[2Vermont]

It's the opposite.

Please provide support.  I remember reading theologians' explanations about formal vs material heresy and I am fairly certain they stated that non-Catholics can be guilty of material heresy not Catholics.

[Pax Vobis]

Except none of this applies to the pope - canon law does not judge the pope.  So why do you keep quoting canon law in reference to sedevacantism?!

You're either hardheaded or dishonest.  

[Ladislaus]

This is correct. Ladislaus does not know what he is talking about (as usual). Anyone who professes heresy in the external forum is always considered to be a true heretic and a non-Catholic. They must prove their innocence. If they do prove their innocence, then it may be determined that their heresy was only "material".

You, on the other hand, Lastdays, are too dumb to even realize that you contradict yourself.  You first claim that Catholics cannot be material heretics but then say that they can be determined to have been material heretics afterall ... once their innocence is proven.  So which is it?

Every theologian speaks of material heresy.  It's where you hold a proposition that happens to be heretical due to ignorance and there's no pertinacity.  When I was a kid, I thought the Immaculate Conception referred to Jesus' birth.  In addition, I mulled through my head countless heretical propositions regarding the Holy Trinity.  And yet as soon as I was corrected about the true teaching of the Church on the matter, I immediately rejected my former opinion.  That is known as material heresy.  So then, according to you, I ceased to be a member of the Catholic Church for a time?  Another scenario is where someone draws a theological conclusion by way of argument and contends that the argument is sound.  Others might claim it's heretical but the person remains adamant that it's legitimate.  Until the Church authoritatively rejects the argument, the person isn't pertinaciously holding heresy against the authority of the Church and thereby rejecting the formal motive of faith, the Church's authority.

[Ladislaus]

Please provide support.  I remember reading theologians' explanations about formal vs material heresy and I am fairly certain they stated that non-Catholics can be guilty of material heresy not Catholics.

Non-Catholics do not have the formal motive of faith and therefore are guilty of formal heresy by definition; they can never be purely material heretics.  Those who have the formal motive of faith, i.e. Catholics, can nevertheless fall into material heresy without rejecting the formal motive of faith (which non-Catholics do not have to begin with).

[Ladislaus]

I never said that Catholics cannot ultimately be considered material heretics.

Uhm, you did exactly that by agreeing with 2V's allegation that Catholics cannot be material heretics.  You are very intellectually challenged and have no business opining about theological matters.

[Ladislaus]

Malice is to be presumed. Always.

Garbage.  So, for instance, Canon Law states that people who engage in communicatio in sacris are "suspect" of heresy and then are presumed guilty after "6 months" of persistence in said activity.  According to your stupidity, if someone just has a slip of the tongue and utters a heretical proposition without intent, they lose membership in the Church.  You're a complete and total idiot.

In addition, as we've established, presumptions are a matter of law and the Pope is not subject to Canon Law.

[Pax Vobis]

Where Canon Law expresses divine law, Popes are subject to it. No Pope is above divine law.

What does this even mean?  How do YOU know where canon law is talking about Divine law and where it is talking about human law?  Where did you get your canon law degree?  

[2Vermont]

Non-Catholics do not have the formal motive of faith and therefore are guilty of formal heresy by definition; they can never be purely material heretics.  Those who have the formal motive of faith, i.e. Catholics, can nevertheless fall into material heresy without rejecting the formal motive of faith (which non-Catholics do not have to begin with).

Please provide theological support for this view.

Billot suggests that those who do not recognize the authority of the Church and choose another rule for their guide (that would be non-Catholics, not Catholics, correct?) are material heretics.  Catholics can be in error, but they are not material heretics:

"Now, heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; material, those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself, and choose in good faith another rule for their guide. Heresy therefore is not imputed to material heretics as sin, nor, furthermore, is there necessarily a lack of that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For perhaps they explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the rest not explicitly but implicitly, by the disposition of mind and the good will of adhering to all those things which would be sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Furthermore, they can still belong in voto to the body of the Church, and have the other conditions required for salvation. Nevertheless, so far as pertains to the real incorporation in the visible Church of Christ presently being treated, the thesis places no distinction between formal or material heretics, understanding everything according to the notion of material heresy just explained, which is also the only proper and genuine notion. For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, and in addition, in this way, the legitimate meaning of the word would be completely overturned. For only then is it said that there is material sin, when the things that belong to the definition of such a sin are materially posited, but excluding reflection or deliberate volition. Now, what pertains to the definition of heresy is the departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, which in this case is not present, because it is a simple error of fact concerning that which the rule dictates. And therefore, there can be no place even materially for heresy. (Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Romae, 1927), v. 1, p. 296-29"

[Ladislaus]

Making excuses for public heretics again Laddy? If someone "has a slip of the tongue" as you say, he must prove it was only a slip, by abjuring his heresy immediately upon correction, and professing the opposing truth.

So, "upon correction" he can retract the error?  But before you were saying that the minute it became public/manigest he lost membership in the Church.  So a pope who has a slip of the tongue immediately loses office until he proves that it was just a slip.  According to your principles, then, a new papal election would be needed.  [Sedeprivationism of course doesn't have that problem.]

[Ladislaus]

Please provide theological support for this view.

