Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Marlelar on June 27, 2016, 01:35:40 PM
-
Per John Vennari, Frank is not only Pope but also an "enemy of the faith"
cfn link (http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/fb9ea3c23dba9bd735f7a8e920b6aafd-605.html)
How can a true Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth, be an ENEMY of the faith.
Seems to me the two are mutually exclusive.
-
Not for a Modernist.
-
Per John Vennari, Frank is not only Pope but also an "enemy of the faith"
cfn link (http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/fb9ea3c23dba9bd735f7a8e920b6aafd-605.html)
How can a true Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth, be an ENEMY of the faith.
Seems to me the two are mutually exclusive.
He can't
Which is why he is not a pope.
-
The title of this thread asks;
How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"?
Please post any teaching from any magisterial docuмent or any saint or father that teaches it is an impossibility that God would ever allow a pope to be an enemy of the Catholic faith.
All I ask is that you do not post any teaching from any of the 20th century theologians.
-
The pope is only infallible when he follows the guidelines laid out by Vatican I. If he doesn't follow these, strictly, he can err. It's simple.
If the pope couldn't err (either accidentally or purposefully) then why do we bother praying for him?
-
I would think that there is a difference between "erring" and becoming an "enemy of the Faith".
But I forget, there is a lot of doublethink on the forum.
-
The title of this thread asks; How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"?
Please post any teaching from any magisterial docuмent or any saint or father that teaches it is an impossibility that God would ever allow a pope to be an enemy of the Catholic faith.
All I ask is that you do not post any teaching from any of the 20th century theologians.
Sounds like you already know the answer but it bothers your conscience to hear it again.
I must have missed Matthews announcement when he appointed you moderator ... :confused1:
Congratulations on your promotion. :wink:
-
This man is dangerous to our souls.
Even reading what he says, we must pray for
protection before we can even contemplate
on it enough to dislodge it from our consciences.
Here, he says we should not confess and seek
righteousness. His words are demonic and
they hurt me:
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-the-christian-life-proclaims-the-road-to-reco
-
The title of this thread asks; How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"?
Please post any teaching from any magisterial docuмent or any saint or father that teaches it is an impossibility that God would ever allow a pope to be an enemy of the Catholic faith.
All I ask is that you do not post any teaching from any of the 20th century theologians.
Sounds like you already know the answer but it bothers your conscience to hear it again.
I must have missed Matthews announcement when he appointed you moderator ... :confused1:
Congratulations on your promotion. :wink:
Typical non-answer / ridiculous remark. And yes, I asked not to use any 20th century theologians teachings because everything points to their false teachings as being responsible for the belief among the masses that even in his fallible teachings, no matter what a pope teaches he cannot harm the faithful. If you only believe your own eyes, you cannot accept this as true.
How else did this false teaching permeate all the theology manuals and seminaries etc.?
-
The title of this thread asks; How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"?
Please post any teaching from any magisterial docuмent or any saint or father that teaches it is an impossibility that God would ever allow a pope to be an enemy of the Catholic faith.
All I ask is that you do not post any teaching from any of the 20th century theologians.
Not sure what your views are or what you are getting at but I think a true pope can not be an enemy of the Faith because to be that, he would have to teach heresy officially which would automatically exclude him from the faith and he would no longer be Pope. In his private capacity or his sins of the flesh, those do not attack the Faith.
My view is that there is no way to prove the conciliar popes are not popes and proof is needed, that short of Divine Providence, there is nothing to stop a pope from doing what the conciliar popes have done. Nothing.
Most sedevacantists proclaim that "the pope is not the pope", as though it were an indisputable fact rising from divine revelation - when the real fact is the pope was elected in the same manner as the previous +200 popes, so the presumption must side with the same validity as all the previous elections. Which means that the pope is the pope until another pope at some time in the future makes the declaration that the conciliar popes have not been popes. No one else has the authority to do anything about it - this is demonstrated by the last 58 years where not one single thing has been done about these heretical popes by anybody.
