Author Topic: How do sedes respond to this? (Read 7174 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** August 11, 2011, 03:27:34 PM »

I'm debating with someone on the subject of whether or not a Freemason can be Pope. I'm trying to convince him that a Catholic who joins Masonry is automatically excommnicated from the Church, but he keeps bringing this up and insisting it excuses any and all errors of a Cardinal who is elected:

"No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force." (Cons. "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis," 8th December, 1945)

I'm sure sedes hear this from non-sedes from time to time. So, how do sedes respond to this? Thanks.

God Bless.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2011, 04:24:56 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I'm debating with someone on the subject of whether or not a Freemason can be Pope. I'm trying to convince him that a Catholic who joins Masonry is automatically excommnicated from the Church, but he keeps bringing this up and insisting it excuses any and all errors of a Cardinal who is elected:

"No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force." (Cons. "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis," 8th December, 1945)

I'm sure sedes hear this from non-sedes from time to time. So, how do sedes respond to this? Thanks.

God Bless.

It is a very strange decision, isn't it?

In any case - SS the canonical status of what happened is ultimately irrelevant.

The principle that a non-Catholic cannot be Pope transcends any legislation of Canon Law.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2011, 05:50:38 PM »

Membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (as e.g. membership in a Communist party) does not make you a heretic, but makes you excommunicated by Church Law, not Divine Law. As you cited, any ecclesiastical punishments are lifted during conclaves, precisely do avoid confusion or suspicion.

Still, Freemasons are usually heretics or apostates, severing their bond to the Mystical Body by Divine Law, but proof needs to be given.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2011, 06:42:53 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (as e.g. membership in a Communist party) does not make you a heretic,

Somehow when I was reading what SS wrote I was only thinking of whether or not that legislation has any bearing on the sedevacantist position regarding heresy (since most sedes don't claim to be sedes on the basis of having proof that an elected "Pope" was an initiate of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ)

What if a "Pope" stated his intention to receive initiation in degrees of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and admitted his membership?

To my mind that would be the worse than a Pope admitting he belonged to a Protestant sect.

I couldn't accept such a "Pope" as being a member of the Church.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2011, 10:17:23 PM »

Thanks for the responses. I'm not trying to promote the sede thesis to this guy, I'm just trying to make it clear to him that Masons can't be valid Popes.

Daegus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 12, 2011, 07:13:10 AM »

As you've already heard, anyone who is a Freemason is automatically excommunicated from the Church according to Canon Law. All excommunicants, being separated from the Church, cannot thus be apart of the Church. If you are not apart of the Church then you are outside of the Church, and being outside the Church means you are not Catholic.

By not being Catholic, it is not possible for you to be a valid head of the Catholic Church. A body cannot have a head that is outside of it. Therefore, if a Pope is a Freemason, he automatically loses his office by virtue of the fact that he ceases to be Catholic. That or, he never truly had the office because he was never Catholic to begin with.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2011, 07:30:05 AM »

Dear Deagus!

Did not the first post in this thread go contrary to your proposition?

"No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication [...] can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force."

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is, at least officially speaking, not a religion. That its true aims are satanic or luciferian, I definitely do believe. But this is besides the point right now. They profess no religious creed nor claim themselves to be a competitor with any other kind of faith. Therefore, a Freemason does not necessarily profess heresy.

One could possibly only claim by philosophical principle that they lose the Papacy because of their lack of intention to do the good of the community, therefore being devoid of authority. But theologically speaking, membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not heretical in itself.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2011, 09:08:22 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Dear Deagus!

Did not the first post in this thread go contrary to your proposition?

"No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication [...] can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force."

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is, at least officially speaking, not a religion. That its true aims are satanic or luciferian, I definitely do believe. But this is besides the point right now. They profess no religious creed nor claim themselves to be a competitor with any other kind of faith. Therefore, a Freemason does not necessarily profess heresy.

