Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Meg on December 07, 2017, 02:56:25 PM

Title: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 07, 2017, 02:56:25 PM
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 07, 2017, 03:16:06 PM
:facepalm:


How many R&R schismatics and deniers of the Newtonian physics are logged in right now?


Looks like we have at least one double whammy.

I get that sedes believe that R&R's are schismatics, but really....deniers of Newtonian physics? I suppose you consider the Newtonian deniers to be schismatic, right? That's hilarious!

Only 3 out of 12 logged on are sedes. Not bad. I think that they mostly patrol the forum in the morning. I'll check back then. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Nadir on December 07, 2017, 03:34:09 PM
How do you know who is a sede and who is not, apart from remembering what each poster says on the subject. Sure some declare themselves but no all by a long shot. And you'd have to read every post, just in case they swing to the other side.
Do you know, for example where I stand? You must have a lot of time on your hands. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 07, 2017, 03:42:42 PM
How do you know who is a sede and who is not, apart from remembering what each poster says on the subject. Sure some declare themselves but no all by a long shot. And you'd have to read every post, just in case they swing to the other side.
Do you know, for example where I stand? You must have a lot of time on your hands.

I only count the sedes with whom I have debated sedevacantism, and I know they are sedes. There are probably more of them than what I can count at any given time. It's not meant to be a precise account of how many sedes are on the forum at any particular time. But it gives a good indication. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 07, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
 :laugh2:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JPaul on December 07, 2017, 08:52:10 PM
:laugh2:
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 07, 2017, 11:57:35 PM
If I were to start another Bergoglio "Vicar of Christ" poll, 75% of Cathinfo would cast their votes with the "he is not the Vicar of Christ on earth" option.

Yes, you may be right. You started a Bergoglio "Vicar of Christ" poll? I hadn't ever noticed it. Was it about 75% then, would you say? (Against Bergoglio being Pope, I mean). 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Maria Regina on December 08, 2017, 12:33:02 AM
Devotees of Father Paul Kramer do not believe that Francis is the Vicar, but that Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
Others believe that Paul VI is still alive even at 120 years, so that he is technically still the Pope as he never resigned.

Neither of these two groups would be considered sedevacantists.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: happenby on December 08, 2017, 10:02:04 AM
:facepalm:


How many R&R schismatics and deniers of the Newtonian physics are logged in right now?


Looks like we have at least one double whammy.
I'm definitely not schismatic but I thoroughly deny Newtonian physics because his work was at least in part, plagiarized. This might sour Kreuz, but we all can't live apart from truth, can we?

Isaac NewtonAlthough he is much deserved of scientific credit for at least providing mathematical formulas of motion that, within the margin of error are quite accurate, his personal life was little to be admired. Kepler’s jealousy of Brahe was just slightly worse in comparison to Newton’s avarice that led him to confiscate the work of his contemporaries and credit it to himself. Astronomer John Flamsteed was the owner of voluminous notes charting the moon’s movement and the positions of the stars, notes Newton desperately needed to bring the moon within his gravitational theory for the publishing of his famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. A bitter feud resulted between the two men wherein Newton, using his influence with government officials, forced Flamsteed’s hand. Not only did Newton surreptitiously wrest Flamsteed of his painstaking work, he did the same to Stephen Gray and Robert Hooke. In 1674 Hooke published the Inverse Square Law for the force of gravity in his book An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth by Observation. Newton then tried to claim it as his own, feigning that he had thought about it many years earlier but only decided to publish it in his own book thirteen years later. As Ellen Tan Drake notes:
Newton, however, claimed to have arrived at his universal law of gravitation at his country home in Woolsthorpe during the plague years 1665 or 1666 (it is not clear which), during his annas mirabilis(this “marvelous year” when the legendary apple fell). This date, of course, would clearly predate Hooke’s expression of the law except that there is clear proof that as late as 1675, Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by “some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,” and that gravity was due to a circulating ether that had to be replenished in the center of the Earth by a process like fermentation or coagulation. (Restless Genius: Robert Hooke and his Earthly Thoughts, Ellen Tan Drake, Oxford University Press, 1966, pp. 32-33. Drake’s source is Newton’s letter to Oldenberg, Dec. 7 1675, as cited in Turnbull, 1959, vol. 1: 368; Patterson, 1950).
Newton won the day against Hooke by using his influence at the Royal Society, just as he did in heading off the new discoveries of Robert Boyle, all in an effort to advance his own career. (David Clark and Stephen P. H. Clark, Newton’s Tyranny: The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen Gray and John Flamsteed, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 2001; Richard S. Westfall,Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, pp. 471f, 601f; on Robert Boyle see False Prophets, Alexander Kohn, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986, p. 39). On at least three separate occasions, Newton introduced fallacious figures into the Principia in order to increase its apparent power of prediction (“Newton and the Fudge Factor,” Richard S. Westfall, Science, 179, 751-758, 1973; False Prophets, Alexander Kohn, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986, pp. 36-39). Ironically, it was considered an “epoch-making” work long before it was thoroughly reviewed, the highly influential John Locke having accepted it based merely on the word of Newton (Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, pp. 469-470; Morris Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture, Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 230. See also Kline’s Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Oxford University Press, 1982).
In addition to the ill-treatment of his scientific colleagues, Newton was rumored to have had a homosexual relationship with one John Wickins, a friend with whom he had lived for twenty years; and a later liaison with Nicholas Fatio De Duillier, a man twenty years his junior and with whom he exchanged intimate letters, many of which were later censored by Newton or a confidant. Newton was also deep into alchemy (illegal at the time) and the Kabbalah, the occult musings of medieval Talmudic authors. Although he was reputed to have Christian moorings, Newton embraced the heresy of Arianism (i.e., the denial of both the divinity of Christ and the Trinity). Westfall writes: “In Newton’s eyes, worshiping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin” (Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, p. 314; On Newton’s intimacy with Wickens and Fatio, see Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, Michael White, MA: Perseus Books, 1997, pp. 235-254).
Voltaire had accused Newton of using his niece to entice politicians so that Newton could gain various positions of prestige. Voltaire writes: “I thought in my youth that Newton made his fortune by his merit. I supposed that the court and the city of London named him Master of the Mint by acclamation. No such thing. Isaac Newton had a very charming niece, Madame Conduitt, who made a conquest of the minister of Halifax. Fluxions and gravitation would have been of no use without a pretty niece” (Dictionnaire Philosophique, as cited in N. Martin Gywnne’s Sir Isaac Newton and Modern Astronomy, Britons Catholic Library, n. d., p. 8). Biographer Richard Westfall, although an admirer of Newton and predisposed to dismiss any hearsay, adds: “The wider ramifications with Halifax, and Newton’s involvement in it, do not evaporate with equal ease,” although “With Halifax the libertine, Victorian eulogizers could not bear to associate Newton. Nor could they bear the thought, the point of Voltaire’s jibe, that Newton used the degradation of his niece to advance his own career” (Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, pp. 596-597).
Unknown to most, Newton spent most of his time interpreting biblical prophecy, writing over a million words on the subject. One of his more intriguing predictions is the date of 2060 AD as the end of the world, but that date surfaces only because Newton decided that the Roman Catholic Church was the Antichrist. As Westfall says, Newton “hated and feared popery,” and as Koestler concludes, Newton was “a crank theologian like Kepler…and held that the tenth horn of the fourth beast of the Apocalypse represented the Roman Catholic Church.” Since he reasoned that the Church’s peak occurred in 800 AD, upon which, if one adds the 1260 days of Apocalypse 11-13 but changes them from days to 1260 years, then one obtains 800 + 1260 = 2060. Newton borrowed the ‘1260 days = 1260 year’ scheme from the Puritan mystic Joseph Mede. Mede added the 1260 years to 400-455 AD and held that the end would come around 1760-1815 AD. Others began at different dates (e.g., Bengel at 576; Ellicott at 608; Melanchthon at 660, et al, most trying to bring the terminus to the Reformation). Newton believed that the Second Coming of Christ would follow plagues and war and would precede a 1,000-year reign of Christ and the saints on earth, otherwise known today as “chiliasm” or “premillennialism” He spent close to 50 years delving into biblical prophecy, writing over 4,500 pages and a million words in an effort to determine the end of the world. Many of these papers had lain undisturbed in the hours of the Earl of Portsmouth for 250 years, which were eventually sold by Sotheby’s in the late 1930s. Newton proposed various dates for the end, but one of the last, which he apparently wrote on a separate piece of paper, was 2060. This collection of papers was purchased by Abraham Yahuda, and was stored in the Hebrew National Library. It was among these documents that the date 2060 was found. (See also Michael White’s The Last Sorcerer, pp. 156-157).

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 08, 2017, 10:13:42 AM
There appears that total incapacity for logical thought once again. I swear your mind is like a bear riding a tricycle around a circus ring with a monkey on its back playing the concertina.
1. Flat Earth cranks explicitly or implicitly deny Newtonian physics and not just in its application to orbital mechanics.
2. You're a schismatic because you refuse to submit your intellect and will to the man you call pope in his authentic magisterium.
These things are logically unconnected.

I'm used to Pharisedes who insult and make accusations against non-Sedes. That's what they (you) mainly do. When they aren't accusing the Pope, they are accusing non-sedes. 

Tell me, do you judge every Catholic you meet as to whether or not they are schismatics? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 08, 2017, 10:22:59 AM
Consider thyself reminded:

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!

God bless!
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 08, 2017, 10:29:18 AM
Consider thyself reminded:

Thanks for the reminder. Which I will disregard. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 08, 2017, 11:26:38 AM
Devotees of Father Paul Kramer do not believe that Francis is the Vicar, but that Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
Others believe that Paul VI is still alive even at 120 years, so that he is technically still the Pope as he never resigned.

Neither of these two groups would be considered sedevacantists.

Yeah, there are about 2 or 3 people who believe either of the above theories.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: TKGS on December 08, 2017, 03:31:28 PM
Tell me, do you judge every Catholic you meet as to whether or not they are schismatics?

Interesting question.  I've never met a Catholic schismatic nor a Catholic heretic.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 11:42:18 AM
Right now, at least 3 of 4 members are Sedevacantist. Maybe the 4th.

Hope this helps Meg, I don't know the purpose of this thread, but it sure is fun.

Glad you think so AeS.

Apparently, not all sedes think as you do on the subject, judging by all the downvotes I'm getting (which is fine - I can see that they don't like what I have to say about their sede religion).
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 12:26:24 PM
Why are we doing this again?

Sedes are supposed to have such advanced intelligence - so I'm sure you can figure it out!  :)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 12:54:11 PM
At least you realize this for what it is...pointless.Anyone's allowed to have their own opinion but, the facts are you and those modernists, which are by definition heretics, are part of the same "church" in communion with and subject to the same man, a heretic.

Pointless? But I thought you said it was fun?

Yeah, you think I'm a heretic. Right. You dogmatic sedes accuse non-sedes of being heretics, schismatics, liars, etc., so often and so frequently that it has lost all meaning. Do you really think that just because you dogmatic sedes accuse us, that we are going to actually believe you? Why should we? You have no authority over us.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 02:32:53 PM
It can still be fun and be pointless.
Just because we call you out on it all the time does not mean it's lost its meaning. After all, those accusations are true. I mean just look at the quote below; you said you wouldn't post about SV but you do. Then you asked people to remind you that you said you wouldn't post about it and when someone did (in this thread), you said that you would disregard his reminder. You lie and you do not follow through on what you say you will do, thereby making your word worthless.
Also, I never said I had authority over anyone, just trying to practice some charity because I care about the eternal destination of your soul.

If you believe that I lie (as opposed to changing my mind), and you also believe that my word is worthless, then you do not have to keep responding to my posts. 

I do not believe that you care about anyone's soul. Even your own. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 02:48:03 PM
I keep responding because you keep bashing Sedevacantism (not sure what "dogmatic" sv is) so I thought I would keep defending that position. Plus, when you get backed into a corner, which often happens, you usually respond by saying that you don't have to respond or you don't want to respond. Since this is an obvious admission that you don't have a rebuttal to what's being said, and you have one of the loudest mouths on here, it's good for the lurkers to see the absurdity of the positions that people like you hold.

That's too bad.

You know perfectly well what dogmatic sedevacantism is. It's been discussed often enough here. 

You can accuse me of whatever you want, but I'll still keep pointing out that you're wrong. Even if, at times, I will not respond to your same old lines and accusations. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 09, 2017, 03:33:29 PM
.
How many sedes are on the forum right now?  Answer: Too many.
.
I only count the sedes with whom I have debated sedevacantism, and I know they are sedes. There are probably more of them than what I can count at any given time. It's not meant to be a precise account of how many sedes are on the forum at any particular time. But it gives a good indication.
.
What difference does it make anyway? Are you thinking of changing yourself, is that the problem? Maybe you'll change if it becomes really popular to change, so you can be popular, too.
.
Only a woman would have such a concern..... What's everyone else doing? What can I do to become more popular?
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 09, 2017, 05:56:39 PM
.
How many sedes are on the forum right now? Answer: Too many.
..
What difference does it make anyway? Are you thinking of changing yourself, is that the problem? Maybe you'll change if it becomes really popular to change, so you can be popular, too.
.
Only a woman would have such a concern..... What's everyone else doing? What can I do to become more popular?
.

Right, Neil. As if a thread like this would help win popularity. Actually, it's the opposite.

There's only a half sede logged on right now (Ladislaus).

Nice.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 09, 2017, 06:12:51 PM
.
Sedes worrying about whether or not it's acceptable.
.
Or how may others there are around here like "me" -- am I going to be an outcast?
.
Oh, there's another one. Nice.................
.
No. Weird.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 09, 2017, 06:59:46 PM
You're all sede anyway, just look at how you speak about your pope, if you thought for a moment he was a true Vicar of Christ you would be careful or at least feel guilty, but U don't.  

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Matthew on December 09, 2017, 09:57:57 PM
I had to ban Kazimierz because he outed himself as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" (he considers non-sedevacantists to be non-Catholic/schismatics) which is not a valid position, especially on CathInfo.

I don't put up with such lay-pope, "Dimond brothers"-esque condemnatory nonsense here on CathInfo.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Matthew on December 09, 2017, 10:03:26 PM
You're all sede anyway, just look at how you speak about your pope, if you thought for a moment he was a true Vicar of Christ you would be careful or at least feel guilty, but U don't.  
If I found out (by private revelation, in 20 years, after death, etc.) that it turns out these popes were indeed valid popes, I wouldn't even have to blush, much less head for the confessional.

Because I don't show personal disrespect -- or violate charity it any way -- regarding the man Jorge Bergoglio, calling him childish names, etc. *cough* Novus Ordo Watch *cough* Traditio *cough*

In short, I don't hate him. You can taste the hatred on those websites I mentioned.

He is a menace to the Faith, and that is not something to be ignored. I can't play around with my own faith, or the faith of those in my charge. Salvation is not a game. I have to do what I have to do.

What I *don't* have to do is make it personal, or nurture hatred towards the men who are (objectively speaking) doing the devil's work.

If/when Jorge Bergoglio inches forward to peer into the abyss of Hell, it would give me no pleasure whatsoever to see his soul condemned to the flames. It would still be a shame, a total waste of a soul that could have glorified God forever.

For me, it's all about the Faith. I will "resist him to the face" like St. Paul did to St. Peter -- but with all respect, and keeping it very much NOT personal, but instead about doctrine.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 09, 2017, 11:10:22 PM
If I found out (by private revelation, in 20 years, after death, etc.) that it turns out these popes were indeed valid popes, I wouldn't even have to blush, much less head for the confessional.

Because I don't show personal disrespect -- or violate charity it any way -- regarding the man Jorge Bergoglio, calling him childish names, etc. *cough* Novus Ordo Watch *cough* Traditio *cough*

In short, I don't hate him. You can taste the hatred on those websites I mentioned.

He is a menace to the Faith, and that is not something to be ignored. I can't play around with my own faith, or the faith of those in my charge. Salvation is not a game. I have to do what I have to do.

What I *don't* have to do is make it personal, or nurture hatred towards the men who are (objectively speaking) doing the devil's work.

If/when Jorge Bergoglio inches forward to peer into the abyss of Hell, it would give me no pleasure whatsoever to see his soul condemned to the flames. It would still be a shame, a total waste of a soul that could have glorified God forever.

For me, it's all about the Faith. I will "resist him to the face" like St. Paul did to St. Peter -- but with all respect, and keeping it very much NOT personal, but instead about doctrine.
I don't read Novus Ordo Watch nor Traditio, and I am surprised that you do!

Your right, positively right it should never give anyone pleasure thinking that another human is burning in Hell, and forever.  Some traditional Catholics seem to take pleasure in the idea the Jews are all in Hell.

Jesus Christ greatest suffering in the garden just before He was crucified was seeing the billions upon billions of souls not accepting His sacrifice and that alone should bring tears to anyone with a heart.  His suffering over the loss of one soul was greater than His physical pain He suffered for us, it is said.  In Catholic school, the nuns would explain to us, that when He saw the faces of the first man, Adam till the last man, and so many not accepting His sacrifice caused Him to sweat blood. 
 
If ever I stand before God and find the conciliar popes were indeed valid, I know God's mercy would never hold me accountable for that because He knows my loyalty to the Papacy was never in question.  Because it wasn't.  I do fear for those who have made excuses for these enemies of God and should have known better, no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
  
Can you, Matthew?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 10, 2017, 12:21:48 AM
I don't read Novus Ordo Watch nor Traditio, and I am surprised that you do!
.
He didn't actually say that he reads them (present tense). He has read them in the past but they've been consistently the same for years so why would they have changed suddenly? If Traditio had suddenly changed all the forums would be talking about it. And Nov.Ord.Wat. is so locked into granny low, there's no WAY they're going to change. Hey, they're still using Windows 3.1!!
.
Quote
Your right, positively right it should never give anyone pleasure thinking that another human is burning in Hell, and forever.  Some traditional Catholics seem to take pleasure in the idea the Jews are all in Hell.

Jesus Christ greatest suffering in the garden just before He was crucified was seeing the billions upon billions of souls not accepting His sacrifice and that alone should bring tears to anyone with a heart.  His suffering over the loss of one soul was greater than His physical pain He suffered for us, it is said.  In Catholic school, the nuns would explain to us, that when He saw the faces of the first man, Adam till the last man, and so many not accepting His sacrifice caused Him to sweat blood. 

If ever I stand before God and find the conciliar popes were indeed valid, I know God's mercy would never hold me accountable for that because He knows my loyalty to the Papacy was never in question.  Because it wasn't.  I do fear for those who have made excuses for these enemies of God and should have known better, no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
 
Can you, Matthew?
.
You should read Mystery of Iniquity. It's author sought to answer your question, "...how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment." Perhaps you'd like to know what he found. 
.
After you're done, perhaps you'd like to know the next phase.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Alcuin on December 10, 2017, 04:16:32 AM
You're all sede anyway, just look at how you speak about your pope, if you thought for a moment he was a true Vicar of Christ you would be careful or at least feel guilty, but U don't.  
Its not that we're all Sede. It really comes down to the fact that in the practical order most here don't consider the current occupant in Rome as a spiritual father in the faith.
Effectively we are independent of Rome's authority.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2017, 06:40:41 AM
I had to ban Kazimierz because he outed himself as a "dogmatic sedevacantist" (he considers non-sedevacantists to be non-Catholic/schismatics) which is not a valid position, especially on CathInfo.

I don't put up with such lay-pope, "Dimond brothers"-esque condemnatory nonsense here on CathInfo.
Meg doesn't think sedevacantists are Catholic.  Is that a valid position on CathInfo?  If so, why?  If not, why is she allowed to continue her anti-Catholic postings such as the following found on another thread?

Sometimes people can't see the obvious: that it's the Catholic faith you're giving them, rather than the sedevacantist faith (which isn't the Catholic faith).

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2017, 07:00:40 AM
.... no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
  

Don't get confused Myrna. We can all break God's laws...that's called sinning.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2017, 07:25:12 AM
Here's a couple of more gems from Meg:

The sedes can heckle Catholics from the sidelines all they want, but they have left the Church. They have no right to an opinion.

Sedevacantists say one thing....Catholics say another. I follow ABL's thinking on the matter. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 10, 2017, 08:14:29 AM
.
He didn't actually say that he reads them (present tense). He has read them in the past but they've been consistently the same for years so why would they have changed suddenly? If Traditio had suddenly changed all the forums would be talking about it. And Nov.Ord.Wat. is so locked into granny low, there's no WAY they're going to change. Hey, they're still using Windows 3.1!!
..
You should read Mystery of Iniquity. It's author sought to answer your question, "...how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment." Perhaps you'd like to know what he found.
.
After you're done, perhaps you'd like to know the next phase.
.
It would have been nice if Matthew answered for himself, and yes I can understand taking a look at a site one or two times before one decides it is not for them.  I looked at the Novus Ordor Watch but it is disorganized and not a pleasing layout I prefer not to go there, it's been years and years since I visited Traditio. 
Why not explain how the Vicar of Christ can continue to teach his flock to break the First Commandment from the book by another armchair today theologian, my favorite choice of reading are the Papal Encyclicals.  Because they are so crystal clear while the conciliar writings are so ambiguous as the armchair theologians you request we read.  I have taken that stance after looking at todays theologians and their opinions which constantly clash with each other, so as I say I'll stick to the encyclicals.  

This is another reason why I love C.M.R.I. their sermons are not their novel theories created for popularity, they speak from the pulpit about the teachings of the Church, basic doctrine without the novelties.  
  
   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 10, 2017, 08:17:47 AM
Its not that we're all Sede. It really comes down to the fact that in the practical order most here don't consider the current occupant in Rome as a spiritual father in the faith.
Effectively we are independent of Rome's authority.
That's because he is not a spiritual father of any kind unless you want to say spiritual darkness.  Which is a pretty good definition of what the sedevacantist believe also.  
The difference is a sedevacantist relies on Rome's authority which is why our priest constantly teach what the True Pope have taught the flock in happier days.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 10, 2017, 08:23:35 AM
Don't get confused Myrna. We can all break God's laws...that's called sinning.  
Yes, isn't that so true, but for a Vicar of Christ to lead the faithful into a practice of interfaith with pagans is going a little too far, it isn't personal sin anymore.  
You have some good points about Meg breaking forum rules here, but  Sunday is her day off, so maybe she will see your replies on Monday.  Even the shills get a day or two off.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Matthew on December 10, 2017, 10:27:58 AM
I don't read Novus Ordo Watch nor Traditio, and I am surprised that you do!

If ever I stand before God and find the conciliar popes were indeed valid, I know God's mercy would never hold me accountable for that because He knows my loyalty to the Papacy was never in question.  Because it wasn't.  I do fear for those who have made excuses for these enemies of God and should have known better, no one has ever explained to me here or anywhere how the Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, the breaking of the First Commandment.
  
Can you, Matthew?
There have been valid popes who have sinned in the past. That is a fact. At any rate, it's beside the point. Only a future Council can depose a Pope, or declare that he was not Pope. That is not the job of laymen in their armchairs.

I don't patronize or visit those sites on purpose, but I have read enough of their content over the years to be well acquainted with their particular stench.  Keep in mind, we've had a lot of people post material from those sites on CathInfo over the past 11 years.

I know many bad rock and roll songs, but I've never spent a nickel on their CDs, concerts, etc. You don't have a choice what they play at work, school, in stores, etc.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 10, 2017, 10:35:25 AM
As I said sinning is personal but leading others into the pit is a "little" different.

I must apologize to Novus Ordo Watch when I stated they have a bad layout, I meant the confusing layout was my opinion about Daily Catholic, of which I read neither.  

The Church has already condemned the conciliarists:

Second Council of Lyons – 1274
Council Fathers - May 7, 1274   on election and the power of the elected person 
When a disordered passion enslaves the will or some pledge compels it to one way of acting, the election is null from lack of freedom, we implore the Cardinals through the tender mercy of our God’, and we call them to witness through the sprinkling of his precious blood, that they consider very carefully what they are about to do. They are electing the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the ruler of the universal church, the guide of the Lord’s flock. They are to lay aside all the disorder of private affection, to be free from any bargain, agreement or pledge; they are not to consider any promise or understanding, to have no regard for their mutual advantage or that of their friends. They are not to look after their own interests or their individual convenience. Without any constraint on their judgment other than God, they are to seek purely and freely the public good, with the election alone in mind. They are to use every endeavor and care that is possible. Their one aim is to provide, by their service and speedily, what is so useful and necessary for the whole world, a fitting spouse for the church. Those who act otherwise are subject to the divine retribution, their fault never to be pardoned except after severe penance. We invalidate all bargains, agreements, pledges, promises and understandings, whether confirmed by oath or any other bond; we nullify all these and decree that such have no force whatever. No one is constrained in any way to observe them, nor anyone to fear that by transgressing them he is breaking faith. Rather he deserves praise, for even human law testifies that such transgressions are more acceptable to God than the keeping of the oath.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 10, 2017, 11:53:03 AM
In all fairness, people can and do change their views on the crisis over time. I know I have and from a rabid anti - sedevacantist position I used to have, now I consider Des Laurier's Thesis of Cassiacum (sedeprivationism) the most proximate to the truth.

Although after much discernment, I consider the SSPX position the most erroneous of them all, I do not consider these R & R Catholics (or Absolute Sedevacantists) schismatics at all. Everyone is just doing the best they can in this sinking boat. I think that approach of red lighting everyone among us traditionalists is divisive and ultimately not conductive to resolution, because a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 10, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
As I said sinning is personal but leading others into the pit is a "little" different.

I must apologize to Novus Ordo Watch when I stated they have a bad layout, I meant the confusing layout was my opinion about Daily Catholic, of which I read neither.  

The Church has already condemned the conciliarists:

Second Council of Lyons – 1274
Council Fathers - May 7, 1274   on election and the power of the elected person
When a disordered passion enslaves the will or some pledge compels it to one way of acting, the election is null from lack of freedom, we implore the Cardinals through the tender mercy of our God’, and we call them to witness through the sprinkling of his precious blood, that they consider very carefully what they are about to do. They are electing the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the ruler of the universal church, the guide of the Lord’s flock. They are to lay aside all the disorder of private affection, to be free from any bargain, agreement or pledge; they are not to consider any promise or understanding, to have no regard for their mutual advantage or that of their friends. They are not to look after their own interests or their individual convenience. Without any constraint on their judgment other than God, they are to seek purely and freely the public good, with the election alone in mind. They are to use every endeavor and care that is possible. Their one aim is to provide, by their service and speedily, what is so useful and necessary for the whole world, a fitting spouse for the church. Those who act otherwise are subject to the divine retribution, their fault never to be pardoned except after severe penance. We invalidate all bargains, agreements, pledges, promises and understandings, whether confirmed by oath or any other bond; we nullify all these and decree that such have no force whatever. No one is constrained in any way to observe them, nor anyone to fear that by transgressing them he is breaking faith. Rather he deserves praise, for even human law testifies that such transgressions are more acceptable to God than the keeping of the oath.

In the same section of the Council of Lyons that you quoted, but a little further on, is the decree which states how one is to raise difficulties against the form of an election, or against the persons of the electors, or against the elected himself. There is not a provision which says that a Catholic may proclaim all on his own that there are impediments to an election. There is a procedure. Which makes good Catholic sense. The passage uses the terms "Ecclesiastical elections," which I assume, includes the Pope. Here is the passage:
--------

2. On the election and the power of the elected person

3[10]

"That we may, as far as possible, close the way to evil practices in ecclesiastical elections, postulations and provisions, and that churches may not have long and dangerous vacancies or the provision of parsonages, dignities or other ecclesiastical benefices be delayed, we make this perpetual degree.

When opponents to elections, postulations, or provisions raise difficulties against the form of the election, postulation, or provision, or against the person of the electors or of the elected or of him for whom the provision was to be made or has been made, and for these reasons make an appeal, the appellants are to express in public document or letter of appeal every individual objection they intend to make against the form or persons. They shall do this in the presence of qualified persons or person bearing witness to the truth on the above points, and they shall personally swear that they believe what they say to be truth and can prove it. If this is not done, both the objectors and, during, the time of appeal or afterwards, their adherents are to know that the power of objecting anything not expressed in these letters or documents is forbidden to them, unless there is some new evidence or there is some means of proving the former objections or some facts of the past have newly come to knowledge of the objectors, facts of which at the time of the appeal the appellants probably could have been, and in fact were ignorant."
-------

The above quote seems to point to the idea that there is a procedure for dealing with the contesting of an ecclesiastical election, which would necessarily include believing that the seat is vacant, though this is not specified.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 10, 2017, 01:09:16 PM
In the same section of the Council of Lyons that you quoted, but a little further on, is the decree which states how one is to raise difficulties against the form of an election, or against the persons of the electors, or against the elected himself. There is not a provision which says that a Catholic may proclaim all on his own that there are impediments to an election. There is a procedure. Which makes good Catholic sense. The passage uses the terms "Ecclesiastical elections," which I assume, includes the Pope. 
Ecclesiastical Law is Human Law and can change. Impediments to an election are one thing.
I am no expert and have no public opinion on the Crisis.

But since we are talking about Sensus fidei or good Catholic sense, please allow me to point out that it would definitely be Divine Law that in order to be a member of the Catholic Church, one must have the Catholic Faith. It could easily be proven that Bergoglio is not a visible member of the Church. I believe that it is easy to prove that Bergoglio is a formal and manifest heretic. Being so, he would definitely not be a member of the Catholic Church.

So my question to you is: Are you prepared to state that a non-Catholic apostate or infidel openly aggressive to the Faith and who is not a member of the Church is your spiritual leader, even if at the peril of your immortal soul?

Good Catholic sense would seem to scream no. Sensus fidei
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 10, 2017, 01:12:33 PM
Ecclesiastical Law is Human Law and can change. Impediments to an election are one thing.
I am no expert and have no public opinion on the Crisis.

But since we are talking about Sensus fidei or good Catholic sense, please allow me to point out that it would definitely be Divine Law that in order to be a member of the Catholic Church, one must have the Catholic Faith. It could easily be proven that Bergoglio is not a visible member of the Church. I believe that it is easy to prove that Bergoglio is a formal and manifest heretic. Being so, he would definitely not be a member of the Catholic Church.

So my question to you is: Are you prepared to state that a non-Catholic apostate or infidel openly aggressive to the Faith and who is not a member of the Church is your spiritual leader, even if at the peril of your immortal soul?

Good Catholic sense would seem to scream no. Sensus fidei

The Council stated that the decree is perpetual. You sedes will disregard whatever doesn't fit your imprudent nature. Prudence and procedure are foreign concepts to those who believe in mob rule, or "power of the people."
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 10, 2017, 01:20:42 PM


All I can now reply is that you should definitely educate yourself a bit more (everyone should), instead of rambling off accusations of people being so imprudent.

Fr. Hesse was a vocal priest against the Sedevacantists working with the SSPX. He explains very clearly here (in a speech against Sedevacantism) that even though the bull of Paul IV said "in perpetuity" all elements of the bull regarding precisely a papal election where changed and can be changed because they are matters of Human Law.

If we go by your argument that Human Law can be made perpetual, than you would have to accept the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus, which would definitely make sedevacantism your only position.

Your lack of theological understanding and emotional temperament has boxed you into a corner on this one.

I'm going offline. Watch this video and learn something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwtEnz7A-Sg

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 10, 2017, 01:24:19 PM

All I can now reply is that you should definitely educate yourself a bit more (everyone should), instead of rambling off accusations of people being so imprudent.

Fr. Hesse was a vocal priest against the Sedevacantists working with the SSPX. He explains very clearly here (in a speech against Sedevacantism) that even though the bull of Paul IV said "in perpetuity" all elements of the bull regarding precisely a papal election where changed and can be changed because they are matters of Human Law.

If we go by your argument that Human Law can be made perpetual, than you would have to accept the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus, which would definitely make sedevacantism your only position.

Your lack of theological understanding and emotional temperament has boxed you into a corner on this one.

I'm going offline. Watch this video and learn something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwtEnz7A-Sg

Like I said, prudence and procedure are foreign concepts to sedes. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 03:36:12 PM
I keep responding because you keep bashing Sedevacantism (not sure what "dogmatic" sv is) so I thought I would keep defending that position.
Let Fr. Jenkins explain what a dogmatic sede is. The link should start right at the right spot, if not, just watch 20 seconds of him, from 24:20 till 24:45.
https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459 (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 10, 2017, 04:43:08 PM
Lastdays I have a feeling we might see the lastdays of Stubborn on this thread.

Lets talk about Simony, am I to understand after I did a little research on Simony that Simony can be money, gift, profit or benefit etc. 
Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17 A.D.
 
SESSION 5
16 February 1513
[Bull renewing and confirming the Constitution against not committing the evil of simony when electing the Roman pontiff]
Inserted constitution
Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. From a consideration that the detestable crime of simony is forbidden by both divine and human law, particularly in spiritual matters, and that it is especially heinous and destructive for the whole church in the election of the Roman pontiff, the vicar of our lord Jesus Christ, we therefore, placed by God in charge of the government of the same universal church, despite being of little merit, desire, so far as we are able with God’s help, to take effective measures for the future with regard to the aforesaid things, as we are bound to, in accordance with the necessity of such an important matter and the greatness of the danger. With the advice and unanimous consent of our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, by means of this our constitution which will have permanent validity, we establish, ordain, decree and define, by apostolic authority and the fulness of our power, that if it happens (which may God avert in his mercy and goodness towards all), after God has released us or our successors from the government of the universal church, that by the efforts of the enemy of the human race and following the urge of ambition or greed, the election of the Roman pontiff is made or effected by the person who is elected, or by one or several members of the college of cardinals, giving their votes in a manner that in any way involves simony being committed — by the gift, promise or receipt of money, goods of any sort, castles, offices, benefices, promises or obligations — by the person elected or by one or several other persons, in any manner or form whatsoever, even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff.
A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal’s rank and of all other honours whatsoever as well as of cathedral churches, even metropolitan and patriarchical ones, monasteries, dignities and all other benefices and pensions of whatever kind which he was then holding by title or in commendam or otherwise; and that the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and, like Simon, a magicianl and a heresiarch, and perpetually debarred from each and all of the above-mentioned things. A simoniacal election of this kind is never at any time to be made valid by a subsequent enthronement or the passage of time, or even by the act of adoration or obedience of all the Cardinals. It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals, even those who consented to the simoniacal election or promotion, even after the enthronement and adoration or obedience, as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people, together with those serving as prefects, castellans, captains and other officials at the Castel Sant’ Angelo in Rome and any other strongholds of the Roman church, notwithstanding any submission or oath or pledge given, to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch. To discomfort him still further, if he uses the pretext of the election to interfere in the government of the universal church, the cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him.
 
 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 05:01:45 PM
Stubborn likes to pull these antics, because he has no answer for any of our arguments. I know of no sede on this forum who claims that they have made an official deposition and declaration of any conciliar claimant to the papacy.
First, I already know what a BOD is. Second, AES said he was unsure what a dogmatic sede is. I only offered it to him because he said he did not know what a dogmatic sede is, the explanation of Fr. Jenkins, explains it beautifully in under 30 seconds, he explains what a dogmatic sede is like this:

"...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all".  

If you watch the whole video, Fr. explains what a non-dogmatic sede is when he says, those are people who say: "I'm not saying he's not the pope, I'm just saying I don't see how he could be..."

So according to Fr. Jenkin's explanation, which type of sede are you and AES? - a dogmatic sede or a non-dogmatic sede?



Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2017, 05:43:02 PM
In all fairness, people can and do change their views on the crisis over time. I know I have and from a rabid anti - sedevacantist position I used to have, now I consider Des Laurier's Thesis of Cassiacum (sedeprivationism) the most proximate to the truth.

Although after much discernment, I consider the SSPX position the most erroneous of them all, I do not consider these R & R Catholics (or Absolute Sedevacantists) schismatics at all. Everyone is just doing the best they can in this sinking boat. I think that approach of red lighting everyone among us traditionalists is divisive and ultimately not conductive to resolution, because a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Yes, you did hold a rabid anti-sede position, and you and I have communicated about your change of heart.  Cantarella, thank you for your post.  It shows that there is hope that the other rabid anti-sedevacantist posters will change too.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 10, 2017, 05:45:25 PM
Yes, isn't that so true, but for a Vicar of Christ to lead the faithful into a practice of interfaith with pagans is going a little too far, it isn't personal sin anymore.  
You have some good points about Meg breaking forum rules here, but  Sunday is her day off, so maybe she will see your replies on Monday.  Even the shills get a day or two off.
It looks like my post to Matthew has been ignored.  I guess dogmatic anti-sedevacantists on CI can call sedes non Catholic after all.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 10, 2017, 06:07:13 PM



Also, Cum Ex Apostolatus concerns faith and morals (not just Ecclesiastical Law). It can never be abrogated where it defines doctrine concerning faith and morals.


If you would have listened to the whole video, Fr. Hesse says exactly that. I've never heard anyone or any priests say anything different.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 10, 2017, 06:14:16 PM
That heretics and schismatics cannot possess valid elections nor Ecclesiastical offices is of divine law (not human law).

I also said exactly this on my first post on this thread. I referred to the administrative procedure which was even if a cardinal was previously at some point a heretic, his election would be banned. It's an election process, just like how cardinals weren't always the electors in a conclave. It can change and it has changed and popes have changed this since Cum Ex Apostolatus.

You should really read entirely or check out all material before posting. Otherwise, you're just talking (typing) for your own personal enjoyment.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 10, 2017, 06:21:27 PM
Cum Ex, inasmuch as it is merely ecclesiastical legislation, is no longer in effect.  The 1917 CIC replaced it, as it replaced any and all laws which came before it (unless and except it says otherwise, or somehow incorporates them into it).  So there's not a law governing the Church right now, nor has there been one since 1917, called Cum Ex Apostolotus Officio.

But inasmuch as Cum ex reflects the divine law, it's still in effect, just as the ten commandments are, despite the fact that the Old Covenant is done.  The specific penalties that Cum Ex prescribes, then, are not in force (except when they're carried over by the 1917 CIC).  But the divine law aspect of it-- mainly, the reiteration that heretics cannot be popes-- is absolutely "in effect," and it would be "in effect" even if there had never been a Cum Ex at all.

Those (like Hesse) who argue "it's not in effect" as though this fact has some effect on the sedevacantist thesis, are simply wrong.  And sedes who try to argue that it is in effect don't know what they're talking about either, though they're certainly closer to the truth than those who argue as Hesse does.

ETA: Just because it seems to often be mentioned in the same breath, the fact that excommunicated cardinals are allowed to participate in conclaves (and even be elected, yes, that's true) doesn't bear on the issue at all either. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 10, 2017, 06:53:27 PM
Cum Ex, inasmuch as it is merely ecclesiastical legislation, is no longer in effect.  The 1917 CIC replaced it, as it replaced any and all laws which came before it (unless and except it says otherwise, or somehow incorporates them into it).  So there's not a law governing the Church right now, nor has there been one since 1917, called Cum Ex Apostolotus Officio.

Seems like I'm just repeating myself and noone's listening. Fr. Hesse says exactly what you you state. Goodness gracious. I can't handle this forum, I guess.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 10, 2017, 06:57:28 PM
Seems like I'm just repeating myself and noone's listening. Fr. Hesse says exactly what you you state. Goodness gracious. I can't handle this forum, I guess.
.
The problem is that Hesse thinks this is a salient or impactful observation, when it isn't.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Clemens Maria on December 10, 2017, 07:44:52 PM
I took an introductory course on canon law and the way it was explained to me was that a law remains in effect until it is abrogated.  The 1917 CIC didn’t abrogate all previous laws.  If a particular case is not covered by the 1917 code but it is covered by previous law then that law still applies. As for the election of a pope, the laws have been changed many times since Cum Ex Apostolatus.  Pope Pius XII abrogated part of it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 10, 2017, 07:47:13 PM
If anything, Cum ex Apostolatus does prove that it is not impossible for the entire Church to give its adhesion to a false pope. Otherwise, there had not even been any mention of this possibility in the constitution. The hypothetical scenario therefore, contradicts Cardinal Billot's opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the Pontiff.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: SeanJohnson on December 10, 2017, 09:03:15 PM
I'm giving 5:1 odds this thread goes at least 15 pages.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 10, 2017, 09:22:52 PM
If anything, Cum ex Apostolatus does prove that it is not impossible for the entire Church to give its adhesion to a false pope. Otherwise, there had not even been any mention of this possibility in the constitution. The hypothetical scenario therefore, contradicts Cardinal Billot's opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the Pontiff.
.
There is no tension between Billot and Cum ex. Cum ex's hypothetical is the entirety of the electorate. Not the universal church. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 10, 2017, 09:51:37 PM
Contextually, "all" clearly refers to the electorate. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 07:04:23 AM
It looks like my post to Matthew has been ignored.  I guess dogmatic anti-sedevacantists on CI can call sedes non Catholic after all.
I personally am not a dogmatic anti-sedevacantist, I personally am a dogmatic anti-dogmatic sedevacantist. There is a difference. The main problem with non-dogmatic sedeism is that it often leads to dogmatic sedeism.

The non-dogmatic sede says: "I'm not saying he's not the pope, I'm just saying I don't see how he could be." These are those trads who are confused but just doing the best they can in this sinking boat.

The dogmatic sede, in the words of Fr. Jenkins, says: "John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all". 





Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 07:24:48 AM
Can't watch Youtube or stream anything where I am. Just tell me what you think it is.
Read my last post, the one right above this one of yours.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 11, 2017, 08:47:49 AM
.
There is no tension between Billot and Cum ex. Cum ex's hypothetical is the entirety of the electorate. Not the universal church.

What exactly is the "universal Church" Cardinal Billot is speaking of then, but the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 09:38:21 AM
What exactly is the "universal Church" Cardinal Billot is speaking of then, but the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals?
.
It's what it sounds like-- all the bishops and faithful throughout the world, in a moral unanimity. This is what any theologian using the term in relation to the legitimacy of papal claims means. 
.
There's a special kind of short-sightedness in arguing that Billot was wrong. You (and last days) will have to provide much more than your personal interpretation of a translated ecclesiastical law of which Billot (and all the other theologians who agree with him--which by my count is all theologians who've touched on the issue) would obviously have been aware of.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 11, 2017, 10:05:06 AM
.
It's what it sounds like-- all the bishops and faithful throughout the world, in a moral unanimity. This is what any theologian using the term in relation to the legitimacy of papal claims means.
.
There's a special kind of short-sightedness in arguing that Billot was wrong. You (and last days) will have to provide much more than your personal interpretation of a translated ecclesiastical law of which Billot (and all the other theologians who agree with him--which by my count is all theologians who've touched on the issue) would obviously have been aware of.

The faithful would necessary align themselves with the bishops given the hierarchical organization of the Catholic religion. I do not think the notion of "universal Church" would be in any way compromised just because a particular, individual layperson belonging to the faithful, is unwilling to conform with the decisions of their bishop, in this case, the acceptance of the legitimacy of the Pontiff.

My argument is that Cum ex Apostolatus envisaged a situation that is not legally impossible. This is the situation: a subject is elected as Pope, accepts this election and is received by all the faithful. Later on, there is a realization that this subject was a heretic prior to his election. Then, according to Pope Paul IV's constitution, regardless of how much time has passed since the election, and in spite the fact that the body of the faithful have accepted it, both his election and all his subsequent acts are null. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case; but merely, that this situation is not an impossibility, as Cum ex Apostolatus already dealt with the hypothetical scenario.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 10:37:22 AM
The faithful would necessary align themselves with the bishops given the hierarchical organization of the Catholic religion. I do not think the notion of "universal Church" would be in any way compromised just because a particular, individual layperson belonging to the faithful, is unwilling to conform with the decisions of their bishop, in this case, the acceptance of the legitimacy of the Pontiff.
.
It's not a technical, mathematical measure-- it couldn't be. So you've got that right, hence the expression "moral unanimity" as opposed to "absolute unanimity." 
.
Applied to our situation, even moral unanimity seems lacking. It's definitely doubtful. Millions rejected the reforms, not only laity, but clergy, and not just simple priests but very prestigious ones and bishops, too. 
.
Quote
My argument is that Cum ex Apostolatus envisaged a situation that is not legally impossible. This is the situation: a subject is elected as Pope, accepts this election and is received by all the faithful. Later on, there is a realization that this subject was a heretic prior to his election. Then, according to Pope Paul IV's constitution, regardless of how much time has passed since the election, and in spite the fact that the body of the faithful have accepted it, both his election and all his subsequent acts are null. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case; but merely, that this situation is not an impossibility, as Cum ex Apostolatus already dealt with the hypothetical scenario. 
.
I've had the same thoughts and I agree; the Church's laws can't plan for an event contrary to the Divine law (e.g., we could never have a law like "in case we discover that Jesus Christ isn't God...").  This alone shows that it is possible, in principle, for the entire electorate to select a man to be pope who couldn't be.
.
As I've said though, I disagree that the legislation speaks of the Universal Church.  For the universal Church to accept (which entails learning from) a false rule of faith is tantamount, by logic, to accepting defection of the Universal Church-- obviously contrary to the Divine law. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 11:31:06 AM
Quite frankly, this is what Cum Ex sounds like to me--a moral unanimity. I don't believe it means that every last person in the Church will be subject and obedient to a heretic.
.
I agree, even if for no other reason than the fact that it never could be such a measure-- even in theory it would require some natural man-made tool like the Internet to measure these types of things, and still then the Internet isn't even worldwide yet.  So no, it's not a mathematical measure.
.
That being the case we can argue what does and doesn't suffice to establish moral unanimity, but we needn't do so for our purposes since I would say that the traditionalist reaction of clergy and faithful, while a minority, was hardly an insignificant one, and was large enough to disturb any morally unanimous acceptance of Paul VI and his successors.

Quote
No amount of consent can turn a heretic into a Catholic and the opinions of theologians (even many) do not make a dogma. If this were true, we would all be practicing Novus Ordites. Also, according to this theory, heretic Paul VI would have to be considered a true Pope infallibly. Sorry, but I'm just not buying Billots fallible opinion, no matter how many theologians agreed with him.

.
1) Billot is not arguing, not even by logical extension, that a man who is a heretic would be pope if he was universally accepted
.
2) Ironically, you need Billot (i.e., you need the theologians) to figure out what parts of Cum Ex are dogma, and what parts are legislation (which can be reformed).  So don't go throwing them out just yet, since Cum Ex won't make those distinctions for you, and neither will any other Church law.  That's what we have lawyers for.
.
3) If Billot were the only author who says this, you'd have more leverage to dissent from him, but given that it's the common teaching of theologians, it isn't the sort of thing that is anymore just "some theologian's opinion," but what the Church is teaching in her ordinary magisterium.  It's what's incorporated into all of her training material for her priests, who alone (either as priests in the service of their bishop, or eventually as priests who've been appointed bishops) administer to the faithful and execute the Church's ministry.  If they all go this wrong, the logic leads out to defection.
.
4) If you read Billot (or any who repeat what he says here), you'll find that they simply refuse the possibility of a heretic being universally accepted as pope.  You can reduce it to a matter of providence.  It's like refusing in principle, the possibility of a true pope falling into error (which many sedevacantists do so refuse, when arguing that non of the post-conciliar claimants were ever pope in the first place).  
.
5) To better appreciate why Billot et al. are right, we need to consider the logic of why they say that universal acceptance is an infallible sign of the truth of a papal claim.  The pope is the fountain of infallibility for the Church, and all "other" infallibility springs forth from him.  If a man pretends to be pope (and isn't) and the Universal Church doesn't notice, then the universal Church, in principle, may learn false doctrine from him, and in principle, may defect.  Which is an impossibility per the Divine Law.  So it follows, given her indefectibility, that the universal Church will never accept a false pope.  And to this day, she hasn't.  And never will.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 11:54:29 AM
What is the deal with referencing theologians and cardinals about some "moral unanimity" - as if the "moral unanimity" is some type of  determining or infallible factor in the legitimacy of the pope?

We have a "true" pope who made it the law that: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope Pius XII Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

 Whatever other cardinals / theologians say is erroneous - unless the pope's directives are not clear or not good enough.

Don't the sedes believe that pope Pius XII was a true pope now? Is that why he gets ignored? Or is it just that they have no faith at all in him when he makes laws, or only laws regarding the election of the next pope? Why is it that they need to resort to look for another source at all?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 12:35:27 PM
Bringing your errors and heresies over here now? Pius X and Pius XII referred to ecclesiastical impediments not divine ones. They could not abrogate divine law. I responded to this already. Try reading it this time. I said...

The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical impediment and not a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."  

Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)



And the following was written during the Pontificate of Pope Pius X to dispel any doubts (as if there should be any in the first place!)...

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).
Ahh well, still refuse to actually answer direct questions with direct answers I see. Well perhaps some other sede with no faith whatsoever in laws made by Pope Pius XII will answer why that is.

We see you don't need to submit to the laws of a true pope, not even when  it comes to the papal election. Say, what do you need a pope for anyway?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 01:30:08 PM
I don't have Billot's exact words, but any type of indication that a morally unanimous acceptance of a claimant to the Papacy is a sign that a Pope is valid, is dangerous. Many people adhere to the conciliar Church for this very reason.
.
Those who adhere to the conciliar religion for that reason don't understand the teaching of universal acceptance any better than you do.  Universal acceptance =/= "everyone calls such and such pope."  It means that all Catholics treat the claimant like pope.  It means that they learn from him, passively, with docility rather than suspicion, that they accept his teachings, his officers, his reforms, etc.  Keeping that in mind, these men (post-conciliar claimants) are certainly not universally accepted, and it makes no sense to "throw out the teaching" because it's misunderstood by people who haven't bothered to ever even understand what it means.