-
Stubborn, you seem to ignore the fact that the elected Pope, must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election. Divine Law
You need to read this: The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita
The author quotes the actual Masonic docuмent, which both Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) and Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) asked to be published. This docuмent describes the Masons' diabolical strategy to destroy the Church by infecting her leaders with Liberal ideas. Tells how they do not desire a masonic Pope, but rather a Pope infected with their ideas. Touches on Liberalism, the French Revolution, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Ecuмenism, Modernism, the modernist conspiracy at Vatican II, and much more! An eye-opening book that every Catholic must read!
-
(to be) the elected Pope, (he) must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election.
Playing devil's advocate, but what does "have always done" mean? There's multiple duties of the papacy. And one can fulfil the job of pope without ever issuing an infallible statement (as this isn't required or necessary). A pope could be a valid pope and not concern himself with church teachings much, if at all. There's plenty of examples of 'worldly' popes in the 14-17th centuries.
He could fulfilll the role (if he were lazy) by just worrying about the temporal aspects of the Church, like building new churches/schools.
Or, he could concern himself with fine tuning church disciplines/laws or improving catholic education, or promoting the greatness of Gregorian chant.
Or, he could do none of that. He would still be pope.
Point is, there's no requirement for any pope to proclaim or teach anything that is catholic. He can simply point to past statements made by popes or theologians or church docuмents. The only requirement to be pope is to fulfill the duties of the office, which are mainly temporal duties. Certainly, the pope has spiritual duties, but we all do. But spiritual duties are of the personal, free-will, realm. He can reject graces just like we all can. It doesn't disqualify him from being pope.
-
(to be) the elected Pope, (he) must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election.
Playing devil's advocate, but what does "have always done" mean? There's multiple duties of the papacy. And one can fulfil the job of pope without ever issuing an infallible statement (as this isn't required or necessary). A pope could be a valid pope and not concern himself with church teachings much, if at all. There's plenty of examples of 'worldly' popes in the 14-17th centuries.
He could fulfilll the role (if he were lazy) by just worrying about the temporal aspects of the Church, like building new churches/schools.
Or, he could concern himself with fine tuning church disciplines/laws or improving catholic education, or promoting the greatness of Gregorian chant.
Or, he could do none of that. He would still be pope.
Point is, there's no requirement for any pope to proclaim or teach anything that is catholic. He can simply point to past statements made by popes or theologians or church docuмents. The only requirement to be pope is to fulfill the duties of the office, which are mainly temporal duties. Certainly, the pope has spiritual duties, but we all do. But spiritual duties are of the personal, free-will, realm. He can reject graces just like we all can. It doesn't disqualify him from being pope.
There use to be the Coronation Oath after the Pope is elected. Last one to
take this Oath was Montini/Paul VI in 1963.
Here is a link to the Coronation Oath:
http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Papal_Coronation_Oath.html
Papal Coronation Oath
"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
-
Stubborn, you seem to ignore the fact that the elected Pope, must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election. Divine Law
You need to read this: The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita
The author quotes the actual Masonic docuмent, which both Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) and Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) asked to be published. This docuмent describes the Masons' diabolical strategy to destroy the Church by infecting her leaders with Liberal ideas. Tells how they do not desire a masonic Pope, but rather a Pope infected with their ideas. Touches on Liberalism, the French Revolution, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Ecuмenism, Modernism, the modernist conspiracy at Vatican II, and much more! An eye-opening book that every Catholic must read!
As I said, even if he is not pope, there is nothing anyone can do about it, if there was some thing someone could do about it, it would have been done 50 years ago. And because the dogma states we cannot get to heaven unless we are subject to him, I am not willing to risk my eternity on my opinion when everything we see with our own eyes testifies that he is pope - albeit a terribly rotten and heretical pope.
