your two answers.

Is this correct?

Stubborn · « **Reply #47 on:** July 03, 2016, 05:57:23 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

I absolutely believe without hesitation that the conciliar popes have all been heretics, whoever doesn't fools only themselves, but simply, we do not have the authority to do anything about it - that is as simple an explanation as I can offer. Fr. Wathen puts it this way:

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the
faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue 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.

Quote
St. Robert Bellarmine "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Quote
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that 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. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." -St. Antoninus

Most Importantly...
Quote
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio-"6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity...through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul."

Number 10 says this docuмent may not be contradicted and is clearly contradicted by the Fr. Wathen quote you have given.

St Robert and St. Antoninus and cuм ex all say a heretic cannot be pope. I get that, I am not arguing that at all.

cuм ex says validity shall not be possible through "obedience accorded to such by all". I am not arguing that either.

I am still waiting for you to supply the teaching telling us that it is our responsibility to declare the Seat Vacant, or what we are expected to actually do about it.

Where is that teaching that grants you and us an authority to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected is really what I am looking for because again, knowing he is a heretic does not change our obligation to be subject to him unless he should command something which is sinful. And again, this obligation always remains whether the pope is a saint or a heretic.

The only teaching I have ever found giving you and us explicit instructions as to what we are supposed to actually do about it, is right there in cuм ex in the opening paragraphs that all sedes seem to miss, he comes out and specifically instructs us that a pope "may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith."

That's it. I have not found anything giving us the authority to do what the Svs do, I've not found anything giving us the authority to do even a single solitary thing - and I have looked for years - the only thing I have found is Pope Paul IV basically telling you and us that the extent of our responsibility is that we may contradict him.

Contradicting a heretic pope is one thing because it recognizes the person as pope. Yet this is the specific instruction of a pope, pope Paul IV.

TKGS · « **Reply #48 on:** July 03, 2016, 06:43:43 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: TKGS
No, Stubborn. When a heretic is elected, the election is null and void even if he has the "unanimous assent of all the Cardinals".

Your answer leaves the Church without a pope and without hope for one.

It leaves the Church without a pope for the present, which, of course, is always the case upon the death of a pope until the election of his successor. But there is obviously hope for a pope. The resolution of the Great Western Schism is proof that a true pope could be elected by an imperfect council. Frankly, I also think that even if the current group of cardinals (even if they were all heretics--which I suspect is the case but don't actually know) was to elect a man who actually has the Catholic Faith and his election was accepted by the whole Church, I know of no doctrine which would make his election and subsequent acceptance invalid.

When Bergoglio was elected, I actually wondered for a few minute if he might be a true pope. It actually took about four hours after I heard the news of his election before his history began to be spread to the English-speaking world, though I had my doubts about him as soon as I heard the news commentators talking--it just sounded as if they were reading from a script about his "humility".

P.S. I stopped reading your comments where I quoted above. I simply can no longer endure the level of despair you and the other anti-sedevacantists constantly exhibit on the forum.

Matto · « **Reply #49 on:** July 03, 2016, 06:51:20 PM »

All this arguing about whether or not a heretic can be Pope. My question is what do we do about it? If all the cardinals elected a heretic and kept on electing heretics for sixty years and everyone follows them as Popes. What can be done about it? The cardinals wont do anything because they accept them as true Popes. The Bishops wont do anything because they all accept them as true Popes. So it seems there is nothing that can be done to fix the problem. I want a solution and no one from any side has a solution. Surely we cannot expect Bergoglio to convert to the true faith and start preaching the truth. Surely we cannot expect all the heretic cardinals to elect a truly orthodox Pope who will condemn Vatican II and bring back the true Mass. Surely we cannot elect our own Pope without the authority of the Church like Bawden or Pulvermacher. Surely the self-appointed traditional priests and Bishops with no calling from the Church cannot wield the authority of the True Church even if they have the faith. Will someone please for the first time tell me what can be done to solve the problem? The only solution that makes sense that I have ever been offered was that God will chastise the world with the three days of darkness and afterwards Saints Peter and Paul will come down from heaven and choose the new Pope. Can anyone on this forum offer me a solution to the problem we all share that does not involve miraculous divine intervention?

And if there is a solution, why isn't anyone trying to make it be?