Quote
I disagree. Theologians are not an authority, Only the Magisterium can convey the true meaning of doctrine. Once, you say that we need the theologians to "figure out" dogma, then they in essence become the highest authority. You could never know what the Magisterium actually means until the theologians weigh in.
.
We don't need theologians to figure out the bare bones of what is the minimum required amount of belief to belong to the Catholic Church or to at least not be barred from being in a state of justification, but that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about theology, and you can't do that without theologians. 
.
The theologians, taken individually, are not the magisterium, but when the theologians are universally concurred in some point or another, this is a sure proof that teaching x belongs to the Church's magisterium.  The main reason being that if this were not the case, then the Church would not be sufficiently safeguarded from the inclusion of error on a universal scale.  The works of the theologians are the basis of Christian formation, and the Church approves those works to that end. 

Quote
And what do you think is the main reason why we are experiencing mass apostasy? Primarily because the theologians went bad. As I said, if your follow their consensus you end up practicing the Novus Ordo. No question.
.
No, it's because there is no pope (while imposter heretic popes, making things worse), and hasn't been for quite a while.  People like to talk about how crazy the theologians went leading up to the council, but what is lost is the fact that the reformer-types among them were a minority, and they were frequently rebuked by legitimate popes.  It wasn't until the period of sede vacante that the dangerous views of dissenting theologians became the boilerplate for the new conciliar religion.  That should tell you something.  Under the supervision of a true pope bad ideas are typically kept in check, while good ones are elevated and proliferated throughout the Church's organ


Quote
I think if you interpret all as being "every last person" then you might have a point. According to Bilot and the theologians the universal acceptance of a claimant to the Papacy doesn't refer to every last person. Rather they were referring to a moral unanimity. In the same way, I believe Cum Ex was not referring to every last Catholic when it used the word "all". I'm also not saying that a temporary defection of all Catholics (even to the last person) would necessarily mean that the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. I don't think either of us arguing this, however.
.
There's no debate about whether or not the unanimity required for universal acceptance (or universal teaching, for that matter) is a moral or absolute one.  It's certainly a moral.  But a temporary defection is absolutely contrary to the Divine Law and Will; the Church cannot end, not even for a second, because then whatever "begins" after such an end is not a continuation of Christ's Church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 02:19:30 PM
In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities... Vatican I

It is clear that Bergoglio denies these principles. He may be the pope of the sect AKA as the conciliar church, or novus ordo, but that leaves me scratching my head because all false sects deny the papacy... I guess there is a first time for everything.

The one thing the man isn't is a Catholic..., so his election is irrelevant to me, even if a choir of angels elected him at the Vatican.
This is as clear to me as it is to you - and he will answer for it, but he won't answer for it to me and he will not answer for it to you. But rest assured, he will answer for it. For our part, all we can do is keep the faith and wait and hope and pray.

Interesting to note that a "true" pope and saint, Pius X, instituted the law stating that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", what further need is there to pursue the issue further? IOW, if we do not accept as law the law that a "true" pope and saint, Pius X instituted, then what need is there for a "true" pope at all?  Kinda makes the whole adventure in sedeism what it actually is -  entirely irrelevant - no?

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 11, 2017, 02:24:31 PM
.

John Salza, Call Your Office: Fr. Kramer Releases His Text Showing that Heresy Automatically Separates one from the Catholic Church WITHOUT declaration (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/11/john-salza-call-your-office-fr-kramer.html).


November 19, 2017 (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/11/john-salza-call-your-office-fr-kramer.html)


Dr, Chojnowski: Here are the first 19 pages of a 222 page document explaining the Catholic doctrine on Leaving the Church and Falling from Office due to Heresy, Schism, or Apostasy. The rest of the UNFINISHED document will be published shortly.  I am sorry for the jagged presentation of the text in some places.  The blog format caused the text to be interrupted by the copious footnotes. I will try to organize it in a better way, as I publish the whole 220 pages of a work STILL IN PROGRESS. 
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tjeaKR8F2DY/WarYzij6hYI/AAAAAAAAAQg/WoYGwDI13JEGp0iqzDN2JdrSUOXLAAuzwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Kramer%2Bhead%2Bshot.jpg) (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tjeaKR8F2DY/WarYzij6hYI/AAAAAAAAAQg/WoYGwDI13JEGp0iqzDN2JdrSUOXLAAuzwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Kramer%2Bhead%2Bshot.jpg)


from the Faith & the Church - Faith, Heresy, and Loss of Office - An Exposé of the Heresy of John Salza & Robert Siscoe Part I

Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. (Cand.)
SECTION ONE
FAITH, HERESY & LOSS OF OFFICE
The sin of Heresy per se, like apostasy and schism, has the intrinsic effect of separating the heretic from the Church by itself, without any ecclesiastical censure or judgment; and is distinguished from other sins which do not by their very nature, separate the sinn er from the body of the Church; and who, therefore, for grave offenses can only be separated from the Church by a sentence of excommunication incurred or inflicted by legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is the infallible teaching of the universal mag isterium of the Church which must be believed de fide divina et Catholica under pain of heresy, as is proven and demonstrated below.
St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have d efected (desciverunt) from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."; whereas those who have not left the Church by defecting, but are excluded from the Church by excommunication, are "cut off by her sentenc e from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.” 1
Catechismus Romanus, Cap. 10,9: "Ex quo fit ut tria tantummodo hominum genera ab ea excludantur: primo infideles, deinde haeretici et schismatici, postremo excommunicati. Ethnici quidem, quod in Ecclesia numquam fuerunt, neque eam umquam cognoverunt, nec ullius sacramenti participes in populi ch ristiani societate facti sunt. Haeretici vero atque schismatici, quia ab Ecclesia desciverunt, neque enim illi magis ad Ecclesiam spectant quam transfugae ad exercitum pertineant a quo defecerunt; non negandum tamen quin in Ecclesiae potestate sint, ut qui ab ea in iudicium vocentur, puniantur et anathemate damnentur. Postremo etiam excommunicati, quod Ecclesiae iudicio ab ea exclusi ad illius communionem non pertineant donec resipiscant."
Pope Clement XIII declared the Roman Catechism to be far removed fro m all danger of error, and that it sets forth the common doctrine of the Church error: "Nam et illuc eam doctrinam contulerunt, quae communis est in Ecclesia, et procul abest ab omni periculo erroris; et hanc palam populo tradendam disertissimis verbis p roposuerunt" -- thus, in matters of faith and morals it presents the teaching of the universal magisterium, promulgated with the authority equivalent to the authority of a dogmatic encyclical.
Doctor John Hagan, [Vice Rector & Rector of the Irish College in Rome, 1904 - 1930) writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an authoritative e xposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. (cf. AUTHORITY AND EXCELLENCE OF THE ROMAN CATECHISM, http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/romancat.html)

In order to understand how it is that heretics leave the Church by themselves -- i.e., that heresy per se, by the very nature of the transgression, separates the here tic from the body of the Church as a consequence intrinsic to the nature of the sin, (as Pius XII teaches, " suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet "); and that by the fully deliberate and obstinate act of heresy, the heretics have left the Churc h and separated themselves from union with the body of the Church: "a Corporis compage semetipsos misere separarunt", (as distinguished from those who for reason of a most grave fault have been cut off by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority -- "ob grav issima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt" [either a jure, i.e. latæ sententiæ , or abhomine , i.e. sententia ferenda ] ); it is necessary first to understand how one enters the Church as a faithful member; since it is by faith that one becomes a C hristian and a member of the Church, and therefore it is by defecting from the faith into heresy or apostasy that one departs from the Church and ceases by the very nature of the sin to be a member.
It is first and foremost by faith that one is a Chri stian, without which, (as St. Thomas teaches), no one can be said to be a Christian: "Primum quod est necessarium Christiano, est fides, sine qua nullus dicitur fidelis Christianus." By faith, even before baptism (Acts 10:47), one can becomes united to th e soul of the Church, and becomes a member not "in re" but "in voto" (as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches ). This is, as St. Thomas explains, in virtue of the effects of faith: 1) It is by faith that the soul is first united to God: "Primum est quod per fidem anima coniungitur Deo: nam per fidem anima Christiana facit quasi quoddam matrimonium cum Deo";[2] and for that reason it is that one who is baptised must first profess the faith: "Et inde est quod quando homo baptizatur, primo confitetur fidem, cum dicit ur ei, credis in Deum?".[2] And thus it is that Baptism is first a sacrament of faith: "Quia Baptismus est primumsacramentum fidei ." -- and for this reason Baptism is said to be "the door", the vitæ spiritualis ianua and the door to the other sacraments ; for it is by this sacrament of faith that one enters the Church, and without faith the sacrament is of no benefit: "Baptismus enim sine fide non prodest."[1] From there it becomes clear that in order to be a member of the Church, it is necessary, (as St. Pius X teaches), to be baptised, and to believe and profess the doctrine of Jesus Christ ("Per esser membro della Chiesa è necessario esser battezzato, credere e professare la dottrina di Gesù Cristo") ; since the Church is "the congregation of all baptize d persons united in the same true faith, the same sacraments, and the same sacrifice, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him" -- and therefore, "To remain a real member of the Church after Baptism a person must p rofess the one true
Sancti Thomae de Aquin o; Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, PROOEMIUM

De Ecclesia Militante, Lib. III, Cap. 3 - "there are those who belong to the soul and not the body, as catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity, which can happen." – and, "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved."

"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), [Council Of Florence: DS 1314: vitae spirit ualis ianua], and the door which gives access to the other sacraments." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1213.

San Pio X, Catechismo Maggiore

faith and must not withdraw from the unity of the body of the Church in schism or heresy or be excommunicated by legitimate author ity because of serious sins." 6
Thus, the heretic, schismatic, and apostate withdraw from unity and le ave the Church, and thereby cease to be members, as St. Pius X teaches (in Question 200), Whoever would not believe in the solemn definitions of faith or would doubt them, would sin against faith; and remaining obstinate in unbelief, would no longer be a C atholic, but a heretic. ("Chi non credesse alle definizioni solenni del Papa, o anche solo ne dubitasse, peccherebbe contro la fede, e se rimanesse ostinato in questa incredulità, non sarebbe più cattolico, ma eretico.) Heretics are not only those who stub bornly doubt or deny any solemn definitions; but the same Pontiff teaches that they are heretics who refuse to believe any truth revealed by God which the Catholic Church teaches as "de fide": "Gli eretici sono i battezzati che ricusano con pertinacia di c redere qualche verità rivelata da Dio e insegnata come di fede dalla Chiesa cattolica" (Q. 228).
The doctrine that not only the solemn definitions, but all that has been taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church as divinely reveale d must be believed with divine and Catholic faith was set forth with precision in the Dogmatic Constitution

Dei Filius

by the First Vatican Council: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the writt en word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be bel ieved as divinely revealed." Thus it follows that heresy consists not only in the denia l or refusal to believe solemnly defined dogmas, but any revealed truth taught by the universal magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith: "Can. 751 — Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis divina et catholica credendae denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio". (Codex Iuris Canonici)
It is to be noted that in both extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium, the doctrine must either be proclaimed with a “definitive act” (extraordinary) or it is agreed that it is “to be held as defininive.” The teaching of both the extraordinary and the universal and ordinary Magisterium are defined doctrines. Any doctrine that is not defined does not pertain to the inf allible Magisterium of the Church.
Francisco Marin - Sola O.P. explains:
"The Church’s doctrinal authority or magisterium has for its proper and specific purpose the conservation and exposition of the revealed deposit. To determine or to fix infallibly the true meaning of the divine deposit is called a definition of faith by the Church ...
Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 1949, Official Revised Edition, p. 78; annotated by Rev. Francis J. Connell C.ss.R., S.T.D.
...[page continues for 3,000 words more...]

[Comments at end of page]
.
.
November 27, 2017 at 7:45 PM (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/11/john-salza-call-your-office-fr-kramer.html?showComment=1511840739397#c5978369629924530231)
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 11, 2017, 02:38:10 PM
This is as clear to me as it is to you - and he will answer for it, but he won't answer for it to me and he will not answer for it to you. But rest assured, he will answer for it. For our part, all we can do is keep the faith and wait and hope and pray.

Interesting to note that a "true" pope and saint, Pius X, instituted the law stating that "the man elected is instantly the true pope", what further need is there to pursue the issue further? IOW, if we do not accept as law the law that a "true" pope and saint, Pius X instituted, then what need is there for a "true" pope at all?  Kinda makes the whole adventure in sedeism what it actually is -  entirely irrelevant - no?

I know that your comment was directed to GJC, but I just want to briefly mention that what you wrote above makes sense.

That Pope Pius X instituted the law that the man elected is instantly the true pope should give sedes something to think about. Indeed, what is the need for a good pope, when the laws that he enacts are not regarded as true by sedes? They tell us that we have follow everything that Francis says, since we regard him as Pope, but since they do not follow the laws of Popes who were not modernists, doesn't that make them guilty of the same thing? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 11, 2017, 02:40:50 PM
I tried to add that this material is a couple of weeks old but the source work is still in progress -- but I ran out the edit clock.
.
Plus there are a bunch of typos in the text which I tried to repair on the edit feature but none of that was allowed since my time ran out.
.
Oh, well.
.
If you want to see the whole thing, go to the source page, linked in the title.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 03:12:27 PM
I know that your comment was directed to GJC, but I just want to briefly mention that what you wrote above makes sense.

That Pope Pius X instituted the law that the man elected is instantly the true pope should give sedes something to think about. Indeed, what is the need for a good pope, when the laws that he enacts are not regarded as true by sedes? They tell us that we have follow everything that Francis says, since we regard him as Pope, but since they do not follow the laws of Popes who were not modernists, doesn't that make them guilty of the same thing?
Yes, exactly Meg - only worse because the sede's are as positive that pope st. Pius X was a true pope as they are that the conciliar popes have not been true popes. It's worse in their case because it demonstrates that they will not submit to any pope - true or not -  if submitting means they must sacrifice their own ideas, opinions or conclusions.

And yes, meanwhile they tell us we are heretics, liars and hypocrites for not submitting to "false" popes' sinful directives as they make excuses, reject or entirely ignore clear teachings from "true" popes. They do not see what is right in front of them.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 03:18:27 PM
I think you told me about this. Do have that law, I would like to take a look at that.
Thanks
Here is a link (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwja35-q74LYAhWCl-AKHZv8DEgQFgguMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.betrayedcatholics.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FVASannot.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ENTfDFJhyx7WJ4z30GpSo) that will open a PDF file. Note that the source for this and the comments in it are from the land of extreme dogmatic sedeism so ignore the comments.

I used to have a PDF of Pope St. Pius X's but lost it some months back when my computer died. It was essentially the same as Pope Pius XII's in the link above. I looked but could not find it online anymore so I don't know if it was removed or renamed or what.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 03:20:43 PM
It's mere tautological idiocy to use VAC the way it's being used, entirely sidestepping all of the issues that matter.  Obviously the man elected pope becomes pope, and without any delay-- one doesn't even need the law to know that.  It's completely question-begging when the question is whether or not he was elected.  In part, this question touches on capacity.  There are certain invalid matter for election-- women, for instance, or the dead, and yes, also non-Catholics.  The law does not treat of these things because it presupposes them.  On Stubborn's reading it isn't even necessary that the person be living.  He refused to answer that question the last time we discussed this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/150/).
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 03:32:24 PM
It's mere tautological idiocy to use VAC the way it's being used, entirely sidestepping all of the issues that matter.  Obviously the man elected pope becomes pope, and without any delay-- one doesn't even need the law to know that.  It's completely question-begging when the question is whether or not he was elected.  In part, this question touches on capacity.  There are certain invalid matter for election-- women, for instance, or the dead, and yes, also non-Catholics.  The law does not treat of these things because it presupposes them.  On Stubborn's reading it isn't even necessary that the person be living.  He refused to answer that question the last time we discussed this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/150/).
Right Myth, to me, the person elected can be dead, or why not say a mirage? Honestly! I already replied (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/msg551504/#msg551504) in that same thread.

As I said, "And yes, meanwhile they tell us we are heretics, liars and hypocrites for not submitting to "false" popes' sinful directives as they make excuses, reject or entirely ignore clear teachings from "true" popes. They do not see what is right in front of them."  

I don't think it would matter if both pope Pius' were to come back and say: "Look, do I need to repeat myself"? The sede's would explain to them the whole process of why their laws cannot possibly apply.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 11, 2017, 06:17:13 PM
Quite frankly, this is what Cum Ex sounds like to me--a moral unanimity. I don't believe it means that every last person in the Church will be subject and obedient to a heretic.

I think so too. The constitution does mention textually "the unanimous assent of ALL the Cardinals":

Quote
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;

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 11, 2017, 06:46:34 PM
5) To better appreciate why Billot et al. are right, we need to consider the logic of why they say that universal acceptance is an infallible sign of the truth of a papal claim.  The pope is the fountain of infallibility for the Church, and all "other" infallibility springs forth from him.  If a man pretends to be pope (and isn't) and the Universal Church doesn't notice, then the universal Church, in principle, may learn false doctrine from him, and in principle, may defect.  Which is an impossibility per the Divine Law.  So it follows, given her indefectibility, that the universal Church will never accept a false pope.  And to this day, she hasn't.  And never will.

If Cardinal Billot is right; then a separatist R&R position falls like domino pieces, because if the elected Pope is indeed the fountain of infallibility for the Church, then there is an obligation for all the faithful to loyally adhere to his rule and teachings. Catholicism 101.


Quote
Cardinal Billot From "De Ecclesia Christi":

“At the minimum one should firmly hold as absolutely unshakable and beyond all doubt the opinion that the adherence of the universal Church is always for her the one infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and hence the existence of all the conditions required for this legitimacy. And one does not have to search far and wide to find reasons for this. It derives directly from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The Gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and again, I shall be with you till the end of days. In point of fact, it would be one and the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false pope as it would be for her to follow a false rule of faith, because the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church is obliged to follow in believing, and certainly this is always the case, as will appear most clearly from what we say below. God can certainly permit that on occasion the vacancy of the Holy See should persist for a long time. He can also permit that a doubt could arise about the legitimacy of a given person who was elected. But He cannot allow that the entire Church would accept as a true Pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately such.”

But also consider this, from the beginning, a fringe of Traditional Catholics, this is, a part of the universal Church has not recognized the conciliar popes as true popes because they have not followed them in word or action (they have not adhered to them since they are not in formal communion and in fact, are instead in state of opposition towards them). According to Billot, this would be proof right there that the conciliar Popes are no true Popes, otherwise, everyone had recognized them as such; but not everyone did and has remained so, following Vatican II Council.  

On the other hand, if Cardinal Billot is wrong, then there is a possibility that even if in the first years after the Council the entire Church seemed to have recognized the legitimacy of these popes, the legitimacy was not real on account of formal heresy prior to the elections, following the dogmatic principles lined in Cum Ex Apostolatus. The fact that the entire Church (thousands of bishops) also accepted and went along with the Vatican II reforms also would mean little simply because of this gem:

All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 10:48:31 PM
Why even try when someone fully admits that they don't waste their time with theologians?

It wouldn't be quite as bad if they'd just shut up.  But instead, those who have contempt for the theologians, seem to be those who are most eager to advance their own ideas about how everything works.  On account of their personal doctrinal purity, no doubt. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 11, 2017, 10:56:16 PM
If Cardinal Billot is right; then a separatist R&R position falls like domino pieces, because if the elected Pope is indeed the fountain of infallibility for the Church, then there is an obligation for all the faithful to loyally adhere to his rule and teachings. Catholicism 101.


But also consider this, from the beginning, a fringe of Traditional Catholics, this is, a part of the universal Church has not recognized the conciliar popes as true popes because they have not followed them in word or action (they have not adhered to them since they are not in formal communion and in fact, are instead in state of opposition towards them). According to Billot, this would be proof right there that the conciliar Popes are no true Popes, otherwise, everyone had recognized them as such; but not everyone did and has remained so, following Vatican II Council.  

On the other hand, if Cardinal Billot is wrong, then there is a possibility that even if in the first years after the Council the entire Church seemed to have recognized the legitimacy of these popes, the legitimacy was not real on account of formal heresy prior to the elections, following the dogmatic principles lined in Cum Ex Apostolatus. The fact that the entire Church (thousands of bishops) also accepted and went along with the Vatican II reforms also would mean little simply because of this gem:

All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible.
.
Did someone hijack your account?  I seem to recall your schtick being a very relentless, unlearned, rabid, and contemptuous anti-sedevacantism one.  But I'd more or less sign my name to this.  Can't object to any of it, all excellent points bearing saliently on the issue.  The only thing I'd say is that while universal acceptance is a proof of the legitimacy of a papal claim, the converse is not a proof of an anti-papacy (of itself). 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 04:35:46 AM
It's mere tautological idiocy to use VAC the way it's being used, entirely sidestepping all of the issues that matter.  Obviously the man elected pope becomes pope, and without any delay-- one doesn't even need the law to know that. It's completely question-begging when the question is whether or not he was elected.
Among faithful Catholics, the law is being used exactly as the last "true" pope intended it to be used - as the Church's official legislation regarding papal elections so the entire world knows with certainty and is not left searching, wondering, guessing, speculating or denying who the pope is.  It is through this law and those words in particular that faithful Catholics have infallible certainty who the pope is. The "true" pope laid down the law, faithful Catholics accept what is clearly stated and have no need of cardinals and theologians' speculations that a moral majority's peaceful acceptance is necessary in order to have infallible certainty. Who asked them anyway?

Our infallible certainty of the legitimacy of the pope is rooted upon the law that clearly states: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope", these words ARE our infallible certainty. The Catholic Church has never been a democracy, the conciliar church, yes, the Catholic Church, no. The Catholic Church adheres to the laws made by "true" popes - period.

The last "true" pope knew that to ignore this law and those words in particular, would result in people doing exactly what the sedes are doing - wondering, guessing, speculating and denying who the pope is, that is what happens when this law is ignored or rejected as "question-begging" and we can be absolutely certain that the last "true" pope certainly understood this, which is why he left us with this law - not without purpose.






Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 12, 2017, 08:24:57 AM
Among faithful Catholics, the law is being used exactly as the last "true" pope intended it to be used - as the Church's official legislation regarding papal elections so the entire world knows with certainty and is not left searching, wondering, guessing, speculating or denying who the pope is.  It is through this law and those words in particular that faithful Catholics have infallible certainty who the pope is. The "true" pope laid down the law, faithful Catholics accept what is clearly stated and have no need of cardinals and theologians' speculations that a moral majority's peaceful acceptance is necessary in order to have infallible certainty. Who asked them anyway?

Our infallible certainty of the legitimacy of the pope is rooted upon the law that clearly states: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope", these words ARE our infallible certainty. The Catholic Church has never been a democracy, the conciliar church, yes, the Catholic Church, no. The Catholic Church adheres to the laws made by "true" popes - period.

The last "true" pope knew that to ignore this law and those words in particular, would result in people doing exactly what the sedes are doing - wondering, guessing, speculating and denying who the pope is, that is what happens when this law is ignored or rejected as "question-begging" and we can be absolutely certain that the last "true" pope certainly understood this, which is why he left us with this law - not without purpose.
Stubborn get off your rant about the sede not believing what the true popes have said
and look into your own eyes, you don't even believe in the Baltimore Catechism unless you changed your mind.  
It seems the people posting change their tone about as much as the theologians, I'll continue to hear the voice of God when He said, "you will know them by their fruits."
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 08:45:24 AM
Yes, exactly Meg - only worse because the sede's are as positive that pope st. Pius X was a true pope as they are that the conciliar popes have not been true popes. It's worse in their case because it demonstrates that they will not submit to any pope - true or not -  if submitting means they must sacrifice their own ideas, opinions or conclusions.

And yes, meanwhile they tell us we are heretics, liars and hypocrites for not submitting to "false" popes' sinful directives as they make excuses, reject or entirely ignore clear teachings from "true" popes. They do not see what is right in front of them.  

Agreed. They don't want to submit to any pope. That makes sense. Like Fr. Walthen said, sedevacantism is basically anarchy, since anarchists don't want any authority over them....not even that of saintly popes. They will accept from Pope Pius X that which they agree with, and not accept what they don't agree with. They pick and choose. Like how Protestants do with Scripture. 




Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 12, 2017, 08:46:09 AM
Pope Pius X instituted the law that the man elected is instantly the true pope
May I inquire a reference to this?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 08:51:53 AM
May I inquire a reference to this?
From this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/how-many-sedes-are-logged-on-to-the-forum-right-now/msg583564/#msg583564):

Here is a link (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwja35-q74LYAhWCl-AKHZv8DEgQFgguMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.betrayedcatholics.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FVASannot.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ENTfDFJhyx7WJ4z30GpSo) that will open a PDF file. Note that the source for this and the comments in it are from the land of extreme dogmatic sedeism so ignore the comments.

I used to have a PDF of Pope St. Pius X's but lost it some months back when my computer died. It was essentially the same as Pope Pius XII's in the link above. I looked but could not find it online anymore so I don't know if it was removed or renamed or what.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 08:54:17 AM
It's mere tautological idiocy to use VAC the way it's being used, entirely sidestepping all of the issues that matter.  Obviously the man elected pope becomes pope, and without any delay-- one doesn't even need the law to know that.  It's completely question-begging when the question is whether or not he was elected.  In part, this question touches on capacity.  There are certain invalid matter for election-- women, for instance, or the dead, and yes, also non-Catholics.  The law does not treat of these things because it presupposes them.  On Stubborn's reading it isn't even necessary that the person be living.  He refused to answer that question the last time we discussed this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/yes-i'm-going-to-judge-sedevacantism-here-like-i'm-above-it-all/150/).

THIS ^^^
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 08:55:37 AM
Agreed. They don't want to submit to any pope. That makes sense. Like Fr. Walthen said, sedevacantism is basically anarchy, since anarchists don't want any authority over them....not even that of saintly popes. They will accept from Pope Pius X that which they agree with, and not accept what they don't agree with. They pick and choose. Like how Protestants do with Scripture.

I can't believe you had the nerve to write this; it's the height of hypocrisy.  EVERY Traditional Catholic has had to do some "picking and choosing" at some point.  You sift out what you don't like in the V2 papal claimants.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 09:00:31 AM
Stubborn get off your rant about the sede not believing what the true popes have said
and look into your own eyes, you don't even believe in the Baltimore Catechism unless you changed your mind.  
It seems the people posting change their tone about as much as the theologians, I'll continue to hear the voice of God when He said, "you will know them by their fruits."
If the sedes have faith in the last "true" pope, then they would accept his laws, all of them, each and every one of them - particularly the law stating the man elected is the true pope.

If sede's have any faith at all in the last "true" pope, then they should in fact be very grateful to him - especially in this crisis where there is much confusion, that the last "true" pope did his duty and did not leave us wondering who the heck the true pope really is in these confusing times.

The Baltimore catechism though very good, is in need of having a few lessons corrected. It is a text book, not the Bible.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 09:03:51 AM
I can't believe you had the nerve to write this; it's the height of hypocrisy.  EVERY Traditional Catholic has had to do some "picking and choosing" at some point.  You sift out what you don't like in the V2 papal claimants.
Let it rest, like the sedes, you have no case Lad. The only case you have is the case you feel needs to be invented for no reason whatsoever. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 09:11:12 AM
I can't believe you had the nerve to write this; it's the height of hypocrisy.  EVERY Traditional Catholic has had to do some "picking and choosing" at some point.  You sift out what you don't like in the V2 papal claimants.

I sift out what isn't Traditionally Catholic. There's a difference. Sedes don't do this. They sift out what doesn't fit their sede thesis. 

AND....some sedes say that we have to accept EVERYTHING that Francis teaches, and that we aren't allowed to sift. Do you agree with this?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 12, 2017, 09:22:25 AM
Here is a link (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwja35-q74LYAhWCl-AKHZv8DEgQFgguMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.betrayedcatholics.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FVASannot.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ENTfDFJhyx7WJ4z30GpSo) that will open a PDF file.
Very interesting.  Thank you for the reference.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 09:54:50 AM
I sift out what isn't Traditionally Catholic. There's a difference. Sedes don't do this. They sift out what doesn't fit their sede thesis.

AND....some sedes say that we have to accept EVERYTHING that Francis teaches, and that we aren't allowed to sift. Do you agree with this?

Not EVERYTHING certainly.  There are things in the "merely authentic" Magisterium which can be questioned ... respectfully.  But you chuck out the Universal Discipline of the Church as established by the V2 papal claimants and most of their Magisterium.

Here's the clue.  If you claim that the Universal Discipline of the Church and the Magisterium have gone so badly off the rails that you must essentially sever communion with the V2 papal claimants in order to keep the faith and that these things are a danger to your faith and displeasing to God, then you hold that the Church has defected.  While I don't agree with the sedes on everything, and am not a sedevacantist myself, their criticism of you is absolutely valid.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 12, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
If the sedes have faith in the last "true" pope, then they would accept his laws, all of them, each and every one of them - particularly the law stating the man elected is the true pope.

If sede's have any faith at all in the last "true" pope, then they should in fact be very grateful to him - especially in this crisis where there is much confusion, that the last "true" pope did his duty and did not leave us wondering who the heck the true pope really is in these confusing times.

The Baltimore catechism though very good, is in need of having a few lessons corrected. It is a text book, not the Bible.
Stubborn et al, when you read what the TRUE popes are saying, have you ever considered their words about the election of a Pope was the election of a Pope within the Catholic Church, not the non-catholic, schismatic church of Vatican II.  There is the difference.


How many times have I read here, over and over that Vatican II is not Catholic.
At best think of Vatican II as the schismatic Anglican or Orthodox churches.  The True popes were not speaking about a church that fell away from Rome.  Possession does not mean OWNERSHIP.  


This is why there can be no meeting of the minds because posters quote this theologian and that abrogation but those words were all meant for normal times.  Who would have thought, even though the Bible talks about the Great Apostasy, who would have thought it would come in our lifetime.

 
Stubborn, define the Great Apostasy.
Also, I am still waiting for someone, to come along and explain how a True Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, not only once but daily the First Commandment and still be considered a True Vicar of Christ.  


Quote
Words of Stubborn -->   The Baltimore catechism though very good, is in need of having a few lessons corrected. It is a text book, not the Bible.  

And you chide others!     :facepalm:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 09:56:28 AM
Let it rest, like the sedes, you have no case Lad. The only case you have is the case you feel needs to be invented for no reason whatsoever.

Oh, the sedes have a very strong case ... especially against the likes of you who promote a completely non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.  Indeed, severing communion with the man you claim to be Pope absolutely REQUIRES a reason.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 10:13:31 AM
Stubborn, define the Great Apostasy.
Also, I am still waiting for someone, to come along and explain how a True Vicar of Christ can continue to break Divine Law, not only once but daily the First Commandment and still be considered a True Vicar of Christ. 
What is there to explain? The pope is human, like the rest of us, he is not immune from sin. Did you know that there is not one single sin that the pope cannot commit? Did you know that?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 12, 2017, 10:28:28 AM
.
Did someone hijack your account?  I seem to recall your schtick being a very relentless, unlearned, rabid, and contemptuous anti-sedevacantism one.  But I'd more or less sign my name to this.  Can't object to any of it, all excellent points bearing saliently on the issue.  The only thing I'd say is that while universal acceptance is a proof of the legitimacy of a papal claim, the converse is not a proof of an anti-papacy (of itself).

No, it is me :).

It is just that there is a finding that finally resonated and has to do with what is written above: All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible. This is one of the premises that finally completed the puzzle because it makes much more sense for the man occupying the Seat of Peter to be an illegitimate impostor; than for thousands of bishops and priests to defect all at once. Because of what we know now, and has been documented, it is reasonable to believe that these men have been impostors. If there has not been a legitimate Pontiff on earth, with that single factor, then all of a sudden everything makes sense. The entire collapse is understandable. There is no fountain of infallibility; but error upon error being far spread from the top.

The impostor, regardless of the particulars of the canonical election, has lost Authority on account of his habitual intention of doing harm, instead of good, to the Church. Actually, when the false pope teaches a point of false doctrine which runs contrary with that the Church has always taught, that right there is an infallible sign that the false pope possesses no divinely assisted pontifical Authority; given the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction.

 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 10:30:15 AM
Oh, the sedes have a very strong case ... especially against the likes of you who promote a completely non-Catholic view of the Magisterium.  Indeed, severing communion with the man you claim to be Pope absolutely REQUIRES a reason.
They have no case whatsoever, except in their own minds. The last "true" pope did not leave us ignorant - he said the man elected is the pope, the true pope. There is our infallible certainty that the man elected is the "true" pope right there. Argue it all you like but that will not change that fact. The truth is, the sedes will never, not ever have a pope because there will never be anyone holy enough for them that they can blindly submit to.

The sedes believe the pope is God and at the same time that the pope is a heretic, ergo, God is a heretic. Who can argue with that brainwashing? They need to be de-programmed. All I keep doing is presenting the Catholic Church's teaching, all they keep doing is saying it's heresy, it doesn't apply and that I'm the non-Catholic and heretic for it.

You say I promote a completely non-Catholic view of the Magisterium because it disagrees with certain 19th and 20th century theologians' views - I cannot help people believe those theologians views are authentic teachings of the Church and that no amount of reasoning will convince them otherwise - not my fault there.

Well, here's your opportunity - go ahead and post the any authentic Church teaching that says the infallible magisterium is either the pope alone or includes all the bishops alone but in union with the pope either in council or dispersed throughout the world and is infallible when they all agree on and teach a new doctrine.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 10:44:25 AM
Not EVERYTHING certainly.  There are things in the "merely authentic" Magisterium which can be questioned ... respectfully.  But you chuck out the Universal Discipline of the Church as established by the V2 papal claimants and most of their Magisterium.

Here's the clue.  If you claim that the Universal Discipline of the Church and the Magisterium have gone so badly off the rails that you must essentially sever communion with the V2 papal claimants in order to keep the faith and that these things are a danger to your faith and displeasing to God, then you hold that the Church has defected.  While I don't agree with the sedes on everything, and am not a sedevacantist myself, their criticism of you is absolutely valid.

What do you mean by "sever communion?" I do not hold that the Church has defected. That's the sede thesis. Surely you know that. 

By not aligning myself with the Modernist conciliar church, this not mean that I believe that the Church has defected. You are jumping to conclusions. 

Have you read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais study on the issue of the Crisis? Here it is:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The Church has not defected. It is occupied. There's a difference. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 10:52:03 AM
They have no case whatsoever, except in their own minds. The last "true" pope did not leave us ignorant - he said the man elected is the pope, the true pope.

Did you even READ this document?  There are stipulations in there that the election would be invalid and the votes would not count if, among other things, there were collusion among the Cardinals on whom to elect.  So this PRESUPPOSES A LEGITIMATE ELECTION to begin with.  And another way that the election would have been illegitimate to begin with would be if the candidate were not proper matter to hold office (woman, insane, heretic, etc.) -- as per cum ex.  There are MANY credible reports that there was collusion in the conclave that delivered John XXIII as well as the most recent one that brought us Francis.  It's very probable that Siri was elected instead of Roncalli and that there was collusion to overturn the election results.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 10:54:58 AM
What do you mean by "sever communion?" I do not hold that the Church has defected. That's the sede thesis. Surely you know that.

By not aligning myself with the Modernist conciliar church, this not mean that I believe that the Church has defected. You are jumping to conclusions.

Have you read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais study on the issue of the Crisis? Here it is:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The Church has not defected. It is occupied. There's a difference.

By severing communion we mean exactly what you said ... that you refuse to align with the Conciliar Church, aka the Church of the V2 papal claimants.

Yes, you absolutely do hold that the Church has defected.  You claim that she has failed in her mission ... in the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline.

This R&R crap is not even remotely Catholic.  It would be one thing if you found a troublesome statement in one or another encyclical .. but quite another to effectively throw out an entire Ecumenical Council and the Church's Universal Discipline (New Mass).
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 10:55:48 AM
Did you even READ this document?  There are stipulations in there that the election would be invalid and the votes would not count if, among other things, there were collusion among the Cardinals on whom to elect.  So this PRESUPPOSES A LEGITIMATE ELECTION to begin with.  And another way that the election would have been illegitimate to begin with would be if the candidate were not proper matter to hold office (woman, insane, heretic, etc.) -- as per cum ex.  There are MANY credible reports that there was collusion in the conclave that delivered John XXIII as well as the most recent one that brought us Francis.  It's very probable that Siri was elected instead of Roncalli and that there was collusion to overturn the election results.
I just want to briefly mention that there's good evidence that Cardinal Siri refused to be Pope. They do have a choice. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 10:59:32 AM
By severing communion we mean exactly what you said ... that you refuse to align with the Conciliar Church, aka the Church of the V2 papal claimants.

Yes, you absolutely do hold that the Church has defected.  You claim that she has failed in her mission ... in the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline.

This R&R crap is not even remotely Catholic.  It would be one thing if you found a troublesome statement in one or another encyclical .. but quite another to effectively throw out an entire Ecumenical Council and the Church's Universal Discipline (New Mass).

No Ladislaus, it's NOT the same thing. No, I do not hold that the Church has defected. You do not understand the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Just because you experienced a very negative experience with the SSPX does not qualify you to pronounce judgment on those who accept +ABL's position.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 11:18:33 AM
Right now, six out of thirteen forum members log on are sedes. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 12, 2017, 11:23:48 AM
What do you mean by "sever communion?" I do not hold that the Church has defected. That's the sede thesis. Surely you know that.

By not aligning myself with the Modernist conciliar church, this not mean that I believe that the Church has defected. You are jumping to conclusions.

Have you read Bishop Tissier de Mallerais study on the issue of the Crisis? Here it is:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

The Church has not defected. It is occupied. There's a difference.
If what you say is true, Meg ... I wonder what is it you believe Francis is teaching us, pick something from your Traditional Catholic point of view that you agree with him.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 12, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
No, it is me :).

It is just that there is a finding that finally resonated and has to do with what is written above: All the bishops IN THE ABSENCE OF A POPE ARE NOT infallible. This is one of the premises that finally completed the puzzle because it makes much more sense for the man occupying the Seat of Peter to be an illegitimate impostor; than for thousands of bishops and priests to defect all at once. Because of what we know now, and has been documented, it is reasonable to believe that these men have been impostors. If there has not been a legitimate Pontiff on earth, with that single factor, then all of a sudden everything makes sense. The entire collapse is understandable. There is no fountain of infallibility; but error upon error being far spread from the top.

The impostor, regardless of the particulars of the canonical election, has lost Authority on account of his habitual intention of doing harm, instead of good, to the Church. Actually, when the false pope teaches a point of false doctrine which runs contrary with that the Church has always taught, that right there is an infallible sign that the false pope possesses no divinely assisted pontifical Authority; given the Catholic principle of non-Contradiction.

 
.
Well color me pleasantly impressed, and good for you, to seriously consider what these authors have to say and why they say it.
.
Your main point here resonates profoundly-- that all of the bishops in the world can very well err (though not in the most absolute sense, given that there must be at least one proper bishop for apostolicity's sake), even as a moral unanimity, when there is no pope.  When we register this fact, what happened after Vatican II follows cogently and with great coherence. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:26:27 AM
No Ladislaus, it's NOT the same thing. No, I do not hold that the Church has defected. You do not understand the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Just because you experienced a very negative experience with the SSPX does not qualify you to pronounce judgment on those who accept +ABL's position.

You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

I didn't have a negative experience with SSPX.  What are you talking about?  I reject your position as non-Catholic because it's ....... not Catholic ... and not because of some emotional dislike for SSPX.  I had the best times of my life at the seminary.  +Lefebvre's position was all over the map; that's why rival groups always quote him against each other.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:28:20 AM
I just want to briefly mention that there's good evidence that Cardinal Siri refused to be Pope. They do have a choice.

And all the evidence points to his refusal having been under duress ... in the face of threats.  Regardless of how free his refusal may have been, the evidence is strong that there was collusion in pressuring him to step down.  Consequently, those votes would have been invalidated under the terms of St. Pius X.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 12, 2017, 11:29:33 AM
What is there to explain? The pope is human, like the rest of us, he is not immune from sin. Did you know that there is not one single sin that the pope cannot commit? Did you know that?
I get that!  You sound like all the rest here that can't define "apostasy" a denial of Christ.  What do you think breaking Divine Law is ... its APOSTASY!  Imagine a TRUE pope bowing to a pagan god.  
Those who know what Apostasy IS, don't want to think about it.  "Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth."
[2 Timothy 3:7 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=3&l=7#x)]

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 11:29:46 AM
If what you say is true, Meg ... I wonder what is it you believe Francis is teaching us, pick something from your Traditional Catholic point of view that you agree with him.

When the conciliar hierarchy teaches what is truly Catholic, which doesn't appear to happen often, but it can, then there is Catholic teaching. I'm not going to provide specifics, Myrna. You'll just have to get over it. 

The Church has not defected. There is still evidence of Catholicism, slight though it may seem. 

Sedeism is an extreme reaction to a real problem. The Catholic Church, from what I have studied, takes prudence and procedure seriously. That's something sedes can't tolerate. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 11:31:15 AM
And all the evidence points to his refusal having been under duress ... in the face of threats.  Regardless of how free his refusal may have been, the evidence is strong that there was collusion in pressuring him to step down.  Consequently, those votes would have been invalidated under the terms of St. Pius X.

Evidence is not proof, Ladislaus.

Those two terms that sedes have such a dislike for....prudence and procedure....
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: TKGS on December 12, 2017, 11:32:30 AM
When the conciliar hierarchy teaches what is truly Catholic, which doesn't appear to happen often, but it can, then there is Catholic teaching. I'm not going to provide specifics.
This is essentially how Protestants judge the teaching of their leaders.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 12, 2017, 11:37:35 AM
When the conciliar hierarchy teaches what is truly Catholic, which doesn't appear to happen often, but it can, then there is Catholic teaching. I'm not going to provide specifics, Myrna. You'll just have to get over it.

The Church has not defected. There is still evidence of Catholicism, slight though it may seem.

Sedeism is an extreme reaction to a real problem. The Catholic Church, from what I have studied, takes prudence and procedure seriously. That's something sedes can't tolerate.
You can't even think of one point that is Catholic that your pope talks about and you call the sede out!   That is laughable but very sad!    
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:37:45 AM
Evidence is not proof, Ladislaus.

Those two terms that sedes have such a dislike for....prudence and procedure....

Clearly not.  But positive doubt is all that's required to withdraw submission.  Magisterium sifting on the other hand is not Catholic.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2017, 11:39:03 AM
I'm giving 5:1 odds this thread goes at least 15 pages.
We are now at 11 (and counting)...

We were at 6 when I made the call.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:40:23 AM
"prudence and procedure" ... quite right

Which is why I'm not a sede but a sededoubtist; this has to work itself out.

But, in the meantime, we can't adopt non-Catholic principles of R&R to justify our refusal of submission.  Only a positive doubt regarding the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimaints can justify being Traditional Catholics.  Otherwise, we're schismatic and also embracing extremely grave error (IMO proximate to heresy) to claim that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have failed.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
We are now at 11 (and counting)...

We were at 6 when I made the call.

You don't have to be a Nostradamus to figure that one out.  Any topic about SVism or Baptism of Desire or a few other hot-button topics is guaranteed to go at least into the 20s or 30s.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 11:42:23 AM
Did you even READ this document?  There are stipulations in there that the election would be invalid and the votes would not count if, among other things, there were collusion among the Cardinals on whom to elect.  So this PRESUPPOSES A LEGITIMATE ELECTION to begin with.  And another way that the election would have been illegitimate to begin with would be if the candidate were not proper matter to hold office (woman, insane, heretic, etc.) -- as per cum ex.  There are MANY credible reports that there was collusion in the conclave that delivered John XXIII as well as the most recent one that brought us Francis.  It's very probable that Siri was elected instead of Roncalli and that there was collusion to overturn the election results.
That's right, it presupposes a legitimate election - does it need to be said that all elections that turn out a pope are legitimate elections?

The only ones who presuppose an illegitimate election are the confused and the sedes. The dogmatic sedes don't only presuppose illegitimacy, they are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt the election was illegitimate - just as they will be with every election till the end of time because that is the thinking that is inherent in the sede mentality - you cannot be a dogmatic sede without that mentality.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 12, 2017, 11:43:25 AM
Right now, six out of thirteen forum members log on are sedes.
whoop-de-doo
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:44:25 AM
Clearly not.  But positive doubt is all that's required to withdraw submission.  Magisterium sifting on the other hand is not Catholic.

Father Francois Chazal (of the Resistance) articulated the position that I consider to be most Catholic.  He's honest enough to admit that he's not sifting the V2 Magisterium but ignoring it in its entirety due to heresy on the part of the V2 papal claimants.  So he considers the V2 popes to be "in quarantine" until the Church officially resolves their fate and materially vacates the office (by declaring it vacant).  That's my position as well.  This is very close to sedeprivationism but is not ... deferring more to the Church's authority for even recognizing the See to be formally vacant.  It's very much akin to what I called "sededoubtism" in reference to my own position.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:45:53 AM
Right now, six out of thirteen forum members log on are sedes.

Are you counting me as a sede?  Because I am not.  I am in line with Father Chazal's thinking on the matter.  Do you consider HIM a sede?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 11:47:53 AM
I get that!  You sound like all the rest here that can't define "apostasy" a denial of Christ.  What do you think breaking Divine Law is ... its APOSTASY!  Imagine a TRUE pope bowing to a pagan god.  
Those who know what Apostasy IS, don't want to think about it.  "Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth."
[2 Timothy 3:7 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=3&l=7#x)]
Heresy is the denial of a single doctrine, apostasy is the denial of all the doctrines.

You asked me to explain the Great Apostasy, I don't know that there is only one definition for that.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2017, 11:48:33 AM
You don't have to be a Nostradamus to figure that one out.  Any topic about SVism or Baptism of Desire or a few other hot-button topics is guaranteed to go at least into the 20s or 30s.
Yep.
Now, think about why that is.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 11:49:28 AM
We are now at 11 (and counting)...

We were at 6 when I made the call.
We can easily push it beyond 25 pages.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 11:53:06 AM
Yep.
Now, think about why that is.

That's not difficult.  These theological issues are at the heart of everything we're about as Traditional Catholics ... the justification and theological raison d'etre for everything we do.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: SeanJohnson on December 12, 2017, 12:12:33 PM
That's not difficult.  These theological issues are at the heart of everything we're about as Traditional Catholics ... the justification and theological raison d'etre for everything we do.
Nope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 12:15:57 PM
Nope.

Please enlighten us then, o sage.   :laugh1:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 12, 2017, 12:41:55 PM
No Ladislaus, it's NOT the same thing. No, I do not hold that the Church has defected. You do not understand the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Let's see... religious liberty, ecumenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, Episcopal collegiality, protestantized NOM, friendly relations with Judaism, to name a few... would not these errors constitute a defection of the Magisterium? They are not small matters.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 12:44:55 PM
Let's see... religious liberty, ecumenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, Episcopal collegiality, protestantized NOM, friendly relations with Judaism, to name a few... would not these errors constitute a defection of the Magisterium? They are not small matters.

What was Archbishop Lefebvre's view on the matter?

And btw, I can't quite figure out if you are a sede. I would like to know if I should include you in furture sede counts on this thread. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 01:14:11 PM
They throw these words around like they have no meaning. Just because they have no meaning to them. It's like Stubbs and his use of the made-up term sedeism. The doctrine of the chair. LOL
If only they could think.
But I do think. I know that there is no room for sedesim in the Catholic faith, that much is certain. Sedeism is wholly incompatible with the Catholic faith. Sedeism is like a foreign germ invading a body that has no room for it, so it invades and replaces the true faith with a distorted faith of half truths, no pope and no hierarchy and no hope of that ever changing.   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 01:26:28 PM
Let's see... religious liberty, ecumenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, Episcopal collegiality, protestantized NOM, friendly relations with Judaism, to name a few... would not these errors constitute a defection of the Magisterium? They are not small matters.

That's exactly right.  You see the big picture and we're not talking here about a small theological mistake in an Encyclical, are we?  We're talking about a complete re-orientation of the Magisterium along non-Catholic lines ... and that would most certainly constitute a defection.  So the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church are leading people to lose the faith and their souls?  If that would not constitute a defection of the Magisterium, then nothing would.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 01:28:56 PM
That's exactly right.  You see the big picture and we're not talking here about a small theological mistake in an Encyclical, are we?  We're talking about a complete re-orientation of the Magisterium along non-Catholic lines ... and that would most certainly constitute a defection.  So the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church are leading people to lose the faith and their souls?  If that would not constitute a defection of the Magisterium, then nothing would.
Defection of the hierarchy is not defection of the Magisterium.  It is impossible for the magisterium to defect.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 01:50:21 PM
Defection of the hierarchy is not defection of the Magisterium.  It is impossible for the magisterium to defect.