One could possibly only claim by philosophical principle that they lose the Papacy because of their lack of intention to do the good of the community, therefore being devoid of authority. But theologically speaking, membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not heretical in itself.

But numerous Popes have condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Masonry is devil worship, and a Pope cannot be a devil worshipper. So Masonry is not heresy, but it is evil and therefore any Catholic who joins it automatically is excommunicated.

Daegus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2011, 09:23:50 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Dear Deagus!

Did not the first post in this thread go contrary to your proposition?

"No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication [...] can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force."

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is, at least officially speaking, not a religion. That its true aims are satanic or luciferian, I definitely do believe. But this is besides the point right now. They profess no religious creed nor claim themselves to be a competitor with any other kind of faith. Therefore, a Freemason does not necessarily profess heresy.

One could possibly only claim by philosophical principle that they lose the Papacy because of their lack of intention to do the good of the community, therefore being devoid of authority. But theologically speaking, membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not heretical in itself.

Why don't we look at what that quote does and does not say, before we start saying that I'm wrong.

What it does say: No Cardinal can be excluded from the passive and active election of the Supreme Pontiff.

What it does not say: An excommunicated Cardinal can be elevated to the Papacy.

That quote, in no way whatsoever, contradicts the idea that someone who is excommunicated cannot become Pope. All it is saying, to anyone who isn't overwhelmingly dishonest, is that a person cannot be excluded from the process of electing the Supreme Pontiff, which in no way is contradictory to what I wrote. If it is, then I suppose St. Robert Bellarmine (Cardinal and Doctor of the Church) contradicts this too.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf

Because I can't copy paste what I want due to my mouse's failure, I suggest you read that link which says that heretics, schismatics, excommunicants, infidels, etc. cannot be Popes because they are not members of the Church.

If you are excommunicated then you are outside the Church. There is no exception to this rule, unless you would prefer to be a relativist and say that someone who is validly excommunicated is somehow inside the Church.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2011, 09:28:21 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

But numerous Popes have condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Masonry is devil worship, and a Pope cannot be a devil worshipper. So Masonry is not heresy, but it is evil and therefore any Catholic who joins it automatically is excommunicated.

That Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is condemned, is clear of course. But it is not condemned as devil worship or a heretical/schismatical religious community. It would be the same if the Pope would attach an anathema to the Republican Party, which lies in his powers, too. And while the goals of the Republican Party are anti-Christian, one cannot necessarily say that a member adheres to certain errors or heresies.
The same applies to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which has no necessarily diabolical ceremonies, especially in the lower ranks.

In Eminenti Apostolatus, Pope Clement XII:

"...they must stay completely clear of such Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles, under pain of excommunication for all the above mentioned people, which is incurred by the very deed without any declaration being required, and from which no one can obtain the benefit of absolution, other than at the hour of death, except through Ourselves or the Roman Pontiff of the time."

As we can see, Pope Clement saw it in his power to remove any excommunication for membership in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. If it would pertain to Divine Law, he could not.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #10 on:** August 12, 2011, 09:32:41 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

Why don't we look at what that quote does and does not say, before we start saying that I'm wrong.

What it does say: No Cardinal can be excluded from the passive and active election of the Supreme Pontiff.

What it does not say: An excommunicated Cardinal can be elevated to the Papacy.

That quote, in no way whatsoever, contradicts the idea that someone who is excommunicated cannot become Pope. All it is saying, to anyone who isn't overwhelmingly dishonest, is that a person cannot be excluded from the process of electing the Supreme Pontiff, which in no way is contradictory to what I wrote. If it is, then I suppose St. Robert Bellarmine (Cardinal and Doctor of the Church) contradicts this too.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf

Because I can't copy paste what I want due to my mouse's failure, I suggest you read that link which says that heretics, schismatics, excommunicants, infidels, etc. cannot be Popes because they are not members of the Church.

If you are excommunicated then you are outside the Church. There is no exception to this rule, unless you would prefer to be a relativist and say that someone who is validly excommunicated is somehow inside the Church.