Billot suggests that those who do not recognize the authority of the Church and choose another rule for their guide (that would be non-Catholics, not Catholics, correct?) are material heretics.  Catholics can be in error, but they are not material heretics:

"Now, heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; material, those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself, and choose in good faith another rule for their guide. Heresy therefore is not imputed to material heretics as sin, nor, furthermore, is there necessarily a lack of that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For perhaps they explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the rest not explicitly but implicitly, by the disposition of mind and the good will of adhering to all those things which would be sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Furthermore, they can still belong in voto to the body of the Church, and have the other conditions required for salvation. Nevertheless, so far as pertains to the real incorporation in the visible Church of Christ presently being treated, the thesis places no distinction between formal or material heretics, understanding everything according to the notion of material heresy just explained, which is also the only proper and genuine notion. For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, and in addition, in this way, the legitimate meaning of the word would be completely overturned. For only then is it said that there is material sin, when the things that belong to the definition of such a sin are materially posited, but excluding reflection or deliberate volition. Now, what pertains to the definition of heresy is the departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium, which in this case is not present, because it is a simple error of fact concerning that which the rule dictates. And therefore, there can be no place even materially for heresy. (Louis Card. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Romae, 1927), v. 1, p. 296-29"

This is actually a great quote.  Not that Billot's position is correct, but because this can be spun off into a lot of great theological threads, especially regarding the soteriological and ecclesiological issues.  Thanks for sharing it.

Billot isn't saying that Catholics cannot be material heretics.  He's claiming that both can be material heretics ... but in different senses.

Here's the part where he talks about how CATHOLICS can be material heretics, and this is exactly what I have been arguing against Lastdays here:

For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church

But Billot falsely applies the formal-material distinction of MORAL theology to the faith in an attempt to get Prots and other heretics inside the Church.

When it comes to the faith, the matter of the faith are the propositions believed, and the form of the faith is accepting the Magisterium as the formal rule of faith.  So Billot correctly identifies these when he says "professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium" (form) but "still denies something defined by the Church" (matter).  Billot clearly says that in the case of Catholics who are material heretics "it would be absurd to posit that material heretics [i.e. Catholic material heretics] are outside the body of the true Church."  This is precisely what I have been telling Lastdays.

Let's say it were possible that I accepted every single truth taught by the Church but still did not believe them on the authority of the Church ... I do NOT have supernatural faith, because I do not have the supernatural formal motive of faith.  Conversely, that's why those who pertinaciously reject anything taught by the Church are said to be heretics ... because they thereby reject the rule of faith (Church teaches it but I don't believe it anyway).  That's the reason for the saying that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all.  By rejecting one you reject the AUTHORITY behind ALL of them and then end up believing the ones you still happen to accept based on your own authority rather than the authority of the Church.

As for Billot's allegation that "good will" can supply for the form (dependence on the Magisterium as their authority), I'd rather not get into that can of worms because there you can see the theological trends that will ultimately lead to Vatican II ecclesiology.  This is the whole Father Feeney question.  I'll probably spin this Billot quote off into another thread there.  In any case, Billot is confounding the formal-material of moral theology [sinful intenion (form) vs. the act itself (matter)] with the form and matter of possessing supernatural faith.  These are two different things altogether and Billot is mixing them up in order to get Prots into the Church.  You can have the best intentions in the world, but you do not have the faith if you do not have a supernatural motive of faith.  That's just Pelagian crap, and it's the cause of all the Vatican II theological errors.

[Ladislaus]

So, Lastdays, 2V supplied this quote from Billot:

For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, and in addition, in this way, the legitimate meaning of the word would be completely overturned.

So, rather than quibbling over the semantics of whether one described above is strictly a "material heretic" or not, does the one described above lose their office in the Church?  Billot says that it would be "absurd" to posit this.  And that's precisely what I have been saying against your position.

With the possible exception of Bergoglio (jury remains out on that guy), the V2 papal claimants have all professed their dependence on the Magisterium while claiming that their errors are compatible with Church teaching.  In addition, they believed it to be Church teaching because THEY THEMSELVES TAUGHT IT.  So this circular authority problem is another reason why popes are a special case.

[Ladislaus]

Anyone who professes heresy is considered to be outside the Church, a non-member and a non-office holder. He must prove himself to be a material heretic.

So let me get this straight.  Pope professes heresy.  He's outside the Church and out of office.  Then he "proves" that it was just material heresy.  Does he get his office back or is a new election needed then?

[Ladislaus]

Well, we all have to agree a slip of the tongue VS. professing are two different things and the V2 claimants do not get the liberty of a slip of the tongue excuse.

We've moved on from the original "slip of the tongue".  I was using that as an extreme example of a MANIFEST heresy.  But is it really if all it was was a slip of the tongue?

Then we moved on to [from Billot] ...

 or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church

[Pax Vobis]

If someone is truly a material heretic he will abjure his heresies and profess the truth immediately upon correction.

"Upon correction"...Please define "correction" and how and what form it needs to take?  What if these popes have yet to be corrected because THE ENTIRE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS is infected with modernistic thought?  I can say that Francis has been 'corrected' through the dubia.  But who corrected JPII or Benedict?  I don't recall any formal correction?  That's because 99% of so-called catholics think that V2 is consistent with tradition.

I say 'correction' has to come from a church official, in a public manner.  So, with these parameters, except for Francis, none of the previous popes were 'corrected'.

[sedevacantist3]

You wrote the jury is still out on Jewgorglio , just curious what exactly do you need to see to deem him an apostate for example , does he need to tell everyone to hail Satan? Has he not already done enough? His praying with jews , not enough ?