-
They try to claim that oath is not real (you can go to the "wikipedia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Oath_(Traditionalist_Catholic))
page and see)
They say no evidence exists in the ceremonies of filmed cornonations
that this oath took place.
We have history books written by strong churchmen, but I doubt
that the conciliar church can be trusted with the treasure trove
of historical docuмents that fell on their laps.
We may never know how many docuмents they may have
destroyed. How would we ever prove it ?
-
What does the papal oath have to do with whether or not the pope could be an enemy of the faith?
The papal oath won't stop him from using his authority to try to destroy (if that were possible) the Church, all it will do is add to his offenses against God when he breaks his oath - which they don't take any longer anyway.
-
What does the papal oath have to do with whether or not the pope could be an enemy of the faith?
The papal oath won't stop him from using his authority to try to destroy (if that were possible) the Church, all it will do is add to his offenses against God when he breaks his oath - which they don't take any longer anyway.
It was mentioned to refute
Pax Vobis.
-
Stubborn, you seem to ignore the fact that the elected Pope, must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election. Divine Law
You need to read this: The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita
The author quotes the actual Masonic docuмent, which both Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) and Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) asked to be published. This docuмent describes the Masons' diabolical strategy to destroy the Church by infecting her leaders with Liberal ideas. Tells how they do not desire a masonic Pope, but rather a Pope infected with their ideas. Touches on Liberalism, the French Revolution, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Ecuмenism, Modernism, the modernist conspiracy at Vatican II, and much more! An eye-opening book that every Catholic must read!
As I said, even if he is not pope, there is nothing anyone can do about it, if there was some thing someone could do about it, it would have been done 50 years ago. And because the dogma states we cannot get to heaven unless we are subject to him, I am not willing to risk my eternity on my opinion when everything we see with our own eyes testifies that he is pope - albeit a terribly rotten and heretical pope.
Fine! Stubborn you can be subject to him all the way as he leads you and SSPX into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr that the Illuminati Masons of which you are subject to are.
-
Stubborn, you seem to ignore the fact that the elected Pope, must be Catholic with a good willed intention to do as the past True popes have always done in order to be a valid election. Divine Law
You need to read this: The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita
The author quotes the actual Masonic docuмent, which both Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) and Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) asked to be published. This docuмent describes the Masons' diabolical strategy to destroy the Church by infecting her leaders with Liberal ideas. Tells how they do not desire a masonic Pope, but rather a Pope infected with their ideas. Touches on Liberalism, the French Revolution, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Ecuмenism, Modernism, the modernist conspiracy at Vatican II, and much more! An eye-opening book that every Catholic must read!
As I said, even if he is not pope, there is nothing anyone can do about it, if there was some thing someone could do about it, it would have been done 50 years ago. And because the dogma states we cannot get to heaven unless we are subject to him, I am not willing to risk my eternity on my opinion when everything we see with our own eyes testifies that he is pope - albeit a terribly rotten and heretical pope.
Fine! Stubborn you can be subject to him all the way as he leads you and SSPX into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr that the Illuminati Masons of which you are subject to are.
I remain subject to him because that is the dogma, unless of course he commands something sinful. I will continue to monitor this site and the news in case he ever utters anything Catholic that I need to be concerned with, but otherwise, to paraphrase St. Thomas More's departing words: I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. For me, that is the safest, therefore the only route for me.
-
My view is that there is no way to prove the conciliar popes are not popes and proof is needed, that short of Divine Providence, there is nothing to stop a pope from doing what the conciliar popes have done. Nothing.
Most sedevacantists proclaim that "the pope is not the pope", as though it were an indisputable fact rising from divine revelation - when the real fact is the pope was elected in the same manner as the previous +200 popes, so the presumption must side with the same validity as all the previous elections. Which means that the pope is the pope until another pope at some time in the future makes the declaration that the conciliar popes have not been popes. No one else has the authority to do anything about it - this is demonstrated by the last 58 years where not one single thing has been done about these heretical popes by anybody.
