Author Topic: How can a true pope be an "enemy of the faith"? (Read 10006 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #30 on:** July 01, 2016, 05:32:41 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

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

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

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #31 on:** July 01, 2016, 05:54:54 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

TKGS · « **Reply #32 on:** July 01, 2016, 06:37:12 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** July 02, 2016, 04:35:38 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
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:

Quote

The question remains - what is there to stop the conclave from electing one of these heretics as pope?

Stubborn · « **Reply #34 on:** July 02, 2016, 04:44:54 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
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:

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.