Passive election means being elected to the Papacy.

Somehow validly excommunicated can be inside the Church since we do now know whether he repented interiorly. Excommunication as Ecclesiastical punishment is not the same as excommunication through Divine Law.

Daegus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 12, 2011, 10:36:23 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Daegus
Why don't we look at what that quote does and does not say, before we start saying that I'm wrong.

What it does say: No Cardinal can be excluded from the passive and active election of the Supreme Pontiff.

What it does not say: An excommunicated Cardinal can be elevated to the Papacy.

That quote, in no way whatsoever, contradicts the idea that someone who is excommunicated cannot become Pope. All it is saying, to anyone who isn't overwhelmingly dishonest, is that a person cannot be excluded from the process of electing the Supreme Pontiff, which in no way is contradictory to what I wrote. If it is, then I suppose St. Robert Bellarmine (Cardinal and Doctor of the Church) contradicts this too.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf

Because I can't copy paste what I want due to my mouse's failure, I suggest you read that link which says that heretics, schismatics, excommunicants, infidels, etc. cannot be Popes because they are not members of the Church.

If you are excommunicated then you are outside the Church. There is no exception to this rule, unless you would prefer to be a relativist and say that someone who is validly excommunicated is somehow inside the Church.

Passive election means being elected to the Papacy.

Somehow validly excommunicated can be inside the Church since we do now know whether he repented interiorly. Excommunication as Ecclesiastical punishment is not the same as excommunication through Divine Law.

No, validly excommunicated people cannot be inside the Church. If they truly "repent", as you say, then they cease to be excommunicated. An excommunicant (who is, by virtue of his excommunication, outside the Church) cannot be Pope, plain and simple, regardless of what you say. This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and it has been ratified by a Doctor of the Church, a Pope and many others.

If someone truly repented, they would seek to have their excommunication lifted. They would not sit around in that state when they could die at any moment. That is true repentance. Not being elevated to the Papacy while somehow being outside of the Church, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Allow me to repeat myself.

An excommunicant is outside of the Church. All those who are outside of the Church cannot be Catholic, because being Catholic requires you to be inside of the Church. You cannot be elevated to the papacy if you are outside of the Church. Heretics, Schismatics, Infidels and Excommunicants CANNOT BE POPE, by virtue of the fact that they are NOT inside of the Church. It is a solemnly defined DOGMATIC FACT that you CANNOT be a true Pope while outside of the Church. To assert otherwise is heretical, end of story.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #12 on:** August 12, 2011, 10:41:51 AM »

I agree with you that anybody outside the Church cannot be its head.
That is exactly why Papa Pacelli lifted any ecclesiastical censures for the time of a conclave, so that they can be elected regardless.

Or Pius XII. must be a heretic, since he affirms that a excommunicated can elect and be elected to the Papacy.

May I ask which theological manuals you consult on this matter? This would probably help me to understand your point.

Daegus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 12, 2011, 10:46:04 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

I agree with you that anybody outside the Church cannot be its head.
That is exactly why Papa Pacelli lifted any ecclesiastical censures for the time of a conclave, so that they can be elected regardless.

Or Pius XII. must be a heretic, since he affirms that a excommunicated can elect and be elected to the Papacy.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Sedevacantism_Refuted.html

Your concerns have already been dealt with here.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #14 on:** August 12, 2011, 11:29:48 AM »

One who strikes a cleric is also excommunicated latae sententiae, and is thus deprived of the Sacraments until he is absolved. Yet, the said person can still be called a Catholic. This is an example of the distinction which has to be made between ecclesiastical censures and being excluded from the Church by divine law. That said, most masons do hold heretical views, stemming from gnosticism and all the old heresies condemned by the Church. Such a one is barred from the Supreme Pontificate by divine law.

It is by the fact that a legitimate Pope cannot decree evil doctrine and discipline that one must conclude the invalidity of the papal claims of those who attempt to do this very thing.