This teaching from Paul IV says that heresy automatically makes them not the pope.
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio...........
But Ibranyi decided that there have been no popes since 1130 due to their heresies - who are we to believe, him or popular opinion? Besides that, Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII made different rules.
Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 1945 states: 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; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances....
....After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto.
Which is to say that there is nothing to stop a heretical cardinal from being elected a true pope.
-
Per this conversation I removed the reference to the coronation oath.
-
But Ibranyi decided that there have been no popes since 1130 due to their heresies - who are we to believe, him or popular opinion? Besides that, Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII made different rules.
Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 1945 states: 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; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances....
....After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto.
Which is to say that there is nothing to stop a heretical cardinal from being elected a true pope.
I know very little about Ibranyi, but one needs only to Judge according to the Infallible Dogmas of the Church.
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 am sure you know what the term heresy means. As per the definition, there could be no such thing as an heretical Cardinal because “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)
With this in mind, this former Cardinal, having been severed from the Church, can not become Pope because “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
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".
-
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"
-
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"
I don't defend pope Francis - he will be judged by God for what he did. The rest of your post makes no sense in light of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
-
...or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever;
What is an "ecclesiastical" impediment as opposed to some other type of impediment?
-
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) (http://legacy.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/papal-elect1059.asp) 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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
It does change the meaning of the sentence from the meaning you gave it. Your claim that because it did not mention the word "heresy" explicitly, that heresy is not included in the decree - it's either that or you don't believe that heresy is an excommunicable offense - which I highly doubt you believe.
When you add the word "any" to "excommunication", that word makes the decree all inclusive, inclusive of all excommunicable offenses without distinction, which therefore necessarily includes heresy whether you believe heresy excommunicates one or not.
So here we have popes who make it a law that no cardinal can be excluded from the conclave that elects the next pope, that IF any Cardinals are under any censure, whatever the censure might be, the censure is suspended only for the election. "We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances...."
So presume that no one knows that there are 10 heretic cardinals in the conclave because they are secret heretics who have vowed within themselves that if elected, they will misuse and rob the Church of her riches, appoint heretic cardinals and bishops, in short, he vows to use his authority to destroy the Church.
The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?
Now, you can answer a million times that if the one who gets elected is a heretic, that he is not the pope, but that does not answer the question.
-
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?
Auctorem fidei-“Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
Ipsto facto means by that very fact. The plain words that a heretic cannot be Pope are easy to understand. When someone makes a statement that is contrary to the teachings of the Church they remove themselves from the Church. Therefore, based on sins of heresy, anyone can acknowledge that that person is not in the Church.
Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”
The canons and dogmas are for us, so that we may be able to distinguish between truth and error. Obviously if someone is teaching something false, a Catholic would be obliged to make that fact known and condemn that falsehood, or we would be guilty of sin.
I am not disagreeing with you on the heretic part, certainly we are not permitted to be mindless - quite the opposite. I am disagreeing with you on the part that we have any authorization to do anything about it. You cannot produce any dogma that grants us that authority. You have provided teachings stating that heretics are ipso facto excommunicated and I am not disagreeing at all.
We can yell at him that he's a heretic, we can and should warn each other that he's a heretic, but knowing he is a heretic does not change our obligation to be subject to him unless he should command something which is sinful - this obligation remains whether the pope is saintly or a heretic. There is no dogma that relieves us of this obligation, indeed, there is only one that commands this obligation - and unfortunately, it offers no exceptions whatsoever.
-
I am not disagreeing with you on the heretic part, certainly we are not permitted to be mindless - quite the opposite. I am disagreeing with you on the part that we have any authorization to do anything about it.
Now this is mindless. The problem with anti-sedevacantism is that it is born of mindlessness.
-
I am not disagreeing with you on the heretic part, certainly we are not permitted to be mindless - quite the opposite. I am disagreeing with you on the part that we have any authorization to do anything about it.