St Ignatius · « **Reply #50 on:** July 03, 2016, 07:44:51 PM »

Matto,

I feel your grief. Let me share my simple thought from my simple mind.

I tend to fall on the forth Commandment on this matter. To obey all lawful commands from all lawfully constituted authority.

It is not my place to judge the legitimacy of the Pope holding office, nor anyone else's for that matter. All I can do is judge his actions and act accordingly. I've suspended obedience to him until he returns to the Faith of his predecessors prior to V II.

If our salvation depends on whether we accept the "sede" position or not, I'm afraid than that we are all damned. The arguments are all over and inconclusive.

So in conclusion, I try to satisfy Our Lady's request of praying for the Pope rather than spend countless hours debating whether he is or not.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #51 on:** July 03, 2016, 08:36:53 PM »

Quote from: Matto

All this arguing about whether or not a heretic can be Pope. My question is what do we do about it? If all the cardinals elected a heretic and kept on electing heretics for sixty years and everyone follows them as Popes. What can be done about it? The cardinals wont do anything because they accept them as true Popes. The Bishops wont do anything because they all accept them as true Popes. So it seems there is nothing that can be done to fix the problem. I want a solution and no one from any side has a solution. Surely we cannot expect Bergoglio to convert to the true faith and start preaching the truth. Surely we cannot expect all the heretic cardinals to elect a truly orthodox Pope who will condemn Vatican II and bring back the true Mass. Surely we cannot elect our own Pope without the authority of the Church like Bawden or Pulvermacher. Surely the self-appointed traditional priests and Bishops with no calling from the Church cannot wield the authority of the True Church even if they have the faith. Will someone please for the first time tell me what can be done to solve the problem? The only solution that makes sense that I have ever been offered was that God will chastise the world with the three days of darkness and afterwards Saints Peter and Paul will come down from heaven and choose the new Pope. Can anyone on this forum offer me a solution to the problem we all share that does not involve miraculous divine intervention?

And if there is a solution, why isn't anyone trying to make it be?

The solution is the election of a truly Catholic pope. It matters little how he was elected, as long as the entire Church (the clergy) accept him as the true pope. You can contribute to the effort by praying for this intention and beseeching the Blessed Virgin Mary to obtain this grace for us.

Matto · « **Reply #52 on:** July 03, 2016, 08:46:21 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

The solution is the election of a truly Catholic pope. It matters little how he was elected, as long as the entire Church (the clergy) accept him as the true pope. You can contribute to the effort by praying for this intention and beseeching the Blessed Virgin Mary to obtain this grace for us.

But by who? All the cardinals are apostates who accept Francis. All of the Bishops the same. I have heard some say that the clergy of Rome could elect a Pope if the cardinals defect but I have never seen any evidence of any clergy of Rome who reject Francis, are not heretics and reject Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. And the traditional priests and Bishops are self appointed shepherds who have no authority from the Church so they cannot elect a Pope either. I do not see a human solution.

And if one day one of the Novus Ordo Popes converted and became orthodox, if the sedevacantists are right, would he even be Pope? And would the traditionalists follow him?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #53 on:** July 03, 2016, 08:57:40 PM »

Truly not matter what we all think, the Shepherd has been struck.

Stubborn · « **Reply #54 on:** July 04, 2016, 05:48:11 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: TKGS
No, Stubborn. When a heretic is elected, the election is null and void even if he has the "unanimous assent of all the Cardinals".

Your answer leaves the Church without a pope and without hope for one.

It leaves the Church without a pope for the present, which, of course, is always the case upon the death of a pope until the election of his successor.

With your anti-pope default reasoning, it leaves us without a pope till the end of time.

Always try to remember that the popes, every pope, is, by default, anti-sedevacantist. Which is why you do not understand why they made the law they made.

For you I'll shake the dust now - at least I attempted to explain it to you, but you cannot bear it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** July 04, 2016, 05:51:37 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Matto
All this arguing about whether or not a heretic can be Pope. My question is what do we do about it?

And if there is a solution, why isn't anyone trying to make it be?

The end of the world and the Final Judgment would be a solution.

Sorry for your despair but I do thank you for confirming what I just said in my above post.

TKGS · « **Reply #56 on:** July 04, 2016, 06:11:54 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: TKGS
No, Stubborn. When a heretic is elected, the election is null and void even if he has the "unanimous assent of all the Cardinals".