Yes, we know how you keep parroting this same absurdity.  When you attribute this degree of error to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline, that's tantamount to saying that they have defected.  Yes, I know your absurd comeback, that the erroneous parts of V2, etc., are of the hierarchy but not part of the Magisterium.  You define Magisterium as "true teaching".  None of us wants to hear this nonsense.  PS, Stubborn, do you know that it's also heresy to say that the hiererchy can defect?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 12, 2017, 02:05:56 PM
The magisterium and hierarchy cannot be so hyper-distinguished as to say that one can exist without the other.  The magisterium is the teaching office of the Church.  Its activity is something carried out by people, not by God directly revealing Himself to each and every person individually and telling them to believe x, y, and z.  Without people (i.e., the hierarchy), you have no magisterium.
.
I know Stubborn will say that the magisterium is the teachings, not the teachers.  But you need teachers to ever get teachings.  So it's a meaningless distinction even if we grant it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 02:44:00 PM
Yes, we know how you keep parroting this same absurdity.  When you attribute this degree of error to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline, that's tantamount to saying that they have defected.  Yes, I know your absurd comeback, that the erroneous parts of V2, etc., are of the hierarchy but not part of the Magisterium.  You define Magisterium as "true teaching".  None of us wants to hear this nonsense.  PS, Stubborn, do you know that it's also heresy to say that the hiererchy can defect?
In case you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say that the hierarchy defected. At the same time, it is completely OBVIOUS that the hierarchy are in error because as a body, they've promoted and taught errors ad nausem for the last +50 years. This is only reality to everyone who has the true faith.

You keep implying that the heretical hierarchy is actually the magisterium, then you say that the magisterium cannot defect as if to purposely confuse the whole issue - fyi, THAT is what is absurd.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 02:52:57 PM
Do you know if Fr. Chazal believes the conciliar church to be the Catholic Church?

Materially yes but formally no.  Again very sedeprivationist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ

It's called by someone "Against Sedevacantism" but what he's really against is just DOGMATIC sedevacantism ... if you listen

very early on says that Francis is, "like his predecessors, but in a very clear way",  a "notorious", "open" "public" "heretic" 2:12 - 2:27

5:00 - 5:30 -- that there's in Rome a man dressed in white who is the visible (aka IMO "material") head of the Catholic Church

5:45 - 5:55 -- Vatican II documents contain heresies so these documents can be rejected
... then following that the New Mass and Canon Law are bad and "we can get rid of it"

NOTICE:  no sifting ... just throw it all out

then ... papacy is unlike other offices.  Cardinals merely designate the person but he receives authority from God

7:13 - 7:30 question is what happens when a pope is a "manifest heretic" since "we do grant that this pope is a public manifest heretic"

11:45 - 11:50 Paul VI was a Mason and gay

12:00 - 12:05 Sister Lucy silenced and possibly replaced

at one point he conflates the Dimonds with "St. Benedict Center" and rejects their position that the Fatima consecration of Russia has been done

8:25 - 8:45 ... introduces "dogmatic" sedevacantism
then goes on to reject it because there are many authoritative theologians who argue against the Bellarmine position of ipso facto depositus

40:30 - 40:40 Rome has lost the faith

41:00 - 41:35 [Conciliar Church] is a heretical Church ... Francis is still the pope because heresy does not (in his opinion) lead to automatic loss of office, but he is "impounded and we have to separate from him" (based on it being a disputed question)

43:00 - 43:10 Catholic Church would explode and lose its "visibility on earth" (aka material visibility)

44:50 - 45:10 it's "beyond any doubt" that Pope Francis has lost the faith and he won't argue with sedevacantists on that because  "it would be ridiculous for me to deny that" ... then rejects SSPX distinction between modernists and heretics

then ... we are bound to separate from them due to risk of contagion; they are "vomiting heresies all the time" ... commends Traditio and NovusOrdoWatch

48:50 - 50:10 if there's no pope how do we restart the Church?  [again sounds like sedeprivationism]

51:06 - 51:20 we are just keeping the little white man over there just to keep us together ... that's not much (just a material source of unity) ... just a "tiny link" which is still vital to us

then goes on to discuss Cajetan's position and that of John of St. Thomas

such a pope is prevented from formally exercising his office ... "necessarily rendered impotent as being head of the Church" (formal loss of office as in sedeprivationism)

[THAT'S THE END OF HOUR 1 ... will go through the next hour later]

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 02:53:19 PM
Everyone on this thread needs to watch the Father Chazal video above.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 02:55:52 PM
You keep implying that the heretical hierarchy is actually the magisterium, ...

See Lastdays' anticipation of this response.  Magisterium is the teaching of said hierarchy.  When said hierarchy teaches authoritatively then it's called Magisterium.  You're not saying that these individual teachers have gone astray but that their official teaching has ... their Magisterium.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 03:04:17 PM
The magisterium and hierarchy cannot be so hyper-distinguished as to say that one can exist without the other.  The magisterium is the teaching office of the Church.  Its activity is something carried out by people, not by God directly revealing Himself to each and every person individually and telling them to believe x, y, and z.  Without people (i.e., the hierarchy), you have no magisterium.
.
I know Stubborn will say that the magisterium is the teachings, not the teachers.  But you need teachers to ever get teachings.  So it's a meaningless distinction even if we grant it.
I will try this again.......

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium". - V1

Is this saying or is this not saying that all those things we are bound to believe come to us BY the Church's SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM, i.e. the pope defining a doctrine - - *OR*, they are [already] contained IN, both the Church's Ordinary Magisterium and IN the Church's Universal Magisterium?

Infallible truths are not contained IN the hierarchy, infallible truths are not even contained IN the pope. The truths which are  contained in the magisterium are [supposed] to be proposed by the Church, that is, taught to us by the hierarchy. But the hierarchy is not the magisterium itself.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 03:11:05 PM
See Lastdays' anticipation of this response.  Magisterium is the teaching of said hierarchy.  When said hierarchy teaches authoritatively then it's called Magisterium.  You're not saying that these individual teachers have gone astray but that their official teaching has ... their Magisterium.
Lastdays is in a terrible situation.

I quote him defined dogma, he re-quotes it replacing all references to the pope with the word heretic. What's worse is that not one sede said a word about it.

Magisterium is not the teachings of the hierarchy.  The hierarchy are not immune from sin and are perfectly capable of teaching error - as the last +50 years testifies.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Mithrandylan on December 12, 2017, 03:20:56 PM
I will try this again.......

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium". - V1

Is this saying or is this not saying that all those things we are bound to believe come to us BY the Church's SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM, i.e. the pope defining a doctrine - - *OR*, they are [already] contained IN, both the Church's Ordinary Magisterium and IN the Church's Universal Magisterium?

Infallible truths are not contained IN the hierarchy, infallible truths are not even contained IN the pope. The truths which are  contained in the magisterium are [supposed] to be proposed by the Church, that is, taught to us by the hierarchy. But the hierarchy is not the magisterium itself.
.
Doctrinal Truths are communicated to the faithful, i.e., they are proposed.  This whole "they aren't contained in x, y, or z" is entirely beside the point and you're hardly of the minimum required intellect to attempt to have a discussion about the metaphysical or ontological "location" of such and such a truth, considered in itself.  But even if you were, this misses the point entirely, because the individual Catholic's duty to believe what the Church teaches cannot be fulfilled except and unless there are certain authoritative people (i.e., the hierarchy) who propose for belief such and such a doctrine. 
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 03:24:16 PM
.
Doctrinal Truths are communicated to the faithful, i.e., they are proposed.  This whole "they aren't contained in x, y, or z" is entirely beside the point and you're hardly of the minimum required intellect to attempt to have a discussion about the metaphysical or ontological "location" of such and such a truth, considered in itself.  But even if you were, this misses the point entirely, because the individual Catholic's duty to believe what the Church teaches cannot be fulfilled except and unless there are certain authoritative people (i.e., the hierarchy) who propose for belief such and such a doctrine.  
.
So even after reading V1, plainly you have no idea where the truths we must believe are contained, but I'm hardly of the minimum required intellect to discuss such thing. LOL

Well, you gotta do what you gotta do to maintain your sedeism I guess.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 12, 2017, 03:38:12 PM
^^^^^ See what I mean? Happens every time they try to use Catholic teachings to vindicate their sedeism. :fryingpan:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 12, 2017, 04:01:40 PM
Everyone on this thread needs to watch the Father Chazal video above.
Thank you for the link.  I enjoyed watching it.  
You might know I personally observe that a condition of sede vacante has befallen the Church.  This is my observation and it is in no way binding on others.  I can not speak to the disposition of others because I can not see through their eyes, nor would I even dare to.  I firmly believe that in this situation God is extending every Grace to His faithful and I trust “he that shall preserve to the end, he shall be saved”.  
That being said, here is a reply to the video http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/08/25/my-response-to-fr-chazals-contra-cekadam/ (http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/08/25/my-response-to-fr-chazals-contra-cekadam/)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 04:03:28 PM
Magisterium is not the teachings of the hierarchy. 

:facepalm:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 04:03:53 PM
Materially yes but formally no.  Again very sedeprivationist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ

It's called by someone "Against Sedevacantism" but what he's really against is just DOGMATIC sedevacantism ... if you listen

very early on says that Francis is, "like his predecessors, but in a very clear way",  a "notorious", "open" "public" "heretic" 2:12 - 2:27

5:00 - 5:30 -- that there's in Rome a man dressed in white who is the visible (aka IMO "material") head of the Catholic Church

5:45 - 5:55 -- Vatican II documents contain heresies so these documents can be rejected
... then following that the New Mass and Canon Law are bad and "we can get rid of it"

NOTICE:  no sifting ... just throw it all out

then ... papacy is unlike other offices.  Cardinals merely designate the person but he receives authority from God

7:13 - 7:30 question is what happens when a pope is a "manifest heretic" since "we do grant that this pope is a public manifest heretic"

11:45 - 11:50 Paul VI was a Mason and gay

12:00 - 12:05 Sister Lucy silenced and possibly replaced

at one point he conflates the Dimonds with "St. Benedict Center" and rejects their position that the Fatima consecration of Russia has been done

8:25 - 8:45 ... introduces "dogmatic" sedevacantism
then goes on to reject it because there are many authoritative theologians who argue against the Bellarmine position of ipso facto depositus

40:30 - 40:40 Rome has lost the faith

41:00 - 41:35 [Conciliar Church] is a heretical Church ... Francis is still the pope because heresy does not (in his opinion) lead to automatic loss of office, but he is "impounded and we have to separate from him" (based on it being a disputed question)

43:00 - 43:10 Catholic Church would explode and lose its "visibility on earth" (aka material visibility)

44:50 - 45:10 it's "beyond any doubt" that Pope Francis has lost the faith and he won't argue with sedevacantists on that because  "it would be ridiculous for me to deny that" ... then rejects SSPX distinction between modernists and heretics

then ... we are bound to separate from them due to risk of contagion; they are "vomiting heresies all the time" ... commends Traditio and NovusOrdoWatch

48:50 - 50:10 if there's no pope how do we restart the Church?  [again sounds like sedeprivationism]

51:06 - 51:20 we are just keeping the little white man over there just to keep us together ... that's not much (just a material source of unity) ... just a "tiny link" which is still vital to us

then goes on to discuss Cajetan's position and that of John of St. Thomas

such a pope is prevented from formally exercising his office ... "necessarily rendered impotent as being head of the Church" (formal loss of office as in sedeprivationism)

[THAT'S THE END OF HOUR 1 ... will go through the next hour later]



What little I watched of the video is quite good, from about 1:45 to 1:59.

At about the 1:55 minute mark, Father says...

"David is angry at the one who takes down the anointed of the Lord. It's an anointing of God; it comes from God. The central argument of John of St. Thomas is that this anointing comes from God and it's very hard to dissolve it."  (I assume that he is referring to the election of the Pope).

At the 1:56 mark, Father says...

"I am not arguing down the line that they are losing office, or that they do not deserve to lose office, or that God hasn't planned to make them lose office. [...] By law, they should be immediately removed from office. The problem is that the See of Rome is judged by no one. It's on the top. We need to keep the constitution of the Church intact, [for] when the papacy will at last start to run on its feet."

And at the 1:57 minute mark, Father says:

[...] And what is missed by the sedevacantists is that we can relate to the poor souls who are marooned in the Novus Ordo church, because I see it in the Philippines, the little Filipinos we are arrived in the village of (can't understand the name of the village), and we are taking them out of the Novus Ordo parish and they are asking: are you with the pope over there in Rome? And my answer is "yes." And there is no lie there. Where as if I were sedevacantist, how I would (escape?) to lie. You would have to make a gigantic mental reservation to get away with that lie. So it has put us in a much better position."

There's so much more that I'd like to quote when I have time, from Fr. Chazal's video. Maybe tomorrow. He comments about how some sedevacantists have gone straight from sedevacantism to the Novus Ordo, and that there must be some liberalism there for that to happen.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 12, 2017, 04:04:23 PM
Thank you for the link.  I enjoyed watching it.  

This kind of clear thinking on the subject could bring most Traditional Catholics together.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 12, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
This kind of clear thinking on the subject could bring most Traditional Catholics together.
There was an indication that Father believes it is impossible to have a pope again from the condition of sede vacante.  I do not believe anything is impossible with God, and that in time there will be a resolution to this situation.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 12, 2017, 04:22:04 PM
There was an indication that Father believes it is impossible to have a pope again from the condition of sede vacante.  I do not believe anything is impossible with God, and that in time there will be a resolution to this situation.

Father said that the problem is that See of Rome is judged by no one. It's at the top, and that the constitution has to be kept intact for when the papacy gets back on its feet. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 12, 2017, 04:28:21 PM
Good question. I was thinking of posting this myself. The faithful are very dull (like sheep), so my example would distinguish "young and impressionable" children. Bergoglio would win them over with his clown noses, jokes and some candy (I'm sure). Then he would teach them all sorts of lies and abominable heresies and give them zero discipline. 
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25299447_10155274003408691_7583837592756371027_n.jpg?oh=30d56770fa92dbbc11a1de58064ad740&oe=5A8B3AFD)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 12, 2017, 04:40:01 PM
Father said that the problem is that See of Rome is judged by no one. It's at the top, and that the constitution has to be kept intact for when the papacy gets back on its feet.
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you, the pope is judged by no one.  I don’t imagine myself judging the eternal disposition of anyone, and certainly not the pope.  All I can do pray that I serve our Lord to my end and hope for His mercy on my soul.  I am charged to flee from error, so when I recognize errors from Second Vatican Council, I simply turn from that danger and cling to the Faith as it always was.  Something happened to the Church in the nineteen-sixties that defies logic, all the while, it is an objective fact that the modern orientation despises the traditional practice, so much so that near every facet of our Faith was modernized.  It seems obvious to me that the warnings of Pope Saint Pius X were ignored and our Church has suffered for it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 12, 2017, 07:56:45 PM
From my experience and study, which Fr Chazal confirms, there's a lot of 'gray area' between R&R and Sedevacantism.  Our American mindset usually defaults to 'sports' where team A is vs team B, or it's republicans vs democrat - and no other 3rd team/position - but this is not reality.  Anyone who is honest will admit that both R&R and sedevacantism have problems.  The answer must lie in the middle.  I'm not saying Fr Chazal is absolutely right, just saying that his conclusion is generally right - that it is possible to hold a church office materially, but not spiritually.  Plenty of theologians have reached this conclusion.  Many do not like this view because it's not a "clean" or "black and white" answer, so they choose R&R vs sede.  That's fine, in a general sense, but once you start talking specifics, the answer is a mix of both.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 03:32:27 AM
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25299447_10155274003408691_7583837592756371027_n.jpg?oh=30d56770fa92dbbc11a1de58064ad740&oe=5A8B3AFD)
Hard for me to accept this as coming from you Cantarella, sad day.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
There was an indication that Father believes it is impossible to have a pope again from the condition of sede vacante.  I do not believe anything is impossible with God, and that in time there will be a resolution to this situation.

He didn't quite say impossible.  He said that he didn't see how unity would be restored without the material succession being kept intact.  That's actually a very strong criticism of sedevacatism ... that it leads inevitably to ecclesiavacantism.  But sedeprivationism keeps the material succession intact as well as the possibility of continuing jurisdiction.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 08:47:10 AM
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you, the pope is judged by no one.  I don’t imagine myself judging the eternal disposition of anyone, and certainly not the pope.  All I can do pray that I serve our Lord to my end and hope for His mercy on my soul.  I am charged to flee from error, so when I recognize errors from Second Vatican Council, I simply turn from that danger and cling to the Faith as it always was.  Something happened to the Church in the nineteen-sixties that defies logic, all the while, it is an objective fact that the modern orientation despises the traditional practice, so much so that near every facet of our Faith was modernized.  It seems obvious to me that the warnings of Pope Saint Pius X were ignored and our Church has suffered for it.

Now, by the pope not being judged, we're not talking about the eternal disposition of his soul but rather about whether he can be judged juridically.

As for the rest, you're in line with Father Chazal's thinking.  He's simply saying that all we have to do from our perspective it so separate from these heretics.  It's not our job to depose the pope and he follows the opinion of those theologians who say we can't.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 08:54:41 AM
Thanks for the video.
I personally don't accept this materially yes , but formally no reasoning, it just sounds so Vatican II. It just appears that in an attempt to rectify the current situation, the Vatican II ecclesiology is being used.

We know for certain this notion of formally part of, while being materially separated  AKA as advanced Pelagianism is the main culprit in the attempt to destroy the unity of the Body of Christ.

To say Bergoglio is materially the pope but formally he is not, has some problems for me...

1. Where Peter is, there is the Church, not Where a heretic is, there is the Church... so to me this reversal of formally part of while being materially separated TO formally separated , but materially part of..

2. If Francis is the pope, however you want to include him in the Church, then to believe he is impounded and has no power is to deny the Vatican I council. Similar to what the Old Catholic claimed, that provoked the definitions.

Well, I am the one who threw the terms formal and material in there.  It's not a V2 term but is one of the foundations of scholastic theology.

It's just being misused and misapplied in the context of ecclesiology ad the BoD question.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Distinctions are essential tools in theology.  Just because most heretics use distinctions (false ones) to come up with or defend their errors, it doesn't mean that we throw distinctions out altogether.

#2 -- that's not what V1 is teaching about the full power of the papacy.  That quote is being misapplied.

#1 -- you can apply the same distinction to the "Where Peter is ..."  Where Peter is materially, so there is the Church materially.

Material succession is not a new thing.  It's well known that many of the Orthodox Sees are materially Apostolic Sees.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 13, 2017, 08:56:32 AM
Thanks for the video.
I personally don't accept this materially yes , but formally no reasoning, it just sounds so Vatican II. It just appears that in an attempt to rectify the current situation, the Vatican II ecclesiology is being used.

We know for certain this notion of formally part of, while being materially separated  AKA as advanced Pelagianism is the main culprit in the attempt to destroy the unity of the Body of Christ.

To say Bergoglio is materially the pope but formally he is not, has some problems for me...

1. Where Peter is, there is the Church, not Where a heretic is, there is the Church... so to me this reversal of formally part of while being materially separated TO formally separated , but materially part of..

2. If Francis is the pope, however you want to include him in the Church, then to believe he is impounded and has no power is to deny the Vatican I council. Similar to what the Old Catholic claimed, that provoked the definitions.
So right!   Either Vatican II is Catholic or it is not, either Francis is a pope or he is not.   Such novelties these days it is no wonder the Protestants laugh. Great scandal is the result!  SINCE WHEN DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAUSE SCANDAL?
 
As I said before nothing the True popes have written applies to a church that is not even Catholic.  Yet, the Church does exist still today in exile.  The solution to the problem is to stop trying to find one, have confidence, make sacrifices and above all pray.  Jesus Christ is still the head of His Church NOT THIS CLOWN WHO SITS IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD.  
 
If one can not find one iota of truth coming from the mouth of Francis, what does that tell you?  Swallow your pride and start living your Catholic Faith as you learned from the beginning.  "You will know them by their fruits" have a little faith in the word of God, not the Modernists with their strange novelties.    
 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 09:04:52 AM
Unfortunately for you Stubborn, that picture is much closer to reality than the picture you create in your mind. Scroll down and get a little dose of reality. This is the goofball you call "pope". 

Now, now ... that's just emotional argument.  There's no theologian who teaches that Popes lose his office due to "goofiness".
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 13, 2017, 09:40:56 AM
Now, now ... that's just emotional argument.  There's no theologian who teaches that Popes lose his office due to "goofiness".

True. Goofiness aside, the Thesis of Cassiciacum does give an exact time when there was a sign of the illegitimacy of the conciliar Popes. Specifically, it was the promulgation of the Vatican II document "Dignitatis Humanae Personae" on December 7, 1965 which contradicts the constant Catholic teaching on religious liberty and therefore infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

From that very point, because of the loss of Authority, all subsequent acts would be null. An error of this magnitude (and I would include the Nostra Aetate document, as well) would constitute a defection of the Magisterium, if we were to believe it coming from a legitimate Pope. Again, Catholic Principle of Non- Contradiction, as well, as infallibility flowing from the Pope.

The video John Antonie Marie has this conclusion at the end:

Evil changes + true popes = defected Church

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 09:56:12 AM
Unfortunately for you Stubborn, that picture is much closer to reality than the picture you create in your mind. Scroll down and get a little dose of reality. This is the goofball you call "pope".
You would find that if you pray for him at all, which is the daily duty of all Catholics, that you could never promote any mockery of him whatsoever, let alone mock him as a rule -  but thaaaaat's dogmatic sedeism! The church of no pope and no hope.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 13, 2017, 09:57:46 AM
GJC, Vatican I is talking about the extent of the pope's powers.  This is not applicable to our situation because no one is questioning that the pope has supreme jurisdictional or moral power.  The question is - what, if anything, changes to the pope's powers if he appears to lose the faith?  This V1 quote does not answer that question.

Our situation is distinguished by 2 important factors - 1) the issue of heresy and ipso facto excommunication and 2) what penalties does ipso facto excommunication actually enforce (in the case of a pope).  Sedes say that if one is ipso facto excommunicated, they lose their spiritual office immediately.  I would agree with that and I think Fr Chazal would too. 

Sedes also further argue that heretics also lose their MATERIAL, governing office/jurisdiction immediately.  In the case of a pope, I do not agree, nor does Fr Chazal.  Theologians are split on this question when it comes to the papacy.  In the case of a bishop, the answer is to wait for the Church to act through canon law, a court decision, etc.  This is easy and straightforward.  But in the case of a pope, canon law does NOT give legal outlines on how to handle.  Many theologians have argued that cardinals could call a council and depose a pope.  I would agree with this; makes sense to me.  Outside of this, there's no other concrete answer.  All else is theological opinion, which carries no weight or legal precedent.

So Fr Chazal's view, that a heretic pope who is ipso facto excommunicated still retains his MATERIAL office, follows canon law.  This view follows reality, since in reality, the pope and the many cardinals/bishops/priests who are the church hierachy do hold their offices, but are spiritually impotent because they have given up the faith.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 09:59:19 AM
But isn't Fr. Chazal claiming that the popes are valid, even if only materially? Then go on to say they have no power, ignore them.... Isn't this  contrary to the Vatican I's explicit teaching?

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
As Cardinal Journet points out, both papal authority and papal infallibility are included in the pope's supreme and all-inclusive jurisdictional power. Whereas the Supreme Pontiff's authority is co-extensive with his jurisdiction, his infallibility is not. In fact, papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circumscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty. - The Great Sacrilege
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 10:23:03 AM
So right!   Either Vatican II is Catholic or it is not, either Francis is a pope or he is not.   Such novelties these days it is no wonder the Protestants laugh. Great scandal is the result!  SINCE WHEN DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAUSE SCANDAL?

So I guess than that Myrna, with Penny Catechism in hand, knows better than Cajetan and John of St. Thomas ... and Bishop Guerard des Laurier, all of them heavyweight theologians.  But in your ignorance ... and total arrogance ... you just dismiss them with a wave of your hand as effectively being idiots.  Their theological points are very strong even if you are too obtuse to understand them.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 13, 2017, 10:25:15 AM
Not everything is black and white...life is complex.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 10:32:44 AM
But isn't Fr. Chazal claiming that the popes are valid, even if only materially? Then go on to say they have no power, ignore them.... Isn't this  contrary to the Vatican I's explicit teaching?

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

He's saying that they're materially legitimate, yes.  Vatican I's definition refers to a pope who holds formal power ... and it's a rejection of various errors regarding papal authority, such as that he has to go through various Church patriarchs (through a pecking order) to have authority over their faithful; instead he has IMMEDIATE power over the faithful.  It's also rejecting the error that he's a first among equals.  Essentially it's rejecting the Orthodox concept of the papacy.  This is nowhere near to saying that a material pope always has to have formal power.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 10:33:10 AM
Not everything is black and white...life is complex.

Indeed.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 13, 2017, 10:52:12 AM
So I guess than that Myrna, with Penny Catechism in hand, knows better than Cajetan and John of St. Thomas ... and Bishop Guerard des Laurier, all of them heavyweight theologians.  But in your ignorance ... and total arrogance ... you just dismiss them with a wave of your hand as effectively being idiots.  Their theological points are very strong even if you are too obtuse to understand them.
Since when is the Catholic church complicated?
To your most gracious post above my answer is ... TIME WILL TELL!    :pray:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 13, 2017, 10:54:52 AM
Myrna, why does the church need theologians if everything is so simple?  Some things are simple, some are not.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 11:04:37 AM
Now, by the pope not being judged, we're not talking about the eternal disposition of his soul but rather about whether he can be judged juridically.

As for the rest, you're in line with Father Chazal's thinking.  He's simply saying that all we have to do from our perspective it so separate from these heretics.  It's not our job to depose the pope and he follows the opinion of those theologians who say we can't.

But how far does the separation from heretics go? Maybe Father doesn't qualify that.

He does say on the video that when the Novus Ordo Filipinos' go to Father's chapel, and they ask him if he's under the Pope in Rome, that Father answers "Yes." He can't really say "NO" without there being difficulties.

I find it interesting, too, that Father Chazal encourages Novus Ordo Catholics away from the Novus Ordo church in the Philippines, and introduces them to tradition. He is encouraging the New Zealanders to do the same (or is it the Australians?). Sorry, I can't remember if the video is taped in New Zealand or Australia. Sedes tend to shun Novus Ordo Catholics, but Father Chazal certainly doesn't. I see that as a good thing.

He says on the video that it's not a good idea to just expect the fish for parishioners from the SSPX (or words to that effect).
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 13, 2017, 11:11:27 AM
Wouldn't in reality the definition of a material pope with no formal power be an anti pope? If so, why not address him as such?

The term anti-pope would pressume that there is an already existing, living, and competing Pope somewhere else (in opposition to Francis), which it does not seem to be the case.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 13, 2017, 11:27:08 AM
Myrna, why does the church need theologians if everything is so simple?  Some things are simple, some are not.  
So far I have not seen any theologians solve the problem, have you?
One does not have to even be a theologian to save one's soul, all you need is to keep the faith believing in what Jesus Christ said about the times we are living in. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 13, 2017, 11:54:29 AM
Okay... I see.

Wouldn't in reality the definition of a material pope with no formal power be a sede vacante? If so, why not address the situation as such?

Sedeprivationism makes the distinction here because of the fact that the material pope is not yet juridically deposed; so he materially occupies the Apostolic throne. The thesis goes so far as to conclude the material pope no longer has divinely assisted Pontifical authority, and leave it at that.

The way I see it is that fundamentally, the thesis is indeed a form of sedevacantism; but not total, in that the material pope continues to be able to perform certain vital functions for the continuity of the Church, such as appointing valid cardinals, thus allowing a legitimate way to preserve Apostolicity, one of the 4 marks of the True Church.    
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 12:02:06 PM
Father Chazal, in the video posted on this thread, speaks about the problem with the "immediate loss of office" idea.

He says, at the 1:32:33 minute mark:

"There is something about Divine Right. It is not that we say, I repeat, it is not that we say that they are not going to fall; they fall by Divine Right, but in the time of God's choosing."
------
Father then provides examples, mainly from the O.T, where God removed heretics or those who caused grave scandal.

At the 134:54 minute mark, Father says:

"There is no evidence in scripture for the immediate loss of office for the crime of heresy. We don't find it."
------
Father Chazal then provides good examples for this in scripture. Really excellent refutation of the "ipso facto" view, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 12:07:34 PM
...and just about there.
Although I agreed with your prediction, it really doesn't take too much to make such a prediction.  Since when has there been any thread involving sedevacantism on this forum that hasn't been pages and pages long? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 12:09:15 PM
Father Chazal, in the video posted on this thread, speaks about the problem with the "immediate loss of office" idea.

He says, at the 1:32:33 minute mark:

"There is something about Divine Right. It is not that we say, I repeat, it is not that we say that they are not going to fall; they fall by Divine Right, but in the time of God's choosing."
------
Father then provides examples, mainly from the O.T, where God removed heretics or those who caused grave scandal.

At the 134:54 minute mark, Father says:

"There is no evidence in scripture for the immediate loss of office for the crime of heresy. We don't find it."
------
Father Chazal then provides good examples for this in scripture. Really excellent refutation of the "ipso facto" view, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ
Since when does Catholicism only involve teachings in Scripture?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 12:13:59 PM
Since when does Catholicism only involve teachings in Scripture?

Who said it only involves scriptural teachings? Have you even viewed the evidence provided by Father Chazal? I seriously doubt it. 

Why would you think that scripture is not important at all in refuting the sede ipso facto belief, and that scripture should have no say in the matter?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:02:16 PM
Could it be because the Church has proclaimed and believes heretics are not in the Church in the first place. It would seem redundant for the Holy Ghost to state the obvious...

In scripture, there is no reference to any loss of office for heretics, in either the Old or New Testament. Do you think that there were no heretics in scripture? Fr. Chazal provides evidence for this. Father knows his scripture very well.

I think that since sedes don't know scripture very well, that they don't want to debate from a scriptural stance.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 13, 2017, 01:08:53 PM
Father Chazal, in the video posted on this thread, speaks about the problem with the "immediate loss of office" idea.

He says, at the 1:32:33 minute mark:

"There is something about Divine Right. It is not that we say, I repeat, it is not that we say that they are not going to fall; they fall by Divine Right, but in the time of God's choosing."
------
Father then provides examples, mainly from the O.T, where God removed heretics or those who caused grave scandal.

At the 134:54 minute mark, Father says:

"There is no evidence in scripture for the immediate loss of office for the crime of heresy. We don't find it."
------
Father Chazal then provides good examples for this in scripture. Really excellent refutation of the "ipso facto" view, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ

In Sedeprivationism, there has not been a "loss of office" yet, since evidently, the office is still visibly occupied. What has been lost is the pontifical Authority.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 13, 2017, 01:10:43 PM
Quote
So far I have not seen any theologians solve the problem, have you?
That's exactly the point, Myrna.  We're living through a problem which past theologians could only dream about - it's never happened before and it's very complex, which is why the solution is not simple.


Quote
One does not have to even be a theologian to save one's soul, all you need is to keep the faith believing in what Jesus Christ said about the times we are living in. 
Your point is true, but it's irrelevant to the present discussion.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:11:45 PM
In scripture, there is no reference to any loss of office for heretics, in either the Old or New Testament. Do you think that there were no heretics in scripture? Fr. Chazal provides evidence for this. Father knows his scripture very well.

I think that since sedes don't know scripture very well, that they don't want to debate from a scriptural stance.
No, the point is that even if Scripture doesn't mention something doesn't mean it is not Catholic teaching.  You would like to only look at what the Scripture states.  Isn't that what Protestants do Meg?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:12:12 PM
In Sedeprivationism, there is not a "loss of office", since evidently, the office is visibly occupied. What has been lost is the pontifical Authority.

I don't see that Fr. Chazal has said that there is a loss of pontifical authority. Can you point out where he said this? I haven't viewed the entire video. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:13:00 PM
No, the point is that even if Scripture doesn't mention something doesn't mean it is not Catholic teaching.  You would like to only look at what the Scripture states.  Isn't that what Protestants do Meg?

You deny scripture. A lack of Faith will do that to a person. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:15:32 PM
You deny scripture. A lack of Faith will do that to a person.
What teaching in Scripture have I denied here?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 13, 2017, 01:22:51 PM
I don't see that Fr. Chazal has said that there is a loss of pontifical authority. Can you point out where he said this? I haven't viewed the entire video.

He did not say so. I was not talking about Fr. Chazal, but refering to the Thesis proposed by Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers, which I consider to have a lot of merit.

What happens "ipso facto" here is the loss of pontifical Authority; not the loss of office.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:25:03 PM
He did not say so. I was not talking about Fr. Chazal, but refering to the Thesis proposed by Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers, which I consider to have a lot of merit.

What happens "ipso facto" here is the loss of pontifical Authority; not the loss of office.
That's not in Scripture either.  :furtive:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 13, 2017, 01:30:25 PM
2Vermont,
The entire code of canon law isn't in scripture.  What's your point?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:32:08 PM
What teaching in Scripture have I denied here?  

Then you accept what Fr. Chazal says regarding no loss of office for heretics as is pointed out in scripture?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:41:07 PM
2Vermont,
The entire code of canon law isn't in scripture.  What's your point?
Yes, that is true.
My point is that all Catholic teaching is not found in Scripture.  Meg is stating that just because loss of office is not found in Scripture that it can not possibly be true.  That's what Protestants do.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:45:10 PM
Then you accept what Fr. Chazal says regarding no loss of office for heretics as is pointed out in scripture?
The fact that Scripture does not mention loss of office for heretics doesn't necessarily mean that heretics don't lose their office.  It just means that scripture didn't mention it. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:46:48 PM
Yes, that is true.
My point is that all Catholic teaching is not found in Scripture.  Meg is stating that just because loss of office is not found in Scripture that it can not possibly be true.  That's what Protestants do.  

I don't think I stated such a thing. We all know that Church teaching involves scripture and tradition. Father is pointing to the scriptural aspects of there being no loss of office according to scripture. This not to deny tradition. Tradition does not deny scripture. 

You refuse to look at the scriptural aspects. And accordingly, you say mistakenly say that I'm saying that that's all there is to it. I'm not saying that. You seem to infer that only your definition of tradition matters in this assessment. Why cannot scripture count too?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:48:42 PM
Saint Robert Bellarmine says that the loss of office due to heresy is the traditional teaching of ALL the ancient Fathers...

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

I'll take Saint Robert Bellarmine's words over Father Chazal's words any time.  
Apparently, Saint Robert Bellarmine "had no Faith". 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:48:48 PM
Saint Robert Bellarmine says that the loss of office due to heresy is the traditional teaching of ALL the ancient Fathers...

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

I'll take Saint Robert Bellarmine's words over Father Chazal's words any time.  

No, even St. Bellarmine says that heretics are to be judged. You take St. Ballarmine's quotes out of context. You believe your own interpretation, and that of other sedes.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 01:49:53 PM
Apparently, Saint Robert Bellarmine "had no Faith".

He was not a sedevacantist. Therefore, he did have Faith. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:50:11 PM
I don't think I stated such a thing. We all know that Church teaching involves scripture and tradition. Father is pointing to the scriptural aspects of there being no loss of office according to scripture. This not to deny tradition. Tradition does not deny scripture.

You refuse to look at the scriptural aspects. And accordingly, you say mistakenly say that I'm saying that that's all there is to it. I'm not saying that. You seem to infer that only your definition of tradition matters in this assessment. Why cannot scripture count too?
Does Scripture teach that no loss of office occurs....or does Scripture just not teach it?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:51:33 PM
He was not a sedevacantist. Therefore, he did have Faith.
But Meg, he denies Scripture according to you! 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
No, even St. Bellarmine says that heretics are to be judged. You take St. Ballarmine's quotes out of context. You believe your own interpretation, and that of other sedes.
I see Meg's rabid anti-sedevacantism still blinds her.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 02:00:37 PM
I see Meg's rabid anti-sedevacantism still blinds her.

Continual dishonesty. I've come to expect that from some sedes. Some of you sedes are starting to get upset now, since we won't back down.

Why don't you view Fr. Chazal's video for yourself? It really isn't as scary as you might think.

Start at the 1:33 minute mark, and you'll see the good examples he provides from scripture. If you won't look at the evidence, how can you assume that scripture doesn't really matter, since St. Ballarmine has now apparently corrected the inadequacy of scripture, in your view?

I don't believe that St. Bellarmine was a sedevacantist. If you can prove that he was, then I might accept what you say.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 13, 2017, 02:11:06 PM
I don't believe that St. Bellarmine was a sedevacantist. If you can prove that he was, then I might accept what you say.

Of course he was not, at the time. Why would have he been? St. Bellarmine was dealing with Pope Clement VIII; not "Pope" Francis.

We could only speculate on St. Bellarmine's response to this unprecedent crisis, if he was still on earth.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 02:13:38 PM
Of course he was not, at the time. Why would have he been? St. Bellarmine was dealing with Pope Clement VIII; not Pope Francis.
We could only speculate on St. Bellarmine's response to this unprecedent crisis, if he was still on earth.

 

"Speculation" on what St. Bellarmine's response would to the unprecedented crisis doesn't make for good evidence or proof of the sedevacantist position.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 02:16:19 PM
Continual dishonesty. I've come to expect that from some sedes. Some of you sedes are starting to get upset now, since we won't back down.

Why don't you view Fr. Chazal's video for yourself? It really isn't as scary as you might think.

Start at the 1:33 minute mark, and you'll see the good examples he provides from scripture. If you won't look at the evidence, how can you assume that scripture doesn't really matter, since St. Ballarmine has now apparently corrected the inadequacy of scripture, in your view?

I don't believe that St. Bellarmine was a sedevacantist. If you can prove that he was, then I might accept what you say.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ
I can't understand what he is saying with his accent.  Can you document the examples he gives?  
I suspect that these examples don't contradict the idea that loss of office for manifest heretics happens ipso facto.  Otherwise, "all the ancient fathers" got it wrong and Fr Chazal finally got things right.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 02:18:19 PM
Where did I take him out of context, Meg?  
::crickets::
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 02:24:59 PM
I can't understand what he is saying with his accent.  Can you document the examples he gives?  
I suspect that these examples don't contradict the idea that loss of office for manifest heretics happens ipso facto.  Otherwise, "all the ancient fathers" got it wrong and Fr Chazal finally got things right.

I can understand most of what Father says, and I speak no French. Try to listen to it more carefully.

Regarding the "ancient fathers," isn't it possible that your interpretation of the "ancient fathers" is wrong, and Fr. Chazal's assessment of there being no loss of office according to scripture, is correct?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 02:30:15 PM
I can understand most of what Father says, and I speak no French. Try to listen to it more carefully.

Regarding the "ancient fathers," isn't it possible that your interpretation of the "ancient fathers" is wrong, and Fr. Chazal's assessment of there being no loss of office according to scripture, is correct?  
I've tried a few times already.  Why can't you just write down his examples.  I can then go to my Bible and check them out.
As for your question, it is possible only if one thinks St Robert Bellarmine was lying when he clearly states it was the opinion of "all the ancient fathers".
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Saint Robert Bellarmine says that the loss of office due to heresy is the traditional teaching of ALL the ancient Fathers...

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

I'll take Saint Robert Bellarmine's words over Father Chazal's words any time.  
I say that it is licit to resist him [the pope] by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." - Saint Robert Bellarmine, Catholic
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 02:54:27 PM
I've tried a few times already.  Why can't you just write down his examples.  
.
It's so much easier to dish out incredulity on steroids.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 02:56:43 PM
I've tried a few times already.  Why can't you just write down his examples.  I can then go to my Bible and check them out.
As for your question, it is possible only if one thinks St Robert Bellarmine was lying when he clearly states it was the opinion of "all the ancient fathers".

I will try later to write down his examples. Right now I have to go stand I line at the post office to mail some packages.

I would never presume that a saint is lying. I think it's likely that St. Bellarmine is not interpreted correctly. We all have the tendency to take things out of context to prove our POV, or we just don't look at the entire body of what a saint or Father has written. I'm guilty too of doing this, but I try not to.

Father Chazal does have a thick accent. I'm terrible with foreign languages, but I can usually understand those who have English as a second language. Not everyone can do that. It's okay.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 02:59:41 PM
Whoever said Saint Robert was a sedevacantist?
.
I did. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 03:08:12 PM
Why?
.
Uhhh....... Because it's true?
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 03:10:11 PM
Do tell...
.
He was a saint, wasn't he?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 03:10:40 PM
The only problem here my friend is this: Unless the person belongs to the Novus Ordo, they have indeed judged him as a heretic already... and resist him, or separate, or just flat deny he is the pope.
Judging him as a heretic is not deposing him for it - unless one has first inflicted themself with dogmatic sedeism, in that case, judging him a heretic means he has self deposed.

St. Robert here teaches the Catholic principle, in the Great Sacrilege, Fr. Wathen expounds on this principle superbly:

...Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.

Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith....
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 03:20:39 PM
Is
.
So then he wasn't but is? Like in St. John 17:11 but the opposite?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 03:30:53 PM
Context, sir...

In regards to the quote above:

1. Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands — not one who, like the post-Vatican II popes, teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws.

2. The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.

3. Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.

4.  Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work (30) that a heretical pope automatically loses his authority.


The above is from Father Cekada.  I don't agree with a lot of things Father Cekada has to say, but what he states above rings true.  
Regardless, wrong is wrong even if the most holy pope in history wants you to do wrong, it is not just licit to resist him, you must resist him if not resisting means offending God.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 03:32:33 PM
Can someone shed some light on what the heck is going on between Neil and BD?  

Neil, why would you say St Robert Bellarmine is/was a sede? Non-sedes usually don't. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 03:45:06 PM
Point, Neil?

That he wasn't at the time he was alive, but due to his teaching he would be today?  Was / Is
Let's put it this way, perhaps he isn't anymore, but there was a time when he was. 
.
(We can't really know for sure the state of a man's soul at the moment of death.)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 03:46:05 PM
Maybe Neil can, because I'm totally lost!!

Good to see you on the forum again, by the way.  
.
You too. But I'm not lost. (I hope, that is.)
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 04:11:58 PM
Maybe Neil can, because I'm totally lost!!

Good to see you on the forum again, by the way.  
lol..and thank you.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 04:13:34 PM
Okay, man...  

I agree with Saint Robert on that particular point, dealing with a morally evil pope.  
As do I.  
But we're not dealing with just a "morally evil pope" and every poster on this thread knows that.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 13, 2017, 04:20:09 PM
As do I.  
But we're not dealing with just a "morally evil pope" and every poster on this thread knows that.
What difference does it make if your boss, your mother or father, a heretic "pope", the holiest pope in history, or a morally evil pope or an angel of light want to you to sin?

We must resist no matter what the status or office of the person wanting us to sin because if we don't, we will offend God - no? THIS is the simple, Catholic truth St. Robert is teaching.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 04:40:00 PM
In scripture, there is no reference to any loss of office for heretics, in either the Old or New Testament. Do you think that there were no heretics in scripture? Fr. Chazal provides evidence for this. Father knows his scripture very well.

I think that since sedes don't know scripture very well, that they don't want to debate from a scriptural stance.

I would not contrast Father Chazal with "sedevacantists".  He's actually saying that the See has been formally vacated while remaining visibly occupied.  He doesn't use the term but he's basically a sedeprivationist.  And that position if far superior to both sedeplenism and to R&R.  In fact, a lot of people claim that they are sedeplenists but in reality are not because they do not believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate.  Father Schmidberger used to famously say that we give them the benefit of the doubt.  What doubt?  If you have a doubt, then you're not a sedeplenist.  If you have a doubt, then you do NOT believe that they are legit with the certainty of faith.  And that leads to a papa dubius papa nullus situation.  Father Chazal's point is a great one.  Why do we feel the need to declare them deposed?  He's content with declaring them heretics and declaring their Magisterium and Universal Discipline and Canon Law null and void ... leaving the issue of their occupancy of the See to God's eventual resolution.  What's wrong with that?  Most R&R believe that those things which are true and good are still binding but those things that are erroneous and bad are not ... leaving it up to private judgment to sift the Magisterium.  What's refreshing about Father Chazal is that he does not fall into this non-Catholic trap.  He throws it ALL out and declare it null and void and illegitimate due to its contamination with heresy.  He's not your typical R&R.  And he's not a sedevacantist per se.  He's in between, like a sedeprivationist ... and his position makes eminent sense.  And he does absolutely destroy dogmatic sedevacantism when he cites authorities who state that Bellarmine's opinion is merely "probable" .. not even certain, MUCH less dogmatic.  Cajetan's and John of St. Thomas' position could just as well be true.  Really the biggest criticism that sedevacantists have of R&R is Magisterium sifting but Father Chazal eliminates that stumbling block.  Why can't everyone unite on these terms?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 13, 2017, 04:46:08 PM
Regardless, wrong is wrong even if the most holy pope in history wants you to do wrong, it is not just licit to resist him, you must resist him if not resisting means offending God.

You're confusing simple obedience with submission to the Magisterium; they're two completely different things.  That's why the dictum "Faith is greater than obedience." is so pernicious.  We have the Magisterium as our proximate rule of faith; that's what separates us from all the non-Catholic so-called-Christian sects.  We can't have private judgment trumping the teaching of an Ecumenical Council -- if legit.  It's only based on a suspicion and positive doubt of its legitimacy that we can reject it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 05:14:58 PM
I would not contrast Father Chazal with "sedevacantists".  He's actually saying that the See has been formally vacated while remaining visibly occupied.  He doesn't use the term but he's basically a sedeprivationist.  And that position if far superior to both sedeplenism and to R&R.  In fact, a lot of people claim that they are sedeplenists but in reality are not because they do not believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate.  Father Schmidberger used to famously say that we give them the benefit of the doubt.  What doubt?  If you have a doubt, then you're not a sedeplenist.  If you have a doubt, then you do NOT believe that they are legit with the certainty of faith.  And that leads to a papa dubius papa nullus situation.  Father Chazal's point is a great one.  Why do we feel the need to declare them deposed?  He's content with declaring them heretics and declaring their Magisterium and Universal Discipline and Canon Law null and void ... leaving the issue of their occupancy of the See to God's eventual resolution.  What's wrong with that?  Most R&R believe that those things which are true and good are still binding but those things that are erroneous and bad are not ... leaving it up to private judgment to sift the Magisterium.  What's refreshing about Father Chazal is that he does not fall into this non-Catholic trap.  He throws it ALL out and declare it null and void and illegitimate due to its contamination with heresy.  He's not your typical R&R.  And he's not a sedevacantist per se.  He's in between, like a sedeprivationist ... and his position makes eminent sense.  And he does absolutely destroy dogmatic sedevacantism when he cites authorities who state that Bellarmine's opinion is merely "probable" .. not even certain, MUCH less dogmatic.  Cajetan's and John of St. Thomas' position could just as well be true.  Really the biggest criticism that sedevacantists have of R&R is Magisterium sifting but Father Chazal eliminates that stumbling block.  Why can't everyone unite on these terms?

Your personal and subjective assessment of what sede-subgroup Father Chazal fits into is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed, and what my post was about, which you were quoting. 

We were discussing how Father Chazal says that there is no mention loss of office for heretics in scripture. He didn't say that they lose jurisdiction, but still retain their office. Nothing about that at all.

Have you viewed that part of the video? I would like to see what you think of everything he said regarding the fact that scripture does not say anything about heretics losing their office. 

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 05:52:10 PM
What difference does it make if your boss, your mother or father, a heretic "pope", the holiest pope in history, or a morally evil pope or an angel of light want to you to sin?

We must resist no matter what the status or office of the person wanting us to sin because if we don't, we will offend God - no? THIS is the simple, Catholic truth St. Robert is teaching.
.
Are you going to order the new Fr. Wathen book?
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 05:56:32 PM
I would like to see what you think of everything he said regarding the fact that scripture does not say anything about heretics losing their office.
.
Well, Scripture doesn't say anything about the earth being "flat" but that doesn't mean we can't get to heaven if we don't "believe" it is.
.
But then Scripture doesn't say we are required to deny our 5 senses and rely on blind faith and silly rumors, either.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 06:00:45 PM
You're confusing simple obedience with submission to the Magisterium; they're two completely different things. 
.
Submission to and simple obedience are completely different things? 
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 06:06:53 PM
Your personal and subjective assessment of what sede-subgroup Father Chazal fits into is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed, and what my post was about, which you were quoting.

We were discussing how Father Chazal says that there is no mention loss of office for heretics in scripture. He didn't say that they lose jurisdiction, but still retain their office. Nothing about that at all.

Have you viewed that part of the video? I would like to see what you think of everything he said regarding the fact that scripture does not say anything about heretics losing their office.
I see you're back from the Post Office....
Could you provide Fr Chazal's scriptural examples of manifest heretics that did not lose their office?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 13, 2017, 06:15:54 PM
.
Well, Scripture doesn't say anything about the earth being "flat" but that doesn't mean we can't get to heaven if we don't "believe" it is.
.
But then Scripture doesn't say we are required to deny our 5 senses and rely on blind faith and silly rumors, either.
I am beginning to think that what Scripture "says" is really Father Chazal's interpretation of what it says. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 06:17:01 PM

I see you're back from the Post Office....
:jester:    Good one!    :laugh2:                                                      
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 06:29:42 PM
:jester:    Good one!    :laugh2:                                                      

You're an idiot, Neil.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 13, 2017, 06:31:37 PM
I see you're back from the Post Office....
Could you provide Fr Chazal's scriptural examples of manifest heretics that did not lose their office?