Now this is mindless. The problem with anti-sedevacantism is that it is born of mindlessness.
Yet another stupid reply which is only written as a means of purposely avoiding answering the simple question. Please TKGS, why don't you make a single post or thread about how mindless I am and fill it with all the stupid remarks you like. Be sure to include the popes whose law I quoted, who were most assuredly anti-sedevacantists as well, as they were obviously mindless to make such a law, not to mention being staunch anti-sedevacantists themselves, which is where you real problem lies.
But whatever you do, please do not answer the question I asked - heaven forbid you actually reply with some plausible answer to my question:
The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?
-
We can yell at him that he's a heretic, we can and should warn each other that he's a heretic, but knowing he is a heretic does not change our obligation to be subject to him unless he should command something which is sinful
(I removed all but this quote because what you say here is the heart of the issue. The bold is from me.)
From this statement it is clear that you believe that a heretic can be pope. You say that we must be subject to a heretic. Please explain.
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:
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.
-
But whatever you do, please do not answer the question I asked - heaven forbid you actually reply with some plausible answer to my question:
The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?
Clearly there is nothing that would stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope. It is an absolute fact that we've seen this happen several times since the Council.
But it is also an absolute fact that Catholic doctrine rejects the election of any manifest heretic to the papacy. The Code of Canon Law specifically re-iterates the Divine Law that a manifest heretic loses any office in the Church ipso facto without a declaration (here's that pesky word, "any", again!). This is the codification of Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus.
If there was still a Holy Roman Emperor, we could apply to him to forcibly remove him from the Vatican. Unfortunately, that option is not available to us so we are left to simply recognize the fact that the man elected is a heretic and reject him as our head. We listen to him as we listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, or the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
But whatever you do, please do not answer the question I asked - heaven forbid you actually reply with some plausible answer to my question:
The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?
Clearly there is nothing that would stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope. It is an absolute fact that we've seen this happen several times since the Council.
But it is also an absolute fact that Catholic doctrine rejects the election of any manifest heretic to the papacy. The Code of Canon Law specifically re-iterates the Divine Law that a manifest heretic loses any office in the Church ipso facto without a declaration (here's that pesky word, "any", again!). This is the codification of Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus.
If there was still a Holy Roman Emperor, we could apply to him to forcibly remove him from the Vatican. Unfortunately, that option is not available to us so we are left to simply recognize the fact that the man elected is a heretic and reject him as our head. We listen to him as we listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, or the Grand Master of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Frankly I have a hard time understanding Stubborn's logic, he is loyal to a heretical pope just because Fr. Wathen says so; yet, he ignores a true pope and Divine Law.
A Roman Catholic accepting the position of Sedevacantism follows God's Divine Law, before man.
-
Frankly I have a hard time understanding Stubborn's logic, he is loyal to a heretical pope just because Fr. Wathen says so; yet, he ignores a true pope and Divine Law.
What? Because he expresses the Law(s) of the Church? And who is this "true pope" you speak of?
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.
This is absolutely correct, so how is it possible for you or me to pass such judgement(s) against him?
A Roman Catholic accepting the position of Sedevacantism follows God's Divine Law, before man.
I'll take that just as your personal opinion....
-
If there was still a Holy Roman Emperor, we could apply to him to forcibly remove him from the Vatican.
He never had such power. He was only allowed to veto a candidate at the time of an election.
-
A Roman Catholic accepting the position of Sedevacantism follows God's Divine Law, before man.
I'll take that just as your personal opinion....
1. Is it my personal opinion that Jesus and His Church are One?
2. Is it my personal opinion that God can not deceive nor be deceived?
3. Is it my personal opinion that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ, His representative?
4. Can the Vicar of Christ be both pope of Truth and error?
Those points, if I remember correctly are Divine Law, not an opinion.
Those points are also what brings a Catholic searching to the Sedevacantist conclusion.