Your answer leaves the Church without a pope and without hope for one.

It leaves the Church without a pope for the present, which, of course, is always the case upon the death of a pope until the election of his successor.

With your anti-pope default reasoning, it leaves us without a pope till the end of time.

Always try to remember that the popes, every pope, is, by default, anti-sedevacantist. Which is why you do not understand why they made the law they made.

For you I'll shake the dust now - at least I attempted to explain it to you, but you cannot bear it.

I guess you can't read, unless, of course, you believe the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #57 on:** July 04, 2016, 06:26:09 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

St Robert and St. Antoninus and cuм ex all say a heretic cannot be pope. I get that, I am not arguing that at all.

cuм ex says validity shall not be possible through "obedience accorded to such by all". I am not arguing that either.

I am still waiting for you to supply the teaching telling us that it is our responsibility to declare the Seat Vacant, or what we are expected to actually do about it.

Where is that teaching that grants you and us an authority to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected is really what I am looking for because again, knowing he is a heretic does not change our obligation to be subject to him unless he should command something which is sinful. And again, this obligation always remains whether the pope is a saint or a heretic.

The only teaching I have ever found giving you and us explicit instructions as to what we are supposed to actually do about it, is right there in cuм ex in the opening paragraphs that all sedes seem to miss, he comes out and specifically instructs us that a pope "may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith."

That's it. I have not found anything giving us the authority to do what the Svs do, I've not found anything giving us the authority to do even a single solitary thing - and I have looked for years - the only thing I have found is Pope Paul IV basically telling you and us that the extent of our responsibility is that we may contradict him.

Contradicting a heretic pope is one thing because it recognizes the person as pope. Yet this is the specific instruction of a pope, pope Paul IV.

You say you agree that a heretic cannot be pope but you say that we must subject ourselves to a heretic. Meaning you do not agree with those quotes at all.
You provide no quotes from Dogma that we must subject ourselves to a heretic. SV's only claim that the people who claim to be Pope, cannot be, because they are heretics and that true Catholics do not have a Pope reigning at this time. Reason tells us that the seat is vacant. All of this derived from the divine law that a Heretic is not Catholic and that no Catholic need to subject themselves to the Authority of a non-Catholic in matters pertaining to Faith.
Also, the Pope making an error in good faith does not constitute a heretic. Thinking of the difference between one who says evolution is possible and another who says that Jesus and the Second person of the Trinity are two separate persons.

I keep telling you - I am looking for the official teaching that gives us the authority to declare him deprived of his office or never to have been elected because quite simply, unless we get at least ecclesiastical permission to do such a thing, then we are not permitted to assume that authority over anyone, least of all the pope.

You keep coming back with quotes saying he is a heretic so he is no pope. Ok, I ask you to present a teaching that tells us what our responsibility in such cases are, which is to say that I am still looking for that same official teaching that gives us the authority to declare him deprived of his office or never to have been elected.

I then present you with a teaching from Pope Paul IV I had finally found telling us what we are to do about it, you come back with me not coming up with a dogma that we must subject ourselves to a heretic.

Can you or can you not come up with an official teaching that gives us the authority to declare him deprived of his office or never to have been elected? If not, then by whose authority do you make such claims?

Stubborn · « **Reply #58 on:** July 04, 2016, 06:28:30 AM »

Quote from: St Ignatius

Matto,

I feel your grief. Let me share my simple thought from my simple mind.

I tend to fall on the forth Commandment on this matter. To obey all lawful commands from all lawfully constituted authority.

It is not my place to judge the legitimacy of the Pope holding office, nor anyone else's for that matter. All I can do is judge his actions and act accordingly. I've suspended obedience to him until he returns to the Faith of his predecessors prior to V II.

If our salvation depends on whether we accept the "sede" position or not, I'm afraid than that we are all damned. The arguments are all over and inconclusive.

So in conclusion, I try to satisfy Our Lady's request of praying for the Pope rather than spend countless hours debating whether he is or not.

Thank you for clearly explaining the Catholic position in this matter.

Stubborn · « **Reply #59 on:** July 04, 2016, 06:30:35 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

P.S. I stopped reading your comments where I quoted above. I simply can no longer endure the level of despair you and the other anti-sedevacantists constantly exhibit on the forum.

I guess you can't read, unless, of course, you believe the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

It's not that I can't read, it's that you won't.