I've been working on viewing the video and writing down the relevant parts. Before I take the time to actually post them on the thread (which I'm ready to do), are you really going to read them, or just make snide comments?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 13, 2017, 07:47:14 PM
All the High Priests of Christ's time were illegitimate.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 13, 2017, 11:12:39 PM
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
According to Saint Matthew
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 11:16:09 PM
You're an idiot, Neil.
.
Oh, thank you. Coming from you that means so much ............... less.  HAHAHAHA
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 11:17:49 PM

All the High Priests of Christ's time were illegitimate.
.
How do you figure that?  Our Lord didn't institute the Church until Pentecost Sunday.
.
That was AFTER His time.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 13, 2017, 11:22:54 PM

The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
According to Saint Matthew

(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47371.0;attach=11245;image)
.
It would seem "observe" means to look at and recognize, then "do not" means to resist.
IOW Our Lord said to Recognize and Resist.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 14, 2017, 04:39:32 AM
I've been working on viewing the video and writing down the relevant parts. Before I take the time to actually post them on the thread (which I'm ready to do), are you really going to read them, or just make snide comments?
I promise to consider them.  
As for not making "snide" comments, I can assure you that the tone of my posts towards you will change as soon as you lose your rabid anti-sedevacantist attitude.   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 14, 2017, 04:52:10 AM
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
According to Saint Matthew
Not sure what the point is of posting these Bible verses, but I suspect that they are being used to support something that in no way equates with the reality we are dealing with these days.  The Pharisees were hypocrites, not heretics.  

Per Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary: 

Christ admonishes the people to follow the good doctrine, not the bad example of the Scribes and Pharisees:he warns his disciples not to imitate their ambition: and denounces divers woes against them for their hypocrisy and blindness.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: TKGS on December 14, 2017, 05:31:43 AM
Not sure what the point is of posting these Bible verses, but I suspect that they are being used to support something that in no way equates with the reality we are dealing with these days.  The Pharisees were hypocrites, not heretics.  
The Jewish hierarchy was also never promised infallibility.  On the other hand, the Church was promised infallibility and the Church has already decreed that heresy automatically renders the heretic outside the Church and results in the loss of office--even before any declaratory sentence (N.B. Nestorius).  With these Bible verses, the only relevant passages would be those passages that say Church officials do not lose office due to heresy (of which there are none).
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 14, 2017, 09:34:22 AM
You're confusing simple obedience with submission to the Magisterium; they're two completely different things.  That's why the dictum "Faith is greater than obedience." is so pernicious.  We have the Magisterium as our proximate rule of faith; that's what separates us from all the non-Catholic so-called-Christian sects.  We can't have private judgment trumping the teaching of an Ecumenical Council -- if legit.  It's only based on a suspicion and positive doubt of its legitimacy that we can reject it.
I am not confusing anything, nor, though you say the contrary, am I the least bit confused about the two different things.

We all utilize our private judgement every time we sin and every time we flee from it. It does not matter from whence it comes, our first obligation in the matter is to avoid sinning. We all know what sin is and whoever doesn't know what sin is had best figure it out quick - they have nothing better to do, that is why we were all given brains.

If/when an angel from heaven, a member of the hierarchy alone, or altogether in union with the pope should teach a different Gospel, a Gospel contrary to what they've always taught, a Gospel they told us before the Council was anathema, St. Paul, presuming as he ought that we know our faith, says to let him be anathema, not "oh boy, we're in a real pickle here, what to do, what to do", or worse, "we must submit because the pope / hierarchy  /council teaches it." 

It is an historical reality therefore indisputable that the Ecumenical Council preached and still preaches a different Gospel, so we cannot accept it's teachings - that's what St. Paul teaches because that's the way it works. It has nothing to do with our private judgement being superior to our superiors, i.e. the Council and hierarchy. It has nothing to do with that at all.
    
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 14, 2017, 09:40:53 AM
.
Are you going to order the new Fr. Wathen book?
.
Just did, should get it by 12/29. Thanks for the reminder. :)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 14, 2017, 11:33:00 AM
I promise to consider them.  
As for not making "snide" comments, I can assure you that the tone of my posts towards you will change as soon as you lose your rabid anti-sedevacantist attitude.  

I'm used to your snideness. But I thought that you might just tone it down a bit, since I was taking the time and trouble to post the info you asked for, since you said that couldn't understand anything Fr. Chazal was saying. I assume now that that was just a ruse. I should have known better. Sedes can be insincere. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 14, 2017, 12:15:05 PM
Your personal and subjective assessment of what sede-subgroup Father Chazal fits into is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed, and what my post was about, which you were quoting.

Oh, it most certainly does.  You can't even understand your own posts?  You were pitting Father Chazal against the sedevacantists by way of contrast ... but Father Chazal is more sedevacantist than R&R in many ways, so the contrast is not valid.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on December 14, 2017, 12:38:19 PM
Not sure what the point is of posting these Bible verses, but I suspect that they are being used to support something that in no way equates with the reality we are dealing with these days.  The Pharisees were hypocrites, not heretics.  

Per Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary:

Christ admonishes the people to follow the good doctrine, not the bad example of the Scribes and Pharisees:he warns his disciples not to imitate their ambition: and denounces divers woes against them for their hypocrisy and blindness.
Thanks for the commentary.  The point of the post was in reply to an inquiry regarding Scripture references.  I found it interesting to consider our Lord's words in Chapter 23 in light of His teaching in Chapter 24.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 14, 2017, 12:58:50 PM
Context, sir...

In regards to the quote above:

1. Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands — not one who, like the post-Vatican II popes, teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws.

2. The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.

3. Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.

4.  Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work (30) that a heretical pope automatically loses his authority.


The above is from Father Cekada.  I don't agree with a lot of things Father Cekada has to say, but what he states above rings true.  

There is an observation made by St. Bellarmine in which he considers the case of a heretical bishop teaching false doctrines. Although a Pope is different from a bishop, the case presented here does give us an insight into the saint's reasoning. He says:

Quote
“It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said, [70] or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do. The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other pastors.” [71]
 
“Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets. But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them. It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs.”

First, the manner of distinguishing a true pastor from a false one, is nothing but the Catholic Principle of non-Contradiction. Because we know that God is Truth and Truth does not change, whenever there is a teaching which is contrary to what has always been taught as true, then that it is sign indicating a false pastor.

Second, St. Bellarmine does make a distinction between the loss of Authority and the juridical deposition following it. In the example, the people can and should judge that a contradiction has occurred, then, as a result, they should refuse listening to the false pastor. He has lost his Authority because he is no longer an instrument of Christ. However, if such a false pastor is not as yet deposed, he must be deposed by proper Authority according to the laws of the Church. In the mean time, he continues to materially occupy the office.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 14, 2017, 01:49:50 PM
Myrna, why does the church need theologians if everything is so simple?  Some things are simple, some are not.  
The point that I am trying to make is:  Theologians are God's gift when everyone knew where the Church was/is and above all it was the Church they were talking about.

 It is sort of like all the rules we live by currently in the world to maintain order, traffic rules and such, but what if suddenly instead of a city full of people after a tragic event the population was reduced to 10 or 20 people instead of thousands.  Are all the rules necessary after that fact?  Do they even apply anymore?

After the Church of England apostatized, they still maintained the same buildings, but were they still Catholic? 


Not to mention that all these labels, sede+  the different variations of sedevacantism,  R&R  Home alone, indult, Fssp, etc are only separating Traditional Catholics instead of uniting us.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 14, 2017, 02:47:30 PM
Yes, there are many (too many) traditional factions.  Yes, I wish people agreed more.  But the point of this whole thread (at least, now) is to discuss Fr. Chazal's opposition to dogmatic, Chekada-style, there's-only-one-answer, sedevacantism.  And Fr says that, no, there is not only "one way" to view a heretical papacy, and there is much debate on the issue.  

If Catholics could be less dogmatic on this issue, and agree that there is no theological agreement, it would go a long way towards helping unity.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 14, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Oh, it most certainly does.  You can't even understand your own posts?  You were pitting Father Chazal against the sedevacantists by way of contrast ... but Father Chazal is more sedevacantist than R&R in many ways, so the contrast is not valid.

My post referred to Fr. Chazal showing that in scripture, there's is nothing at all about immediate loss of office for those who are in heresy. Your response didn't directly address that. 

I did find where Father later said, in part 2, that a heretical Pope does not have jurisdiction and that we cannot follow a heretic. But other than that, I don't see that he's said that sedes would agree with, though I haven't viewed the entire video. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 14, 2017, 03:08:42 PM
My post referred to Fr. Chazal showing that in scripture, there's is nothing at all about immediate loss of office for those who are in heresy. Your response didn't directly address that.

I did find where Father later said, in part 2, that a heretical Pope does not have jurisdiction and that we cannot follow a heretic. But other than that, I don't see that he's said that sedes would agree with, though I haven't viewed the entire video.

Correction to the above post: "I don't see that he's said anything else that sedes would agree with."
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 14, 2017, 03:13:45 PM

Just did, should get it by 12/29. Thanks for the reminder. :)

.
You're welcome. Congratulations!   :cheers:
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 14, 2017, 03:49:49 PM
So its August 1870 and I'm in Rome for the summer reading the decrees of the recent Vatican Council and I begin to have a suspicion and a positive doubt about its legitimacy, therefore it would be permissible for me to reject it.

Personally, I disagree with the notion of positive "doubt" being a legitimate reason for disobedience, rejection, or separation.

Instead, it would be the certainty (based on objective reason and observation) that an error did in fact occurred, based on the Catholic principle of non - Contradiction.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 14, 2017, 05:32:19 PM
I'm used to your snideness. But I thought that you might just tone it down a bit, since I was taking the time and trouble to post the info you asked for, since you said that couldn't understand anything Fr. Chazal was saying. I assume now that that was just a ruse. I should have known better. Sedes can be insincere.
No, my post was totally sincere.  
You asked if I would read Fr Chazal's examples if you bothered to post them and I promised that I would consider his points.  I was also sincere that my tone with you would change if you lost your rabid anti-sedevacantist attitude.  Clearly, you know you are totally incapable of doing so, so you decided to turn things around and accuse me of being insincere.  By doing so, I see that you also failed to post Fr Chazal's scriptural examples of manifest heretics not losing their offices.  
Exactly who was insincere again?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 14, 2017, 05:51:08 PM
The Jewish hierarchy was also never promised infallibility.  On the other hand, the Church was promised infallibility and the Church has already decreed that heresy automatically renders the heretic outside the Church and results in the loss of office--even before any declaratory sentence (N.B. Nestorius).  With these Bible verses, the only relevant passages would be those passages that say Church officials do not lose office due to heresy (of which there are none).
That's my take TKGS.  Having said that, I would consider Fr Chazal's "proof" that manifest heretics do not lose their offices ipso facto.  I suspect that his "proof" is merely his personal interpretation of Scripture, but I am willing to take a gander and research what the Church teaches regarding his examples.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 14, 2017, 11:01:46 PM
A good post Cantarella...  

A couple questions, though - You say " In the mean time, he continues to materially occupy the office."  

Can you explain how material occupancy works?  What are the limits of the material occupier of an office?  

Material occupancy is basically having the false pope remaining visibly in office; but only preserving the right of designation of others, until either the impediment to a formal papacy ceases to exist (he converts and abjures heresy) or there is a declaration of deposition made by the competent authority. The false pope lacks authority to make any laws. He does not have jurisdiction, but he can and will appoint electors and even bishops for the purpose of succeeding to sees of authority, thus continuing the mark of Apostolic succession.      

My simple understanding is this: just as a Sacrament is composed by matter and form, in this case, the matter is the designation and the form is the authority. The false pope has designation; but not authority. That is why we refer to a materialiter Pope; not formaliter.    

Unless the obstacle (in this case, heresy) is removed, the limit of the material occupier is exercising the power of nominating others (for instance, bishops), including possible electors of the pope. He does not have the jurisdiction or Authority to enact laws because of the impediment (habitual intention of doing harm); but only preserves the power of designation so that Apostolicity, this is, a continual succession from the Apostles, can continue. Because in nomination no law is made; it does not involve jurisdiction. The right of electing (a new Pope) also does not involve jurisdiction.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 08:50:32 AM
Quote
Limiting the Pope's jurisdiction and/or authority over the Universal Church is heretical. This position is condemned by Vatican I.

apples to oranges.  Vatican I was defining the pope's authority and its extent; it does not address what happens to a heretical pope.  Your quote does not apply.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 09:13:58 AM
This quote is defining the pope's supreme governing authority, which Fr Chazal is arguing is NOT affected if he becomes a heretic.  Fr is arguing that a heretic incurs the SPIRITUAL penalty of excommunication, which affects his SPIRITUAL authority, but his EARTHLY, governing authority (i.e. his material office) is not affected.  Fr's view actually supports the V1 quote you provided, in a sense.  But, V1 was just defining the governing powers, it did not list when/if they ever are limited.


1.  Earthly/material office - Governing/jurisdiction/running the daily affairs of the church. 
2.  Spiritual/teaching office - Faith/Morals/teaching authoritatively - Infallibility.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 09:25:33 AM
You obviously didn't watch the video.  Fr Chazal addresses the 'cum ex' apostolic bull, which is a legal document and was revised in the mid 1900s.  This makes your quotes of both 'cum ex' and 'canon law' obsolete. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 09:38:39 AM
I don't really know what Chazal says. I was responding to what Cantarella wrote. If Chazal says what she wrote, then it is definitely condemned by the Vatican Council.
If he says things like "The false pope lacks authority to make any laws" or "He does not have jurisdiction" or "He does not have the jurisdiction or Authority to enact laws" which are contained in her post, theses are specifically condemned in the quote I provided from the Vatican Council.
 

Nope.  You completely misunderstand Vatican I's teaching on that subject.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 15, 2017, 10:22:32 AM
The dogma says that if your are going to advance that a claimant to the Papacy holds the office of the Roman Pontiff, then he must also possess the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church. The dogma makes no exceptions for a notoriously heretical claimant. We can't import them. That's the job of the Holy Ghost. The reason that there is no exception is because a notoriously heretical claimant to the Papacy holds no office at all (as far as a Catholic is concerned). This is the teaching of the Church (not just the theologians and doctors). Non members of the Church cannot hold an office in the Catholic Church by divine law. Catholics always must presume malice in the external forum.

It is necessary to make the appropriate distinctions. Occupying an office materially, only involves designation. Occupying an office formally (this is, having Authority) does require to be a member of the Church. An example of this, St. Ambrose who received the designation to the episcopacy of Milan while he was still a catechumen (and therefore not baptized and outside the Catholic Church). If he had refused baptism, he would not have been able to receive authority, but would have remained a bishop-elect until this designation had been taken away from him. He was not even a member of the Church when he was elected as Bishop of Milan.

The distinction here is between the notions of Act and Potency. While this example of course does not apply to the current situation, it is a good one to demonstrate that it is possible, even remotely, for a non member of the Church to occupy an office only materially.

There are just not easy answers for this crisis. I am genuinely interested in knowing how an absolute sedevacantist resolves the problem of Apostolicity, if the false pope does not keep the power of designation.    
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 10:45:34 AM
It's no surprise that you say that. This destroys your heretical "sededoubtism". This whole dissecting the authority of the Pope and depriving him of certain powers is heretical.

I say it because it's true.  I guess that Bishop Guerard des Laurier was also an idiot who didn't understand Vatican I ... unlike yourself.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 10:48:39 AM
Quote
That notorious heretics cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church is a matter of faith and divine law.

No it's not.  It has nothing to do with faith and morals.  Holding office and governmental matters are TEMPORAL aspects of the papacy/Church.
Also, a papal bull is simply a legal document.  I could be related to faith/morals, it could not be.  Depends on the subject matter.

Further, the catholic encyclopedia is not even remotely authoritative in any way, shape or form.

Finally, your quote from Pius XII where he changed the canon law penalties (i.e. he altered the 'ipso facto' excommunication penalties), means that a private heretic, or even a public heretic (ipso facto excommunicated person) can take part in papal elections and church govt.  This means, by extension, that they could also be elected.  This means that when sedes argue that John XXIII couldn't have been elected because he was a freemason, and his election was null, that this argument doesn't apply anymore.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 15, 2017, 11:18:56 AM
No it's not.  It has nothing to do with faith and morals.  Holding office and governmental matters are TEMPORAL aspects of the papacy/Church.
Also, a papal bull is simply a legal document.  I could be related to faith/morals, it could not be.  Depends on the subject matter.

Further, the catholic encyclopedia is not even remotely authoritative in any way, shape or form.

Finally, your quote from Pius XII where he changed the canon law penalties (i.e. he altered the 'ipso facto' excommunication penalties), means that a private heretic, or even a public heretic (ipso facto excommunicated person) can take part in papal elections and church govt.  This means, by extension, that they could also be elected.  This means that when sedes argue that John XXIII couldn't have been elected because he was a freemason, and his election was null, that this argument doesn't apply anymore.

That's a very good analysis, but the sedes won't pay any attention, because they are hindered in their ability to see past their sede thesis. They won't even look at or consider anything that doesn't fit into their pre-conceived notion of truth. They are impeded, or handicapped, unfortunately. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 11:42:48 AM
Lastdays and Bellator Dei,
I would suggest you find an independent source to explain what Pius XII's change means.

Secondly, you assert that there is a 'divine impediement' regarding excommunicated persons holding office.  Please provide a source from scripture/tradition. 

If you provide a source from a pope, unless it is a dogmatic, infallible statement, then it is not of divine origin, but is simply a papal order, which can be changed by another pope at a later time, which is what Pius XII did.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 15, 2017, 11:49:08 AM
Any pile of dung is a "very good analysis" to you as long as it opposes Catholics who correctly hold the Chair of Peter to be vacant. Did you bother reading my reply? Probably not, since you are so incredibly biased and blind. Did I give my own thesis, or Church teaching regarding divine law? Did I pre-conceive the notion of notorious heretics being considered non-members of the Church and hence unable to hold offices in the Catholic Church? Time to wake up and smell the coffee Meg. Right now you are sound asleep.

You gave your own warped interpretation. That's what sedes do. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 11:58:47 AM
That's a very good analysis, but the sedes won't pay any attention, because they are hindered in their ability to see past their sede thesis. They won't even look at or consider anything that doesn't fit into their pre-conceived notion of truth. They are impeded, or handicapped, unfortunately.

Sure, OK.  Anybody who doesn't approach the crisis exactly as you do is "hindered", "impeded", or "handcapped"?  It could just as easily said of you that you "won't even look at or consider anything that doesn't fit into [your] pre-conceived notion of truth".  You're extremely arrogant.  There are many valid points on all sides of this question ... which is why it's so confusing.  And there are bad arguments on all sides as well.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 15, 2017, 12:09:08 PM
I merely posted the teachings of the Church. They speak for themselves. Maybe you should try reading them.
And I should add you sentence above "Notorious heretics are not to be considered members of the Church at all."

BECAUSE JESUS AND HIS CHURCH ARE ONE 
Vatican II is many looking forward to the One World Church of all faiths, and their actions prove it!  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 12:13:49 PM
Quote
Pax, your interpretation of Pius XII's statement clearly states that a heretic (a non-Catholic) can be (validly?) elected to the papacy.  Is this what you believe?
I would disagree that a heretic is necessarily a non-catholic because there are various degrees of heresy.  That's an over-generalization.  But whatever...

Aside from that, yes, Pius XII took away all church penalties (i.e. canon law) so that heretics/excommunicants can take part in elections.  It follows, logically, that if they can take part in the elections, then they could also be elected.  You would ask, how is this possible?  It's possible if you separate the papacy's powers into divine and human powers.

Much like the mass is part divine origin and part human, where the Church can change the human aspects of the prayers and certain, non-essential rubrics, so the papacy and church is part divine and part human.  If it were not so, then Christ could not have given to St Peter the keys to "bind and loose."  We all know that the pope cannot change anything of divine origin (i.e. he cannot change the sacraments, or the consecration), therefore he can "bind and loose" only what is human.

Pius XII changed the human rules so that heretics/excommunicants could take part in elections.  We know that a heretic is in the state of sin, and they do not hold the full faith, therefore they would be barred from the spiritual/divine powers of the papacy.  But the human powers of governing, jurisdiction over diocese and running of the church (which is referred to the MATERIAL office) could still be held by a heretic, since these powers are able to be "bound and loosed" by the pope - and Pius XII "loosed" them, whether we like it or not.

Do you understand the limits of one who just has the MATERIAL office of the pope?  It's a HUGE limit.  The pope is basically a glorified paper pusher; a CEO of the vatican's charities and bank - that's it.  Neither I, nor Fr Chazal, nor any other of the many theologians who argue for this opinion are saying that a heretic pope is a good thing...we're saying he's basically meaningless.  He's spiritually impotent.  He's a spiritual sword made of a balloon.  All the material office is concerned with is running the earthly matters of the vatican - payroll, paying bills, appointing new bishops when old ones die, etc. 

Everything else related to the spiritual governance is OFF LIMITS to him; should be ignored; should be cast away.  I don't get why we can't agree on this?  I don't get why you can't see what Fr Chazal is saying?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 12:25:15 PM
It's also possible with the formal-material distinction.

Heretics cease formally to be members of the Church but they remain members materially.  As material members they can hold office, but they cannot exercise the authority that comes with the office.  That's the entire premise of sedeprivationism.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 12:27:38 PM
Do you understand the limits of one who just has the MATERIAL office of the pope?  It's a HUGE limit.  The pope is basically a glorified paper pusher; a CEO of the vatican's charities and bank - that's it.  Neither I, nor Fr Chazal, nor any other of the many theologians who argue for this opinion are saying that a heretic pope is a good thing...we're saying he's basically meaningless. 

IMO, material holding of office would allow him to appoint bishops to their sees, and these sees would have jurisdiction if they themselves were not heretics.  This addresses the problem of ecclesiavacantism that straight sedevacantism labors under.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 15, 2017, 01:02:38 PM
I just showed you that heretics are not members of the Church and hence cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church as per divine law. Why do you continue to lie?

The papacy is not just any office in the Church. My understanding is that the papacy derives it's not from the Church, but from God Himself. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 01:03:16 PM
Quote
IMO, material holding of office would allow him to appoint bishops to their sees, and these sees would have jurisdiction if they themselves were not heretics.  This addresses the problem of ecclesiavacantism that straight sedevacantism labors under.
Yes, makes sense to me.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 01:09:21 PM
If I'm a heretic for believing that Pius X and Pius XII changed the laws of the church (which they have the power to do) and allowed heretics to become popes (in theory), then Pius X and Pius XII are also heretics for doing what they did.  So, for you, Pius IX was the last good pope.  Maybe you'll find something wrong with him too.  This is the chaos which sedevantism leads to...
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:10:45 PM

Congratulations :facepalm:. You have just contradicted the dogma concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (nearly word for word) and have anathematized yourself...
...
Abjure your heresies and do Penance before it is too late.

So, in your estimation, if Pax Vobis were the currently reigning Pope, would have have just lost his office with that last post?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:11:45 PM
If I'm a heretic for believing that Pius X and Pius XII changed the laws of the church (which they have the power to do) and allowed heretics to become popes (in theory), then Pius X and Pius XII are also heretics for doing what they did.  So, for you, Pius IX was the last good pope.  Maybe you'll find something wrong with him too.  This is the chaos which sedevantism leads to...

Yep, this is exactly why I backed away from SVism about 27 years ago or so now.  People shooting from the hip and declaring every other opinion to be heretical.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:17:30 PM
This is your own heretical distinction which was never taught by the Catholic Church.

EVERYthing is heretical with you buffoons.  That's how you discredit sedevacantism.  There's no such thing as simple error, but every darn little mistake is heresy.

There's nothing heretical about material vs. formal holding of office.  Disagree with it if you must, but to label it heretical?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 15, 2017, 01:21:45 PM
The office of Bishop derives from God. Not just the Bishop of Rome. For God chose 12 apostles (not just St. Peter), and the Holy Ghost placed them (as Bishops) to rule the Church of God...

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28 )

The teachings I gave pertained directly to the Papacy anyway. Go back and read them. I posted several of them.

No, the office of the papacy is not just like the office of a bishop. That's what the modernists believe. There is no earthly authority over the Pope. That's what makes it so difficult to deal with a heretical pope. The bishops have ecclesial authority over them, but the Pope does not, since the power of the papacy is derived from God.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 01:26:31 PM
Quote
Vatican I says: "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church...let him be anathema."
Vatican I says: "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has...only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power...let him be anathema."

 This whole theory is definitely condemned. It's astounding that some will claim the Vicar of Christ does not have the fullness of power given him by Christ Himself.

No one who has studied Vatican I for longer than 5 minutes interprets this passage as you do.  In fact, the exact question of a heretic pope came up at Vatican I, and it came up AFTER the council was complete, which proves that the council did not address the question adequately.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 15, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
Limiting the Pope's jurisdiction and/or authority over the Universal Church is heretical. This position is condemned by Vatican I.

Vatican I, Sess. 4, Ch.3, #9: “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

But we begin with the premise that this is NOT the Roman Pontiff at all, but an usurper.

If I were to bring the first paragraph of Cum Ex Apostolatus to disprove your sedevacantism:

Quote
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

...you would probably tell me that you are not judging the Roman Pontiff at all; but a simple man which has either ceased to be pope or was not ever pope to begin with.

The same can apply to the Vatican I quote, which is referring to a true pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 01:30:36 PM
Last Days,
Do you agree, then, that Leo XXIII was the last true pope and that Pius X and XII are heretics for changing canon law papacy procedures?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 01:36:58 PM
Yes, i've read this before.  But this is just an opinion.  It is not an official Church teaching.

If it was anything more than opinion, then Pius X and Pius XII would be heretics, since they rejected this line of thinking.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:42:00 PM
It is a dogma of the Church that heretics are not in any way members of the Church. Hence to claim that they are "in some way a member" is to advance a heretical proposition. Did you read the teachings of the Church that I posted? Are they my words? Did I say the word "alien" or did Pope Leo XIII say it? Think about that before you start labeling someone as a "buffoon". Also, understand that you contradict the V1 dogma on the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (as well) by your man made distinction, so that you actually end up making 2 heretical propositions.

No, it is not DOGMA that heretics cannot be members of the Church.  It is clear and certain teaching ... since the Council of Trent at least, but it's not dogma.  Investigate the theological notes a little bit before spouting off.

That isn't the question.  Question is whether a heretic is automatically deposed from his office.

Bellator Dei just cited a quote which completely backs Father Chazal's position.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 15, 2017, 01:48:54 PM
That's true..  Here's what was said about it:

The Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.


That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:52:56 PM
That's true..  Here's what was said about it:

Let's actually READ the quote you cited.

Quote
the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

So, then, what is there to "DEPOSE" if he is no longer the head of the Church?  So on the one hand he is deposed by God Himself while, on the other, deposed by the "Council of Bishops".  If God has already deposed him, then in what way is the Church deposing him?  What's left to depose?

It's quite clear that there's a distinction here and that we're speaking about different kinds of deposition.

We know that no earthly authority, but only God Himself, can depose a pope ... since the pope's authority comes from God.  That's why theologians who have dealt with this subject treat of a distinction between deposing the pope authoritatively (taking away his authority) and deposing the pope ministerially or declaratively.  In the first case, God takes away his formal authority as pope.  In the second case, the Council of Bishops can strip away his material possession of the office.

Also the quote cited the fact that no one is bound to listen to a heretical pope ... again perfectly backing up the John of St. Thomas position and the one adopted by Father Chazal.  This quote basically say that BOTH Bellarmine and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas are right in their own way.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:55:08 PM
That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.

Exactly.  What is the Council deposing if the heretical pope has already been deposed by God?  There's SOMEthing left to depose.  Sedeprivationism holds that the material possession of the office is then stripped away by a Council.  This follows Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and Bishop des Lauriers.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 15, 2017, 01:57:11 PM
You claimed that that the Papacy was different from that of other Bishops because it derived from God. You said...

"The papacy is not just any office in the Church. My understanding is that the papacy derives it's not from the Church, but from God Himself."

Instead of admitting your error (that the office of Bishop did not derive from God), you go and put words in my mouth. I know very well that the Bishops do not have authority over the Pope. That is not my contention. The Church teaches that notorious heretics are not members of the Catholic Church in any way. Non members of the Catholic Church cannot be Popes. This is Church teaching. This is taught dogmatically in Cum Ex, also by the doctors of the Church and also shown in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The teaching that non members of the Church (particularly notorious heretics) cannot hold offices applies even more so for a Pope because of his greater responsibility. Common sense (alone) should tell you that.

And yet there have been heretical popes in the past. How do account for that?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 01:57:46 PM
Quote
That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.
True, but the change in canon law made by Pius X and XII supercedes these penalties.  Before, a heretic was censured automatically and ceases to be a catholic; now, such penalties are not in effect.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 01:58:10 PM
It's dogma. Is Cantate Domino (Council Florence) not dogma to you? If not, then there is nothing that I can do to help you.

Non members of the Church cannot hold office. This includes notorious heretics. How many times do I have to post this?

Not even close.  Cantate Domino nowhere uses the term membership.  MUCH less does it teach that non-members cannot at least materially hold office in the Church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 02:01:04 PM
I'm only interested in what the Catholic Church has taught. Thanks anyway.

What incredible hubris!  You clowns INVARIABLY equate your personal theological positions with the teaching of the Catholic Church.  You make yourselves mini-popes.  That is what repulses so many people against your position.  You think that you're defending it but you only discredit it with each post.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 02:02:27 PM
Quote
Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).
This is outdated.  Superceded by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

Quote
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio , Feb. 15, 1559: “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... 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... (ii)  it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity  (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the  office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of  administration, nor 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;...” 
This is outdated.  Superceded by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

Quote
Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)


St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: " 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
This is all theological opinion.  Overruled by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

Quote
Pope Leo XIII,  Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:  “The practice of the Church has always b een the same, as is shown by the unanimous  teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND  ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE  MAGISTERIUM.” 
This is outdated.  Superceded by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

Quote
St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church,  The Catholic Controversy , pp.  305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."  

St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 :  “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and  condemn him as a heretic.

St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice , II, 30:  “For, in the first place,  it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed . The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate –  which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence . And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of  Christ.” 

This is all theological opinion.  Overruled by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 02:04:05 PM
Quote
I understand...  But (V1 commentary) directly in line with what Bellarmine says about Pope Liberius:

This is all theological opinion.  Overruled by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 02:28:51 PM
Quote
One must be notoriously heretical. He must publicly teaching heresy to the whole Church. Not an opinion (such as John XXII). Not a private letter (Such as Honorius I).
If you watched the video, Fr Chazal mentions Pascal II who no doubt was a heretic because the college of cardinals were discussing his removal.  Some wanted to say he was automatically removed, but it was decided that a formal process was needed.  How do you answer this fact of history?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 15, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
Once one is considered to be a Roman Pontiff, full and supreme jurisdiction comes with it. Period. To depose him, just means to depose a heretic. The word "him" refers to "him" the heretic and not "him" the Pope. For after he says that "the Council of Bishops could depose him", he says "for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic."


"the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church"

Notice that they are not deposing a Pope, but a heretic. For the Pope had already become a heretic (by his heresy), and is alien to the Church.

Well, yes, at the point of deposing, they would be deposing the heretic and not the Pope. He would have lost the Pontificate (before God) at the very first moment of heresy; but he still occupies the office until is taken away from him by the competent authority (council of bishops). 

Now apply that reasoning to the Vatican I quote, which is referring to the true pontiff, who of course, has a full and supreme jurisdiction; but we start from the basic premise that we are dealing with a false pope, and not a true pontiff. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 02:38:17 PM
Quote
This is all theological opinion.  Overruled by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
Yes and no.  Yes, it's overruled that a pope is no longer automatically barred from being elected.  No, it's not contrary to Pius X and XII's rules that a heretic pope can still be deposed by the cardinals or council.  Pius X and XII were only changing the rules for the ELECTION of a pope; not what happens afterwards to remove him.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 02:42:29 PM
Quote
How can a false pope occupy a real office? Can anyone who says they occupy the office actually occupy it?

It's happening right now, in rome.  Francis sits in the chair of St Peter.  He appoints new bishops; alters dioceses; changes rules about non-essential, non-moral matters.  He's running the temporal side of the government of the Church.  That's reality.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 15, 2017, 02:56:09 PM
I'll fix it for you...

"It's happening right now, in rome.  Francis sits in the chair of St Peter.  He appoints new false bishops; alters places fake bishops in dioceses; changes rules about non-essential, non-moral matters in a false counterfeit church. He's running the temporal side of the government of a false counterfeit Church.  That's reality."

Yep, that's reality.  


OR

I could just tell you the same thing you keep telling everyone else - Your post is merely an opinion...don't be so dogmatic about it, man.
Ahhh, the mind of sedes, they have no pope, no bishops, no cardinals, no Church - by design.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 15, 2017, 03:11:28 PM
Ahhh, the mind of a man who claims to be the good subject of a heretic - knowingly and willingly.  
Ahhh, the man who claims God is a heretic, and nothing can change his mind.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 03:14:17 PM
Quote
Neither Pope St. Pius X or Pope Pius XII changed the rules to allow heretics (non-Catholics) to be elected pope. 
Bellator Dei,
So if they didn't change the rules, what did they change?  What was the purpose of their documents?  Of course, those officials who, (BEFORE V2 mind you), study such things would totally disagree with you.

Secondly, if Pius X and XII did change such rules (and they did, this is historical fact), are you willing to label them heretics?

Further, as you like to quote from V1 and since V1 declares that the pope enjoys supreme jurisdiction, how can you say that they have not the power to change such things?  Are you denying that Pius X and XII were true popes? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 15, 2017, 03:16:55 PM
C'mon, man...  That's just nonsense.  All you can do to try and save face is make up lies about people.  That's not very nice, and certainly not very Catholic of you, sir.  
You're the one who believes it is dogma that being subject to the pope is being subject to God, yet you say the pope is a heretic, ergo, God is a heretic.

Ahhhh, the screwed up minds of the dogmatic sedes.

Have you guys ever found out where your Church is yet?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 03:18:44 PM
V1 condemns the idea of a material Papacy.

No, it most certainly does not ... despite how many times you want to huff and puff and say the same thing.

Yeah, sure, theological heavyweight des Lauriers is just too much of an idiot to know that he's directly contradicting Vatican I.  You should have been around to correct him with your catechism in hand.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 15, 2017, 03:19:56 PM
Bellator Dei,
So if they didn't change the rules, what did they change?  What was the purpose of their documents?  Of course, those officials who, (BEFORE V2 mind you), study such things would totally disagree with you.

Secondly, if Pius X and XII did change such rules (and they did, this is historical fact), are you willing to label them heretics?

Further, as you like to quote from V1 and since V1 declares that the pope enjoys supreme jurisdiction, how can you say that they have not the power to change such things?  Are you denying that Pius X and XII were true popes?
Dogmatic sedes don't answer questions - except with questions.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 15, 2017, 03:20:40 PM
"the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church"

Notice that they are not deposing a Pope, but a heretic. For the Pope had already become a heretic (by his heresy), and is alien to the Church.

Deposing him from WHAT?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 15, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
EVERYthing is heretical with you buffoons.  That's how you discredit sedevacantism.  There's no such thing as simple error, but every darn little mistake is heresy.

There's nothing heretical about material vs. formal holding of office.  Disagree with it if you must, but to label it heretical?
I would like to point out here that some of the most well-known "totalist" sedevacantists (ie. Fr Cekada) do not consider the material/formalist sedevacantists (Bishop Sanborn) as heretical (and vice versa). 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 03:27:57 PM
Quote
I would like to point out here that some of the most well-known "totalist" sedevacantists (ie. Fr Cekada) do not consider the material/formalist sedevacantists (Bishop Sanborn) as heretical (and vice versa).
Probably changes day to day.  I can see some rabid sedes sitting by the fire thinking:  "Hmm, should I consider them a heretic or not?  Well, probably, since they disagree with me, but it is Advent, so I'll give them a pass...for now."
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 03:42:21 PM

Quote
You're the once claiming that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII changed the rules so as to allow heretics to be elected to the papacy!!  That's utter nonsense and I've never heard this argument until now.  


This is new to me too; just heard about it.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter...


Quote
Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945:
"34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."


Translation:
No cardinal may, in any way, no matter whatever Church penalty they have incurred (i.e. excommunication, suspension, interdict, heresy) be excluded from the conclave.  All penalties are suspended only for the conclave.  At other times, the penalties are to remain in effect.

Meaning:
A cardinal who is a heretic, excommunicate, or other can be an active participant in the conclave.

Conclusion:
Heretical/excommunicated Cardinals are allowed to elect a new pope; their penalties are suspended during the conclave.
All Cardinals present at the conclave are eligible to be elected as pope.
Therefore, heretical/excommunicated cardinals are eligible to be elected as pope, since their penalties are suspended.  Once the election is over, their penalties return.

This is the conclusion of what Pius XII said.  Pius X's order is similar.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 04:05:32 PM
Pius XII mentions excommunication.  All heretics are excommunicated, therefore a lifting of this penalty applies to heretics.

It's on you to prove that there is such a thing as a divine impediemnt to the papacy.  If there is, then it has to come directly from Christ.  So where in scripture does Christ tell us that heretics cannot hold material office?  The examples of Annas and Chaiphas, whom Our Lord and the Apostles recognized as authority figures, are examples which refute your assertion.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 15, 2017, 04:10:59 PM
From physically occupying an office  of   which he has NO RIGHT  TO  being the heretic that he is.

Correction: 

From physically occupying an office to which he has NO RIGHT, being the heretic that he is.    ;)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 15, 2017, 04:15:29 PM
28...
.
But the rhetoric is getting more heated:

you are a shameless liar and heretic
you continue to spew your venom.
This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've heard yet on cathinfo
How many times do I have to post this?
 You make yourselves mini-popes.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 04:24:27 PM
2nd request for "Last Days"
Please define:  divine impediment to the papacy.
Please prove:  Heresy is a divine impediement to the papacy.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 15, 2017, 05:21:24 PM
Probably changes day to day.  I can see some rabid sedes sitting by the fire thinking:  "Hmm, should I consider them a heretic or not?  Well, probably, since they disagree with me, but it is Advent, so I'll give them a pass...for now."
Actually, no, for these two it doesn't change day by day. I pointed it out so that the sedevacantists on this thread that are saying the material/formalists are heretics would re-consider their condemnations.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 15, 2017, 05:48:24 PM
2nd request for "Last Days"
Please define:  divine impediment to the papacy.
Please prove:  Heresy is a divine impediement to the papacy.
"Divine impediment" is a Lastdays sede-term.

We've debated the constitution of Pius X and XII in the past, re: the popes making it a law that even heretic cardinals had to vote in the conclave. As Fr. Chazal so eloquently explained, the pope didn't mention the word heretic in his law because heretics are inclusive of the excommunicated who had to vote- and don't forget, the popes made it a requirement, they had to vote in the conclave.

This whole idea is altogether inconceivable to the dogmatic sedes.   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 05:55:11 PM
Quote
actually, no, for these two (Fr Cekada vs Bishop Sanborn) it doesn't change day by day. I pointed it out so that the sedevacantists on this thread that are saying the material/formalists are heretics would re-consider their condemnations.
2Vermont,
Thanks for the post; good point.  Sorry, I assumed your post was negative.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 05:59:09 PM
Quote
"Divine impediment" is a Lastdays sede-term.

This is what I assumed.  He is inferring this idea from a few papal decrees, which is understandable because they usually talk about heretics being against God, but theologians do not make this dinstinction.  

I had never heard of the Pius X and XII decrees until Fr Chazal mentioned them.  They are VERY important to the discussion.  If these popes foresaw the coming catastrophe (and they would be in the best position to see it, because they know who in Rome was orthodox or not) then their decisions are a testament that, even in the midst of a monsterous storm, God's Divine Providence is always prepared and planning ahead.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 15, 2017, 06:04:14 PM
2Vermont,
Thanks for the post; good point.  Sorry, I assumed your post was negative.  
No problem Pax Vobis.  I understand.  I was in a rush to post at the time and probably could have phrased it better.

Here's a link to Bishop Sanborn's explanation of the Cassiciacum Thesis.  You will see that he addresses totalist vs material-formalist views:

http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf

Here is one part that is relevant to my earlier post:

Q. Does not the thesis cause a rift among sedevacantists? A. No. This discussion has been going on since the 1970’s among sedevacantists. Totalists and material-formalists respectfully disagree on the issue, but it has never caused any kind of rift among them. They commonly work together and have friendly contacts one with another.

I'm not convinced of the Thesis but I am open to it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2017, 06:56:15 PM
Great point.  That's why this topic is important because we are distinguishing that the pope still occupies the material office, even though, in the grand scheme of things, this is a VERY SMALL amount of power he has, due to his own acceptance of heresy.  And it's important that he occupies it due to the NECESSITY for the church to be visible.  If the Church disappears, visibly, then we are all Protestants.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 15, 2017, 07:07:27 PM
You know, I was just thinking while reading this thread: 99% of the world's Roman Catholic population recognize Francis and his Vatican 2 predecessors as popes.

We are debating and reading through these various arguments but consider for a minute that Our Lord has permitted billions to be duped. Whether actual, material or vacante thesis applies.

No wonder Leo XIII collapsed at the vision he saw before penning the Prayer to Saint Michael.

Whoever you think is right on this thread just pause for a minute and consider the fact that ...

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/eaaee9496289357c311f6342634a8cb525e77d36/c=515-0-2997-1866&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/03/22/USATODAY/USATODAY/636258002123728460-AFP-AFP-MV9RR.jpg)
... most Catholics consider Francis as the Vicar of Christ!

.
So then why doesn't Francis ever SAY he is the Vicar of Christ?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.csmonitor.com%2Fcsm%2F2015%2F07%2F922920_1_pope-francis_standard.jpg%3Falias%3Dcinema_428x228&sp=c3b3e9363c7776fad5d9a9d6d0c9f7c8)(https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2015/07/922920_1_pope-francis_standard.jpg?alias=cinema_428x228)
.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 15, 2017, 07:19:47 PM
How do you figure that?  Our Lord didn't institute the Church until Pentecost Sunday.
.
That was AFTER His time.

It's easy to verify that in Christ's time the High Priests were chosen in a manner which was not in accord with the Mosaic Law; the legitimate line of High Priests lived in exile in Egypt. Yet scripture tells us that Caiphas was a High Priest and does not address his legitimacy directly; the Apostles had to keep quiet on some of the scandals of the Jewish people to ensure the conversion of the Gentiles.

The Jewish hierarchy was also never promised infallibility.

They were infallible under certain conditions; the analogy between the Mosaic High Priesthood and the Papacy was one of the things that convinced rabbi David Drach to become a Catholic in the 19th century.

On the other hand, the Church was promised infallibility and the Church has already decreed that heresy automatically renders the heretic outside the Church and results in the loss of office--even before any declaratory sentence (N.B. Nestorius).  With these Bible verses, the only relevant passages would be those passages that say Church officials do not lose office due to heresy (of which there are none).

This is a half-truth, and a half-truth can be more dangerous than a complete falsehood. A heretic or schismatic who's maintained in his office by a higher authority can retain his jurisdiction
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 16, 2017, 12:03:28 AM
From physically occupying an office of which he has NO RIGHT TO being the heretic that he is.

That is the material occupancy right there. Add to that physical presence, the power of designation (so he can still appoint cardinals and bishops and therefore, have an actual way of continuing the Church; instead of falling into ecclesiavacantism) and you have the core of the Thesis of Cassiciacum, which I now believe to be the most proximate to the truth... at least until a totalist sedevacantist can come up with a reasonable solution to the problem of Apostolic succession. I have open ears to a totalist sedevacantist telling me how the Church can continue if the false pope does not have the faculty to nominate valid bishops and cardinals. Those who believe Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope will have a difficult time coming up with this solution and the difficulty is getting worse by the day, since the old cardinals appointed by him are dying.

So....I have not heard such a reasonable solution coming from a totalist sedevacantist as of yet.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 16, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
Bp. Guérard ("Guérard des Lauriers" is a family name; his given name was Michel-Louis) did not actually believe that a purely material pope could make valid ecclesiastical appointments. His thesis is best understood as a form of totalist sedevacantism which does its best to avoid the theological absurdities inherent in totalist sedevacantism by positing a metaphysical absurdity instead.

I on the other hand agree with Fr. Chazal that Francis et. al. can make valid appointments and would presumably enjoy infallibility were they to define a doctrine with all the required theological notes (as John Paul II did when he condemned the ordination of women), but that we should reject everything that does not fall under strict infallibility as defined at Vatican I (including canonizations) as potentially tainted with heresy.

The "material-formalists" in this thread (and I'm one of them) would do well to cast aside the material-formal dichotomy and speak in terms of validity and legitimacy. Francis is a valid pope, but we can make a personal judgment on the basis of his exteriorized heresies that he has lost whatever legitimate right to the pontificate he may once have held.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 16, 2017, 03:20:38 AM
This is what I assumed.  He is inferring this idea from a few papal decrees, which is understandable because they usually talk about heretics being against God, but theologians do not make this dinstinction.  

I had never heard of the Pius X and XII decrees until Fr Chazal mentioned them.  They are VERY important to the discussion.  If these popes foresaw the coming catastrophe (and they would be in the best position to see it, because they know who in Rome was orthodox or not) then their decisions are a testament that, even in the midst of a monsterous storm, God's Divine Providence is always prepared and planning ahead.  
Yes, because Pope Pius X and XII never actually gave their reasoning for including excommunicated cardinals in the conclave, we can only guess their reasons behind it, but they clearly did not exclude any cardinal whatsoever. The fact is, both popes Pius X and XII made it a requirement, iow, it was not a suggestion or an option - every cardinal that was capable of voting HAD to be part of the conclave and HAD vote, without regard to any censures they might be under, or suspected of, or falsely accused of being under at the time.



I hadn't considered it before but I really like the possible reason that Fr. Chazal's gave betterthan mine, here is another possible reason to consider that I wrote here: (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/can-the-'sede'-question-be-discussed-academically/msg474259/?topicseen#msg474259)

Quote
St. Pius X in 1904 said:
 
 “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
 
 
 Pius XII in 1945 said:
 
 “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

"....it is the popes who appoints or creates the cardinals. Presumably the popes appoint only cardinals they trust, those who are strong in the faith and who are the accusers of heretics, not themselves heretics. They only appoint cardinals they trust will vote the right candidate into office.

If you look at it from pope Pius X and XII's point of view, it actually makes more sense for popes Pius X and XII to make the conclave all inclusive regardless of the cardinal's presumed censure, so as to ensure that the cardinals they appointed will out number or have majority vote or in some way sway the votes in the election of his predecessor, thus helping to insure that the next pope is a good one, even if there are heretical cardinals casting votes  in the conclave.

Comparing Cum ex with the new rules, it's as though Pope Paul IV did not trust his cardinals to be faithful, whereas Pius X and XII trusted and depended on their cardinals."


Either way, the law is the law and the popes made a law that apparently, actually risked voting a heretic into the office of the papacy.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 16, 2017, 03:59:02 AM
You know, I was just thinking while reading this thread: 99% of the world's Roman Catholic population recognize Francis and his Vatican 2 predecessors as popes.

We are debating and reading through these various arguments but consider for a minute that Our Lord has permitted billions to be duped. Whether actual, material or vacante thesis applies.

No wonder Leo XIII collapsed at the vision he saw before penning the Prayer to Saint Michael.

Whoever you think is right on this thread just pause for a minute and consider the fact that most Catholics consider Francis as the Vicar of Christ!
This is the common saying or misconception, but Our Lord played no part in the people choosing to be duped. Our Lord gave us everything we need and then some, specifically so that we would *not* allow ourselves to get duped into sinning, no matter who wants us to sin or who sits in the Chair.

People cannot and will not be led to where they refuse to go, people will only allow themselves to be led to where they really want to go, this is true regardless of who sits in the Chair. Rest assured that no one will be able to blame anyone but themselves if they end up in hell. They will not blame their parents, their teachers, their comrades in sin, nor will they be able to blame their priest, bishops or pope, it's all on them. But Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. - Jeremias 23:1





   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 16, 2017, 06:47:57 AM
Bp. Guérard ("Guérard des Lauriers" is a family name; his given name was Michel-Louis) did not actually believe that a purely material pope could make valid ecclesiastical appointments. His thesis is best understood as a form of totalist sedevacantism which does its best to avoid the theological absurdities inherent in totalist sedevacantism by positing a metaphysical absurdity instead.

I on the other hand agree with Fr. Chazal that Francis et. al. can make valid appointments and would presumably enjoy infallibility were they to define a doctrine with all the required theological notes (as John Paul II did when he condemned the ordination of women), but that we should reject everything that does not fall under strict infallibility as defined at Vatican I (including canonizations) as potentially tainted with heresy.

The "material-formalists" in this thread (and I'm one of them) would do well to cast aside the material-formal dichotomy and speak in terms of validity and legitimacy. Francis is a valid pope, but we can make a personal judgment on the basis of his exteriorized heresies that he has lost whatever legitimate right to the pontificate he may once have held.
It is my understanding that the "material/formalists" of the Cassiciacum Thesis still do not believe that the papal claimant is valid/legitimate.  In other words they believe, just as the totalists believe, that he is a false pope.  I think once one understands this then the CT makes more sense.  The CT is not saying that a valid, true pope can only be a material valid pope.  It sounds like Fr Chazal's beliefs are not the same as the Cassiciacum Thesis.  I think this is what Cantarella has been trying to explain. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 16, 2017, 07:00:47 AM
Well, yes, at the point of deposing, they would be deposing the heretic and not the Pope. He would have lost the Pontificate (before God) at the very first moment of heresy; but he still occupies the office until is taken away from him by the competent authority (council of bishops).

Now apply that reasoning to the Vatican I quote, which is referring to the true pontiff, who of course, has a full and supreme jurisdiction; but we start from the basic premise that we are dealing with a false pope, and not a true pontiff.
Exactly.  This distinction must be made and then there is no contradiction with Vatican I.  On the other hand, there are some on this thread that are saying that a true and valid pope can have the material office only.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 16, 2017, 07:34:18 AM

This is new to me too; just heard about it.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter...