Most who post here no matter their viewpoint sede, RR, Indult, FSSP, SSPX, SSPV, independent, believe Vatican II is not Catholic. Which is why they do not consider themselves novus ordo. I say most because we have a few conciliarists NO types.
Vatican II is a Church of many not one. (ecuмenical, embracing all) Yes, Francis is the leader of this false church, but he is not a pope of the True Church for reasons above. It is my understanding he doesn't even care to be called.
-
A Roman Catholic accepting the position of Sedevacantism follows God's Divine Law, before man.
I'll take that just as your personal opinion....
1. Is it my personal opinion that Jesus and His Church are One?
2. Is it my personal opinion that God can not deceive nor be deceived?
3. Is it my personal opinion that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ, His representative?
4. Can the Vicar of Christ be both pope of Truth and error?
Those points, if I remember correctly are Divine Law, not an opinion.
Those points are also what brings a Catholic searching to the Sedevacantist conclusion.
Most who post here no matter their viewpoint sede, RR, Indult, FSSP, SSPX, SSPV, independent, believe Vatican II is not Catholic. Which is why they do not consider themselves novus ordo. I say most because we have a few conciliarists NO types.
Vatican II is a Church of many not one. (ecuмenical, embracing all) Yes, Francis is the leader of this false church, but he is not a pope of the True Church for reasons above. It is my understanding he doesn't even care to be called.
5. Is it my personal opinion that the first Pope denied Christ three times?
-
That was before he was a pope! Study up!
The birth of the Church was Pentecost.
-
That was before he was a pope! Study up!
The birth of the Church was Pentecost.
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]
-
That was before he was a pope! Study up!
The birth of the Church was Pentecost.
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]
Yes, I know but in catechism class we learn that he was not considered the head Christ's Vicar till the Holy Ghost came upon them. As Our Lord told them at His Ascension to go and wait for the Holy Ghost who would come and keep them from error. The Holy Ghost came upon them at Pentecost. The Birthday of the Church!
BTW ... I am sorry when I re-read my note back later it sounded sarcastic with the text "Study Up" sorry about that I didn't mean it that way.
-
Ok, I will attempt to spell this out for you as clearly as I can. You will have to trust me when I say that however it comes across, I mean no disrespect. I mean no disrespect when I say - you are interpreting the whole thing with the severely tilted bias of sedevacantists, as I will attempt to demonstrate. You might need to read it through a few times..........
Clearly there is nothing that would stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope. It is an absolute fact that we've seen this happen several times since the Council.
You are correct and I agree it has in fact happened. There is nothing to stop the cardinals from electing a heretic pope or only a terrible pope - or a saintly pope for that matter. The decision rests entirely upon the cardinals - albeit presumably with the hope that with the help of divine intervention, a saintly pope gets elected.
Now for the conundrum......
But it is also an absolute fact that Catholic doctrine rejects the election of any manifest heretic to the papacy.
Now you just said above that there's nothing to stop a conclave from electing a heretic as pope and you also correctly said that it is an absolute fact that it's happened many times since the Council.
If what you are saying now is true, namely, that doctrine rejects a heretic to the papacy, then Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII are either 1) guilty of a colossal blunder, 2) or they blatantly reject Catholic doctrine, or 3) they are aiming to destroy it by mandating the suppression of any censure specifically for the election - are they not?
Worse yet for SVs, after the election, 4) the law mandates that the censure goes back into force - this is the law that the popes made.
Which means when a heretic cardinal is elected pope, per papal law, he is back to being a heretic instantly once elected. Should such a thing happen - and as you have correctly said, it *has* happened, then this result can actually be attributed directly to the papal law of PPX and PPXII.
Yet you also seem to say that canon law overrides the direct papal laws of PPX and PPXII? - But isn't it true that the laws decreed directly from popes supersede, override, cancel out and are above any canon law?
I am quite sure you have zero doubts that PPX and PPXII were true popes, as such, the law they mandated for papal elections is infallible, if not infallible, it is nearly infallible.