Translation:
No cardinal may, in any way, no matter whatever Church penalty they have incurred (i.e. excommunication, suspension, interdict, heresy) be excluded from the conclave.  All penalties are suspended only for the conclave.  At other times, the penalties are to remain in effect.

Meaning:
A cardinal who is a heretic, excommunicate, or other can be an active participant in the conclave.

Conclusion:
Heretical/excommunicated Cardinals are allowed to elect a new pope; their penalties are suspended during the conclave.
All Cardinals present at the conclave are eligible to be elected as pope.
Therefore, heretical/excommunicated cardinals are eligible to be elected as pope, since their penalties are suspended.  Once the election is over, their penalties return.

This is the conclusion of what Pius XII said.  Pius X's order is similar.
Isn't there a difference between the crime of heresy (canon law/ecclesiastical) and sin of heresy (divine law)?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 16, 2017, 09:20:51 AM
It is my understanding that the "material/formalists" of the Cassiciacum Thesis still do not believe that the papal claimant is valid/legitimate.  In other words they believe, just as the totalists believe, that he is a false pope.  I think once one understands this then the CT makes more sense.  The CT is not saying that a valid, true pope can only be a material valid pope.  It sounds like Fr Chazal's beliefs are not the same as the Cassiciacum Thesis.  I think this is what Cantarella has been trying to explain.

That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)


St. Bellarmine refers to the first and third of these elements here. If you notice, he also clearly makes the distinction between matter / form:

Quote
“... the cardinals, when they create a Pontiff, exercise their authority, not on the pope as such, since he is not yet such, but on the matter, that is to say, on the person which they dispose in some way by the election in order that he might receive from God the form of the pontificate.”

The thesis argues that the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, that is, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, so he is not formally the Pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 16, 2017, 09:41:50 AM
Talk about splitting hairs!  How can Fr Cekada take such a complicated matter, expect everyone to agree with him, and then propose that if priests say the pope's in the canon ('una cum'), they are in union with a heretic?

I have less and less respect for Fr Cekada's divisiveness the more I see the complexity of the issue - is the pope just valid, or just material or (insert theological distinction here)?  I need to pray for God to grant me the grace of forgiveness because the amount of turmoil, hate, and chaos he has caused, over minute points such as these is ABOMINABLE!  He has caused just as much destruction to the unity of trads as the heretics in Rome have caused to catholicity overall!
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 16, 2017, 10:16:31 AM
Talk about splitting hairs!  How can Fr Cekada take such a complicated matter, expect everyone to agree with him, and then propose that if priests say the pope's in the canon ('una cum'), they are in union with a heretic?

I have less and less respect for Fr Cekada's divisiveness the more I see the complexity of the issue - is the pope just valid, or just material or (insert theological distinction here)?  I need to pray for God to grant me the grace of forgiveness because the amount of turmoil, hate, and chaos he has caused, over minute points such as these is ABOMINABLE!  He has caused just as much destruction to the unity of trads as the heretics in Rome have caused to catholicity overall!
Huh?  What does this have to do with the difference between a totalist and a materialist-formalist sedevacantist?  Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada actually both agree on the una cum issue.
I think your hatred for Fr Cekada does blind you.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 16, 2017, 10:21:50 AM
That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)


St. Bellarmine refers to the first and third of these elements here. If you notice, he also clearly makes the distinction between matter / form:

The thesis argues that the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, that is, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, so he is not formally the Pope.
I think the totalists would argue that heretics don't have the correct "matter" either.  If the Cardinals elected a woman, then she still wouldn't be materially pope.  She is not a man and therefore does not have proper matter.  Likewise, a non-Catholic man does not have proper matter.  I think the key here for material/formalists is that the man was not "elected" per se, but "designated".  

ETA: Cantarella definitely correct me if my understanding is wrong about election vs designation....I have read the Thesis and tried to make sense of it, but I know my understanding is shaky.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 16, 2017, 11:44:46 AM
That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)



Can you explain where #3 is derived from in Church teaching? I've never heard of "Plentitude of power" at all anywhere in Church teaching.

That's doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But I'd like to know where in Church teaching it comes from specifically.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 16, 2017, 11:57:54 AM

Prima sedes a nemine judicatur.  This is Canon 1556, which I failed to quote in my book, though I did state the fact of the law and the ecclesiastical admonition.  These words mean:  "The First Chair is judged by no one," which means that none of the pope's subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the throne of St. Peter.  We may judge his theology and his public acts, as we are bound to judge the beliefs and ideas of everyone with whom we come into serious contact; but we may not judge whether he is the legitimate pope.  Sedevacantists claim to be very expert about Canon 181, but Canon 1556 has somehow eluded them.    - Fr. Wathen



Sedes are :  Impatient - anarchists - and prone to lynching.  They, themselves, are of no authority to do anything about these Popes except avoid their Masses, their bad advice or commands, and to pray for them.  The Church in the future will evaluate and decide concerning the Vatican II Popes - then we will know the full of it all and will abide accordingly.  

There is no knowing EVERYTHING that has gone on in these modern Pontificates - the Church will weed all this out in the future.  There is much hidden, and in the background, that we do not know and that will make a difference.  Let the future Church do Her work.  That is how She goes about Her duty.  The manner in which this will take place Our Lord knows, and is quite capable of accomplishing, though to us it seems impossible.  "Why are you fearful, o ye of little faith?"  - to the frightened apostles in the boat.

There is no knowing EVERYTHING of misinformation we have perhaps been given on these Popes that the sedes think they possess - even in the day of the Internet.   For all we know of the full story, "Sedevacantism" could be a theory backed and promoted by Our Lord's enemies just to ensure confusion and discord in the ranks of those resisting their Vat. II Council. (And by the way, who is giving money to this sedevacantism movement and theory - is there some nefarious interest being the financial backer to this thing or these supporters?) 

That is why we leave it to the future Church to deal with this.  Meanwhile, we keep to our orthodox Catholic life as best we can in this age of Modernism.  

God does not expect more of us than he would of, say, 12th century Catholics in a similar situation.  No Internet there for finding out the hidden scoop and then presuming to make everyone somehow responsible for it.  How about the Great Western Schism?  Three different Popes with saints on the side of all of them, and souls supporting all three.  Only one could have been the true Pope, and maybe none were.  Did God condemn the confused, or those wrong in the matter?  Did the holy saint go into sin over a bad choice and lose chance of canonization/salvation?  No - the Church went on to the other side of the problem:  She dismissed the three candidates and elected another, entirely separate one - behind whom all gathered.  And the supporting saints of the various "Popes" were none the less holy or canonized for the experience.  All the Church expected was for souls to keep the Commandments and Precepts - to keep personally their orthodox faith and keep free from sin. And then to back Her final solution to the crisis.  


Sedevacantism is a good way for those wanting their own Church, nay territory to rule (say we, "kingdom"?), to have as an excuse for just going off on their own, and having to answer to nobody.  How hard is obedience - how heady we can be!  And with such anarchy goes their spirit of humility, meekness - and orthodoxy on other matters as well.  They are judge, jury and executioner of the Vat. II Popes, though being NOBODY themselves - having no authority themselves.  They take over the Church's job - Her future job.  

And (often?) they actually say to boot, there is no salvation outside of Sedevacantism!  They make matters worse, if such be possible. Some, maybe most, may mean well - but generally one is left to say:  It's anarchy.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 16, 2017, 03:14:47 PM
Lastdays,

You haven't actually refuted anything that Merry has written. You just repeat the same old tired anarchist sede stuff, hoping that it will convince the non-sedes. It cannot convince us, because what you have written does not show that you the authority to judge that the Seat of Peter is vacant. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 16, 2017, 03:57:49 PM
Right!  What WE think does not matter - we have no AUTHORITY.  It's what the Church finally decides on this situation that matters.

Sure - maybe Francis will be proclaimed to not have been a Pope - same back to John XXIII.  But the CHURCH deciding that in the future and saying so will make it so and all things will go accordingly.  SHE will apply Her laws where they do apply in this matter.   

Meanwhile - don't start making your own Church - don't start casting out and not praying for whoever is given us as Pope.  Don't assume the condemnation and lynch accordingly.  We have no vote.   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 16, 2017, 04:15:41 PM
Please show me the dogmas, authoritative Church teachings and Scriptures. I could care less about the opinions of Merry, Father Wathan or anyone else. Especially yours.

You have proven that you could care less about dogma and Church teaching which refutes your anarchist sede thesis.

You seem to believe that you are above the rest of us, and that your opinion is without question.

Who are you, that you can presume superiority, and claim that whosoever does not agree with you are heretics? Are you not a layman?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 16, 2017, 04:26:54 PM
Lastdays and those like him, are citizens arresters, sheriff, judge and executioner.  

It's illegal but they don't want to quibble about that.  "JUST GET THE ROPE!  Then we'll run things our way."

Not only are they often thickheaded, but they fight with non-sede trads.

They seem bored with keeping their eye on the ball - the Novus Ordo church, the true enemy.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 16, 2017, 07:10:02 PM
Yes, hypocrite I am.  But not on this.  To ignore commands that are sinful is one thing - we all have that duty even regarding what our parents might say.  To say, "It won't be surprising to find that the Church will declare, or find, that these Popes were not actually Popes" - whatever - is certainly understandable given the situation we are in during this Modernist age.  But to usurp the Church's prerogative of a trustworthy, final decision in the future as to what these Vat. II Popes were all about, is entirely a different matter.  Her authority to promulgate about this belongs to Her alone, not the anarchist sedevacantists or hypocrites such as myself.        
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 16, 2017, 08:14:08 PM
Bp. Guérard ("Guérard des Lauriers" is a family name; his given name was Michel-Louis) did not actually believe that a purely material pope could make valid ecclesiastical appointments.

I've read passages of his which state the contrary.  Regardless, I myself do believe that material possession of the See ... which comes from the Church's designation, in turn allows him to designated others to fill those positions.  So, for instance, material Popes JP2 and B16 appointed most of the Cardinals who subsequently elected (designated) Bergoglio as pope.  If Bergoglio were to convert, then Bergoglio would resume formal exercise of the papacy.  So those Cardinals must have been legitimately appointed by a material pope.  Similarly, the material pope could designate bishops.  Those bishops, by virtue of the designation, would enjoy jurisdiction to the extent that they themselves did not have impediments to formally exercising authority (i.e. if they happen not to be heretics themselves).  This most certainly avoids the Ecclesiavacantist heresy that most sedevacantists fall into.  But most sedevacantists who have aligned with the sedeprivationist bishops have tried to morph sedeprivationism into nothing more than sedevacantism.  So, for instance, +Sanborn became a sedeprivationist (after having rejected the notion) when he was told that +McKenna (who received his orders from +des Laurier under the same conditions) wouldn't consecrate him unless he became sedeprivationist.  He thereafter adopted sedeprivationism but simply tried to spin it as nothing more than sedevacantism, which it is not.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 16, 2017, 08:16:58 PM
Lastdays,

You haven't actually refuted anything that Merry has written. You just repeat the same old tired anarchist sede stuff, hoping that it will convince the non-sedes. It cannot convince us, because what you have written does not show that you the authority to judge that the Seat of Peter is vacant.

Honestly, I don't care that you or any of the R&R happen to consider Bergoglio to be a material pope.  But don't tell me that he's formally a pope who has not lost his ability to formally exercise his authority, or I'm going to call you out as a schismatic and a heretic.  You would thereby claim that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline have defected.  This isn't primarily about the identity of the pope, but about the nature of the Church and the Magisterium ... and the overall indefectibility of the Church.  Similarly, the rabid sedevacantists need to stop deposing everyone for heresy, making themselves the pope's judge.  BOTH of these positions completely destroy the Magisterium.  In the one case, the Magisterium can be sifted by Joe Sixpack in the pew, whereas in the other case the entire Magisterium can be pitched wholesale by a different Joe Sixpack.  Neither one of these positions is Catholic.

I accept Father Chazal's position as the most Catholic of them all.  But straight R&R which has Catholics sifting the papal Magisterium is abhorrent.  Straight sedevacantism, especially of the dogmatic variety, is equally abhorrent.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 16, 2017, 08:59:22 PM
Canon 1556: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur - "The first chair is judged by no one."

So what does this mean?  It cannot be said "for nothing."  It must mean something.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 16, 2017, 11:16:36 PM
I think the totalists would argue that heretics don't have the correct "matter" either.  If the Cardinals elected a woman, then she still wouldn't be materially pope.  She is not a man and therefore does not have proper matter.  Likewise, a non-Catholic man does not have proper matter. I think the key here for material/formalists is that the man was not "elected" per se, but "designated".  

ETA: Cantarella definitely correct me if my understanding is wrong about election vs designation....I have read the Thesis and tried to make sense of it, but I know my understanding is shaky.

I believe that your understanding is accurate in the highlighted part but I do not see the distinction between election and designation as far as the legitimacy of the papal conclave is concerned. The thesis does seem to recognize that a conclave was duly and legally convoked and that there was an acceptance of the election. It is only after, (because of the impediment of heresy or the intention to promulgate error) that the elected loses jurisdiction and ceases to be true pope.

According to the thesis, arguing from the basis of Ex Cum Apostolatus, (that the election itself is null because the man elected was already a heretic prior to the conclave), presents a couple of difficulties: First, that the constitution has been indeed abrogated (as far as Ecclesiastical Law, although the dogmatic principles of Divine Law still remain) and second and more importantly, that the prior formal heresy would have to be proved by the competent authority which has not yet happened. Although the heresy of the conciliar popes have been public with regard to fact, it has not been made public with regard to imputability because it has not been legally condemned by any legal procedure.  

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 16, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
I've read passages of his which state the contrary.  Regardless, I myself do believe that material possession of the See ... which comes from the Church's designation, in turn allows him to designated others to fill those positions.  So, for instance, material Popes JP2 and B16 appointed most of the Cardinals who subsequently elected (designated) Bergoglio as pope.  If Bergoglio were to convert, then Bergoglio would resume formal exercise of the papacy.  So those Cardinals must have been legitimately appointed by a material pope.  Similarly, the material pope could designate bishops.  Those bishops, by virtue of the designation, would enjoy jurisdiction to the extent that they themselves did not have impediments to formally exercising authority (i.e. if they happen not to be heretics themselves).  This most certainly avoids the Ecclesiavacantist heresy that most sedevacantists fall into.

This is my understanding as well. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 16, 2017, 11:39:32 PM

Can you explain where #3 is derived from in Church teaching? I've never heard of "Plentitude of power" at all anywhere in Church teaching.

That's doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But I'd like to know where in Church teaching it comes from specifically.

# 3 is derived from the teaching that Divine Assistance is promised to the successors of St. Peter. It is described in Vatican I Decree Pastor Aeternus:

Quote
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.


http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 16, 2017, 11:58:13 PM
A Catholic could've said the same thing in 1854 about the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX where he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You could say that this is a contradiction to what has been said in the past therefore Pius IX can't be a true pope.
 
As I said, it becomes chaotic.

It could be argued that whereas the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had never been condemned before 1854; the teaching of Religious Liberty, for instance, had been indeed before Vatican II. Again, the Catholic Principle of Non- Contradiction.

Was Pope Pius VI assisted by the Holy Ghost when he explicitly condemned the anti-Catholic principle of Religious Liberty as a "monstrous right", "an imaginary dream" in 1791? or Was Paul VI instead, who enjoyed Divine Assistance while promulgating Dignitatis Humanae in 1965?

Which of the two had the protection of the Holy Ghost? Which of the two is right? they both cannot be right.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 12:17:46 AM
Honestly, I don't care that you or any of the R&R happen to consider Bergoglio to be a material pope.  But don't tell me that he's formally a pope who has not lost his ability to formally exercise his authority, or I'm going to call you out as a schismatic and a heretic.  

Yeah, right, I'm a schismatic and heretic because I don't accept your pet interpretations regarding material vs. formal. I don't care about material vs. formal. That's your thing, and it's a big deal to you, but don't expect others to think it's a big deal. It's not, except in your mind.

The Pope is the Pope. Deal with it. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 12:22:09 AM
# 3 is derived from the teaching that Divine Assistance is promised to the successors of St. Peter. It is described in Vatican I Decree Pastor Aeternus:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

So where did that "plentitude of power" saying come from that you used? It's not in the Vl quote you provided. Is it a made-up saying, from a sedevacantist, or something like that?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 17, 2017, 12:54:16 AM
So where did that "plentitude of power" saying come from that you used? It's not in the Vl quote you provided. Is it a made-up saying, from a sedevacantist, or something like that?

It is not "plentitude"; it is plenitude and it means just that: the full power communicated to the pope immediately by God. Given that you are taking such an issue, not even with the notion, but with the wording itself, I invite you to read Fr. Bernard Lucien of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute on the explanation of the Cassiciacum Thesis. It may further resolve your questions. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 17, 2017, 04:29:09 AM
Well, unfortunately you are the other side of the coin to Merry. Unlike Merry you don't reject a pope's teaching, laws etc. Instead you reject those by concluding he must not be a true pope.

Both positions are untenable and chaotic.
The word you are looking for, which leads to being chaotic, is the word "anarchy".

Sedevacantism is inherently anarchistic, "Sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism." -Fr. Wathen
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 17, 2017, 04:49:51 AM
And sifting the Magisterium isn't?
Give an example, or 10 examples, what is "sifting the Magisterium"? I'm off to Mass so I'll check back later.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 17, 2017, 07:03:34 AM
Well, unfortunately you are the other side of the coin to Merry. Unlike Merry you don't reject a pope's teaching, laws etc. Instead you reject those by concluding he must not be a true pope.

Both positions are untenable and chaotic.
I'm confused...what is your position on the Crisis then?  Do you accept Vatican II and the conciliar popes?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 17, 2017, 07:12:10 AM
I believe that your understanding is accurate in the highlighted part but I do not see the distinction between election and designation as far as the legitimacy of the papal conclave is concerned. The thesis does seem to recognize that a conclave was duly and legally convoked and that there was an acceptance of the election. It is only after, (because of the impediment of heresy or the intention to promulgate error) that the elected loses jurisdiction and ceases to be true pope.

According to the thesis, arguing from the basis of Ex Cum Apostolatus, (that the election itself is null because the man elected was already a heretic prior to the conclave), presents a couple of difficulties: First, that the constitution has been indeed abrogated (as far as Ecclesiastical Law, although the dogmatic principles of Divine Law still remain) and second and more importantly, that the prior formal heresy would have to be proved by the competent authority which has not yet happened. Although the heresy of the conciliar popes have been public with regard to fact, it has not been made public with regard to imputability because it has not been legally condemned by any legal procedure.  
Thanks Cantarella.  
As for the bolded:  For at least Francis, his pre-election heresy was public (there is ample evidence of it) and also not condemned by any legal procedure (just as his post-election heresy).  How is this different than his post-election heresy?  Wouldn't those who follow the CT have to at least say that his election was also illegitimate based on the principles they use post-election?  In order to be consistent? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 07:59:07 AM
That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)


St. Bellarmine refers to the first and third of these elements here. If you notice, he also clearly makes the distinction between matter / form:

The thesis argues that the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, that is, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, so he is not formally the Pope.

Please forgive my spelling mistake, Canterella. It was not intentional. 

So the "plenitude  of power" that you list above, and believe that the pope has to have in order to have a legitimate pontificate, is in reality a made-up term by a sedeprivationist. I don't see that St. Bellarmine actually used that terminology. "Plenitude of power" doesn't even sound Catholic. It sounds like a term a charismatic would use, or someone like that. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 17, 2017, 09:16:19 AM
Thanks Cantarella.  
As for the bolded:  For at least Francis, his pre-election heresy was public (there is ample evidence of it) and also not condemned by any legal procedure (just as his post-election heresy).  How is this different than his post-election heresy?  Wouldn't those who follow the CT have to at least say that his election was also illegitimate based on the principles they use post-election?  In order to be consistent?

The Thesis is based on the philosophical principles concerning Authority (jurisdiction); nothing else. The pre-elected man has not even any way to begin receiving this Authority because, well, he has not even been elected!. He is not vessel at all and he does not have the power of designation to start with. The Thesis says that the conciliar Popes (although legitimately elected) are no true popes because of the habitual intention of doing harm and leaves it at that. It is not concerned with the election itself for the reasons given before.

If there was never a legitimate election to begin with, then there was not even a pope-elect. No matter. Yes, it could be argued from a Totalist point of view, that the heretic was never elected to begin with; however, that leaves the problem of eccleasiavacantism; because if the elected man was never elected in fact, he does not have the power of designation, (so who has it? Has the Church ended?). This is, the faculty of nominating others (cardinals & bishops) to occupy offices, potentially have jurisdiction (if there is no impediment) and furthermore, preserve the means to elect a legitimate successor of St. Peter.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 11:28:10 AM
The Church does not end as long as there are valid episcopal orders somewhere in the world. An imperfect council would be called and those with valid episcopal orders would conditionally ordain Priests and consecrate Bishops of Rome (who have abjured their heresies and other errors).  Cardinals would not be absolutely necessary to elect a Pope (as this is an ecclesiastical law which can be dispensed with due to necessity). They would then appoint a new Pope who would in turn appoint new Cardinals. The new Pope would then ratify the council. Then all the novus ordites (Bergoglio and his subjects, such as Stubborn) would be in an uproar and begin to persecute Catholics (as they do today, but worse) led by the true Pope .

Quote from Lastdays above:

"The Church does not end as long as there are valid episcopal orders somewhere in the world. An imperfect council would be called and those with valid episcopal orders would conditionally ordain Priests and consecrate bishops of Rome (who have abjured their heresies and other errors)...."

Who are, may I ask, those who have "valid episcopal orders" in your view? Is it the sedevacantists? I can't imagine that you would think that anyone other than sedes would have valid episcopal orders. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 11:43:15 AM
Resistance Bishops could (and do) certainly have valid episcopal orders. Some, however, will sadly want to remain subjects of Bergoglio (not realizing what the Church has taught regarding notoriously heretical claimants to the Papacy) and would not participate in the imperfect council.

Alright, but don't you believe that Resistance bishops are heretics and schismatics? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 17, 2017, 11:47:14 AM
Quote
The Church does not end as long as there are valid episcopal orders somewhere in the world. 
One would think that in this day and age with the ready availability of technology and such, we could actually track these valid episcopal orders, but nobody seems to knows where they are, so this argument is very vague.

Furthermore, at present time these episcopal offices are most likely filled with notorious heretics anyway, so per your argument, they would turn out to be actually empty.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 11:53:27 AM
They can abjure whatever heresies they may be holding and participate in the imperfect council. For certain they would have to abjure the heresy that notorious heretics (such as Bergoglio) can be considered members of the Catholic Church. If they believe that Bergoglio is not a member of the Church then they would have to abjure the heresy that non-members of the Church can hold ecclesiastical offices in the Catholic Church.

Okay, so the Resistance bishops would have to abjure their so-called heresy before they can hold ecclesiastical office, according to you. But are they, according to you, actual bishops with valid orders at this time....or not?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 11:55:00 AM
One would think that in this day and age with the ready availability of technology and such, we could actually track these valid episcopal orders, but nobody seems to knows where they are, so this argument is very vague.

Furthermore, at present time these episcopal offices are most likely filled with notorious heretics anyway, so per your argument, they would turn out to be actually empty.

A good example of the chaos and confusion that is sedevacantism. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 12:06:32 PM
As long as they were consecrated in the rite used before the heretic Montini's changes, then they have valid orders. Once their heresies were abjured they would be full-fledged Catholic Bishops.

And what are they now? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 12:27:04 PM
They are heretics with valid episcopal orders. Regardless of what heresies they are currently holding, their valid holy orders are not affected. You are confusing the two (heresy and valid orders). Even heretics and schismatics can pass on valid holy orders (once received). They cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church, however, until they abjure their heresies and enter the Catholic Church.

So, at this time, the only true Catholics (who are not heretics) are sedevacantists who hold that there is no pope, correct? 

The scenario that you foresee, for an imperfect council and then true Catholic bishops going to Rome (I presume going to Rome) to consecrate priests; this scenario means that you think that sedes will save the Church. And, if the Resistance bishops abjure their heresy of believing that the Pope is the Pope, then they can join your sede bishops in saving the Church. Is this correct? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 12:46:38 PM
Only Jesus Christ can save the Church. He can use a Catholic (not a heretic) with valid episcopal orders to do this. Just because one is a sedevacantist Bishop, does not mean he does not hold a heresy (particularly regarding the modernist version BOD which some hold).

So as long as a sede bishop does not hold the modern version of the BoD view, then he can be used by God to save the Church. (I assume that you believe that the only true Catholics are sedes who do not hold the modern BoD view).

May I ask about how you arrived at this particular scenario? Is it your own assessment, or did you get it from someone else? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 17, 2017, 02:36:29 PM
An imperfect council resolved the Great Western Schism. It can be used again. I have heard it mentioned before.

Except that there were no sedevacantists around back then. Sedevacantism is a man-centered novelty, born of the modernist crisis, and as such cannot help God to save the Church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 17, 2017, 03:04:49 PM
Not to interrupt, but again, what does Canon 1556 mean: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur - "The first chair is judged by no one."

Also, what is meant by "sifting the magisterium"?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 17, 2017, 03:50:17 PM
It is of divine law that notorious heretics cannot be considered members of the Church, nor hold any office in the Church. They cannot even possess a valid election. Unfortunately, it is the "resisters" who follow the heresies and novelites of man (such as Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Wathan). You have it backwards as usual.
You still have not looked up Divine Law yet? What seems to be the problem? Perhaps this will strike a chord with you......

Very simply, Divine = God + Law is a law given to us directly from the mouth of God Himself. The Ten Commandments are Divine Law, the institution of the papacy is Divine Law, that the Church will last to the end of time might be said to be Divine Law, but there is no Divine Law "that notorious heretics cannot be considered members of the Church, nor hold any office in the Church." That particular law is dogmatic sede law because it only comes directly from the mouths of dogmatic sedes which, contrary to Divine Law, effectively  leaves the world with no pope, no hierarchy, no priests, no Church at all. That is the *only* result of your dogmatic sedeism.  

I understand this will be entirely lost on you, but for the benefit of others whose heads are spinning after reading your novel and twisted dogmatic sede theology; the Church, through a member or members of Her hierarchy, first accuses then judges the sinner, if this does not prompt the sinner to repent, She then dictates which sins are to receive which censures, and She does so primarily for the purpose of prompting the sinner to repent. The primary purpose is not so the Church can run around with glee while shouting the poor bastard has been kicked out of the Church la la la la!

After the Church pronounces Her judgement, Her censures are *always* primarily medicinal in nature with the intent of inducing the sinner to repent, they are never, nor are they ever intended to be an infallible decree that kicks the poor bastard permanently out of the Church and condemn him to hell with no hope at all, no matter how obstinate he is.  


You dogmatic sedes really need to stop [mis]using the teachings of the Catholic Church in your feeble attempts to vindicate sedeism. There are no teachings of the Catholic Church that in any way vindicate sedeism, they all only condemn every variation of it.



 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 17, 2017, 04:27:49 PM
Thank you. Last Days.  I did go back and found the answer you gave earlier about the Canon.  

In conclusion, I say - you sedes are crazy.  Indeed, you believe there is no salvation outside sedevacantism!  That possibility used to be a joke - but now we see it is a truism of you all.  Sedevacantism is a "religion" unto itself.  

The fact that you have no authority to make a final judgement, but then go on to ACT UPON said judgment any way, proves you simply have the bit in your teeth.  Maybe these Popes will be declared by the Church in the future to have not been Popes, or the Church will nullify their pontificates and acts, but it's for the Church to do so! 

Anarchists.  You just add to the trouble.       

 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 17, 2017, 05:28:43 PM

I really like the sede chapel I've been going to. I've never heard a single hallway debate or the constant harping about how right their position is or how the other groups are wrong. I've never heard anything but Catholic truth in the sermons and serious matter for contemplation. The priest doesn't use his pulpit to talk about other priests or bishops selling out or how other Traditionalists groups are so wrong. Don't take that the wrong way. There are SSPX and resistance chapels that kind of have that too. I have no scruple about attending where there is the True Faith and Sacraments by uncompromisingly Catholic (true) priests. Yes, even SSPX chapels still have that in some places.

But attending the sede chapel I go to Mass at now was like a breath of fresh air after only attending with hardline anti-sedevacantists priests. It makes one wonder if certain groups (despite having excellent priests, bishops and religious) has not become a sort of control group to keep SSPX priests from joining the ranks of sedevacantists in the event of the SSPX's fall. I would even go so far to say that some of the anti-sedevacantism in the other groups is based off of emotion and personal issues rather than any substance. To give an example (example deleted by OP) Drive the wedge further down between the groups is all that seemed to do. 

(It's also a relief to be back in the US masses where you don't leave Mass wondering if you attended a High Mass or Low Mass due to incense being used but Leonine prayers being said together with Asperges being sung (at the beginning) but the rest of the Mass simply prayed...)

Each day it seems more and more ridiculous to claim that an openly hostile formal heretic such as Bergoglio is your visible head and spiritual leader. It borders on schismatic to even insist this since it separates one so much from other true Faithful Catholics. A house divided will not stand.

Bishop Williamson is right when he says that the only mere human that can unite Catholics is the pope. Not even a great archbishop could do it.

However, when you listen to the pioneers of the traditionalist movement, especially Canon Lawyer Fr. Hesse, it's so clear to see that they would have rejected the legitimacy of the "papacy" of Bergoglio. If you listen to Fr. Hesse's talk against the sedevacantists during the time of JP2, the contrast is so clear. Everything he says as to why he didn't believe you could say JP2 was invalid cannot be used to defend Bergoglio but actually to demonstrate that he is not a legitimate pope. I think that is HUGE!

And here's, once more, where my problem is with those who oppose the sede vacantist position during Bergoglio. The distinction and argument of material and formal heretic has completely disappeared. It's like the alleged pope has changed so the material/formal arguments have changed. The sede vacantists have not changed their arguments or scrapped them. They are still saying the same thing they've always said. That's why it is increasingly ridiculous for Traditional Catholics to not only separate themselves from the sede vacantists but to also dogmatically affirm that Bergoglio is the true visible head of the Catholic Church and spiritual leader of all Catholics. He is openly hostile to Catholic Truth and is not a member of the Catholic Church. He blurts out things like "today I feel like saying a heresy" and worse things I wouldn't repeat. Fr. Hesse would have been quick to denounce him as an illegitimate pope (that or backtrack and take back every argument he used against the sede vacantists).

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 17, 2017, 05:36:00 PM
Fr. Hesse would have been quick to denounce him as an illegitimate pope (that or backtrack and take back every argument he used against the sede vacantists).
Eh, I wouldn't be so sure.  Don't underestimate the position of the anti-sedevacantists:  "ANYTHING but sedevacantism". 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Incredulous on December 17, 2017, 06:14:22 PM
It's whatever we want it to be.

For example, if Rabbi Streisand says it... I believe it.

(http://www.etonline.com/sites/default/files/images/2016-07/BarbaraStreisand_072916_1280.jpg)
       "Donald Trump is a fake president"




Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 17, 2017, 06:19:42 PM
Wow, she looks awful.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 17, 2017, 08:09:33 PM
Catholics hold that the Chair is empty, because to hold otherwise would be heresy.

Complete and utter garbage.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 17, 2017, 08:12:39 PM
All these quotes pertain to the 'ecclesiastical' penalties related to heresy (i.e. Human element of the penalty), which Pius X and XII suspended for Papal elections.  

I'm still waiting for you to show me the explicit teaching where it explains 'divine impediments' for heresy.  So far, it seems this is your interpretation and not a clear teaching.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 17, 2017, 08:15:07 PM
Indeed it is theologically certain, perhaps even proximate to faith, that heretics are not members of the Church.  This cannot be disputed.  Yet it's not dogma, or de fide.  You often conflate truths of lesser theological notes with heresy ... a common problem with sedevacantists, especially the dogmatic types.  What's at issue is what happens to office and jurisdiction with a heretic, at what point that heretic loses office, and in particular at what point a Pope, who receives authority from God, would lose that authority from God.  Who has to discern the existence of this heresy?  Popes are a special case with regard to authority.  Bellarmine had his opinion, but many other credible theologians had a different position.  Those positions of Cajetan and Johh of St. Thomas et al. have never been condemned as heretical.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 17, 2017, 08:19:49 PM
The resistance (whether they admit it or not) is just another wing of the Novus Ordo sect. Once you accept Bergoglio as holding the office of Roman Pontiff (whether material or otherwise), you are a member of that sect. They are under the false impression that a true Pope can actually be the visible head of two entities (one Catholic and one hostile to Catholicism).

Father Chazal, of the Resistance, is in no way part of the "Novus Ordo sect" ... as you claim.  He's simply following distinctions that many reputable theologians have made.  He states quite clearly that we have an obligation to separate ourselves completely from them, regard their teaching and their activities as null and void, and simply to await the intervention of the Church's authority regarding the final disposition of the material occupancy of the Holy See.  That's NOT EVEN CLOSE to making him "another wing of the Novus Ordo sect".  You're simply too obtuse ... or bad-willed ... to understand these distinctions.  So, sure, Bishop des Laurier was also just a member of the Novus Ordo?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 17, 2017, 08:20:55 PM
Freedom was right about you when he said...

You stand for nothing and fall for everything.

Yeah, when you, like Freedom, are incapable of understanding theological distinctions, you fall back on ad hominems.  You should have been banned the same time that clown was also.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Neil Obstat on December 17, 2017, 09:40:44 PM
Ad hominems like "clown"?
.
JPII didn't think "clown" was a derogatory term. He really appreciated clowns.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 17, 2017, 09:49:05 PM
LastDays, there is no clear, explicit teaching either way, which is why theologians have debated the question for centuries.  If it was clear that a formal heretic could not hold office, then theologians wouldn't waste their time on the question.  Do you really think these theologians WANT a heretic to hold office?  OF COURSE NOT.  They love the church...they are just trying to answer a question that hasn't been answered yet.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 17, 2017, 10:24:17 PM
Ok, from another angle.  If, just supposing, the true Church, the Modernist/Novus Ordo-free Church of the future, makes a decision, hands down a mandate concerning the Vatican II Popes and this decision is not what you sedevacantists would like to hear - let's say the decision is not what you would agree with - would you submit to it nevertheless?  Again, the True Church decides concerning the Modernist age and its Popes, and this is not a decision that makes the sedevacantists happy - would you nevertheless submit to the authority of this Church and Her decision regarding Her evaluation of the Vat. II Popes?  Leave open whatever the decision might end up being - just say sedevacantists don't like it.  Would you submit?

Or will it be "non serviam"?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:00:50 AM
And sifting the Magisterium isn't?

Give an example, or 10 examples, what is "sifting the Magisterium"?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:19:37 AM
Unfortunately you are wrong again Mr. Twister. Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and given to us through revelation.
This ^^^^ is how dogmatic sedes have lost the faith, if they ever had it in the first place.

In my Catholic religion, my, the Catholic Church, which is built upon the Rock of St. Peter, Divine Law is exactly what it says, a law given to us directly from God Himself.

One of those laws says that the successors of St. Peter are indeed the pope, and my Church, via TRUE Pope Pius IX, in an Ecumenical Council no less (V1), attaches an anathema to you - and to whoever says "that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter",  which is something you say repeatedly, as a mantra.

This is in the Catholic Church mind you - I understand that in your church, this law is considered to be the gravest of all heresies, but in my Church, which is the Catholic Church this is a dogma of our faith which we are bound under pain of mortal sin to accept. In your religion, this is heresy, ergo, you have a different religion - got that?

Best thing you can do is stop using Catholic Church teachings from now on - only use sede church teachings from now on - if you did that, it would no doubt immediately clear up this whole mess for everyone concerned.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:44:01 AM
Indeed it is theologically certain, perhaps even proximate to faith, that heretics are not members of the Church.  This cannot be disputed.  Yet it's not dogma, or de fide.  You often conflate truths of lesser theological notes with heresy ... a common problem with sedevacantists, especially the dogmatic types.  What's at issue is what happens to office and jurisdiction with a heretic, at what point that heretic loses office, and in particular at what point a Pope, who receives authority from God, would lose that authority from God.  Who has to discern the existence of this heresy?  Popes are a special case with regard to authority.  Bellarmine had his opinion, but many other credible theologians had a different position.  Those positions of Cajetan and Johh of St. Thomas et al. have never been condemned as heretical.
Lad, how do you explain when Bellarmine explicitly states that all the ancient fathers taught that manifest heretics lose their offices ipso facto?  Do you hold that what he is stating is true?  And if it is true, then how can any other opinion be just as valid?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:47:19 AM
Give an example, or 10 examples, what is "sifting the Magisterium"?
I'm also still interested in knowing what Herm's position is on the Crisis.  It seems he disagrees with both sedevacantists and sedeprivationists.  Is he a Novus Ordo trad?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:55:47 AM
Thank you. Last Days.  I did go back and found the answer you gave earlier about the Canon.  

In conclusion, I say - you sedes are crazy.  Indeed, you believe there is no salvation outside sedevacantism!  That possibility used to be a joke - but now we see it is a truism of you all.  Sedevacantism is a "religion" unto itself.  

The fact that you have no authority to make a final judgement, but then go on to ACT UPON said judgment any way, proves you simply have the bit in your teeth.  Maybe these Popes will be declared by the Church in the future to have not been Popes, or the Church will nullify their pontificates and acts, but it's for the Church to do so!

Anarchists.  You just add to the trouble.
It's the dogmatic sedes Merry, they are the ones who are crazy to Catholics because like NOers, they profess an entirely different religion yet label themselves as Catholic. The religion of dogmatic sedes revolves around an empty chair, their religion has a major pope problem, namely, their church has no pope at all - and by scrupulous design, never will. This whole 'not having a pope', is in fact the foundation of their religion, this is the rock their church is built upon.

I just mention this to reassure you the reason why the dogmatic ones are crazy to us - it's because they label themselves as Catholic but they are not Catholic, they are Sede, they belong to the dogmatic sede church and wonder why they cannot find the true Church. Their religion is absolutely iniquitous and yes, certainly crazy to Catholics. 

Now the non-dogmatic sedes are Catholic, they're just a little (or a lot) confused about the pope, the degree of their confusion can and often does depend upon their degree of sedeism. Often times, non-dogmatic sedeism quickly leads to dogmatic sedeism, which is why it's always best for everyone, particularly for those just recently waking up and entering the fray, to completely and totally avoid the near occasion of sedeism altogether and simply strive to keep the faith.  


Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:59:47 AM
I'm also still interested in knowing what Herm's position is on the Crisis.  It seems he disagrees with both sedevacantists and sedeprivationists.  Is he a Novus Ordo trad?

I don't know but Lad said something similar in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/how-many-sedes-are-logged-on-to-the-forum-right-now/msg584510/#msg584510):

Quote
I accept Father Chazal's position as the most Catholic of them all.  But straight R&R which has Catholics sifting the papal Magisterium is abhorrent.  Straight sedevacantism, especially of the dogmatic variety, is equally abhorrent.

I am asking for actual examples of exactly what is being sifted.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 08:19:43 AM
And your religion has a non-Catholic for a Pope. Sooo......You are in communion with a heretic and are subject to him. Just like the Novus Ordo. To top it off, you refuse communion with his hierarchy, which would be schismatic were it the real "church", but it's not and neither is yours, so at least there's that.
I completely understand that's the way it looks from your church. We are of different faiths which is why you will never understand no matter how well it is communicated to you. It's as if we speak different languages.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 08:26:13 AM
Most of the folks on this thread believe that heretics remain Catholics, and members of the Church...  I think I even saw a post claiming that heretics are formally separated from the Church, but remain materially united to the Church??  More material / formal nonsense...adding gray area to a black and white situation.  
  
As I already told Lastdays:

The Church, through a member or members of Her hierarchy, first accuses then judges the sinner, if this does not prompt the sinner to repent, She then dictates which sins are to receive which censures, and She does so primarily for the purpose of prompting the sinner to repent.

After the Church pronounces Her judgement, Her censures are *always* primarily medicinal in nature with the intent of inducing the sinner to repent, they are never, nor are they ever intended to be an infallible decree that kicks the poor bastard permanently out of the Church and condemn him to hell with no hope at all, no matter how obstinate he is.  

The point being - you and I, or you and I and all human creatures in unison saying the pope is a heretic, has no bearing whatsoever on his status. Until the Church makes the declaration to the contrary, the Catholic Church gave us the infallible assurance that the Roman pontiff is indeed the successor of St. Peter.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 08:49:44 AM
Here's an interesting article from a sede where he condems Cajetan AND St Robert Bellarmine, both as heretics.  Most of you sedes put +Bellarmine on a pedastal and put his opinions above all other theologians - but this guy says he's a heretic, in his efforts to support sedevacantism.  The irony is hilarious...

http://johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr28_cajetan_bellarmine_heresies.pdf (http://johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr28_cajetan_bellarmine_heresies.pdf)

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 18, 2017, 10:28:50 AM
Most of the folks on this thread believe that heretics remain Catholics, and members of the Church...  I think I even saw a post claiming that heretics are formally separated from the Church, but remain materially united to the Church??  More material / formal nonsense...adding gray area to a black and white situation.  
  

The Eastern Orthodox are not members of the Church; yet they possess material succession. This term is universally used by Catholic theologians to describe the claim of apostolic succession made by the schismatics, so we know that there is such a thing as material succession. I do think it is very important to make the appropriate distinctions between material vs. formal; and also, designation vs. jurisdiction. In Catholicism, all formal jurisdiction (formal apostolic succession) comes from the Pope; not from a confederation of bishops.

In a scenario such as the one Lastdays described, even if the valid bishops can be found (which according to him, MUST be both sedevacantists AND feeneyites, a rarity indeed, I dot not know of the existence of even ONE!), I do not see a way in which they could claim valid, formal apostolic succession any better than the Orthodox (I am exclusively talking here about apostolicity), who claim they have perpetually nominated bishops to succeed to bishoprics established by the Apostles. However, no Catholic would consider their succession to be formal, but merely material, that is, they occupy the place, but have absolutely no Jurisdiction since Jurisdiction must derive from the Roman Pontiff, whom they reject, (or in the case of the totalist sedevacantist, simply does not exist).
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 10:45:50 AM
Theologians will debate just about anything if you give them the opportunity. That is no proof of anything. Many heresies arise in this manner. The same would have been true for the heresy that heretics are members of the Church and able to hold offices in the Church if the Church hadn't squashed it. It is found nowhere in the Dogma, Scripture, or the UOM. In fact, the opposite is stated many times. You just don't want to see it. I guess I will just have to post the following AGAIN for the people of good will reading this thread...

Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)



Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).

Note the words "impeded by divine law". For those of good will, this would be considered a divine impediment. Get it? Impeded by divine law = divine impediment. Is that clear enough for you? This teaching and the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia as well as Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio just reflect this matter which is of divine law and concerns the faith. It is completely irreformable.

Who are the sources whom you quote above? I've never heard of them. They are: 

1. "Moroto, Institutiones, I.C. 2:784"  
2. "Coronata, Institutiones, I.C. 1:312"
3. "Wernz-Vidal Jus Can 2:415"
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 11:16:40 AM
Who are the sources whom you quote above? I've never heard of them. They are:

1. "Moroto, Institutiones, I.C. 2:784"  
2. "Coronata, Institutiones, I.C. 1:312"
3. "Wernz-Vidal Jus Can 2:415"

In googling the sources that Lastdays has cited, I only found info on #3 above.

Evidently, there were Jesuit priests by the names of Rev. Wernz and Rev. Vidal, from the 1930's, and the quote by Lastdays appears to be from works written these two Jesuits, in which we, as Catholics are not bound to accept as authoritative. They are just opinions by two priests.

The quote was translated into English by a sede named John Daly. I think he is associated with Novus Ordo Watch, and is affiliated with John Lane.

I assume that the other two quotes are also from priests, though maybe not.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 11:30:05 AM
You're correct. We are different religions. My religion is Catholic. I am subject to the Popes. I am not in communion with heretics and I would not separate myself from legitimately Catholic Hierarchy.
Your religion is being subject to Heretics, being in communion with heretics and separating yourself from hierarchy which you consider Catholic and refusing obedience to your "pope" in all things except "infallible" matters, which is condemned by Pope Pius IX.
You cannot be a Catholic when you presuppose the pope is not a pope, such a perverse belief system as that obviously rejects all papal teachings from popes and negates all Catholic teachings regarding the pope and is therefore inherently anti-Catholic. OTOH, my popes have infallibly decreed that the pope is indeed the successor of St. Peter.

Though I've never heard of a sede pope, your popes to which you are subject to, apparently teach to reject all Catholic teachings regarding the pope since you must first presuppose the pope is not the pope - which makes me wonder how there could ever be a sede pope. I don't really care, I just wonder.

At least we agree that in your religion, it is by design that you have no pope, no hierarchy, no Church and never will.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 11:45:07 AM
In googling the sources that Lastdays has cited, I only found info on #3 above.

Evidently, there were Jesuit priests by the names of Rev. Wernz and Rev. Vidal, from the 1930's, and the quote by Lastdays appears to be from works written these two Jesuits, in which we, as Catholics are not bound to accept as authoritative. They are just opinions by two priests.

The quote was translated into English by a sede named John Daly. I think he is associated with Novus Ordo Watch, and is affiliated with John Lane.

I assume that the other two quotes are also from priests, though maybe not.
All those are among the ones I like to refer to as "well respected" 19th /20th century theologians. It is my opinion that many of those "well respected" theologians' felonious opinions were accepted and promoted throughout all the manifestations of the Church as authentic Church teachings, hence, one of the primary reasons that so many people are so confused in this crisis. Their opinions are largely responsible for dogmatic sedes presupposing the pope is not the pope, as if that were dogma.   
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 11:51:18 AM
You cannot be a Catholic when you presuppose the pope is not a pope
AES: I agree. The Pope is a Pope and a heretic is not the Pope. Point?


So let it be written, so let it be done - is that right?


my popes have infallibly decreed that the pope is indeed the successor of St. Peter.
AES: I don't remember your conciliar Novus Ordo "popes" decreeing this. Vatican Council decreed this, not your "church". It says the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. It does not say that a heretic is the successor of Peter.

My NO popes have never decreed anything that we need to concern ourselves with submitting to. Your religion rejects the teachings of all popes since the time of St. Peter, which is another reason why your church will never have a pope, or hierarchy.

 Do you know where your church is?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 11:52:34 AM
All those are among the ones I like to refer to as "well respected" 19th /20th century theologians. It is my opinion that many of those "well respected" theologians' felonious opinions were accepted and promoted throughout all the manifestations of the Church as authentic Church teachings, hence, one of the primary reasons that so many people are so confused in this crisis. Their opinions are largely responsible for dogmatic sedes presupposing the pope is not the pope, as if that were dogma.  


Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that there well-respected priest-theologians in the 19th/20th century who pushed these ideas, that have now been adopted by dogmatic sedes. The dogmatic sedes do indeed treat the issue as if it were dogma.

It's interesting that the two priests in question, whom Lastdays quoted, were Jesuits. Jesuits, of course, sometimes think outside of the box, and outside of true Catholic teaching.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 12:01:16 PM

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that there well-respected priest-theologians in the 19th/20th century who pushed these ideas, that have now been adopted by dogmatic sedes. The dogmatic sedes do indeed treat the issue as if it were dogma.
It is only a theory of mine but so far the "well respected" theologians theory explains how come so many people are so confused about the issue. +ABL knew there were many false teachings (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/why-i-finally-caved/msg512353/?topicseen#msg512353) even in the seminaries, but he never put 2 and 2 together, iow, how the heck else could all these errors, all these liberal ideas infiltrate into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church - if not by the opinions of certain "well respected" theologians?

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 12:03:12 PM
Indeed...proper distinctions must be made.  I agree with you.  
Proper distinction yes - but ONLY when you presuppose the pope is not the pope, which is not what Catholics do, not ever. Presupposing the pope is not the pope is only a practice, made into a doctrine, found only among non-Catholics.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 12:15:56 PM
Quote
Let me tell you what Catholics never do. They never call a notorious heretic their Pope.

How would you, or anyone, know this?  Give me one historical example previous to the 1960s?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 18, 2017, 12:17:23 PM
They have valid orders not succession. When talking about Apostolic Succession, every definition I have ever read, has one thing in common when defining it. They must have the Faith of the Apostles. Without the Faith of the Apostles, there is no Apostolicity. Are they priests? Yes. Do they have succession? No.

I am talking strictly about the historical reality that the Orthodox have nominated bishops who can be easily traced to the Apostles, such as the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt. An unbroken continuation of bodies. I am not saying they have Apostolic succession, but that there is a type of "material" succession that would be important to consider in this crisis and which is the basis of the Cassiciacum Thesis.

From the CE entry on Apostolicity:

Quote
In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic sucession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: OHCA on December 18, 2017, 12:29:30 PM
It's the dogmatic sedes Merry, they are the ones who are crazy to Catholics because like NOers, they profess an entirely different religion yet label themselves as Catholic. The religion of dogmatic sedes revolves around an empty chair, their religion has a major pope problem, namely, their church has no pope at all - and by scrupulous design, never will. This whole 'not having a pope', is in fact the foundation of their religion, this is the rock their church is built upon.

I just mention this to reassure you the reason why the dogmatic ones are crazy to us - it's because they label themselves as Catholic but they are not Catholic, they are Sede, they belong to the dogmatic sede church and wonder why they cannot find the true Church. Their religion is absolutely iniquitous and yes, certainly crazy to Catholics.  