So now your conundrum is - how could true popes ever risk electing a heretic to the Chair by making it a law to invite heretical cardinals to participate in the papal election, and also mandate that after the election their censure goes back into force? Which is to say the papal law guarantees that if a heretical cardinal gets elected, after the election, ipso facto, the heretical cardinal-now-pope is now a heretical pope, and is so via papal mandate.
I believe this an accurate conundrum, a conundrum created by sedevacantist thinking. Before continuing, please let me know if this conundrum is accurate.
-
No, Stubborn. When a heretic is elected, the election is null and void even if he has the "unanimous assent of all the Cardinals".
-
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?
-
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:
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.
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."
"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...
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Truly not matter what we all think, the Shepherd has been struck.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
That is what I believe will happen, the situation is so bad that restoration without a divine intervention is impossible. The hierarchy is completely corrupted with modernism and they will not elect anyone orthodox for a Pope, and even if they somehow did, what could that Pope do? He would have to excommunicate massive number of prelates, nullify Vatican II and abolish the New Mass (in the situation when vast majority of the priests don't know how to say the TLM and are not interested), and thousands of priests would have to be laicized - this is of course unrealistic, not to mention that he would have ended up like John Paul I.
The private revelations predicting chastisement in one form or another (personally I believe in Three Days of Darkness) are so numerous that it is hard to ignore it, we also have hints that the covered-up part of the Third Secret of Fatima warns not only about apostasy, but also a material chastisement. The state of the world today is probably even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah - it is hard to expect that such amount of sin, blasphemy and heresy will go unpunished before the restoration. So, I conclude that the restoration and Consecration of Russia will take place after a massive chastisement which will wipe out large part of humanity. I hope I'm wrong though.
-
That is what I believe will happen, the situation is so bad that restoration without a divine intervention is impossible. The hierarchy is completely corrupted with modernism and they will not elect anyone orthodox for a Pope, and even if they somehow did, what could that Pope do? He would have to excommunicate massive number of prelates, nullify Vatican II and abolish the New Mass (in the situation when vast majority of the priests don't know how to say the TLM and are not interested), and thousands of priests would have to be laicized - this is of course unrealistic, not to mention that he would have ended up like John Paul I.
The private revelations predicting chastisement in one form or another (personally I believe in Three Days of Darkness) are so numerous that it is hard to ignore it, we also have hints that the covered-up part of the Third Secret of Fatima warns not only about apostasy, but also a material chastisement. The state of the world today is probably even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah - it is hard to expect that such amount of sin, blasphemy and heresy will go unpunished before the restoration. So, I conclude that the restoration and Consecration of Russia will take place after a massive chastisement which will wipe out large part of humanity. I hope I'm wrong though.
Lately, I have been reading too much about this planet, comet or whatever it is that is coming from around the sun, it is said the gravity will cause much havoc on earth. Might it be the three days of darkness, I don't know! I have read that one can see it either when the sun is rising or going down through a camera or welding helmet. Last week I was at the cemetery here is Spokane, which is located high on a hill. Since I had my camera with me I decided to take a picture of the sun, it was too bright to stare at but I managed to get it centered into my camera and took the picture. Much to my surprise when I downloaded it today this is what I saw.
What is it? Just a reflection? I wouldn't know all I know is I just got the sun in my camera and took a picture, did not edit nor photo shop anything.
-
Myrna, if you want to follow info on that, you need to watch Steve Olson on you tube. Recently, I listened to an interview with him on The Edge.
http://theedgeam.com/?redirect=false
-
Thank you snowball, I followed your link, haven't ever heard of The Edge nor Daniel Ott, prior to your pointing it out. I scrolled down to the video with the interview with your Steve Olson. I was surprised to hear Steve Olson, speak about Fatima and the Great Apostasy and bad popes. Along with these strange happenings in the Heavens.