Now the non-dogmatic sedes are Catholic, they're just a little (or a lot) confused about the pope, the degree of their confusion can and often does depend upon their degree of sedeism. Often times, non-dogmatic sedeism quickly leads to dogmatic sedeism, which is why it's always best for everyone, particularly for those just recently waking up and entering the fray, to completely and totally avoid the near occasion of sedeism altogether and simply strive to keep the faith.  

I can’t believe your stubbornness caused you to stoop to this mush-brained mumbo-jumbo that is so far beneath your intellect.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 12:34:47 PM
St. Vincent Ferrer said that Pope Urban VI was not Pope. He said that Antipope Clement was the Pope. Was St. Vincent a Catholic because he did exactly what you are saying Catholics never do?

Let me tell you what Catholics never do. They never call a notorious heretic their Pope. They never subject themselves to heretics. They never refuse submission to the Hierarchy that the Pope appoints. They never refuse obedience to all things the Pope says or does, except in infallible judgments. These are all things you and your "church" do.
What did I tell you about using Catholic saints to vindicate sedeism? I said don't use them.

Use your own saints'.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
I can’t believe your stubbornness caused you to stoop to this mush-brained mumbo-jumbo that is so far beneath your intellect.
It's just the truth - that's all it is.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 12:36:57 PM
It is only a theory of mine but so far the "well respected" theologians theory explains how come so many people are so confused about the issue. +ABL knew there were many false teachings (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/why-i-finally-caved/msg512353/?topicseen#msg512353) even in the seminaries, but he never put 2 and 2 together, iow, how the heck else could all these errors, all these liberal ideas infiltrate into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church - if not by the opinions of certain "well respected" theologians?

Well said. +ABL rightly saw the Modernist infiltration of the Church, but he doesn't seem to have been fully aware of the sedevacantist infiltration, which is just as serious as the Modernist infiltration, because the sede infiltration may affect trads more directly.

And just as the Modernists have their so-called well-respected theologians, the sedes seem to also have theirs. Though how many sedes have been directly influenced by Lastdays' Jesuit theologians is debatable. It would be interesting to know how much the modern sede movement has been directly influenced by those Jesuit theologians, as well as others from those days.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 01:01:10 PM
According to your own definition I'm not using a Catholic Saint. St. Vincent called the Pope, not the Pope. So, according to you, he was not Catholic. Do you want to actually talk about the subject or do you want to ignore the facts and hope they'll go away?
You also sound silly by calling it sedeism. It's not a doctrine of a chair. Then again, intelligence is not your strong suit or the ability to be Catholic.
We all know that sedes are superior to everyone, or perhaps better said, they are everyone's superior - even the popes'.

St. Vincent is mine not yours, he is a saint in the Catholic Church not the dogmatic sede church. He is one of the greatest saints of the Dominican Order - not the Sede Order.

He was one of the main forces the ended the GWS - he didn't sit around calling popes heretics and proclaim they were not popes, neither did he sit around calling Catholic heretics. That's what you do and attribute it to him like a bunch of heathens. Go find your own saints and use them to vindicate your dogmatic sedeism, leave our saints to us, you have no right to quote them as if they in any way would support your doctrine.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 01:27:51 PM
You still did not address what I said. You are still choosing to ignore facts. You say it's not Catholic to say the Pope is not the Pope. St. Vincent said that Pope Urban was not the Pope but he was. He did not call the Pope heretic because a) that's not even a thing b) neither Pope Urban nor Antipope Clement were heretics.
The point is you are saying that St. Vincent was not a Catholic because he said that Pope Urban was not the Pope. Respond to this particular point.
I'm not ignoring anything, the fact remains that he did not make it his mission in life to promote "there is no pope" and deny every law, dogma and doctrine that stood in the way of this one, good for nothing, man made doctrine. It is only too obvious that, unlike sedes,  he actually did something about it because, unlike sedeism, there was something that someone actually could do about it. The crisis during the GWS was a matter of "who is the pope?" but for the sedes, it's all founded upon and centered about "who isn't the pope".
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 01:44:32 PM
Quote
You want me to give you one example of Catholics NOT calling a notorious heretic their Pope? Do you know what you are asking?

Yes, give me an example in history that EXACTLY matches our situation.  If you cannot, then the uniqueness of the situation should make you pause and wonder if your viewpoint has the certainty of faith which you assume it does. 

Secondly, your over-simplification of the current papal crisis mocks every theologian who ever spent decades of their life debating, praying and writing about such a situation.  You are basically saying that their life-long training, education and effort spent on this topic (and for some, that effort produced entire books on the topic) and it is worthless, since you, an untrained, uneducated layman, have "figured it all out" in a few years of months (and probably less). 

Finally, does it not ever cross your mind that if all the theologians who argued that a pope is not ipso facto deposed for heresy (and those theologians are many), that if they were as wrong as you say I am (and, logically, you must say they are), and if your (and St Robert Bellarmine's) view is as CLEAR and SIMPLE as you say it is, then why FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE WHY, did St Robert Bellarmine take the time, effort and energy to debate these theologians (both written and speaking)?  If they were SO CLEARLY WRONG, why didn't he just say, like you do, that "A true catholic never calls a notorius heretic their pope.  End of story."

How much time could he have saved?  Countless hours.  How much effort did he waste?  Wow, hard to calculate.  Probably years of his life.  He must be pretty stupid.  If this is the simple answer we've all been waiting for, why hasn't the Church condemned those theolgians who debated St Robert Bellarmine.  She could have done so quite easily, effortlessly and simply.  And, certainly, if the truth is as simple as you make it out to be, everyone should know it.

But alas, maybe the answer (using common sense) is that THE ISSUE OF A HERETICAL POPE IS NOT SO SIMPLE TO FIGURE OUT.  Golly, could THAT be the answer?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 02:26:09 PM

Quote
Saint Robert Bellarmine
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

And he continues:

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity."

Yes, this is true but you are missing the points that:
1) the CHURCH has never spoken this clearly on the issue.  Therefore it's not settled.
2) the CHURCH has never said that St Robert Bellarmine is the "final" authority on the matter.  Therefore it's not settled.
3) Bellarmine continued to write, debate and discuss the issue...obviously, other theologians disagreed and brought up counter-points.

You are basically a catholic who follows only 1 theologian.  That's not how the Church operates.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 02:28:24 PM
Quote
One example would be Catholics not saying that Martin Luther was their Pope.

Oh, fantastic example (sarcasm alert).  I forgot that Martin Luther was elected pope, just like Francis was, and the entire catholic world thought he was head of the Church.  ???

Give me an example where a pope was elected and who was a heretic from the start.  You can't.  Because it's never happened before.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 02:35:35 PM
More garbage theology from the heretics' good subject...  

According to your logic, Saint Vincent is (was) not Catholic.  Own it, man
What I will own is the fact that that is how the dogmatic sedes view it because that is the thinking inherent in dogmatic sedeism. It is a part of the dogmatic sede faith to presuppose the pope is not the pope, yet for Catholics, it is equally just as much the contrary, i.e. the last thing any Catholic would ever dare to say. St. Vincent was most assuredly a Catholic saint, not a sede saint. If the dogmatic sedes would only leave Catholic saints out of it and use only their own saints, this whole issue would be taking a giant leap in the proper direction.    
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Apostolicity of Mission is only half of it. Apostolicity of Doctrine is the other half. This is from the paragraph before the one you quoted.
If the Doctrine is not the same as had been transmitted from the Apostles, there is no Apostolicity or Apostolic Succession. Both are necessary. The "Orthodox" do not have Succession because they do not hand down the Deposit of Faith and teach contrary to it. The same goes for those in the Novus Ordo who still have valid orders but teach contrary to the Deposit of Faith.
True. Well, in sedeprivationism is this Apostolicity of Doctrine which is missing in the Novus Ordo; but it can be obtained or recovered once the heretic abjures his errors. 

Let me ask you something, what happens if a schismatic Bishop were to convert to Catholicism? It would work the same in the case of a Novus Ordo "converting" because the matter is already there. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 02:57:16 PM
More garbage theology from the heretics' good subject...  

According to your logic, Saint Vincent is (was) not Catholic.  Own it, man

Do you believe that St. Vincent was a sedevacantist? Did he believe that the Seat of Peter was empty in his day, and had been empty for many years due to heresy?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 02:57:26 PM
Quote
Why don't you take the time to study Bellarmine instead of brushing him off like some second rate theology instructor at Notre Dame?? 
Why do you treat Bellarmine like an infallible diety?  Why do you ignore all those who disagree with him? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 03:06:12 PM

Quote
AES: You are exactly correct. A heretic cannot be elected to the Papacy. I cannot cite an example of a heretic being elected to the Papacy because it cannot happen. A heretic is not Catholic and therefore cannot be Pope. So if it looks like one was elected we know it wasn't, because it can't.

Again, you (an uneducated, untrained layman) are correct and all those other learned clerics and theolgians are wrong.  Gotcha.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2017, 03:07:58 PM

What about the argument against the validity of orders in the NO?  I don't want to derail the thread, but one who believes in the sedeprivationism position would have to argue that the NO orders are valid, no?  

Not necessarily.  Designation to office can happen without the requisite orders required to exercise the office.  So, for instance, a Conclave could elect a simple priest who would at that point materially have the office but would not be able to exercise it formally until being consecrated a bishop.  Similarly, a Conclave could elect a mere layman.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2017, 03:14:39 PM
I don't...  I've read quite a few different points of view, and I happen to agree with Pope Pius XI when he said this about Saint Robert
Bellarmine...

He says the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed HIS writings - Saint Robert Bellarmine's writings...  Not Cajetan's, not the writings of John of Saint Thomas...
Like I told you before, Pax...If Bellarmine was good enough for the Fathers of Vatican I, he's good enough for me.  

Even if you take the Bellarmine position, at what point does the heresy get sufficiently known to the Church?  We have one Joe Sixpack in the pew who declares heresy.  We have a handful of SV bishops / priests.  I've known clowns who were dead certain of heresy when it turns out THEY were mistaken.  Who discerns the existence of said heresy, especially when the pope disputes it?  Bergoglio might be different, but his predecessors all claimed that their teaching was consistent with Tradition.  So you can argue all you want about the mechanism for deposition, but the problem is understanding when it's sufficiently known that this has taken place.  Bellarmine never addresses that.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2017, 03:15:52 PM
Touche...well done, sir.  I forgot about the fact that a layman could be elected to the papacy, as well as a priest.  

Still, what about the "material succession" theory?  A "pope" appointing bishops who are not validly consecrated...or priests who are not validly ordained?  

If designation is purely an aspect of the material office, then it can happen.  I suspect that sedeprivationists would disagree among themselves about that though.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2017, 03:18:37 PM
Touche...well done, sir.  I forgot about the fact that a layman could be elected to the papacy, as well as a priest.  

Still, what about the "material succession" theory?  A "pope" appointing bishops who are not validly consecrated...or priests who are not validly ordained?  

In fact, one might argue that the heretic pope is in the same kind of suspended state as the elected priest ... in a type of limbo.  Let's say this priest were to get elected and he accepted.  He would at that point be in possession of the office.  No one could at that point take it away from him.  Now, let's say this priest refused to get consecrated a bishop ... let's say for reasons of humility.  He would possess the office, but yet would be impeded from formally exercising it since he was not a bishop.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 03:23:59 PM
Quote
So you are saying that you are correct and that the Church is incorrect in saying that heretics are not Catholic? Are you saying that a non-Catholic can be the Pope? Are you saying that someone without the Catholic faith can possess authority over the Church? Are you saying that Catholics should be subject to heretics?

All I'm saying is that theologians disagree on what happens if a pope becomes a heretic.  The Church has never told us what happens.  Therefore, it's unclear.  You act as if this situation is as clear as the existence of heaven.  It's just not that simple.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 03:24:57 PM
Apostolicity of Mission is only half of it. Apostolicity of Doctrine is the other half. This is from the paragraph before the one you quoted.
If the Doctrine is not the same as had been transmitted from the Apostles, there is no Apostolicity or Apostolic Succession. Both are necessary. The "Orthodox" do not have Succession because they do not hand down the Deposit of Faith and teach contrary to it. The same goes for those in the Novus Ordo who still have valid orders but teach contrary to the Deposit of Faith.
Cantarella and AES:  
It is my understanding that the Cassiciacum Thesis asserts that the Orthodox bishops have material succession....but can not have full apostolic succession until they abjure their heresies/schismatic beliefs.
And, why can't I quote more than just one quote?  I wanted to quote Cantarella's quote as well.  Is this a forum set-up or is there a setting I can change?  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 03:35:23 PM
All I'm saying is that theologians disagree on what happens if a pope becomes a heretic.  The Church has never told us what happens.  Therefore, it's unclear.  You act as if this situation is as clear as the existence of heaven.  It's just not that simple.

It is indeed unclear, since the Church hasn't told us what happens. And yet the sedes believe that they have the authority to decide what happens. They seem to think that they are "The Church." It seems crystal clear to those who believe that they are infallible in deciding what happens when a pope is in heresy. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 03:36:26 PM
Yes, this is true but you are missing the points that:
1) the CHURCH has never spoken this clearly on the issue.  Therefore it's not settled.
2) the CHURCH has never said that St Robert Bellarmine is the "final" authority on the matter.  Therefore it's not settled.
3) Bellarmine continued to write, debate and discuss the issue...obviously, other theologians disagreed and brought up counter-points.

You are basically a catholic who follows only 1 theologian.  That's not how the Church operates.
Is St Robert Bellarmine the final authority?  No.  But, as far as I know, he is the only theologian on the matter that was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church.  He also taught that ALL OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS agreed with his opinion on heretic popes.
Why do people keep telling me that I HAVE to give the other theologians' opinions the same weight as Bellarmine's when all of these theologians disagree with ALL OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS?
I asked this of Lad up-thread and not got response.
I also asked Hermengild what his position was on the Crisis and I got no response.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 03:39:56 PM

What about the argument against the validity of orders in the NO?  I don't want to derail the thread, but one who believes in the sedeprivationism position would have to argue that the NO orders are valid, no?  
No, they would just have to be consecrated in the Old Rite first.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 03:41:20 PM
I don't...  I've read quite a few different points of view, and I happen to agree with Pope Pius XI when he said this about Saint Robert
Bellarmine...

He says the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed HIS writings - Saint Robert Bellarmine's writings...  Not Cajetan's, not the writings of John of Saint Thomas...
Like I told you before, Pax...If Bellarmine was good enough for the Fathers of Vatican I, he's good enough for me.  
Thanks for sharing this quote.  I did not know this.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 03:48:09 PM
Thanks for sharing this quote.  I did not know this.
Apparently the quote didn't stay, so here it is again:
Pope Pius XI

"But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognised by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent." 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 18, 2017, 03:48:52 PM
In fact, one might argue that the heretic pope is in the same kind of suspended state as the elected priest ... in a type of limbo.  Let's say this priest were to get elected and he accepted.  He would at that point be in possession of the office.  No one could at that point take it away from him.  Now, let's say this priest refused to get consecrated a bishop ... let's say for reasons of humility.  He would possess the office, but yet would be impeded from formally exercising it since he was not a bishop.

Wrongo McDongo. Pius XII specifies that a layman or simple priest who is elected pope assumes full possession of the office as soon as he accepts the election. If he obstinately refused to be consecrated a bishop, he would be deprived of his office by divine right on account of schism, since he would be separating himself from the Church by refusing to act in virtue of the unchangeable principle that the bishop of Rome must be... a bishop. The Cardinals would then be allowed to elect a new pope, but if a considerable period of time elapsed between the public awareness of this schismatic act and a sentence on the part of the Cardinals he would retain his jurisdiction, albeit in a precarious state.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 03:49:48 PM
Quote
He also taught that ALL OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS agreed with his opinion on heretic popes.
Has this been verified?  It would seem stupid of multiple theolgians to argue against the Church Fathers - doesn't make sense.  The only logical answer is that +Bellarmine's view agrees with the Church Fathers "from a certain perspective".  There are MULTIPLE perspectives and angles to this topic.  He obviously didn't convince everyone on every perspective, nor did the Church Fathers speak on every perspective, therefore theolgians continued to debate.

Finally, just because +Bellarmine is a Doctor, doesn't give a 'rubber stamp' to all his writings.  As we know, St Thomas was partially incorrect on the Immaculate Conception.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 03:51:24 PM
Apparently the quote didn't stay, so here it is again:
Pope Pius XI

"But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognised by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent."


So where did the Council use St. Robert's achievements to say exactly what happens to a pope who is in heresy? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
Has this been verified?  It would seem stupid of multiple theolgians to argue against the Church Fathers - doesn't make sense.  The only logical answer is that +Bellarmine's view agrees with the Church Fathers "from a certain perspective".  There are MULTIPLE perspectives and angles to this topic. He obviously didn't convince everyone on every perspective, nor did the Church Fathers speak on every perspective, therefore theolgians continued to debate.

Finally, just because +Bellarmine is a Doctor, doesn't give a 'rubber stamp' to all his writings.  As we know, St Thomas was partially incorrect on the Immaculate Conception.
Well, Pax Vobis, perhaps those other theologians thought like you did.  Those ancient fathers were *just* expressing *their* opinion, right?  So these other theologians thought they would provide another way to look at things.  
Meanwhile the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed BELLARMINE's opinions on the papacy.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:01:27 PM
You don't own any of your rhetoric, man...  Just tossin' stuff out there, hoping for it to stick.  

Carry on...  
Yes, I do understand that is how the dogmatic sedes view it, you've all made that much crystal clear.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
So where did the Council use St. Robert's achievements to say exactly what happens to a pope who is in heresy?
Taken from Novus Ordo Watch, but you can find the quote in the independent source given.  Bellarmine is not named, but it is clear that the view at the Council agreed with Bellarmine's teaching:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII (https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv8tAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22life%20and%20life%20work%20of%20pope%20leo%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false) [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:06:08 PM
You say it's not Catholic to say the Pope is not the Pope. St. Vincent Ferrer said the Pope is not the Pope. Respond to this.
So what, I said the pope is not the pope in the past too - contrary to dogmatic sedeism however, I didn't make a supposedly empty chair the foundation of my religion and neither did St. Vincent. St. Vincent was and is a very great saint in the Catholic Church, not the sede church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 04:09:51 PM
Quote
Well, Pax Vobis, perhaps those other theologians thought like you did.  Those ancient fathers were *just* expressing *their* opinion, right?  So these other theologians thought they would provide another way to look at things.  
The debate about the 'ipso facto' deposition of the pope has been around for centuries.  You can argue all you want that Bellarmine is right, but the Church has not ruled, therefore She is allowing multiple opinions.


Quote
Meanwhile the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed BELLARMINE's opinions on the papacy.
This is a misleading statement.  VI employed SOME of Bellarmine's opinions on the papacy.  Did VI, therefore, answer the question we are debating now?  No.  So, who cares?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 18, 2017, 04:10:47 PM
Bellarmine would never have accepted the notion that the entirety of the Roman clergy could accept or at least tolerate as their bishop one who is incapable of validly occupying any office in the Church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 04:12:09 PM
The subject of a pope who falls into heresy was discussed by the Fathers at Vatican I.  

When asked about it, one of the Fathers, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, said - "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."

This was (is) the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine...


Edit  2Vermont - you beat me to it.  Also, I've apparently used up my upvotes for you - the forum won't allow me to give you the ole' thumbs up at the moment.

So it was discussed by Fathers of the Council, so that makes it the same as the Council proclaiming it?

Wow....you have a lot of nerve to equate the two as being the same thing. The sede Church sure has some strange doctrines.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 04:13:09 PM
Quote
When asked about it, one of the Fathers, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, said - "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."

Is this answer the OFFICIAL teaching of VI?  No.  It's a theological opinion...and it doesn't even say whose opinion it was.  "It was answered..."  By whom?  If the Vatican I council fathers decided to teach authoritatively on the issue, they could have, but they didn't.  If you disagree, show me the text from the council.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:13:28 PM
The subject of a pope who falls into heresy was discussed by the Fathers at Vatican I.  

When asked about it, one of the Fathers, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, said - "The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church."

This was (is) the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine...


Edit  2Vermont - you beat me to it.  Also, I've apparently used up my upvotes for you - the forum won't allow me to give you the ole' thumbs up at the moment.
:P
What I find really interesting about this quote is that the Fathers of the Vatican Council said there has never been a pope that became a heretic.  So much for those who insist that there were heretic popes in the past. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 04:15:31 PM
Quote
the Fathers of the Vatican Council said...
Which Fathers said this?  One, two, four, all of them?  It's not clear, nor are they listed.  This is not a verifiable quote.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:21:28 PM
Is this answer the OFFICIAL teaching of VI?  No.  It's a theological opinion...and it doesn't even say whose opinion it was.  "It was answered..."  By whom?  If the Vatican I council fathers decided to teach authoritatively on the issue, they could have, but they didn't.  If you disagree, show me the text from the council.
I'm not arguing whether it was "authoritative".  I'm showing that the "Council of Bishops" agreed with Bellarmine's opinion.  I am showing that the opinions of Cajetan etal weren't the prevailing opinion at the Council.  And since they were not, I'm still wondering why anyone here thinks I should have to give them equal weight.  It is clear to me that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion stands above the rest. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:22:48 PM
Which Fathers said this?  One, two, four, all of them?  It's not clear, nor are they listed.  This is not a verifiable quote.
What does "Council of Bishops" mean to you?  Just a few bishops?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 18, 2017, 04:24:26 PM
I'm not arguing whether it was "authoritative".  I'm showing that the "Council of Bishops" agreed with Bellarmine's opinion.  I am showing that the opinions of Cajetan etal weren't the prevailing opinion at the Council.  And since they were not, I'm still wondering why anyone here thinks I should have to give them equal weight.  It is clear to me that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion stands above the rest.
Please post a link to an official source for this "prevailing opinion" at the council. Not a sede source. A real source. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:25:23 PM
So it was discussed by Fathers of the Council, so that makes it the same as the Council proclaiming it?

Wow....you have a lot of nerve to equate the two as being the same thing. The sede Church sure has some strange doctrines.
You really need to take off those rabid anti-sede blinders and actually read my posts.  I never said the Council proclaimed it.
But I suspect you know that because I'm fairly certain that you are of bad will.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 04:26:18 PM
Please post a link to an official source for this "prevailing opinion" at the council. Not a sede source. A real source.
I gave you the original source.  Look it up yourself.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 18, 2017, 04:26:51 PM
Apparently the quote didn't stay, so here it is again:
Pope Pius XI

"But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognised by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent."

This deserves a great big, fat, hairy, face palm. Here we have, of all people, dogmatic sedes, using another Catholic saint and pope, a pope who praises the saint for being a DEFENDER OF THE POPE, in their felonious their attempts to vindicate sedeism.
 
BD spouts: "Like I told you before, Pax...If Bellarmine was good enough for the Fathers of Vatican I, he's good enough for me." 
Do you dogmatic sedes even read what you post? How can you POSSIBLY miss the reason WHY the Council employed St. Robert's writings?  Where on earth do you see that they employed his teachings because he taught heretic popes lose their office?

Moreover he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent."

To the Church, St. Robert was an AUTHORITATIVE DEFENDER OF POPES, yet to the dogmatic sedes, St. Robert vindicates dogmatic sedeism. Because such warped theology is typical among the dogmatic sedes, this is why I say the sedes must cease using Catholic saints and Church teachings. 

Thanks for the quote BD and 2V for re-quoting it as it exemplifies the different religion of dogmatic sedes.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the dogmatic sedes didn't start using this quote repeatedly and exclusively to vindicate their sedeism from now on.


Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 04:53:27 PM
Quote
I'm not arguing whether it was "authoritative".  I'm showing that the "Council of Bishops" agreed with Bellarmine's opinion. 
Your quote does not specify "who" answered the Cardinal's question.  It just says "it was answered".  So, for you to ASSUME that the ENTIRE body of council fathers agreed with the answer is untrue.

Quote
I am showing that the opinions of Cajetan etal weren't the prevailing opinion at the Council. 
For which topic?  For what question?

Quote
And since they were not, I'm still wondering why anyone here thinks I should have to give them equal weight.  It is clear to me that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion stands above the rest. 
I'm sure he does stand above the rest, FOR PARTICULAR TOPICS, but not all.  You're ASSUMING that V1 used his opinion, ONLY and EXPLICITLY.  You are also introducing irrelevant facts, because we are debating about a particular opinion of Bellarmine's (deposition of a pope), which you are are saying that V1 used, while at the same time, you are saying that V1 didn't teach on the matter.  Makes no sense.
So V1 used Bellarmine's opinion on the status of a heretical pope, but did not issue any schema which deals with the status of a heretical pope?  Sounds like they used his opinions ON OTHER PAPAL TOPICS, which would be IRRELEVANT to our discussion.
Will you admit this error?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 18, 2017, 05:19:47 PM
The least that can be said is that Vatican I didn't dogmatize Bellarmine's opinion on the ipso facto loss of office by a heretical pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 05:55:39 PM
No, Pax Vobis, I assumed nothing.  The quote clearly mentions "the Council of Bishops" and they clearly discussed whether a pope can even be a heretic.  The quote clearly relays Bellarmine's views on when a heretic pope is no longer a pope, not "the other theologians". In this very long thread we most certainly have discussed St Bellarmine and his teaching that a manifest heretic pope loses his office ipso facto.  This quote supports that it was discussed at Vatican I because it was critical to the overall discussion on papal infallibility.

I find it interesting that the non-sedes are fighting this tooth and nail.  They won't give it any credence whatsoever.  The quote comes from one of the Fathers of the Council.  He wasn't a sede.  The book wasn't written by a sede.  And yet here he is relaying what sedes have been saying all along! Those crazy Fathers of the Vatican I Council!  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 18, 2017, 06:11:39 PM
No, Pax Vobis, I assumed nothing.  The quote clearly mentions "the Council of Bishops" and they clearly discussed whether a pope can even be a heretic.  The quote clearly relays Bellarmine's views on when a heretic pope is no longer a pope, not "the other theologians". In this very long thread we most certainly have discussed St Bellarmine and his teaching that a manifest heretic pope loses his office ipso facto.  This quote supports that it was discussed at Vatican I because it was critical to the overall discussion on papal infallibility.

I find it interesting that the non-sedes are fighting this tooth and nail.  They won't give it any credence whatsoever.  The quote comes from one of the Fathers of the Council.  He wasn't a sede.  The book wasn't written by a sede.  And yet here he is relaying what sedes have been saying all along! Those crazy Fathers of the Vatican I Council!  

Well, that particular quote supports the Cajetan and John of St. Thomas position.  It clearly speaks of a Council of Bishops deposing the pope after he had been deposed by God.  What's there to depose and in what sense is he being deposed if he's already been deposed ipso facto?  Clearly the authoritative deposition happens by God whereas there's a declarative/ministerial deposition from the Bishops.  This completely backs John of St. Thomas.  And, to back Father Chazal, the quote also indicates that the Church should avoid a heretical pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 18, 2017, 06:32:51 PM
Well, that particular quote supports the Cajetan and John of St. Thomas position.  It clearly speaks of a Council of Bishops deposing the pope after he had been deposed by God.  What's there to depose and in what sense is he being deposed if he's already been deposed ipso facto?  Clearly the authoritative deposition happens by God whereas there's a declarative/ministerial deposition from the Bishops.  This completely backs John of St. Thomas.  And, to back Father Chazal, the quote also indicates that the Church should avoid a heretical pope.
No, it doesn't.  Cajetan teaches that the heretical pope is not deposed until the Church deposes him.  In other words, the heretical pope remains pope until the Church deposes him.  
The quote states that he is no longer pope ipso facto before Church deposition. Subsequent deposition is a formal declaration of what has already happened by God ipso facto. This is Bellarmine's teaching, not Cajetan.

And Lad:  will you answer my question up-thread?  If Bellarmine states that his opinion was held by all the ancient fathers, why is Cajetan an opinion I should consider?  Was Bellarmine lying?  Was he mistaken?  And if so, where is the proof that he was wrong?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 06:50:46 PM
It's clear that many of you have not watched the video, nor are you (have the ability of?) distinguishing the various angles of this situation (i.e. Spiritual vs temporal office).  

Also clear that your faith hinges on one theologian only "Outside St Robert Bellarmine there is no salvation"!
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 18, 2017, 06:56:50 PM
And Lad:  will you answer my question up-thread?  If Bellarmine states that his opinion was held by all the ancient fathers, why is Cajetan an opinion I should consider?  Was Bellarmine lying?  Was he mistaken?  And if so, where is the proof that he was wrong?

If jurisdiction cannot be granted to a heretic or schismatic by a higher authority, how is it that any priest - even a heretic or schismatic - can absolve at the point of death?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 07:07:16 PM

Quote
This quote supports that it was discussed at Vatican I because it was critical to the overall discussion on papal infallibility.
Im questioning your characterization and the over-importance you are attaching to the quote.  You are implying that EVERY council father agreed with this.  Maybe it was only 2, or maybe it was 10 - it's not clear.  Even if it was everyone there, that means nothing - because the cardinals are not infallible without the pope.  So, as you admitted, this is not authoritative, therefore it's on the same level of theological opinion as Bellarmine vs Cajetan, etc.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 18, 2017, 07:34:40 PM
Excerpt from the below article, which does not address Bellarmine vs Cajetan, but instead Bellarmine vs Suarez.  

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/d9316b1dfdf813d95b197bee8640f489-219.html


Moral of the story: The pope does not lose his office through private determination or public opinion, but through a decision by the Church, which is the normal, catholic way...

2nd moral of the story: +Bellarmine wasn't the only theologian who thought the Church Fathers agreed with him.  

**red text is a highlight from me**

Bellarmine and Suarez on
The Question of a Heretical Pope

By Robert J. Siscoe


In the February 2014 issue of
Catholic Family News, John Salza published a timely and revealing piece on the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with respect to the question of Sedevacantism – a topic on the mind of many today following the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the increasing doctrinal and moral chaosthat has ensued. In his article, Mr. Salza mentioned a two-fold opinion with respect to a heretical Pope: that of St. Robert Bellarmine, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office without a sentence from the Church; and that of Suarez, who taught that a heretical Pope loses his office by virtue of a declaration by the Church. In footnote #14, Mr. Salza notes an interesting point about this apparent contradiction:

“It is interesting to note that St. Bellarmine (d. 1621) and Suarez (d. 1617) lived at the same time, and yet both held that their seemingly inapposite opinions were the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors.”

There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the respective opinions of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. While there is indeed a difference between the two on the
speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.

The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a
judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office. This is opposed to the opinion of Suarez, and others, who maintain that the judgment of guilt and declaration by the Church cause the loss of office. One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty and then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt and then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical.

...continues, in above link...
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Merry on December 18, 2017, 07:47:01 PM
From a portion of an article in Catholic Family News (which also had an article about the mechanism the Church has in place to depose a "bad" Pope) -


Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."


Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 18, 2017, 09:43:13 PM
From a portion of an article in Catholic Family News (which also had an article about the mechanism the Church has in place to depose a "bad" Pope) -


Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."
Anti-sedevacantist apologists used to talk about distinctions between material and formal heresy and how the pope (JP2) was only a material heretic. Everyone agreed that heresy was detected. That was not the issue. The issue is that these camps changed their arguments after Bergoglio and started saying that him being a heretic (formal) and all didn't matter cause the sedevacantists were still wrong. If someone says "today I'm going to say something heretical"... well common sense and Sensus fidei tells us that that person is a formal heretic and no member of the Church. I don't really see the need to convince others of it. About two hundred or so (including Bishop Fellay and the Remnant) just signed a document formally accusing Bergoglio of heresy...
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 19, 2017, 04:57:52 AM
Im questioning your characterization and the over-importance you are attaching to the quote.  You are implying that EVERY council father agreed with this.  Maybe it was only 2, or maybe it was 10 - it's not clear.  Even if it was everyone there, that means nothing - because the cardinals are not infallible without the pope.  So, as you admitted, this is not authoritative, therefore it's on the same level of theological opinion as Bellarmine vs Cajetan, etc.  
If you actually read the excerpt from the book, you would see that Archbishop Purcell was speaking to the whole Council about questions/concerns he had regarding infallibility.  When he relays the question asked and answered at the council regarding what happens when a pope becomes a heretic, he never mentions that anyone disagreed with it.  Given the answer to this question was critical for him in accepting papal infallibility, I am sure that if there were any different/contrary answers, he would have at least mentioned them.

To be clear, the only importance I am lending it is that it was discussed at the Council and there was no argument made against it. When the issue of a heretical pope came up, the Council used Bellarmine's teaching to assuage another Father's concerns. For me, this is just another indication that it is Bellarmine's teachings that the Church looked to in these matters.  

When I look at the "evidence" Bellarmine stands above the rest of the theologians on this matter.  If others want to look to other theologians, I guess that's their prerogative, but I am sick of the anti-sede rhetoric (you know the rhetoric that says stuff like "Outside Bellarmine there is no Salvation"?) that sedes are wrong for not giving equal credence to them and that we should HAVE TO DO SO.  No, I don't have to do so and so far no one has given me any reason to believe that their teaching is heavier or more correct than Bellarmine's.

I think I have said enough on this matter. Carry on. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 19, 2017, 08:02:25 AM
You are proving yourself to be a coward and liar again. When cornered with the consequences of your stupid assertions you crumble.
The only consequence of dogmatic sedeism is loss of the Catholic faith - St. Vincent was not afflicted with dogmatic sedeism, he remained Catholic. You sedes cannot differentiate because you are of a different faith, a faith that has no popes, no hierarchy and no church. All by design and all for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's really quite iniquitous.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2017, 08:13:19 AM
And Lad:  will you answer my question up-thread?  If Bellarmine states that his opinion was held by all the ancient fathers, why is Cajetan an opinion I should consider?  Was Bellarmine lying?  Was he mistaken?  And if so, where is the proof that he was wrong?

Because the Church Fathers did not address the question of a POPE falling into heresy ... but the broader question of whether heretics can hold office.  John of St. Thomas in particular points out that papal authority is completely different than any other type of authority in the Church and it's from that difference that he draws his argument.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2017, 08:35:05 AM
Bellarminists can't address the problem of when heresy has become sufficiently manifest in order for deposition to happen.

1) Joe Sixpack reads a papal encyclical and determines that it's heretical.
2) Several priests and a bishop decide that the pope is a heretic.
3) Several bishops determine that a pope is a heretic but most other bishops disagree with them.
4) 49% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 51% don't.
5) 51% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 49% don't.
6) 90% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 10% don't.
7) General Council declares the pope a heretic and to have lost office.

Right now we're somewhere between #1 and #3.  I'm pretty sure that you had more bishops who considered the pope a heretic for defining infallibility at Vatican I than you have bishops today who consider the V2 papal claimants to be heretics.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 19, 2017, 08:36:48 AM
There is nothing you can do to get yourself out of the corner you've backed yourself into. You say that it's not Catholic to say the Pope is not the Pope, yet St. Vincent said the Pope is not the Pope. Now you must say that he was not Catholic or you are a liar and you must admit you have no idea what you're talking about. You merely say whatever it is you think will make Sedevacantists look bad, much like your foolish "sedeism" word you've made up. This word doesn't even make sense and makes you look really dumb. Own it, like Bellator Dei says. Own your stupid claims that have nothing to do with the Pope issue. Tell us that St. Vincent wasn't Catholic because he broke your ridiculous, made-up rule. It the only logical consequence.
Though I said it, I did not say it's not Catholic to say the pope is not the pope when one is merely confused - in the mind of dogmatic sedes, they are not confused, to them it's a religion and as such - it is not Catholic, it is in fact, anti-Catholic. So you have no right to include St. Vincent in your dogmatic sedeism. He was NOT dogmatic sede because if he was, he would have NEVER been canonized. Certainly you cannot disagree here.

Because it is, I said it is a dogma of the Catholic Church that whoever says the pope is not the pope is anathema. The reason I said that is because it is dogma, but you say dogma does not apply because you presuppose the popes have been heretics. So you're good and covered and all set - or so you've fooled yourself into thinking.

Stop using Catholic saints, popes and teachings - use only teachings from dogmatic sede popes and saints to vindicate your dogmatic sedeism from now on - do that and the whole thing should straighten out for you immediately, or at least quite quickly.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 19, 2017, 08:46:48 AM
Bellarminists can't address the problem of when heresy has become sufficiently manifest in order for deposition to happen.

1) Joe Sixpack reads a papal encyclical and determines that it's heretical.
2) Several priests and a bishop decide that the pope is a heretic.
3) Several bishops determine that a pope is a heretic but most other bishops disagree with them.
4) 49% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 51% don't.
5) 51% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 49% don't.
6) 90% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 10% don't.
7) General Council declares the pope a heretic and to have lost office.

Right now we're somewhere between #1 and #3.  I'm pretty sure that you had more bishops who considered the pope a heretic for defining infallibility at Vatican I than you have bishops today who consider the V2 papal claimants to be heretics.

And here's the next problem.  What HERESY have the V2 papal claimants embraced?  I'm not talking about errors but about actual heresy.  Religious Liberty?  While it's a grave error, it's not heresy, strictly speaking, and I've seen a number of people jump through hoops to explain why it's not even erroneous.   Ecumenism?  That's a practical thing and not theological.

Religious indifferentism, this notion that people can be saved in any religion?  But, wait, +Lefebvre and most of the Trad bishops say the same thing, that people of any religion can be saved.
V2 ecclesiology?  But, wait, the anti-Feeneyite Trads have the same ecclesiology.  Is it heretical?  Are they heretics also?

While Bergoglio might be a special case, since he stands up there and almost brags about being heretical, his predecessors insisted that there was some continuity between their teaching and prior Tradition.  So who's going to sort it all out and establish definitively, with the certainty of faith, that their claims are bogus and that they are in fact heretics?  But, then, what happens if, once the Church does definitely establish heresy, the V2 papal claimant were to recant?  Pure Bellarminism would have it that they were already deposed once it became manifest, so there would have to be a new election.

You guys pretend that it's all simple and black-and-white ... but it is anything BUT....
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 19, 2017, 08:50:23 AM
Here you go again. Your complete ignorance of Dogma has made you repeat this same nonsense. Again, there is no anathema that says that one cannot say the Pope is not the Pope. Again, you condemn St. Vincent.
No, the dogma specifically condemns schismatics, that is, dogmatic sedes like yourself. St. Vincent was a Catholic, not a schismatic, certainly not a dogmatic sede. He was actually correct in discerning who was and who was not the pope - all dogmatic sedes know is, the pope is not the pope - and for that you are anathema.

It is too bad for you that obvious as this is, you refuse to admit the difference.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 09:34:50 AM
Quote
I don't think there ever was a true Pope that became a Manifest heretic, which is why I think all of this stuff is not worth discussing. It's not dogmatically clear how a Pope would be deposed, the only thing clear in that matter is that we would treat him as if he was not Pope. This is a big hypothetical because there hasn't been one and I think it's the reason why the Church never decreed anything about,
Exactly.  This is what I was trying to point you towards earlier, when you gave me the ridiculous answer of 'martin luther'.  We are living in UNIQUE and UNPARALLELED times.  The pope, even if a heretic, is UNIQUE to all other heretics.  +Bellarmine's opinion is great, in theory, but practically (i.e. how does it work?) it has, to use a movie term, a lot of plot holes.  The contrary theologians tried to address his theory's problems.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 19, 2017, 09:42:23 AM
Bellarminists can't address the problem of when heresy has become sufficiently manifest in order for deposition to happen.

1) Joe Sixpack reads a papal encyclical and determines that it's heretical.
2) Several priests and a bishop decide that the pope is a heretic.
3) Several bishops determine that a pope is a heretic but most other bishops disagree with them.
4) 49% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 51% don't.
5) 51% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 49% don't.
6) 90% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 10% don't.
7) General Council declares the pope a heretic and to have lost office.

Right now we're somewhere between #1 and #3.  I'm pretty sure that you had more bishops who considered the pope a heretic for defining infallibility at Vatican I than you have bishops today who consider the V2 papal claimants to be heretics.

Given the historical setting of Bellarmine's life, we know that the saint was mostly concerned with the idea of a Protestant becoming Pope one day. The stubborn Huguenot who desired to usurp the Papal throne was the "manifest" heretic in the saint's mind. This was the time of the emerging Reformation in which the Church lost entire countries to the heretics. Although some of the principles found in his work are meritorious to the crisis today, I think no one ever was actually been able to envision the current situation, when not only the "pope" is a heretic; but a disparaging majority of bishops recognize him and are subject to him.   

Frankly, if there was not much theologian work in the matter of the pope becoming a heretic is well...because the whole notion is an oxymoron!. It took me very long to recognize this, trying desperately to find a continuity of religion pre - post Vatican II. I am now on the opinion, that no, a heretic cannot be Pope. If a Pope becomes a heretic, then the promises of Vatican I dogmatic Pastor Aeternum are meaningless:

Quote
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

If you notice, Bellarmine, Cajetan, St. John of Thomas...the few ones dealing with the possibility of a heretic becoming Pope were living in the XVI century, when the Protestant Reform occured. The heretic is the hypothetical Protestant. Do we actually find any work on the subject after Vatican I Council, when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined?  

  

  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 09:47:03 AM
Quote
When I look at the "evidence" Bellarmine stands above the rest of the theologians on this matter.
It's your opinon on his opinion.  I guess that settles it.

Quote
If others want to look to other theologians, I guess that's their prerogative, but I am sick of the anti-sede rhetoric (you know the rhetoric that says stuff like "Outside Bellarmine there is no Salvation"?) that sedes are wrong for not giving equal credence to them and that we should HAVE TO DO SO.  No, I don't have to do so and so far no one has given me any reason to believe that their teaching is heavier or more correct than Bellarmine's.
For the record, I'm not opposed to sedevacantism, but I'm not for it, either.  What I am opposed to, are people calling me a HERETIC if I disagree with it  (i.e. dogmatic sedes).

No theologian, including +Bellarmine, EVER thought his opinion was THE OPINION.  Theologians know this is not how the Church works.  Theologians know that their job is to study, debate, study, and refine their arguments, not to "be right" but for the good of the Church.  We should all have the same mindset. 

So, yes, if you want to be a good catholic, you HAVE TO give credence to ALL theological opinions on a matter that is undecided.  This is the Church's view; this SHOULD BE your view.  If not, then you've made a decision where the Church has not and then many of you run around and proclaim others are heretics because they want to wait for the Church to decide.  Very impatient and divisive.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 09:54:47 AM
Quote
I am now on the opinion, that no, a heretic cannot be Pope. If a Pope becomes a heretic, then the promises of Vatican I dogmatic Pastor Aeternum are meaningless:
Pastor Aeternum didn't say that a pope couldn't be a heretic, it's saying that the Church would not OFFICIALLY teach error, which She has done, to date.  Even if you are a strict 'Bellarminist' you must admit he called for the Church to depose a heretic pope before they would be OFFICIALLY considered 'not the pope'. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 09:56:16 AM
Quote
These men who now claim to be Pope were heretics before their supposed election, therefore were never elected.
Again, we go back to Pius X and XII who suspended the ecclesiastical penalties for heretics, thus allowing them to take part in the elections.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 19, 2017, 10:07:09 AM
Pastor Aeternum didn't say that a pope couldn't be a heretic, it's saying that the Church would not OFFICIALLY teach error, which She has done, to date.  Even if you are a strict 'Bellarminist' you must admit he called for the Church to depose a heretic pope before they would be OFFICIALLY considered 'not the pope'.

It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

Again, I disagree with trying to prove the truth of sedevacantism, based solely upon Bellarmine, for the reasons explained above.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 10:10:04 AM
Quote
And here's the next problem.  What HERESY have the V2 papal claimants embraced?  I'm not talking about errors but about actual heresy.  Religious Liberty?  While it's a grave error, it's not heresy, strictly speaking, and I've seen a number of people jump through hoops to explain why it's not even erroneous.   Ecumenism?  That's a practical thing and not theological.

Religious indifferentism, this notion that people can be saved in any religion?  But, wait, +Lefebvre and most of the Trad bishops say the same thing, that people of any religion can be saved.
V2 ecclesiology?  But, wait, the anti-Feeneyite Trads have the same ecclesiology.  Is it heretical?  Are they heretics also?

While Bergoglio might be a special case, since he stands up there and almost brags about being heretical, his predecessors insisted that there was some continuity between their teaching and prior Tradition.
Lad, this is TOTALLY off topic, but the points you make above are contrary to points you've made in the past vs Stubborn and I.  I agree with you above.  I think that *technically and legally* speaking (and we know that satan is the master of technicalities) that V2 did not FORMALLY teach error (because this is what Pastor Aeternum from V1 says would not happen)

Did it promote error?  Yes.  Did it FORMALLY BIND anyone to believe error, as a Catholic, under pain of sin?  Of course not.  So, the magisterium has not defected (which you've argued to the contrary in the past).  I never understood where you were going with that argument (I think you were trying to use it to justify a Fr Chazal-type situation).  Not trying to say "I told you so", just pointing out that Fr Chazal's view is unaffected even if your view above is true.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 10:22:36 AM
Quote
It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.
No, absolutely not.  The pope is only special BECAUSE OF his papal powers -
1.  Material - governmental/jurisdiction
2.  Spiritual - infallibility - which protects/teaches doctrine.

If the pope does not USE infallibility to teach/clarify doctrine, then he is fallible, just like any other bishop.  His faith is just as tenuous as yours, mine or any catholic's.  This is why we pray for him!  We know that the pope, as a man, can fail because it happened to St Peter and many other popes (who may not have been manifest heretics but some did hold heretical ideals for a time and MANY, many were immoral and scandalous).  The point is, that V1 is dealing with the SPIRITUAL office of the papacy.  It's not dealing with the MATERIAL office because that has nothing to do with doctrine.

The point is that every main theologian agrees that if a pope loses his faith, he 'ipso facto' loses his spiritual authority because of his heresy.  Ergo, the papacy is protected (as V1 says it will be).  The matter of his material office is not addressed by 'Pastor Aeternum' because it has nothing to do with doctrine, ergo his material office is still held, until the Church deposes him.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 10:30:31 AM
Quote
Saint Robert Bellarmine
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

He can be judged and punished by the Church because due to his heresy - HE IS NO LONGER THE POPE.  
I didn't realize that in all the volumes and volumes and volumes that +Bellarmine wrote, that this quote COMPLETELY summarizes his ENTIRE view on the matter - and he has nothing left to say, or distinguish about it.  Isn't that nice?  (Surely that's not the case).

G whiz, not only do some of you Bellarminists throw out every contrary opinion, but you throw out 99% of Bellarmine himself!  You take ONE (just one?!) of his quotes and treat it as GOSPEL.  ??  You don't even deserve to be called 'Bellarminists'!  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 10:48:01 AM
I've already posted an article by Salza/Sisco, which you made fun of.  The point is, that even in the Bellarmine quote you posted he never says 'we can say he's not the pope'.  He is talking about his SPIRITUAL loss of office, as a member of the church.  What comes next?  The church must decide when/how to depose him from his MATERIAL office.  This lines up with what Salza/Sisco wrote that before one can OFFICIALLY say "he's not the pope" that the Church must act.

This is the only minor (but important) point i'm trying to make.  Bellarmine seems to have said this; but you've glossed over this fact.  Bellarmine was debated precisely because his view is too idealistic.  It's missing practical details.

The analogy would be:  The parents make a rule that any child caught doing drugs is considered 'no longer part of the family' and is to be banished immediately from the house.  Teenager A is caught doing drugs on saturday, therefore he's no longer part of the family.  ...but he's still sleeping in his room on sunday morning.  What happened?  Thought he wasn't part of the family anymore?  He should be sleeping outside.

This is the problem with Bellarmine's explanation; it gives no real-life explanation or rules on how to remedy the situation.  Contrary theologians say, "When the teenager is caught doing drugs, they are spiritually no longer part of the family, but in reality, until the parents (i.e. the Church) kick the child out of the house, you can't say they aren't a member, because if they're living there, they are."
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 19, 2017, 10:55:51 AM
It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

Again, I disagree with trying to prove the truth of sedevacantism, based solely upon Bellarmine, for the reasons explained above.  

Does Bellarmine say that the Pope's faith cannot fail? You indicate above that this is what you believe (that the Pope's faith cannot fail).

Bellarmine may have written that the Pope's faith cannot fail, but I don't recall ever seeing that. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 19, 2017, 11:16:39 AM
No, absolutely not.  The pope is only special BECAUSE OF his papal powers -
1.  Material - governmental/jurisdiction
2.  Spiritual - infallibility - which protects/teaches doctrine.

If the pope does not USE infallibility to teach/clarify doctrine, then he is fallible, just like any other bishop.  His faith is just as tenuous as yours, mine or any catholic's.  This is why we pray for him!  We know that the pope, as a man, can fail because it happened to St Peter and many other popes (who may not have been manifest heretics but some did hold heretical ideals for a time and MANY, many were immoral and scandalous).  The point is, that V1 is dealing with the SPIRITUAL office of the papacy.  It's not dealing with the MATERIAL office because that has nothing to do with doctrine.

The point is that every main theologian agrees that if a pope loses his faith, he 'ipso facto' loses his spiritual authority because of his heresy.  Ergo, the papacy is protected (as V1 says it will be).  The matter of his material office is not addressed by 'Pastor Aeternum' because it has nothing to do with doctrine, ergo his material office is still held, until the Church deposes him.

Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitively. The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum is based upon the Divine promise found in Luke 22, 32 that the Pope's Faith shall never fail. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his successors. Their Roman Faith cannot fail. In the annotations of that biblical passage, dated in 1582, we find the following:

Quote
Neither was this privilege of St. Peter's person, but of his Office, that he shall not fail in faith; but even confirm all other in their Faith. For the Church, for whose sake the privilege was thought necessary in Peter the Head there of, was to be preserved no less afterward, then in that Apostle's time. Whereupon all the Fathers apply this privilege of not failing and of confirming other in faith, to the Roman Church and peter's successors in the same.

To which, saith St. Cyprian, infidelity or false Faith cannot come. And St. Bernard saith writing to Innocent Pope, against Abaliardus the Heretic, we must refer your Apostleship all the scandals and perils which may fall, in matter of faith specially. For there the defects of faith must be helped, where faith cannot fail.

For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.  

If we, as Catholics, cannot even hope in a single man on earth, (the Roman Pontiff) faith not failing - even though Christ Himself prayed for it-, what hope is there for us?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 19, 2017, 11:27:59 AM
Again you claim that saying the pope is not the Pope is schismatic. This means you believe St. Vincent was schismatic. You are really going out of your way to say, in as many ways possible, that you believe St. Vincent was not a Catholic. This is very evil.
In your dreams that's what it means. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 19, 2017, 11:30:49 AM
It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

Again, I disagree with trying to prove the truth of sedevacantism, based solely upon Bellarmine, for the reasons explained above.  

As St. Bellarmine has been taken by sedevacantists as the patron saint of sedevacantism, I think it's important to show where he ever said that the pope's faith cannot fail.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 11:34:44 AM

Quote
Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity,

You are again missing the point.  The CLERGY (i.e. the Church) ACTED and stripped Liberius of his pontificate.  Does it say that you, or Fr Cekada or Bishop Sanborn is allowed to decide for themselves if Liberius was a pope?  NO, NO, NO!  It says the CLERGY STRIPPED Liberius of his papacy.  So, your quote does not apply to our situation, except to prove that the CHURCH MUST ACT for one to be considered no longer pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 11:43:37 AM
Quote
The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum is based upon the Divine promise found in Luke 22, 32 that the Pope's Faith shall never fail. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his successors.
Then why do we pray for the pope?  Seems like a waste of time.  Does this mean that the pope loses his free will when he's elected?  Or, he can sin against the 10 commandments still, just the last 7 and not the first 3 (which are sins against God)? 
Or, you're saying he can still lose his soul, which means he can be in the state of mortal sin, right?  And if he's in the state of mortal sin, he can still be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to teach and protect the faith?  Where is that in the catechism? 
So, you're saying that the Holy Ghost choose Our Lady, who was free from all sin by a singular grace, to be his spouse, but he'll enlighten an pope who's in mortal sin (but no one else on earth)?  Makes no sense.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 19, 2017, 11:48:12 AM
As St. Bellarmine has been taken by sedevacantists as the patron saint of sedevacantism, I think it's important to show where he ever said that the pope's faith cannot fail.

If you were actually reading my posts with a proper disposition, you would have realized that I said that Bellarmines' work although meritorious, is hardly the only answer to the current crisis, especially taking into consideration the historical context of the saint's life. He was dealing with the Reformation and the impossibility of a Protestant (the manifest heretic in the saint's mind) to claim the Papal throne.  

I think that sedevacantism could be better proved based upon dogmatic principles; instead of individual theologian works, so it is time for sedevacantists to look beyond Bellarmine. There is more out there. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 11:51:33 AM
Quote
Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitively.
Popes cannot err when OFFICIALLY teaching faith and morals (this is protected by infallibility, and the strict parameters set down by V1).

The jurisdiction of the pope has nothing to do with faith and morals.  The pope can misplace a bishop to the wrong diocese, or issue a liturgical calendar this is too complex or get rid of feasts which have been there for centuries.  He can get rid of the ember days, adjust any church rule (he has the power to 'bind and loose') but this has nothing to do with DOGMA, Faith or Morals.  In these human judgements, which are human because Christ did not make these rules, the pope can err.

Outside of OFFICIAL teaching, his teaching is fallible because it comes from his own, personal understanding as a bishop.  This is not protected from error, unless he is quoting/agreeing with past defined doctrine.  Outside of this, he is fallible.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 19, 2017, 11:54:40 AM
If you were actually reading my posts with a proper disposition, you would have realized that I said that Bellarmines' work although meritorious, is hardly the only answer to the current crisis, especially taking into consideration the historical context of the saint's life. He was dealing with the Reformation and the impossibility of a Protestant (the manifest heretic in the saint's mind) to claim the Papal throne.  

I think that sedevacantism could be better proved based upon dogmatic principles; instead of individual theologian works, so it is time for sedevacantists to look beyond Bellarmine. There is more out there.

Alright, so you evidently don't want St. Bellarmine as the patron saint of sedevacantism. Is there another candidate for this role, for sedevacantists?

I can see why St. Bellarmine would be a flawed candidate, since he did not assert that the popes faith cannot fail. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 19, 2017, 11:56:16 AM
Popes cannot err when OFFICIALLY teaching faith and morals (this is protected by infallibility, and the strict parameters set down by V1).

The jurisdiction of the pope has nothing to do with faith and morals.  The pope can misplace a bishop to the wrong diocese, or issue a liturgical calendar this is too complex or get rid of feasts which have been there for centuries.  He can get rid of the ember days, adjust any church rule (he has the power to 'bind and loose') but this has nothing to do with DOGMA, Faith or Morals.  In these human judgements, which are human because Christ did not make these rules, the pope can err.

Outside of OFFICIAL teaching, his teaching is fallible because it comes from his own, personal understanding as a bishop.  This is not protected from error, unless he is quoting/agreeing with past defined doctrine.  Outside of this, he is fallible.

Did you read the Rheims annotation? It is pretty explicit.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 11:56:42 AM
So FINALLY some sedes have seen the light and admit that Bellarmine does not explain every possible situation.  Thank God!  This will all be forgotten, of course, in the next thread, when the Bellarminists will again quote him as if he's an oracle.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 11:59:53 AM
Quote
Did you read the annotation?
Yes, from the Haydock bible.  It says the the faith of Peter will not fail.  Ok, that's great, but it contradicts V1's infallible statement on infallibility, which authoritatively teaches that outside of 4 parameters, the pope is fallible.  What are we to do, as catholics, when 1 source contradicts another source?  The source with the higher authority and more specifics (V1 doctrine) is the interpreter of a commentary of a bible, which verse is very general and not specific.  Ergo, we understand that when Christ told St Peter that his faith "will not fail", He was speaking of a "certain specific situation" and not generally, as you say.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 19, 2017, 12:11:57 PM
Saint Robert's work on the papacy is impeccable, no other theologian even compares, otherwise the Fathers of the Vatican Council wouldn't have used his writings or considered him to be such an authority on the matter.  

That being said, I agree that there are more ways to prove that the sede vacante position is the correct position.  However, I will continue to defend Bellarmine's opinions when they are attacked.    

I also agree that a true pope cannot fall into heresy.  

If our Lord prays for the faith of Saint Peter and his successors to not fail, then it will not fail.  

I don't understand how you can use St. Robert Bellarmine at all to prove your thesis. After all, St. Bellarmine believed that it is possible for a Pope to fall into heresy, and you believe that it's not possible. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 12:13:59 PM
Quote
Saint Robert's work on the papacy is impeccable, no other theologian even compares
You are free to have this opinion as long as you don't impose it upon others and call them 'heretics' for disagreeing with +Bellarmine.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 19, 2017, 12:22:06 PM
Yes, from the Haydock bible.  It says the the faith of Peter will not fail.  Ok, that's great, but it contradicts V1's infallible statement on infallibility, which authoritatively teaches that outside of 4 parameters, the pope is fallible.  What are we to do, as catholics, when 1 source contradicts another source?  The source with the higher authority and more specifics (V1 doctrine) is the interpreter of a commentary of a bible, which verse is very general and not specific.  Ergo, we understand that when Christ told St Peter that his faith "will not fail", He was speaking of a "certain specific situation" and not generally, as you say.

I do not see any contradiction. The contradiction exists only in the minds of those with the mindset of "resisting" the Pope they recognize as such, where the notion of "fallible" almost necessarily means "erroneous". I do not see any other reason to make such an acute and persistent difference between infallibility vs. "fallibility" in Papal behavior. I know this because I had that mindset for a long time. It used to be that Catholics trusted the Pope, plain and simple. It was the quintessential mark of the Roman Catholic. The argument of "fallibility" is an argument of distrust.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 12:25:53 PM
Quote
I don't believe anyone has said that Bellarmine's opinions explain every possible situation...
Ha ha!  This thread is talking about the situations which Cajetan, Suarez, etc have brought up which +Bellarmine did not fully (or only partially addressed).  These matters are dealing with tiny, minute, theological DETAILS.  Tiny, legalistic (but important) DETAILS are what separates +Bellarmine from some of his fellow theologians.  If you don't have the patience to discuss the details, there's nothing wrong with that, but you can't brush them aside like they don't matter.  This is what theologians do - they argue over technicalities and legalistic wording - because the Truth must be exact as possible!
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 12:34:28 PM
Quote
The argument of "fallibility" is an argument of distrust.
Emotional argument.  In ordinary and orthodox times, I agree, fallible would not be interpreted as wrong.  Because the pope would have the 'benefit of the doubt' and would also be checked by a catholic hieararchy.  But still, fallible means fallible.  Even the best-intentioned pope in the world could make a mistake.  We are not obligated (nor encouraged) to follow a fallible teaching in the same way as a doctrine.
In our days, when orthodoxy, tradition and doctrine is constantly questioned, trivialized, and twisted (this was happening all the way back in the mid 1800s) one must be distrustful in situations where the pope is fallible.  They do not have the "benefit of the doubt" in any way.  In fact, we must be VERY cautious.  Knowing what is and isn't infallible, as V1 told us, is a GREAT help in determining where and to what degree we must be cautious.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 12:57:31 PM
And this goes to show that +Bellarmine is wrong on this point, as his arguments are based on Luke 22 and a history of no heretical popes.  In his time, his arguments make sense.

Fast forward to today, and adding in V1 and V2, and his opinion is completely unfounded.
1.  Luke 22, which is a general statement, and unexplained by Christ, was explained by V1.
2.  V2 and the popes of this era have shown it possible that a pope is a heretic. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 01:09:25 PM
It is even MORE damning of his opinion in the light of the fact that V1, which used +Bellarmine's views to formulate its doctrines (as many of you have repeatedly pointed out), explained the parameters of infallibility, which contradict +Bellarmine's interpretation of Luke 22. 

Moral of the story:  V1's guidelines on when a pope is infallible MUST be believed and are very strict.  This is a direct, Holy Ghost-inspired, interpretation of Luke 22.  Outside of these parameters, the papacy can fail and we all must believe that.  It is doctrine.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 01:44:03 PM
This isn't my opinion, it is what V1 teaches.  It shows us PRECISELY when the pope is infallible.  When he does not fulfill the conditions below he is fallible.  Fallible does not mean we ignore it, or devalue it, or joke about it, it just means that it cannot be trusted 100% completely without judging it according to orthoxody and previous dogmas.  If it agrees with 'what has always been taught' then it is part of the magisterium.


Chapter 4, number 9:

Therefore...
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 01:53:25 PM
Quote
I'll take Bellarmine over Pax Vobis every time...  
So will I.  Just because one of +Bellarmine's points is wrong (and only because the Church made a decision on the matter) doesn't mean he's wrong on everything. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: reconquest on December 19, 2017, 03:54:29 PM
In one of his articles Fr. Cekada includes the following quote about the possibility of a heretical pope being brought up at Vatican I:

What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?

The response was thus: ‘Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.’ [Mansi 52:1109]

Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute unlikelihood of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head. (Serapius Iragui, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.)

Once again, it's clear that Vatican I didn't intend to dogmatize Bellarmine's first opinion or his fifth.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 19, 2017, 04:37:01 PM
It's your opinon on his opinion.  I guess that settles it.

For the record, I'm not opposed to sedevacantism, but I'm not for it, either.  What I am opposed to, are people calling me a HERETIC if I disagree with it  (i.e. dogmatic sedes).

No theologian, including +Bellarmine, EVER thought his opinion was THE OPINION.  Theologians know this is not how the Church works.  Theologians know that their job is to study, debate, study, and refine their arguments, not to "be right" but for the good of the Church.  We should all have the same mindset.

So, yes, if you want to be a good catholic, you HAVE TO give credence to ALL theological opinions on a matter that is undecided.  This is the Church's view; this SHOULD BE your view.  If not, then you've made a decision where the Church has not and then many of you run around and proclaim others are heretics because they want to wait for the Church to decide.  Very impatient and divisive.
I'm not convinced that you're neutral (not opposed but not for) sedevacantism Pax Vobis.  I know you say this, but you also like to belittle those of us who hold the position...even those of us who are not "dogmatic" in your view.  Your clear, anti-sede mentality is evidenced by your "outside of Bellarmine there is no salvation" comment and your recent sarcastic comment above about how my opinion of Bellarmine's opinion "settles it" just to name a couple.  

I was clear in that last post (and I truly wanted it to be my last) that it is your/others' prerogative to go with the other theologians' ideas..and what do you post in return?  Belittle my decision to go with Bellarmine.  I don't happen to agree with anyone calling you a "heretic", but when you offer such gems as these, your whining about the dogmatic sedes calling you a "heretic" doesn't garner too much sympathy from me. 

Lastly, regarding your assertion that in order to be a "good Catholic" I must give credence to all the theologians on matters that are not settled: show me the Catholic teaching that demands this of me.  Besides I NEVER said that we shouldn't consider other opinions.  Neither did I say that I hadn't considered them.
  
My point was that the other non-sede posters here seem to think that I MUST put them on equal footing.  That I am not allowed to come to the conclusion that St Bellarmine had the right opinion. And you're wrong that Bellarmine himself didn't think he had "The Opinion".  His writings are clear that the fifth opinion (his) is the "TRUE opinion".  That means he believed all of the others were FALSE.  Are you trying to tell me that he should have given them all equal credence despite the fact that he thought they were wrong?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 19, 2017, 05:08:36 PM
Quote
And you're wrong that Bellarmine himself didn't think he had "The Opinion".

Bellarmine and any other good catholic certainly argued for his opinion but when I say he didn't think his was 'the one' i'm talking about in reference to the Church, not other theologians.  Theologian A can think their opinion is better than theologian B, C and D but that doesn't mean the Church won't declare that the true opinion is from theologian Z (who lives after theologian A) or a combo of all of them.  This is why catholics who write books offer up their writings to the judgement of the church.  And Bellarmine certainly didn't refer to other theologians as 'garbage' or declare them 'heretics', as some of you have said concerning Suarez, etc.

Secondly, when I say you must give 'credence' to a theologian who is contrary to Bellarmine, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him.  It means you have to admit that Bellarmine's opinion is, firstly, just that - an opinion.  Secondly, his opinion is on the same level as theologian B, C, and D.  By 'level' I mean they are all opinions - they carry no moral weight or obligation.  So, yes, all of you who prop up +Bellarmine as the 'end all, be all' are not looking at this topic with the necessary indifference.  If, however, I am wrong and you do recognize that all these theologians' opinions have the same weight, then I apologize, but (except for Cantarella, who did so implicitly) you have not admitted this fact.  

Finally, I don't know who is or isn't a 'dogmatic' sede in this whole debate.  But anyone who doesn't see the extreme error and uncharity (possibly sin) in declaring a fellow catholic a heretic over sedevacantism is definitely dogmatic in their thinking.  The idea that a group of catholics can anathematize and refuse sacraments to other catholics over this as-yet-undecided papal issue is a case of extremism that rivals the anathemas of the religious orders in the 'immaculate conception' debate.  And we all know that such historical actions were stupid, embarrassing, sinful and ridiculous.

For the record, I am not opposed to the theory of sedevacantism, but I tend to see +Bellarmine's views as problematic from a practical standpoint, while agreeing that idealisticly they are correct.  The difference between +Bellarmine and the others is very, very minor (but still a difference).  I am absolutely opposed to dogmatic sedevacantism and dogmatic R&R because the issue is undecided.  I'll argue against 'dogmatism' and 'sola Bellarmina' all day long.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 20, 2017, 01:36:53 AM
In one of his articles Fr. Cekada includes the following quote about the possibility of a heretical pope being brought up at Vatican I:

What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?

The response was thus: ‘Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.’ [Mansi 52:1109]

Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute unlikelihood of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head. (Serapius Iragui, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.)

Once again, it's clear that Vatican I didn't intend to dogmatize Bellarmine's first opinion or his fifth.

Not sure why not his fifth:

Quote
“The fifth opinion is thus the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact to be pope and head, even as he ceases by this reason to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church; and this is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the position of all the ancient fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction”

What difference do you see there?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 20, 2017, 02:12:28 AM
Nearly all Trads overlook Bellarmine's thesis on the local Roman Church.


My emphasis.

Yes, he expressed the belief as "a pious and most probable teaching" that the individual Roman Church must be considered both infallible and indefectible. This in virtue, I suppose, of St. Peter establishing his See there, and his successors (having the promise of Divine Assistance) being the Bishops presiding over it. However, if the Eternal City cannot lose the faith, then that would be a direct contradiction to the La Salette's message "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist". It is interesting. I personally do not believe this to be possible, though. I am in the side of Bellarmine on this. 

  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 20, 2017, 03:45:25 AM
Nearly all Trads overlook Bellarmine's thesis on the local Roman Church.

His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.

My emphasis.
This does not make any sense whatsoever, especially in light of V1. Who authored this narrative of St. Robert? I suspect it is the work of one of the "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians.

Please explain exactly which one of the +900 Churches in the city of Rome is "the particular or local Church" this author is speaking of and why that particular Church "must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith" - what about the other +900 churches?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 20, 2017, 04:40:48 AM
Referring to a particular Church is the same as referring to a diocese. There are the particular Churches of, for example: Constantinople, Canterbury, Armagh, Baltimore etc.
That idea still makes no sense, at the very least it is ambiguous. The Church, which is Christ, is infallible and indefectible, why does he limit it to what appears to be inside only one Church or diocese of Rome and who is the author you quoted that attributes this to St. Robert?
 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 20, 2017, 05:03:22 AM
Bellarmine and any other good catholic certainly argued for his opinion but when I say he didn't think his was 'the one' i'm talking about in reference to the Church, not other theologians.  Theologian A can think their opinion is better than theologian B, C and D but that doesn't mean the Church won't declare that the true opinion is from theologian Z (who lives after theologian A) or a combo of all of them.  This is why catholics who write books offer up their writings to the judgement of the church.  And Bellarmine certainly didn't refer to other theologians as 'garbage' or declare them 'heretics', as some of you have said concerning Suarez, etc.

Secondly, when I say you must give 'credence' to a theologian who is contrary to Bellarmine, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him.  It means you have to admit that Bellarmine's opinion is, firstly, just that - an opinion.  Secondly, his opinion is on the same level as theologian B, C, and D.  By 'level' I mean they are all opinions - they carry no moral weight or obligation.  So, yes, all of you who prop up +Bellarmine as the 'end all, be all' are not looking at this topic with the necessary indifference.  If, however, I am wrong and you do recognize that all these theologians' opinions have the same weight, then I apologize, but (except for Cantarella, who did so implicitly) you have not admitted this fact.  

Finally, I don't know who is or isn't a 'dogmatic' sede in this whole debate.  But anyone who doesn't see the extreme error and uncharity (possibly sin) in declaring a fellow catholic a heretic over sedevacantism is definitely dogmatic in their thinking.  The idea that a group of catholics can anathematize and refuse sacraments to other catholics over this as-yet-undecided papal issue is a case of extremism that rivals the anathemas of the religious orders in the 'immaculate conception' debate.  And we all know that such historical actions were stupid, embarrassing, sinful and ridiculous.

For the record, I am not opposed to the theory of sedevacantism, but I tend to see +Bellarmine's views as problematic from a practical standpoint, while agreeing that idealisticly they are correct.  The difference between +Bellarmine and the others is very, very minor (but still a difference).  I am absolutely opposed to dogmatic sedevacantism and dogmatic R&R because the issue is undecided.  I'll argue against 'dogmatism' and 'sola Bellarmina' all day long.
Sure you do. Those who call you "heretic" are dogmatic in your mind.  That means that those that don't call you "heretic"/plainly say they don't think others should call you "heretic" shouldn't be dogmatic in your mind. But now I see that you have a new anti-sede label:  "sola Bellarmina" and "Bellarminists" for those of us who happen to believe that Bellarmine's opinion was the true opinion. You do just as good a job at "othering" your fellow Catholics.

As for the "necessary indifference", who are you to say that none of us didn't do this at one point?  I came to the decision that one opinion is better than the others.  It also seems to me that there is actual evidence that the Church Herself looks to Bellarmine on matters of the pope...not Suarez, not Cajetan, etc.  Although the Church has not "dogmatized" Bellarmine's teachings, it is clear to me that Bellarmine has more weight in the minds of the hierarchy.  As a result, I do not have to keep them all on equal footing just because you say I do. It seems to me that the anti-sedes here wish to downplay his importance.
 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 09:14:12 AM
Quote
Sure you do. Those who call you "heretic" are dogmatic in your mind.
Obviously.  The only ones, so far, have been 'LastDays' and 'AnEvenSeven'.

Quote
That means that those that don't call you "heretic"/plainly say they don't think others should call you "heretic" shouldn't be dogmatic in your mind.
Not necessarily.  You've not called me a heretic, yet you said I was "whining" when I mentioned being called one.  If you don't see the moral problem in calling other catholics 'heretics' over an undecided issue, I don't know what to tell you.  But still, I'm not sure what you believe.

Quote
But now I see that you have a new anti-sede label:  "sola Bellarmina" and "Bellarminists" for those of us who happen to believe that Bellarmine's opinion was the true opinion. You do just as good a job at "othering" your fellow Catholics.
These labels are just meant to show the (potential) extremism in your thinking.  If you reject the #3 error below, then I apologizie.  I've been trying to figure this out and it's not clear to me.

1. If you say you agree with Bellarmine above all other theologians - no problem.
2. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong - no problem.
3. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong, AND that Bellarmine is (basically) the the ONLY opinion of the Church - that is a problem.  (this is Fr Cekada's view)

Quote
As for the "necessary indifference", who are you to say that none of us didn't do this at one point?  I came to the decision that one opinion is better than the others.  It also seems to me that there is actual evidence that the Church Herself looks to Bellarmine on matters of the pope...not Suarez, not Cajetan, etc.  Although the Church has not "dogmatized" Bellarmine's teachings, it is clear to me that Bellarmine has more weight in the minds of the hierarchy.  As a result, I do not have to keep them all on equal footing just because you say I do. It seems to me that the anti-sedes here wish to downplay his importance.
Good points and I agree, mostly.  Your last 2 sentences show you are missing the entire purpose of this thread and why Fr Chazal spent his time and effort in making his video - which is against dogmatic sedevacantism.  Fr Chazal is trying to moderate the dogmatic extremism of Fr Chekada, +Sanborn, etc - anyone who says that their version of sedevantism is the ONLY version, that it is the Church's version, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.  This is a BIG problem today and it's sinful.  It causes all sorts of uncharity and division in the trad world, in families and between friends.  It causes people to skip mass, causes chapel divisions, and all other sorts of extreme activity.  This is why Fr Chazal is speaking; this is why I'm posting - to get rid of this extremist error.

So, by necessity, those of us who are non-dogmatic about the issue of sedevacantism MUST downplay +Bellarmine's importance because Fr Chekada has put him on a pedastal so high, that on a cloudy day, it's hard to see him.  Fr Cekada has used +Bellarmine as the main opinion in his quest for his "my way or the highway" sede-religion.  This is totally uncatholic and extreme behavior.

All Fr Chazal is doing is putting the brakes on the +Bellarmine cult that has developed in some areas.  Fr Chazal is reminding everyone that 1) the Church has not decided this issue, 2) there are other theologians who disagree with +Bellarmine and 3) there is no consensus among theologians, therefore, EVERYONE is free to believe what he wants.  Heresy has NO PART in any of this debate.

Can we agree on any of this?  If so, which parts?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 10:03:35 AM
Obviously.  The only ones, so far, have been 'LastDays' and 'AnEvenSeven'.
Not necessarily.  You've not called me a heretic, yet you said I was "whining" when I mentioned being called one.  If you don't see the moral problem in calling other catholics 'heretics' over an undecided issue, I don't know what to tell you.  But still, I'm not sure what you believe.
These labels are just meant to show the (potential) extremism in your thinking.  If you reject the #3 error below, then I apologizie.  I've been trying to figure this out and it's not clear to me.

1. If you say you agree with Bellarmine above all other theologians - no problem.
2. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong - no problem.
3. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong, AND that Bellarmine is (basically) the the ONLY opinion of the Church - that is a problem.  (this is Fr Cekada's view)
Good points and I agree, mostly.  Your last 2 sentences show you are missing the entire purpose of this thread and why Fr Chazal spent his time and effort in making his video - which is against dogmatic sedevacantism.  Fr Chazal is trying to moderate the dogmatic extremism of Fr Chekada, +Sanborn, etc - anyone who says that their version of sedevantism is the ONLY version, that it is the Church's version, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.  This is a BIG problem today and it's sinful.  It causes all sorts of uncharity and division in the trad world, in families and between friends.  It causes people to skip mass, causes chapel divisions, and all other sorts of extreme activity.  This is why Fr Chazal is speaking; this is why I'm posting - to get rid of this extremist error.

So, by necessity, those of us who are non-dogmatic about the issue of sedevacantism MUST downplay +Bellarmine's importance because Fr Chekada has put him on a pedastal so high, that on a cloudy day, it's hard to see him.  Fr Cekada has used +Bellarmine as the main opinion in his quest for his "my way or the highway" sede-religion.  This is totally uncatholic and extreme behavior.

All Fr Chazal is doing is putting the brakes on the +Bellarmine cult that has developed in some areas.  Fr Chazal is reminding everyone that 1) the Church has not decided this issue, 2) there are other theologians who disagree with +Bellarmine and 3) there is no consensus among theologians, therefore, EVERYONE is free to believe what he wants.  Heresy has NO PART in any of this debate.

Can we agree on any of this?  If so, which parts?

Excellent summary of the main problem of sedevacantism - well, the extremist version anyway. The problem is, people like 2Vermost still think that there's evidence that the Church does look to Bellarmine on the issue. They don't seem to accept that that's not the case. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 10:13:23 AM
For the record, I don't think all those who are not SV are heretics or necessarily going to hell. I do think people like Pax and Stubbs are indeed heretics because of their tireless attack on the Catholic Faith, the spreading of a false Catholic faith, and their proud, willful subjection to heretics.

The above is the type of thinking that is extreme. As long as everyone is quiet and doesn't say anything against sedevacantism, and they don't say much about being subject to the pope - then they aren't heretics. 

Warped thinking. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 20, 2017, 10:38:48 AM
For the record, I don't think all those who are not SV are heretics or necessarily going to hell. I do think people like Pax and Stubbs are indeed heretics because of their tireless attack on the Catholic Faith, the spreading of a false Catholic faith, and their proud, willful subjection to heretics.
You equate those who have faith in and remain faithful to the dogma as being heretics - is that before or after presupposing the pope is not the pope? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 10:40:29 AM
If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe sedevacantism, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.
If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe R&R, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.

No catholic, anywhere, has to accept either sedevacantism, sedeplenisim, R&R, etc, etc.  There is no moral obligation to even make a decision on the matter (except for the hierarchy, whose job it is to protect the Faith and if they don't clear up these matters, they will be judged on that).  The only moral obligation that trad catholics have is to 1) follow the 10 commands and laws of the church and 2) believe all those dogmas of the faith which the Church has taught us.  The issue of the papacy is a fun and interesting topic to discuss but that's the extent of it.  One can easily stick with tradition and ignore the papal problems and save their soul.  God's not going to ask us on judgement day of our opinion on the pope (because our opinion is meaningless).  He's going to ask us how well we loved Him, by keeping His commandments and keeping the faith.  The problems in rome are no one's to decide or fix, except the Church.  And none of us in tradition are the Church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 20, 2017, 10:47:45 AM
If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe sedevacantism, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.
If you put any moral obligation (i.e. under pain of sin or heresy) on anyone to believe R&R, (in any form, in any degree), then you are extreme and dogmatic.

No catholic, anywhere, has to accept either sedevacantism, sedeplenisim, R&R, etc, etc.  There is no moral obligation to even make a decision on the matter (except for the hierarchy, whose job it is to protect the Faith and if they don't clear up these matters, they will be judged on that).  The only moral obligation that trad catholics have is to 1) follow the 10 commands and laws of the church and 2) believe all those dogmas of the faith which the Church has taught us.  The issue of the papacy is a fun and interesting topic to discuss but that's the extent of it.  One can easily stick with tradition and ignore the papal problems and save their soul.  God's not going to ask us on judgement day of our opinion on the pope (because our opinion is meaningless).  He's going to ask us how well we loved Him, by keeping His commandments and keeping the faith.  The problems in rome are no one's to decide or fix, except the Church.  And none of us in tradition are the Church.
Well said!   :applause:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 20, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
That idea still makes no sense, at the very least it is ambiguous. The Church, which is Christ, is infallible and indefectible, why does he limit it to what appears to be inside only one Church or diocese of Rome and who is the author you quoted that attributes this to St. Robert?
 

The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma and it was formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 20, 2017, 01:35:11 PM
The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma and it was formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.
Unlike the quote from Hermengild, that ^^^ makes complete sense.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 01:37:45 PM
This needs WAY more context.  1 quote doesn't cut it. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 01:46:44 PM


 If God does have to intervene, it will not go well for the conciliar pretender to the Papacy and his subjects (which will include all who acknowledge the pretender as "Pope").

You believe that it will not go well for those of us who believe that the Pope is the Pope, if God has to intervene? What is God going to do to us, exactly? You seem to have it all figured out.

Lastdays, you sometimes sound as if you believe that you have a direct line to the mind of God. Do you consider yourself a prophet of God, or something like that? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 20, 2017, 01:54:36 PM
And this goes to show that +Bellarmine is wrong on this point, as his arguments are based on Luke 22 and a history of no heretical popes.  In his time, his arguments make sense.

Fast forward to today, and adding in V1 and V2, and his opinion is completely unfounded.
1.  Luke 22, which is a general statement, and unexplained by Christ, was explained by V1.
2.  V2 and the popes of this era have shown it possible that a pope is a heretic.

That is not solely based on Luke 22; but many other verses as well (John 14:16; Matt. 16; Matt.28, Eph. 4:10, 17, Psalm 2, Eph 5). That the Church, and her Rector, the Roman Pontiff cannot err in matters of Faith is proved by many reasons. Read the annotations of 1 Timothy 3:15, where the Church is called the "pillar and ground of truth". Part of it says:


Quote
Christ has prayed for it, that it be sanctified in verity, that the faith of the chief Governor thereof fail not: it is his house, his spouse his body, his lot, his kingdom and inheritance, given him in this world: he loveth it as his own flesh, and it cannot be divorced or separated from him; therefore it cannot err.

The Vicar of Christ's Faith cannot fail. Therefore, as soon as his Faith fails, he is no longer the Vicar of Christ, although I do believe that there is a need for some legal recognition by competent Authority that makes it known that this has already occurred. This is in line with Sedeprivationism.  

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 02:16:35 PM
That would be up to God. The Novus Ordo "scoffers" say pretty much the same thing. Sadly, you align yourself with them and not Catholics.

Funny how you questioned me, but not Pax Vobis who just said...

"God's not going to ask us on judgement day of our opinion on the pope (because our opinion is meaningless)."

Does Pax have a direct line to the mind of God?

Does Pax consider himself a prophet of God?

Your questioning of me and not Pax clearly shows your bias, and that none of your views can be taken seriously by anyone of good will.

One does not have to be a prophet to know that things do not ultimately end up well for notorious heretics and their supporters. One just needs a little Catholic common sense. Something you are currently lacking.

You have no idea what God will do to us, but you know that it will not go well. How do you know that? Is that what your friends at Novus Ordo Watch teach?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 02:43:18 PM
As usual, you don't read a word of what I post. You like to read your own posts, and posts of those who agree with you. As I said, my comment in regards to "things not going well for notorious heretics and their supporters" was based on Catholic common sense. Not on prophecy or Novus Ordo watch or anything else.

It's not Catholic common sense to anathematize Catholics who don't agree with you. It may be sede sense, but it's not any kind of Catholic sense. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 02:51:36 PM
It is certainly not common sense to anathematize Catholics. I do no such thing. I anathematize those who preach a false gospel and their supporters, as I am supposed to...

[6] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8-#x) I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=7-#x) Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8-#x) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=9-#x) As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:6-9)

You sound like a Baptist street corner preacher, Mr. Prophet Lastdays, since you seem to know the mind of God better than Holy Mother Church.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 03:06:54 PM
Ok, then GREAT!  We are all in agreement (generally speaking) with Fr Chazal - some form of sedeprivationism.

2Vermont, what say you?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 03:14:47 PM
Ok, then GREAT!  We are all in agreement (generally speaking) with Fr Chazal - some form of sedeprivationism.

2Vermont, what say you?

Has Fr. Chazal stated that he is some form of sedeprivationist? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 03:21:46 PM
There's various names for it, so I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but, generally speaking, yes.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 03:26:09 PM
There's various names for it, so I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but, generally speaking, yes.

So what has Fr. Chazal specifically stated his position to be exactly? Sede....what?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 03:27:15 PM
He didn't give a name for it.  He just explained his view, in depth, in the video.  You should watch it - 2 hrs long, but you can split it up.  Very informative, lots of history and he's a good public speaker, so enjoyable.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 03:30:38 PM
Quote
I don't agree with Father Chazal's material/formal theory... 

Also I don't agree with your view that the Roman Pontiff is a glorified paper pusher. 
I think we agree moreso than you think.  Potato, potatoe.  The differences are very small.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 03:36:14 PM
Quote
The Vicar of Christ's Faith cannot fail. Therefore, as soon as his Faith fails, he is no longer the Vicar of Christ, although I do believe that there is a need for some legal recognition by competent Authority that makes it known that this has already occurred. This is in line with Sedeprivationism.  
If you agree with the above statement, then (in general) we agree.  The whole idea behind the material/formal distinction is the principal that 'the Church must act' to make the situation clear, final and 100% certain.  In our present post-V2 situation, the Church has not acted (yet), therefore we wait.  In the meantime, those heretics must be avoided.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 20, 2017, 03:41:29 PM
The above is the type of thinking that is extreme. As long as everyone is quiet and doesn't say anything against sedevacantism, and they don't say much about being subject to the pope - then they aren't heretics.

Warped thinking.
Meg:  do you believe that non-dogmatic sedes believe in a faith that is not the Catholic Faith (ie. "the sedevacantist faith")?  Do you believe they are heretics? 
Please answer yes or no.    
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 03:42:04 PM
He didn't give a name for it.  He just explained his view, in depth, in the video.  You should watch it - 2 hrs long, but you can split it up.  Very informative, lots of history and he's a good public speaker, so enjoyable.

I will try to watch the first part of the video. I've only seen part 2.

Still, if Father has not said that he is a sedeprivationist, then I think it's premature to designate him as such. You may very well be correct, in that he is a sedeprivationist. But since he has not specifically said so, then there may be a prudent reason for not doing so. Maybe he doesn't want to become the leader of the sedeprivationists. There wouldn't be a moment's peace for him, if he took on that role. Yikes!

You mentioned not long ago that Fr. Chazal's video was the reason for this thread, but actually, that's not true. Fr. Chazal's video was posted by Ladislaus after the thread was created. I started this thread because I think that sedeism (in any form) is over-represented here on the forum, and that it's a threat to the unity of tradition.

Some here of course will not agree, but I, for one, am not a supporter of sedeprivationism, even if Fr. Chazal turns out to be one and has made a good case for it.

Fr. Chazal is quite critical of sedevacantism in general in part 2 of the video. I don't recall that he had said that the problem of sedevacantism exists only with the dogmatic sedes.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 20, 2017, 03:52:35 PM
If you agree with the above statement, then (in general) we agree.  The whole idea behind the material/formal distinction is the principal that 'the Church must act' to make the situation clear, final and 100% certain.  In our present post-V2 situation, the Church has not acted (yet), therefore we wait.  In the meantime, those heretics must be avoided.
It's my understanding that Fr Chazal believes that the pope remains the pope UNTIL the Church deposes him.  This is NOT what Cantarella and the rest of us have been saying.  We are saying that the manifest heretic is no longer pope BEFORE the Church declares it. That is why he can be judged by the Church: he is already no longer pope.

So, no....we definitely do not agree.  Sorry.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 04:00:34 PM
Quote
Still, if Father has not said that he is a sedeprivationist, then I think it's premature to designate him as such...Maybe he doesn't want to become the leader of the sedeprivationists.
I think it's because he's not trying to start a movement, or be the leader of some new group, he's just discussing theological opinion.


Quote
Fr. Chazal is quite critical of sedevacantism in general in part 2 of the video. I don't recall that he had said that the problem of sedevacantism exists only with the dogmatic sedes.
Fr Chazal's SOLE purpose behind his study and emails is to counter Fr Cekada's dogmatic, 'my way or the highway' view of sedevacantism (see part 1).  It is not to debunk sedevacantism in general, it is to remind everyone that what we are living through can be explained only 'in theory' (by various theologians who disagree) and until the Church acts, we wait.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 04:04:23 PM
Yes, i've argued some of those things but that's what this site is for - debate.  I'm not sure I BELIEVE anything related to this topic 100%.  I'm still learning, studying, debating and re-studying.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 04:06:10 PM
Quote
Wouldn't you consider it a stretch to consider Bergoglio to ever have held the Catholic faith?
How could anyone even know this?  Glad you're not an Inquisitor.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 04:07:11 PM
I think it's because he's not trying to start a movement, or be the leader of some new group, he's just discussing theological opinion.

Fr Chazal's SOLE purpose behind his study and emails is to counter Fr Cekada's dogmatic, 'my way or the highway' view of sedevacantism (see part 1).  It is not to debunk sedevacantism in general, it is to remind everyone that what we are living through can be explained only 'in theory' (by various theologians who disagree) and until the Church acts, we wait.

Just because his sole purpose was to counter Fr. Cekada's form of sedevacantism....how does this infer that Fr. Chazal is fine with other forms? He wanted to counter the worst form, but I don't think this necessarily means that he's fine with the other forms, unless he has stated this specifically. Has he?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 04:07:50 PM
Watch. the. video.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 20, 2017, 04:20:34 PM
Obviously.  The only ones, so far, have been 'LastDays' and 'AnEvenSeven'.

Not necessarily.  You've not called me a heretic, yet you said I was "whining" when I mentioned being called one.  If you don't see the moral problem in calling other catholics 'heretics' over an undecided issue, I don't know what to tell you.  But still, I'm not sure what you believe.

These labels are just meant to show the (potential) extremism in your thinking.  If you reject the #3 error below, then I apologizie.  I've been trying to figure this out and it's not clear to me.

1. If you say you agree with Bellarmine above all other theologians - no problem.
2. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong - no problem.
3. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong, AND that Bellarmine is (basically) the the ONLY opinion of the Church - that is a problem.  (this is Fr Cekada's view)

Good points and I agree, mostly.  Your last 2 sentences show you are missing the entire purpose of this thread and why Fr Chazal spent his time and effort in making his video - which is against dogmatic sedevacantism.  Fr Chazal is trying to moderate the dogmatic extremism of Fr Chekada, +Sanborn, etc - anyone who says that their version of sedevantism is the ONLY version, that it is the Church's version, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.  This is a BIG problem today and it's sinful.  It causes all sorts of uncharity and division in the trad world, in families and between friends.  It causes people to skip mass, causes chapel divisions, and all other sorts of extreme activity.  This is why Fr Chazal is speaking; this is why I'm posting - to get rid of this extremist error.

So, by necessity, those of us who are non-dogmatic about the issue of sedevacantism MUST downplay +Bellarmine's importance because Fr Chekada has put him on a pedastal so high, that on a cloudy day, it's hard to see him.  Fr Cekada has used +Bellarmine as the main opinion in his quest for his "my way or the highway" sede-religion.  This is totally uncatholic and extreme behavior.

All Fr Chazal is doing is putting the brakes on the +Bellarmine cult that has developed in some areas.  Fr Chazal is reminding everyone that 1) the Church has not decided this issue, 2) there are other theologians who disagree with +Bellarmine and 3) there is no consensus among theologians, therefore, EVERYONE is free to believe what he wants.  Heresy has NO PART in any of this debate.

Can we agree on any of this?  If so, which parts?
Do you even read my posts?  I wrote in a couple of posts earlier:

I don't happen to agree with anyone calling you a "heretic", but when you offer such gems as these [the anti-sede "othering" remarks you've made in the thread], your whining about the dogmatic sedes calling you a "heretic" doesn't garner too much sympathy from me.

In other words, yes, calling you a heretic is wrong, but it's really difficult for me to feel badly about others doing so when you have a habit of dishing out anti-sede remarks. Not having sympathy for you doesn't mean I think it's okay. 

Re: #3: I do not believe that Bellarmine is the only opinion in the Church.  Is that clear now? 
 
Having said that, I am not convinced that Fr Cekada or Bishop Sanborn call those that hold other positions as "heretics". I have listened to a lot of their shows, sermons, etc, and I have never heard them say this.  Remember that they were both SSPX at one time. I don't even think I have ever heard them say that every Novus Ordite is a heretic.  Now, The Dimond Brothers?  That's another story.
  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 20, 2017, 04:29:50 PM
I think it was Ladislaus who at the beginning of the thread said that Fr. Chazal's position resembled Sedeprivationism; but I am not sure about that. This is a Resistance priest and to them, the Pope is still the pope, whereas to sedeprivationists, he is NOT Pope. He has already ceased to be.

It is like the difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine as of the timing of the deposition. In Bellarmine's position the Church does not depose the pope, but it is Christ himself Who does, the Church only confirms the fact. Whereas with Cajetan we would have to wait until an imperfect Council of Bishops deposes the Pope. Vermont explained it right.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 20, 2017, 04:30:14 PM
Meg:  do you believe that non-dogmatic sedes believe in a faith that is not the Catholic Faith (ie. "the sedevacantist faith")?  Do you believe they are heretics?
Please answer yes or no.    
If you don't answer, then the presumption will be "yes".  And that would make you a a hypocrite for calling others extreme and writing the following:

It's not Catholic common sense to anathematize Catholics who don't agree with you.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 04:45:58 PM
Watch. the. video.

I will do that. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 04:51:54 PM
Quote
I'm It is like the difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine as of the timing of the deposition. In Bellarmine's position the Church does not depose the pope, but it is Christ himself Who does, the Church only confirms the fact. Whereas with Cajetan we would have to wait until an imperfect Council of Bishops deposes the Pope. Vermont explained it right.
The important phrases are highlighted:  "Church confirms" vs "Church deposes".  Potato / potatoe.  The overarching principle is that THE CHURCH MUST ACT in some capacity.  Before that happens, we cannot say, with 100% certainty, that "pope x is not the pope".  

What we are living through now is the situation where any Tom, Dick or Harry is going around proclaiming there's no pope.  That's not how Catholicism works - there's a process, there's hierarchy, there's order. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 20, 2017, 05:03:12 PM
It would be more consistent to say that Christ protects the pope from ever falling from the Faith.

I think it was Vatican l that stated that the Pope is free from error when speaking ex cathedra, and he is infallible only under certain conditions. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 20, 2017, 06:34:50 PM
The important phrases are highlighted:  "Church confirms" vs "Church deposes".  Potato / potatoe.  The overarching principle is that THE CHURCH MUST ACT in some capacity.  Before that happens, we cannot say, with 100% certainty, that "pope x is not the pope".  

What we are living through now is the situation where any Tom, Dick or Harry is going around proclaiming there's no pope.  That's not how Catholicism works - there's a process, there's hierarchy, there's order.
We have folks making private, personal judgments that there is no pope.  Each and every member of the hierarchy needs to make the same private judgment before making a public, formal declaration.  That private judgment is the realization that the man in white is a manifest heretic already deposed by God. Once they all come to this realization, then they can "act".  

Exactly how do you think the members of the hierarchy would "know" for certain that the man is not pope before making their declaration?  A phone call from God?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: songbird on December 20, 2017, 07:09:48 PM
Christ said, You will know them by their fruits.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: songbird on December 20, 2017, 07:15:33 PM
Be sure to read your prophesies!  Don't be like the scribes, who had the prophecies and ignored them.  Christ was in their midst and they did not recognize him.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 08:56:04 PM

Quote
Exactly how do you think the members of the hierarchy would "know" for certain that the man is not pope before making their declaration? 
No catholic knows 'for certain' that pope x is not the pope UNTIL the Church tells us it 'is certain'.  This is the whole point of church authority, otherwise we'd have the chaos and confusion of protestants.  In your example, the hierarchy makes a personal judgment that *he thinks* the pope has said/acted heretically.  Then, the hierarchy makes a judgement together, which equates to the Church's judgement.  The individual judgments of each cardinal have no weight (just like your or my judgements have no weight) unless/until they make a decision together.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 20, 2017, 09:12:50 PM
No catholic knows 'for certain' that pope x is not the pope UNTIL the Church tells us it 'is certain'.  This is the whole point of church authority, otherwise we'd have the chaos and confusion of protestants.  In your example, the hierarchy makes a personal judgment that *he thinks* the pope has said/acted heretically.  Then, the hierarchy makes a judgement together, which equates to the Church's judgement.  The individual judgments of each cardinal have no weight (just like your or my judgements have no weight) unless/until they make a decision together.

How come the R&R partisans are rejecting an entire Ecumenical Council, then? Last time I knew the "Church" has not declared Vatican II invalid either, so I guess they are also exercising certain personal judgement there. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 09:24:19 PM
A church judgment is one that comes from the body of the hierarchy, which makes a decision using known and established procedures from canon law.  It doesn't come from 2 cardinals, or 15 bishops, or 4,000 priests.  It is a decision by the Church as a whole and it must be followed by all.  Until that happens, it's not an official decision.  Doesn't mean that it's the wrong decision, it just means it's not official.  

I don't want to get off on a tangent about V2, but those errors which are rejected are pretty easy to reject, considering they contradict previously defined and infallible doctrines.  There are other reasons too, but really, this is off topic.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 20, 2017, 09:32:23 PM
Further, yes, people exercise personal judgment but that doesn't mean THEIR Judgment is infallible, right?  Do you or I have the right to preach on the street corner that "anyone who does not publicly reject V2 is a heretic"?  No we don't have that right or authority because we're not the Church.  

In the same way, you can have a large group of the hierarchy think a pope has "lost it" but that doesn't make it an established fact, with an authority to bind the faithful.  This determination only becomes official when there is a process that's followed and the hierarchy makes a formal decision.  

That's the basis of any legal or governmental decision - formal process.  And it's also related to the attribute of the Church, namely, Visibility.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 21, 2017, 06:28:07 AM
A church judgment is one that comes from the body of the hierarchy, which makes a decision using known and established procedures from canon law.  It doesn't come from 2 cardinals, or 15 bishops, or 4,000 priests.  It is a decision by the Church as a whole and it must be followed by all.  Until that happens, it's not an official decision.  Doesn't mean that it's the wrong decision, it just means it's not official.  

I don't want to get off on a tangent about V2, but those errors which are rejected are pretty easy to reject, considering they contradict previously defined and infallible doctrines.  There are other reasons too, but really, this is off topic.
No, it's really not.  
Then again, the OP was asking how many sedes there were on the forum right now, so everything other than that is off-topic.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 21, 2017, 06:31:26 AM
I wonder what the odds are that the whole so-called "Catholic hierarchy" in the Vatican will ever come to the conclusion that Francis is not a true pope.   ::)

:sleep:

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:11:21 AM
I just can't figure out why the Bellarminists are so eager to materially vacate the Holy See.  Do you plan on holding a Council to elect one of your own?

Biggest problem with Bellarminism ... in practice anyway, not in theory ... is who can decide whether a Pope has become a manifest heretic and when does deposition actually occur.  2Vermont or Myrna, armed with their Penny Catechism, hear a Pope say something in public and decide that it's heretical.  Does the Pope vacate his See at that moment ... or do we need to wait for someone in some position of AUTHORITY to make the determination?  IPSO FACTO-ism is fraught with all manner of difficulties in the practical order.  That's precisely why John of St. Thomas came to the conclusions that he did.  Sure, fine, Popes are deposed ipso facto ... but AT WHAT POINT does the heresy become sufficiently known by someone with the competence/authority to make that determination so that the See is KNOWN by all with sufficient certainty to be vacant.  Otherwise, every time Myrna or 2Vermont stand up and yell heresy, the See goes vacant, eh?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 21, 2017, 08:16:14 AM
Apparently you haven't read a number of posts since you've been in the thread Lad.  But thanks for more belittling.  I guess I was wrong. I see you're no better than some of the other anti-sedes here.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:16:41 AM
I think it was Ladislaus who at the beginning of the thread said that Fr. Chazal's position resembled Sedeprivationism; but I am not sure about that. This is a Resistance priest and to them, the Pope is still the pope, whereas to sedeprivationists, he is NOT Pope. He has already ceased to be.

It is like the difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine as of the timing of the deposition. In Bellarmine's position the Church does not depose the pope, but it is Christ himself Who does, the Church only confirms the fact. Whereas with Cajetan we would have to wait until an imperfect Council of Bishops deposes the Pope. Vermont explained it right.

Difference between Father Chazal and run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism is that Father Chazal declares all of the Magisterium, Universal Discipline, etc. of the V2 papal claimants to be null and void ... not JUST THE ERRONEOUS PARTS.  Standard R&Rism holds that if the Pope teaches or commands something Traditional, then it has binding force.  Chazal states that they have lost their authority ... essentially that the See is formally vacant.  He says that the only thing left is the visible sign of unity (i.e. the material occupancy of the See).  Whether he knew the term or not, Father Chazal basically articulated sedeprivationism.

Even in the cases where we "WAIT" for an Imperfect Council to declare deposition (i.e. ministerially or materially depose), John of St. Thomas for instance holds the they've lost their authority while in that limbo state.  And that lines up with sedeprivationism.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:18:31 AM
Apparently you haven't read a number of posts since you've been in the thread Lad.  But thanks for more belittling.  I guess I was wrong. I see you're no better than some of the other anti-sedes here.

I'm belitting EVERYBODY.  Stop taking it personally.  I chose a couple of the ardent sedevacantists as examples.  I could have used myself ... except that I don't consider the See to be materially vacant.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 21, 2017, 08:20:36 AM
I'm belitting EVERYBODY.  Stop taking it personally.  I chose a couple of the ardent sedevacantists as examples.  I could have used myself ... except that I don't consider the See to be materially vacant.
Don't take it personally??  You specifically named ME  (and Myrna) in that last post.  You can't be serious....lol. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:21:43 AM
It's my understanding that Fr Chazal believes that the pope remains the pope UNTIL the Church deposes him.  This is NOT what Cantarella and the rest of us have been saying.  We are saying that the manifest heretic is no longer pope BEFORE the Church declares it. That is why he can be judged by the Church: he is already no longer pope.

So, no....we definitely do not agree.  Sorry.

No, that's not what he's saying.  Problem here is your failure, and the failure of many straight sedevacantists, to understand the core distinction here.  Father Chazal states quite clearly that this pope has lost all authority and is in a vitandus state.  Yet he remains in material possession of the See.  So he's Pope in one respect (materially) but NOT Pope in another respect.  That's called a distinction.  With sedeprivationism and Father Chazal's position it isn't a simple binary ... either he is or he isn't.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:22:21 AM
Don't take it personally??  You specifically named ME  (and Myrna) in that last post.  You can't be serious....lol.

As examples.  Develop a thicker skin or stay out of theological debates.  Most women have no business here ... evidently because everything appears to cause emotional problems.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:27:13 AM
Why doesn't it suffice for the Bellarminists that the man has, according to Father Chazal ... and sedeprivationists, lost all authority, that his teaching and his commands are null and void?  Why are you so insistent to declare the See materially vacant.  You have a real problem then in terms of how the Church will be restored.  There's no more jurisdiction left in the Church ... which most theologians would hold as tantamount to a defection.  There's no mechanism to restore the papacy ... except if a Council of sedevacantist Thuc-line bishops got together and elected one.  But, wait, that kind of thing has already been done a couple times.  So why weren't those attempts legitimate?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 08:34:22 AM

If Fr. Chazal believes that the Pope has lost all authority, then why did he say (in part 2 of the video) that he tells the Filipinos that he is under the Pope in Rome? 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 08:37:04 AM
I'm belitting EVERYBODY.  Stop taking it personally.  I chose a couple of the ardent sedevacantists as examples.  I could have used myself ... except that I don't consider the See to be materially vacant.

That's hilarious. And so true. One does have to have a thick skin to participate on the threads that discuss sedeism. It's often a verbal punching match going on, more often than not.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:46:16 AM
The body of the hierarchy could not make an official decision in this matter. In order for any decision to be official there would need a valid Pope acting infallibly. Even if all the Cardinals unanimously agreed that the Chair of Peter was vacant, it could not make it official. Also, it is not just a matter of determining (correctly) that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but they also have to elect a true Catholic. 

False.  After a Pope has passed away, the Church's election and recognition of a Pope is considered official and also to have the certainty of faith.  Similarly, the non-Bellarminists argue, the withdrawal of recognition by the Church due to heresy, would have a similar officialness to it and would be protected as infallible due to the indefectibility of the Ecclesia Credens.  In fact, it's on the basis of this same indefectibility/infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens that theologians hold in general that the Church cannot adhere to a false pope and that the legitimacy of the pope can be known with the certainty of faith based on that universal recognition.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:48:27 AM
If Fr. Chazal believes that the Pope has lost all authority, then why did he say (in part 2 of the video) that he tells the Filipinos that he is under the Pope in Rome?

He explained that very clearly ... it's his shorthand way to demonstrate that he's essentially Catholic, based on the fact that the material papacy remains the visible sign of unity for Catholics.  Again, this isn't difficult ... formally no longer pope; materially still pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 08:52:10 AM
He explained that very clearly ... it's his shorthand way to demonstrate that he's essentially Catholic, based on the fact that the material papacy remains the visible sign of unity for Catholics.  Again, this isn't difficult ... formally no longer pope; materially still pope.

Well, yes, I agree that it's essentially Catholic, but I don't think he means it in just a symbolic way. I know that's not what you are saying. To say that one is under the Pope in Rome would indicate to me that the Pope has a certain authority. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:52:29 AM
There is no problem in restoring the Church. Certain Novus Ordo Roman Clergy have to at least call into question their own heresies and those of the heretic posing as Pope. They would have to call an imperfect council and eventually invite Bishops with valid orders. 

But the problem is that valid orders (and according to many sedevacantists very few remain with valid orders) doesn't suffice to have authority in the Church.  There's the question of jurisdiction ... which would have all but completely evaporated with straight sedevacantism.  But sedeprivationism handles this problem very nicely.

Who constitute the "Roman clergy" if they have not been validly appointed as such by someone with authority?  Do I qualify as Roman clergy because I happen to live within the city limits?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Well, yes, I agree that it's essentially Catholic, but I don't think he means it in just a symbolic way. I know that's not what you are saying. To say that one is under the Pope in Rome would indicate to me that the Pope has a certain authority.

I can see that, but he doesn't mean it that way.  I think he basically said that it's a just lot easier to speak in those terms and that the simple faithful would have no idea what he was blabbering about if he were to go on about these theological fine points.  He uses the expression of being under the Pope as a shorthand for indicating that he's Catholic and not some kind of schismatic.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 08:56:51 AM
I can see that, but he doesn't mean it that way.  I think he basically said that it's a just lot easier to speak in those terms and that the simple faithful would have no idea what he was blabbering about if he were to go on about these theological fine points.  He uses the expression of being under the Pope as a shorthand for indicating that he's Catholic and not some kind of schismatic.

Okay, but he said in the video that when he tells the Filipinos that he is under the Pope in Rome, that he is telling them the truth, and that it is not a lie when he tells them this. You seem to be saying that he's not really telling the truth to those Novus Ordo Filipinos. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 09:19:05 AM
Quote
Bellarminists can't address the problem of when heresy has become sufficiently manifest in order for deposition to happen.

1) Joe Sixpack reads a papal encyclical and determines that it's heretical.
2) Several priests and a bishop decide that the pope is a heretic.
3) Several bishops determine that a pope is a heretic but most other bishops disagree with them.
4) 49% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 51% don't.
5) 51% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 49% don't.
6) 90% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 10% don't.
7) General Council declares the pope a heretic and to have lost office.

Right now we're somewhere between #1 and #3. 
Ok, everyone, let's put aside theory and talk about real life.  How/when does the pope get deposed?  The above questions from Ladislaus must be raised again.  I'll also step it up a notch.  Riddle me this, and tell me what happens in this scenario.

Imagine you're living in a normal, sane catholic world, sometime between 1100-1500. A catholic cardinal, (not yet saintly but far from immoral, and who cares about the church) is elected pope, but the election was full of politics and manuevering because 2 powerful, italian families wanted their sons to be pope (actually happened a few times during the middle ages).  The worldliness and ambition of many of the cardinals is boarderline sinful, with not a few living very scandalous lives.  The major european kings of the time, who basically rule the world, while not openly at war, are constantly involved in little battles and skirmishes here and there, at various country borders, not amounting to the loss of many soldier's lives, but surely preventing the catholic world being at peace.  Such small battles and constant bickering of the monarchs proved that while catholicism reigned as the religion of the world, far, far too many in the royal courts lived their religion with any kind of effort; most were immoral (including the kings).  Let's also throw in some religious bickering, because, when has the catholic world not argued about something?  So there was a large debate in the world at the time over the evils of nepotism and "alms" (i.e. bribery) given to bishops and cardinals, in exchange for help with political issues.

Into this make-believe world (which, if you read history, is not all that make-believe) a new pope is elected into the middle of political mayhem - with conflicts building in all 3 major areas of life - political, social and religious.  The new pope has also said he wants to get rid of nepotism and the political corruption in rome.  So 15 Italian Cardinals (out of 70) hatch a plan to get rid of this new pope, because they are friends of one of the uber-wealthy italian families.  They are also supportive of the Italian-Spanish king, who is in 'disagreements' with France.  The current pope's family is french, so of course, he is a political enemy of these 15 cardinals (even though the current pope cares nothing for politics and only for the faith and has openly said so.  Again, he is a good man.). 

Many of these 15 cardinals are very evil and caught up in the sins of nepotism and receiving alms/bribes.  They talk to 10 other Cardinals who are politically neutral but who are also only Cardinals because of nepotism and bribery.  So these 30 cardinals dream up a plan to claim that the new pope supports heresy.  They plant false evidence, they get a few advisors of the Italian-spanish king involved in order to gain political support, as well as some of the governors of the italian provinces.  The plan is set, the false evidence is brought forth and the wheels of conspiracy and lies begin to move.  The entire college of cardinals is in shock, as is most of Italy.  Of course, the rich italian family which stands to gain from the ousting of the pope is using every means possible to sway public opinion and tempt those cardinals who are neutral that 'everyone saw this coming' and that 'this pope has a lot of skeletons in his closet'.  The 25 cardinals who are in on the plot are doing their best to contact every bishop and papal emissary who will listen and tell them of the pope's heretical ideas.  In the end, based on public opinion, the pope is deposed.  There is no trial, no council called to discuss facts, but the cardinals sign a letter which states the pope is to be removed, but this all happens 'after the fact' - with the letter being signed without discussion, just passed around like a birthday card for each cardinal to sign as a matter of formality - a testament to mob rule and the democratic extremes which are allowed (and encouraged) by Church law, for heresy in any degree must be removed at all cost, for the heretical man deposes himself.  And the evidence against the pope was too damning.  What other choice did the Cardinals have, but to kick out a deposed pope?  The whole catholic world was witness to his heresy and self-judgement - there was no other option.

And so, with a +Bellarmine mindset, we must use this scenario to show the errors and extremes which a lack of due process and canon law procedures would allow, if the law was just simply 'a heretic deposes himself'.  Such anti-heretical idealism is very catholic and sounds wonderful, but without practical measures and checks/balances, will lead to more mayhem and confusion than the actual heresy.
 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 09:27:43 AM
Ha ha, LastDays!  You contradicted yourself in a matter of minutes!

First you said:
The body of the hierarchy could not make an official decision in this matter. In order for any decision to be official there would need a valid Pope acting infallibly. Even if all the Cardinals unanimously agreed that the Chair of Peter was vacant, it could not make it official. Also, it is not just a matter of determining (correctly) that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but they also have to elect a true Catholic.

Then you said:
There is no problem in restoring the Church... They would have to call an imperfect council and eventually invite Bishops with valid orders. They would have to come to the conclusion that the Chair of Peter is Vacant, and they would have to acknowledge and abjure their own heresies and acknowledge their questionable holy orders. They would be conditionally consecrated and ordained and elect a new Pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 21, 2017, 09:31:09 AM
Difference between Father Chazal and run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism is that Father Chazal declares all of the Magisterium, Universal Discipline, etc. of the V2 papal claimants to be null and void ... ......
Define "Magisterium sifting" and give at least one case that "magisterium sifting"  has occurred.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 09:38:34 AM
Define "Magisterium sifting" and give at least one case that "magisterium sifting"  has occurred.

This isn't difficult.  Vatican II taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things.  Those things are part of the Magisterium.  But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty.  We reject that PART of it, whereas we accept the rest.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 09:52:45 AM
Quote
If a Catholic encounters notorious public heresy, then he must presume malice in the external forum. This can potentially mean that "for a time" he may may be rejecting a true Pope.
What you are proposing is nothing less than catholic anarchy.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 09:55:55 AM
Quote
I never said that the decision of the imperfect council (that the Chair of Peter was Vacant) was "official". I just said that they (the imperfect council) "would have to come to a conclusion".
Your scenario could lead to multiple, multiple popes at the same time - even multiple bishops for the same diocese.  It would make the situation when St Vincent Ferrer lived (with 3 different popes) a catholic 'norm'.  This is total chaos.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 09:56:47 AM
This isn't difficult.  Vatican II taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things.  Those things are part of the Magisterium.  But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty.  We reject that PART of it, whereas we accept the rest.

How is this different from What +ABL believed and taught?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 10:38:02 AM
Sorry, I meant your 'explanation' of how to handle my scenario. 

Of course, I disagree.  In my scenario, what would happen is that the process of canon law would be followed (this is why canon law exists).  There would be an inquiry, and evidence of heresy would be presented and the college of cardinals would determine that the pope was not guilty but innocent - and he would remain pope throughout all of this.  The italian king, if it was able to be proved that he was involved, would probably be put under an interdict and the evil Cardinals would've been punished in some way as well (maybe excommunication, certainly they would've been banished to a monastery or clerical prison).  The rich italian family might been excommunicated until they did satisfactory public penance.

In your explanation, the pope is 'guilty until proven innocent'.  I realize you read this in canon law commentary somewhere, and it is applicable in some cases, but a heretic pope is not the same flavor as any other heretic.  The papacy is a different situation than any other situation in catholicism.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 21, 2017, 10:55:10 AM
How is this different from What +ABL believed and taught?

It is not. Ladislaus was just explaining "run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism".
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 10:56:26 AM
It is not. Ladislaus was explaining "run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism".

He didn't actually explain it. But that's not unusual for Ladislaus. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 21, 2017, 11:04:03 AM
This isn't difficult.  Vatican II taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things.  Those things are part of the Magisterium.  But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty.  We reject that PART of it, whereas we accept the rest.
So in other words, V2 taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things which are of the Magisterium. But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty, which being at least error, is not of the Magisterium. We reject those parts of V2's teachings that are not of the Magisterium, whereas we accept the rest.

This is not "Magisterium sifting".

Can you come up with an actual example?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 21, 2017, 11:08:16 AM
That's not what I said - I said a pope could never become Faith-less. Likewise the local Roman Church can never defect from the Faith.

If a pope can never become Faith-less; then that is proof right there that the conciliar popes are not true popes, unless you want to argue that the conciliar popes have indeed kept the Faith.... and....you attend the FSSP.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 11:48:17 AM
That's not what I said - I said a pope could never become Faith-less. Likewise the local Roman Church can never defect from the Faith.

No, you didn't say that. 

You said that Christ protects the pope from ever falling from the faith. You said..."THE FAITH." I took that to mean that the Catholic faith was the main subject, and the pope's faith secondary to that. 

What does the Church teach regarding the Pope "never becoming faithless," as you say? What does this mean, exactly, in the eyes of Church teaching? Can you cite any specifics from Church teaching to qualify this? 



Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 11:58:56 AM
St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

"Taken from him" how?  He loses it ipso facto.  So did he not lose it ipso facto because he was "considered" a heretic?  How did he get his office back?  Bellarmine can't even keep his own argument straight ... unless he too assumes the the office must be materially stripped from him by some authority.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 12:01:16 PM
So in other words, V2 taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things which are of the Magisterium. But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty, which being at least error, is not of the Magisterium. We reject those parts of V2's teachings that are not of the Magisterium, whereas we accept the rest.

This is not "Magisterium sifting".

Can you come up with an actual example?

:facepalm:

Of course that's Magisterium sifting.  Yes, I know, you have redefined Magisterium to be only those things taught by the Church which you decide are in accordance with Tradition.  So you define Magisterium in a way that no other Catholic has ever defined it ... including R&R folks.  Most R&R folks would simply refer to it as non-infallible Magisterium ... whereas you just cross it out from the Magisterium entirely.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 12:03:32 PM
It is not. Ladislaus was just explaining "run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism".

Yes, that is opposed to, say, Father Chazal's position, in which the entire Magisterium of the V2 papal claimants has become null and void ... not just the bad parts.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 12:14:01 PM
There is the physical removing of a heretic from the office that must take place. This physical presence does not imply that the heretic rightly holds some sort of material office. In fact he has no right to it and should not be holding it. That's why it must be taken from him.

Sure.  Nice try.  Pathetic actually.  So you're claiming that this means physical removal from the building.  Would dragging him off the chair suffice?

Except that Bellarmine said:
"stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity"


Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 12:30:39 PM

Quote
Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic.

We've already discussed this, but i'll post it again.  The clergy ACTED to strip Liberius of his pontificate.  It wasn't assumed, and it did not happen without due process, order and an authoritative act.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 12:39:32 PM
Quote
...a heretic pope is not the same flavor as any other heretic.
Bellator said:  Pax, where do you come up with this garbage?? 

It comes from canon law.  Some of you want to quote canon law regarding ipso facto excommunications and simply apply them to the papal question.  But you are forgetting that canon law also states:  "The first see is judged by no one".  (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur).  So, how do we interpret this contradiction?  Well...its not simple!  this is why theologians have argued about it for centuries.  It must mean that canon law contains a legal hierarchy and that excommuication penalities apply to all heretics, unless he be the pope, for this would require additional actions.  A papal heretic is not the same as you, I or a bishop being a heretic.  It's just not. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 12:43:46 PM
Calling your own argument pathetic? You correctly admitted the possibility when you said...

"unless he too assumes the the office must be materially stripped from him by some authority"

Hmm, you actually got something right for once, and then you turned on yourself.

The word "dignity" does not pertain to the spiritual domain, but rather the temporal. It refers more to human pride and respect. Here is a good example, which you can apply to yourself...

"A fool set in high dignity, and the rich sitting beneath" (Ecc. 10:6)

Nonsense.

You guys are simply too obtuse to understand the distinction being made here.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 12:43:54 PM
Quote
The clergy did what they were supposed to do in the situation.
+Bellarmine doesn't say the clergy has to do anything.  In this case, Liberius doesn't have to be stripped, he already stripped himself.  So, all the clergy must do is elect a a new pope and ignore Liberius.  BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED, IS IT?  No.  The clergy ACTED to strip Liberius and THEN they elected a new pope.  So this historical record contradicts the impractical approach of +Bellarmine.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 12:59:41 PM
Then Suarez, Cajetan, John of St Thomas, etc, etc are also heretics because they said that a council could depose a bad pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 21, 2017, 01:00:54 PM
:facepalm:

Of course that's Magisterium sifting.  Yes, I know, you have redefined Magisterium to be only those things taught by the Church which you decide are in accordance with Tradition.  So you define Magisterium in a way that no other Catholic has ever defined it ... including R&R folks.  Most R&R folks would simply refer to it as non-infallible Magisterium ... whereas you just cross it out from the Magisterium entirely.
:facepalm:
No, that is not Magisterium sifting. Yes, I know you define a Magisterium as infallible but can also teach error - not sure if that can happen at the same time though - where you learned that who knows?, but you have still not given any actual example of "magisterium sifting", likely because you can't, because we do no such thing. But although meaningless, it does have a nice ring to it in a strange sort of way.

Now out of necessity the sedewhateverists do indeed twist the teachings of the Church without regard to their degree of solemnity, and in order to show how the surest position is the happy place is right in the luke warm middle, the only recourse you have is to make unfounded accusations, re: R&R Magisterium sifting. Never heard of such a thing - it's right up there with Fr. Cekada's "pope sifting", which is another novel sede-inspired term for sure.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, see if you or anyone can actually give an actual example of R&R "Magisterium sifting".
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 01:22:07 PM
See comments in red...What you describe below is the basic understanding of the difference between the material vs spiritual offices of the pope.  You basically just described sedeprivationism.  I tell ya, i'm going insane here, trying to figure out why we can't understand each other.

Indeed Liberius Francis (by his external works) showed himself to be stripped of his office (his spiritual office). As long as he was thought to be Pope by the Church at large (his dignity remained). It was this dignity that the clergy needs to strip from Francis but has not yet had to now strip, by denouncing Liberius, and they need to denounce Francis and remove him from the material office (of which he had no right to) and electing a new Pope.

Ergo, until Francis is denounced and removed, he still holds his dignity/material/earthly part of his papacy because he is thought to be pope by the church at large.  This is sedeprivationism.


These are your own words.  If you disagree with yourself, then go collect yourself, think about it and come back and refute yourself.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 01:29:46 PM
Quote
If they said that a true Pope could be deposed by a council, then they should be considered heretics (absolutely).
No, you misquoted me.  They didn't say a 'true' pope could be deposed, but a bad one.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 21, 2017, 02:01:51 PM
As examples.  Develop a thicker skin or stay out of theological debates.  Most women have no business here ... evidently because everything appears to cause emotional problems.
Interestingly you selected two women as your "examples"..... 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 02:02:32 PM
Quote
As long as he was thought to be Pope by the Church at large (his dignity remained).
How do you reconcile your earlier statement, with your current one below?
Quote
The problem lies in the fact that a notorious heretic has no right to a material office, dignity, recognition etc.
No one is arguing he has a RIGHT to his material office, but as you said to yourself earlier, as long as he is viewed as the visible pope, he still has his dignity.  As Fr Chazal puts it, though the pope has no spiritual authority, he remains in his office as a sign of 'unity' among catholics, so that the visible church would remain.  (Is this not what you mean by 'dignity'?)  So, until the cardinals denounce and remove him, he's still (materially) the pope.  He's just a figurehead at this point.  He has no spiritual power (which is about 90% of the pope's powers anyway).  This is why I said, in this scenario, he would be a glorified 'paper pusher', whose duties would be as simple as a CEO running some business.  Nothing more.
Can we not agree on this?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 02:12:36 PM
Quote
Pax, please tell us what happened to Pope Liberius, and how the clergy applied due process, order, and explain how they acted with authority...
Bellator Dei, See answer from Last Days below:

LastDays said:
Quote
It was this dignity that the clergy had to now strip, by denouncing Liberius, removing him from the material office (of which he had no right to) and electing a new Pope.

Liberius was a bad/heretical pope.  He was deposed by a council.  This is what Suarez, Cajetan, etc taught could (and did) happen.
So, you say that Liberius was removed by the clergy, but then you earlier said, that the papal see cannot be judged.

LastDays said:
Quote
You claim that the first see CAN be judged, provided due process, order and a supposed authoritative act takes place. We have never said such things. In fact you are a heretic for even believing that the first see could possibly judged, as it is a dogma that he cannot be judged.
How do your lines of reason not contradict each other?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 02:20:47 PM
Quote
Indeed Liberius Francis (by his external works) showed himself to be stripped of his office (his spiritual office). As long as he was thought to be Pope by the Church at large (his dignity remained). It was this dignity that the clergy needs to strip from Francis but has not yet had to now strip, by denouncing Liberius, and they need to denounce Francis and remove him from the material office (of which he had no right to) and electing a new Pope.

Ergo, until Francis is denounced and removed, he still holds his dignity/material/earthly part of his papacy because he is thought to be pope by the church at large.  This is sedeprivationism.
If you say there is a problem with the above, then you must retract your logic from the italicized above.  Please correct it.  I'd really like to know.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: TKGS on December 21, 2017, 03:23:34 PM
I'm giving 5:1 odds this thread goes at least 15 pages.
You should have given 500:1 odds.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 03:35:35 PM
I agree with you guys in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate how it works in real life.  How many catholics does it take to recognize a heretical pope?  Just 1?  5?  1,500?  Just the ones in rome?  Or based on an encyclical only?

What if there's a disagreement on if he's a heretic?  We presume he's a heretic, is your answer.  What if everyone in the college of cardinals thinks everyone else is a heretic?  Who decides then?  So everyone has lost his office? 

What if, like during the period of the 3 popes - everyone thought that the other 2 popes (and their followers) were heretics?  So, that means that EVERY CATHOLIC was a heretic, and is excommunicated, right?  Catholicism ceases to exist, because we must 'presume evil intent' for heresy, right? 

So, if a pope says heresy, first you said he retains his dignity until the clergy removes him and he retains his material office (I agree with this).  Then you DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF, and you said the dignity is just a 'false dignity' and he has the material office but not a right to it (not sure I understand the difference.)  Then you said he can't hold the material office because a heretic can't hold office.

Anyway, I'm just trying to understand but I see that it's impossible.  You just keep repeating the same quotes without explaining how it works.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your theory is not adequately formulated at this point.  +Bellarmine's theory suffered from the same problem.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 04:11:01 PM
There's a six-page document on the Dominicans of Avrille website, called "A refutation of sedevacantism."

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

It doesn't cover every aspect of the debate, but it does go into detail about the issue of material vs. formal heresy. From page 2:

"1) "A heretical pope is deposed from his pontificate by the very fact of his heresy"

"To start with, it must be noted that this doctrine is not recognized as certain or even common among great theologians who dealt with this question: some think that this cannot happen, some others think that such a pope should be deposed, or forced to resign, and yet others who think that he would lose his pontificate ipso facto. Hence, it is only a probable opinion shrouded with doubts.

"Next, the word "heretic" must be understood in the moral sense. For it is in this sense that there is unanimity among theologians and canonists, that one cannot condemn someone of heresy unless it be formal (an obstinate sin, willfully denying an article of the faith defined by the Magisterium of the Church). However, it not possible for us to affirm with certainty, that of a conciliar pope, neo-modernism being just a heresy that does not directly deny defined articles of the previous Magisterium, but empties them of their substance.

"It is difficult to know if a conciliar pope is truly aware of being in formal opposition with the traditional Magisterium, especially when he speaks of the "hermeneutic of continuity." Even if that is the case objectively, it is not evident subjectively and before God that he has contracted the sin of heresy, a sin that the law of the Church requires to be declared, before being able to impute to him a crime punishable by canonical sanctions. Therein lies a new doubt. Yet, a decree of the holy office (20-07-1898 states that in case of doubt, there is presumption of material heresy.

"With the dictionary of Catholic theology (v.6 col.2221) let us add that "even feigned ignorance excuses one from the sin of formal heresy, though it does not mean that it excuses one from the sin itself."
That these conciliar popes are heretics at least materially, this is commonly agreed among us, and this is what the Superior General of the SSPX declared publically in Fideliter (No. 92, p.44) in 1993. But that they are formally, that is doubtful."

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 04:18:47 PM
I agree with you guys in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate how it works in real life.  How many catholics does it take to recognize a heretical pope?  Just 1?  5?  1,500?  Just the ones in rome?  Or based on an encyclical only?

What if there's a disagreement on if he's a heretic?  We presume he's a heretic, is your answer.  What if everyone in the college of cardinals thinks everyone else is a heretic?  Who decides then?  So everyone has lost his office?

What if, like during the period of the 3 popes - everyone thought that the other 2 popes (and their followers) were heretics?  So, that means that EVERY CATHOLIC was a heretic, and is excommunicated, right?  Catholicism ceases to exist, because we must 'presume evil intent' for heresy, right?

So, if a pope says heresy, first you said he retains his dignity until the clergy removes him and he retains his material office (I agree with this).  Then you DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF, and you said the dignity is just a 'false dignity' and he has the material office but not a right to it (not sure I understand the difference.)  Then you said he can't hold the material office because a heretic can't hold office.

Anyway, I'm just trying to understand but I see that it's impossible.  You just keep repeating the same quotes without explaining how it works.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your theory is not adequately formulated at this point.  +Bellarmine's theory suffered from the same problem.

Maybe it's not a matter of material or spiritual office at all (the sedeprivationist doctrine?), but a matter of not being able to prove that the pope is a formal heretic.

Your doctrine is still sedevacantist, Pax. It may seem more reasonable, but it's not. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Clemens Maria on December 21, 2017, 05:12:20 PM
I just can't figure out why the Bellarminists are so eager to materially vacate the Holy See.  Do you plan on holding a Council to elect one of your own?

Biggest problem with Bellarminism ... in practice anyway, not in theory ... is who can decide whether a Pope has become a manifest heretic and when does deposition actually occur.  2Vermont or Myrna, armed with their Penny Catechism, hear a Pope say something in public and decide that it's heretical.  Does the Pope vacate his See at that moment ... or do we need to wait for someone in some position of AUTHORITY to make the determination?  IPSO FACTO-ism is fraught with all manner of difficulties in the practical order.  That's precisely why John of St. Thomas came to the conclusions that he did.  Sure, fine, Popes are deposed ipso facto ... but AT WHAT POINT does the heresy become sufficiently known by someone with the competence/authority to make that determination so that the See is KNOWN by all with sufficient certainty to be vacant.  Otherwise, every time Myrna or 2Vermont stand up and yell heresy, the See goes vacant, eh?
The hierarchy is competent to decide.  The hierarchy consists of all those clergy who are actually Catholic, who profess the Catholic faith.  And if there is some disagreement within the hierarchy, and there is no definitive authority who can settle the dispute (i.e. the Pope), then a general council should be held and it should be determined by a vote.  But I think that a general council is not absolutely necessary.  If the Catholic clergy of the Roman province decide that the man wearing a white cassock is actually a usurping non-Catholic, then they are certainly competent to resolve the issue themselves.  But prior to a resolution it is possible to discuss the situation and even make accusations without thereby causing a schism.  There is an objective reality and we can grasp it with our intellects.  Is Frank Catholic?  Don't say, "Who am I to judge."
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 05:31:23 PM
So, if a pope says heresy, first you said he retains his dignity until the clergy removes him and he retains his material office (I agree with this).  Then you DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF, and you said the dignity is just a 'false dignity' and he has the material office but not a right to it (not sure I understand the difference.)  Then you said he can't hold the material office because a heretic can't hold office.

That's because they don't understand the difference between formally holding office and materially holding it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 05:33:33 PM
The hierarchy is competent to decide.  The hierarchy consists of all those clergy who are actually Catholic, who profess the Catholic faith.  And if there is some disagreement within the hierarchy, and there is no definitive authority who can settle the dispute (i.e. the Pope), then a general council should be held and it should be determined by a vote.  But I think that a general council is not absolutely necessary.  If the Catholic clergy of the Roman province decide that the man wearing a white cassock is actually a usurping non-Catholic, then they are certainly competent to resolve the issue themselves.  But prior to a resolution it is possible to discuss the situation and even make accusations without thereby causing a schism.  There is an objective reality and we can grasp it with our intellects.  Is Frank Catholic?  Don't say, "Who am I to judge."

Indeed, the hierarchy has to decide.  And that's my point.  As of this moment in time, the hierarchy has not decided this.  So we're in a limbo state.  We must posit at least that there's positive doubt regarding their legitimacy in order to refuse submission to them ... but we're still SHORT of having any authoritative decision on the matter.  Sure we can have our opinion about it.  Indeed, every accusation of heresy STARTS with someone forming an opinion about it.  In a more normal time in the Church, the consensus of heresy would have built up very quickly against the likes of a Bergoglio.  Then, at that point, what if he were to recant in the face of this consensus?  There are all kinds of complexities here and it's not nearly as simple as papa haereticus ipso facto depositus.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 05:43:09 PM
There's a six-page document on the Dominicans of Avrille website, called "A refutation of sedevacantism."

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

Fine, but in order to refuse submission to these popes, one has to at least formulate a positive doubt regarding their legitimacy ... as Father Chazal goes on to state.  Father Chazal holds that they have lost any and all formal authority.  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 05:44:31 PM
That's because they don't understand the difference between formally holding office and materially holding it.

It isn't necessary to understand the difference, because it's a made-up difference/theory held by you sedevacantist-privationists. It's a false distinction.

There's essentially no difference, that I can see, between you and the full-on sedevacantists. You believe that the current pope has no jurisdiction, and as such, it means that he's pope in name only with absolutely no authority. He might as well be a ghost. This isn't any different from what the dogmatic sedes believe and what you believe, practically speaking.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 05:44:47 PM
If they said that a true Pope could be deposed by a council, then they should be considered heretics (absolutely).

:facepalm: Please learn to understand the distinctions involved.  According to them, only God can depose a pope authoritatively (formally) whereas the Church deposes ministerially (materially) or, rather, declares or recognizes them as deposed.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 05:47:15 PM
Fine, but in order to refuse submission to these popes, one has to at least formulate a positive doubt regarding their legitimacy ... as Father Chazal goes on to state.  Father Chazal holds that they have lost any and all formal authority.  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.

I don't care what Fr. Chazal says on the matter. I know that you sedevacantist-privationists are doing the happy-dance because you think that Fr. Chazal is on your team. Maybe he is. So what. That doesn't make sedevacanist-privationism true. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 05:48:23 PM
The problem lies in the fact that a notorious heretic has no right to a material office, dignity, recognition etc. (as far as a Catholic is concerned).

Nobody's saying they have a right to it.  But until the Church withdraws the recognition of their de facto possession of it, they retain de facto possession ... even if they have lost de iure possession.  Then you use terms like "dignity" and "recognition" ambiguously.  When I refuse submission to them, I am refusing to recognize their formal authority.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 05:53:09 PM
I don't care what Fr. Chazal says on the matter. I know that you sedevacantist-privationists are doing the happy-dance because you think that Fr. Chazal is on your team. Maybe he is. So what. That doesn't make sedevacanist-privationism true.

Your consistently emotional responses demonstrate that you have no business on this thread and very little positive contribution to make.  You clearly have some deep emotional attachment to your position and resent that sedeprivationists are doing a "happy-dance" and are splitting people up into "teams".  You're clearly emotionally invested in whatever you believe, and until you can get past that you'll never find the truth.

With regard to Father Chazal, I simply found his rational and balanced approach to the question refreshing and I saw his position as having the potential to unite Traditional Catholics who are otherwise divided on this issue ... by introducing some appropriate distinctions.  I am on nobody's "team" ... except hopefully God's.  I am routinely attacked by R&R types like yourself as well as by sedevacantists, and so this is an extremely tiny team that I'm on.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 21, 2017, 05:58:01 PM
Your consistently emotional responses demonstrate that you have no business on this thread and very little positive contribution to make.  You clearly have some deep emotional attachment to your position and resent that sedeprivationists are doing a "happy-dance" and are splitting people up into "teams".  You're clearly emotionally invested in whatever you believe, and until you can get past that you'll never find the truth.

With regard to Father Chazal, I simply found his rational and balanced approach to the question refreshing and I saw his position as having the potential to unite Traditional Catholics who are otherwise divided on this issue ... by introducing some appropriate distinctions.  I am on nobody's "team" ... except hopefully God's.  I am routinely attacked by R&R types like yourself as well as by sedevacantists, and so this is an extremely tiny team that I'm on.

You don't like what I'm saying, so you play the "emotional" card. Well, I'm going to keep posting on the thread, Ladislaus. That's just how it is.

And people here are already split into teams, and much of that is your doing, though it's not only you. The other sedevacantists are at fault, too. Sedevacantism-privationism is wrong. It just appears to be a milder form of dogmatic sedevacantism, but it's the same thing in reality. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 06:12:43 PM
You don't like what I'm saying, so you play the "emotional" card. Well, I'm going to keep posting on the thread, Ladislaus. That's just how it is.

Your last post was 100% emotion and had 0 substance to it.  "I don't care what Father Chazal says" and ranting about "happy-dances" and whose team someone is on.  I might care about WHAT your saying if more than 10% of your posts had some substance to them and weren't just petulant emotional rants.  Stubborn is the same way.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 06:16:06 PM
And people here are already split into teams, and much of that is your doing, though it's not only you.

:laugh1:  That's laughable.  These "teams" far predate any of my posts; they've been around for decades.  Then you go on to blame sedeprivationists-sedevacantists for the divisions but refuse to look in the mirror and lay ANY fault whatsoever with any of the R&R.  Well, let me hold that mirror up for you.  These sedevacantists/privationists have a healthy sense for the indefectibility of the Church, her Magisterium and her Universal Discipline, which you R&R types have completely undermined.  Consequently, they find you abhorrent ... as do I.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 06:17:55 PM
The other sedevacantists are at fault, too. Sedevacantism-privationism is wrong. It just appears to be a milder form of dogmatic sedevacantism, but it's the same thing in reality.

No, honey, R&R is heretical crap.  Sure, there are problems with sedevacantism but they pale in comparison.  Uhm, you have no idea what the term "dogmatic" sedevacantism means to suggest that this is a "milder" form of it.  Almost by definition, if it's "milder", then it's not exactly dogmatic anymore.  Just take your petulant emotionalism back to promoting Flat Earth theory.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 21, 2017, 06:23:04 PM
It isn't necessary to understand the difference, because it's a made-up difference/theory held by you sedevacantist-privationists. It's a false distinction.

There's essentially no difference, that I can see, between you and the full-on sedevacantists. You believe that the current pope has no jurisdiction, and as such, it means that he's pope in name only with absolutely no authority. He might as well be a ghost. This isn't any different from what the dogmatic sedes believe and what you believe, practically speaking.

I hold that he maintains (material aspects of) jurisidction.  But if he has authority, then what does that make you?  I'll tell you.  It makes you a schismatic for refusing submission to said authority and a heretic for rejecting the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  I'll take being mistaken about the identity of the pope over that any day.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 21, 2017, 08:47:38 PM
Meg, I know you're a big follower of +ABL (and I am too, in most areas) but *sometimes* you can't make a decision about the current state of affairs based on an opinion that is decades old.  +ABL kicked the tires of sedevacantism back in the day but he didn't want to cross that line due to being cautious.  That's fine.

But I'll bet a lot of money that if he were alive today, he'd agree with the material/formal distinction.  He was pretty smart and theology interested him.  And with Pope Francis, its hard not to say he's completely lost it.  A few decades ago, we were dealing with JPII who was very crafty.  Francis is just too open about his antics.  

As Fr Chazal even admitted, the sspx is 'behind the times' when studying this issue because they've spent most of their time taking care of the essentials - mass, sacraments, schools, etc.  They've stuck with +ABLs stance partly out of habit and partly due to being busy.  

The real question I have is, what does +Williamson think?  It's hard to disagree with Fr Chazal's research...he's a smart cookie.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 22, 2017, 03:53:25 AM
  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.
Your idea of R&R is completely screwed up.

As a matter of Catholic fact, submission to the Magisterium is wholly necessary and can never be harmful to people's faith, to reject the Magisterium is to lose the faith. This simple foundational truth is part of the faith and always will be.  

You imagine, as you said earlier, the Magisterium is both infallible and not infallible or as you said, "non-infallible magisterium", which is to say the Magisterium can teach both truth and error, then you accuse R&R of the novel term, "magisterium sifting". According to your idea of the Magisterium, how else are we expected to determine which is which without sifting?

If the Magisterium is as you say, then we ALL must sift the magisterium lest we submit to the non-infallible (read: error / non-binding) part of the Magisterium. We have no other choice, according to your idea of the Magisterium that is.

Then you toss in our duty to submit to the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, which is to say we must submit to the whole Magisterium, both infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) Magisterium, yet you say to sift which is which, that is to say, to sift between the infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) magisterium is heresy. What you never do is tell us how else are we to know which is which without sifting? We cannot depend on the infallible part of the Magisterium to tell us because what we think is infallible may well be non-infallible - according to your idea.

As I said, you toss in our duty to submit to the Church's Universal Discipline which is derived from the Magisterium. Well, who is to say that today's Universal Discipline was not derived from the non-infallible (error) Magisterium? According to your understanding, it appears today's Universal Discipline is part of the non-infallible (error) Magisterium because obviously, today's Universal Discipline is riddled with errors and heresies - apparently you understand this because of that evil magisterium sifting, which you say is heresy.

Setting aside for now how this whole idea of yours obviously decimates the Church's indefectibility, this sufficiently sums up your confusion as regards R&R, Magisterium sifting, Magisterium, and Universal Discipline.







Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 09:24:41 AM
You imagine, as you said earlier, the Magisterium is both infallible and not infallible or as you said, "non-infallible magisterium", which is to say the Magisterium can teach both truth and error, then you accuse R&R of the novel term, "magisterium sifting". According to your idea of the Magisterium, how else are we expected to determine which is which without sifting?

If the Magisterium is as you say, then we ALL must sift the magisterium lest we submit to the non-infallible (read: error / non-binding) part of the Magisterium. We have no other choice, according to your idea of the Magisterium that is.

Then you toss in our duty to submit to the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, which is to say we must submit to the whole Magisterium, both infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) Magisterium, yet you say to sift which is which, that is to say, to sift between the infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) magisterium is heresy. What you never do is tell us how else are we to know which is which without sifting? We cannot depend on the infallible part of the Magisterium to tell us because what we think is infallible may well be non-infallible - according to your idea.

As I said, you toss in our duty to submit to the Church's Universal Discipline which is derived from the Magisterium. Well, who is to say that today's Universal Discipline was not derived from the non-infallible (error) Magisterium? According to your understanding, it appears today's Universal Discipline is part of the non-infallible (error) Magisterium because obviously, today's Universal Discipline is riddled with errors and heresies - apparently you understand this because of that evil magisterium sifting, which you say is heresy.

Setting aside for now how this whole idea of yours obviously decimates the Church's indefectibility, this sufficiently sums up your confusion as regards R&R, Magisterium sifting, Magisterium, and Universal Discipline.

Well, that's actually progress for you.  Before you kept claiming that erroneous stuff was simply not part of the Magisterium.  Indeed, there are non-infallible things in the Magisterium.  But this isn't about nitpicking the limits of infallibility.  We're not talking about a couple of offhand comments in an Encyclical letter that can be respectfully questioned ... but rather about a wholesale corruption of the Magisterium and the replacement of Catholic truth with a new non-Catholic theological system.  R&R posits that the Magisterium has become so thoroughly corrupt, and the Church's Universal Discipline so defective, that Catholics cannot in good conscience go to that Mass or submit to the Magisterium without corrupting the faith.  So R&R lose the forest (of indefectibility) for the trees (of infallibility).  If Catholics have to reject the Magisterium and refuse to attend the Mass, if the Magisterium and Mass have become dangers to the faith, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have defected.

On the one hand you have a number of dogmatic sedevacantists who exaggerate the scope of infallibility, right down to "negative infallibility" Nado who basically was on record saying that anything the Church has failed to condemn must be true, and others who claim that any minor book with an imprimatur from a local ordinary must be considered de fide for all intents and purposes.  On the other you have the R&R who claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can lead souls to hell.  So the dogmatic sedes overreact to the R&R minimalization of infallibility (basically limiting it to solemn definitions) by exaggerating the scope of infallibility in the other direction.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 09:26:19 AM
LOL ... 58 pages and counting on this thread.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 22, 2017, 10:29:30 AM
Pax, please enlighten us in regards to how Liberius became a heretic, and tell us what council it was that deposed him...

Pope Pius IX disagrees with Pax. He noted in Quartus Supra that Liberius was falsely accused by the Arians and had refused to condemn Athanasius.


Quote
Exactly in this way did the Acacian schismatics act towards Our predecessor St. Gelasius. And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy. For as the same holy Pontiff Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius on this matter, “a frequent characteristic of sick people is to reproach the doctors who recall them to health by appropriate measures rather than agree to desist from and condemn their own harmful desires.”
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 10:36:36 AM
Quote
Pax, please enlighten us in regards to how Liberius became a heretic, and tell us what council it was that deposed him...
Ask LastDays; this is his quote/example.  I don't know anything about Liberius' history; I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of using an example to support 'automatic deposition' when it refers to the clergy removing Liberius.  If the clergy removed Liberius then he wasn't 'ipso facto' deposed, was he?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 10:38:20 AM
According to a study by the late Michael Davies, Pope Liberius had supported St. Athanasius. But then Pope Liberius was kidnapped by the Arians and held in exile for two years. It is believed that the Arians threatened to kill him, after the two years, if he did not condemn St. Athanasius. So he did condemn St. Athanasius. Liberius was guilty of weakness under duress. He was not a heretic. He did not support the Arian heresy. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 10:42:15 AM
The main reason why I started this thread is to show that sedevacantism is over-represented on the forum.  I think that this has been proven to be the case.

There are only two of us posting on the thread who believe in +ABL's sound stance on the issue. Nearly everyone else who has posted on the thread is some brand of sedevacantist.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 22, 2017, 10:44:59 AM
According to a study by the late Michael Davies, Pope Liberius had supported St. Athanasius. But then Pope Liberius was kidnapped by the Arians and held in exile for two years. It is believed that the Arians threatened to kill him, after the two years, if he did not condemn St. Athanasius. So he did condemn St. Athanasius. Liberius was guilty of weakness under duress. He was not a heretic. He did not support the Arian heresy.

I think that the historical evidence that Popes do not really fall into heresy greatly outweighs the evidence otherwise.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 10:48:53 AM
No, honey, R&R is heretical crap.  Sure, there are problems with sedevacantism but they pale in comparison.  Uhm, you have no idea what the term "dogmatic" sedevacantism means to suggest that this is a "milder" form of it.  Almost by definition, if it's "milder", then it's not exactly dogmatic anymore.  Just take your petulant emotionalism back to promoting Flat Earth theory.
So in consequence, you must believe also that +ABL was a heretic. You aren't any different than the dogmatic sedes. Dogmatic sedevacantist privationism. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 10:50:05 AM
Your idea of R&R is completely screwed up.

As a matter of Catholic fact, submission to the Magisterium is wholly necessary and can never be harmful to people's faith, to reject the Magisterium is to lose the faith. This simple foundational truth is part of the faith and always will be.  

You imagine, as you said earlier, the Magisterium is both infallible and not infallible or as you said, "non-infallible magisterium", which is to say the Magisterium can teach both truth and error, then you accuse R&R of the novel term, "magisterium sifting". According to your idea of the Magisterium, how else are we expected to determine which is which without sifting?

If the Magisterium is as you say, then we ALL must sift the magisterium lest we submit to the non-infallible (read: error / non-binding) part of the Magisterium. We have no other choice, according to your idea of the Magisterium that is.

Then you toss in our duty to submit to the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, which is to say we must submit to the whole Magisterium, both infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) Magisterium, yet you say to sift which is which, that is to say, to sift between the infallible (truth) and non-infallible (error / non-binding) magisterium is heresy. What you never do is tell us how else are we to know which is which without sifting? We cannot depend on the infallible part of the Magisterium to tell us because what we think is infallible may well be non-infallible - according to your idea.

As I said, you toss in our duty to submit to the Church's Universal Discipline which is derived from the Magisterium. Well, who is to say that today's Universal Discipline was not derived from the non-infallible (error) Magisterium? According to your understanding, it appears today's Universal Discipline is part of the non-infallible (error) Magisterium because obviously, today's Universal Discipline is riddled with errors and heresies - apparently you understand this because of that evil magisterium sifting, which you say is heresy.

Setting aside for now how this whole idea of yours obviously decimates the Church's indefectibility, this sufficiently sums up your confusion as regards R&R, Magisterium sifting, Magisterium, and Universal Discipline.

Well said. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 22, 2017, 10:54:28 AM
Pax, you have no clue what you're talking about...

You need to stop discussing the sede vacante topic and stick to the Friday dinner thread with Poche - you are way in over your head, man...  

 :laugh2:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 22, 2017, 11:06:14 AM
The problem with sedeprivationism is not in that it distinguishes between the spiritual office and the temporal (dignity). The problem lies in the fact that a notorious heretic has no right to a material office, dignity, recognition etc. (as far as a Catholic is concerned). He is not to be considered a member of the Church (in any way). He is to be considered alien to the Church until (if and when) he proves his innocence. This is the teaching of the Church as expressed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and by St. Robert Bellarmine (in the examples that I recently gave you).

Even Bellarmine acknowledges the need of some type of warning in dealing with heretics, as per St. Paul's teachings. Again, the heretical pope is deposed by that very fact FIRST, and THEN, he is dealt with by the Church.  

Quote
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan in his treatise on the authority of the Pope and of a Council, Ch. XX and XXI, where he teaches that a manifestly heretical pope is not deposed by that very fact, but can and should be deposed by the Church. In my opinion this cannot be defended, for first of all, the fact that a manifest heretic is by that very fact deposed is proven by means of authority and of reason. The authority is that of the blessed Paul who, in his Epistle to Titus, Chapter III, commands the faithful to avoid the heretic after two warnings, which is to say, after it is clear that he is pertinacious, and that above all he understands the excommunication and sentence of the judge. As Jerome says in this place: other sinners are excluded from the Church by the sentence of excommunication, while heretics separate themselves, and cut themselves off from the Body of Christ; but one cannot shun the pope as long as he remains pope. How, in effect, is it possible to avoid our head? How can we be separate from a member of our body that we are attached to?” (loc. cit. supra, Note 2).

"We cannot shun the pope as long as he remains pope". How R&R responds to that?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 11:08:53 AM
Fine, but in order to refuse submission to these popes, one has to at least formulate a positive doubt regarding their legitimacy ... as Father Chazal goes on to state.  Father Chazal holds that they have lost any and all formal authority.  Problem with standard R&R, and the reason why sedevacantists so violently (and rightly) reject it, is that they posit that legitimate popes can promulgate a harmful and defective universal discipline (Mass) and teach error to the Church in an order of magnitude where submission to the Magisterium can harm people's faith.  In other words, standard R&R posits that submission to the Church's Magisterium can be harmful to the faith and that it can be required of Catholics to categorically reject it.  In other words, the battle here is about the indefectibility of the Church and about our duty to submit to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church ... and not some quibble of opinions regarding what happens to a heretical pope.

No, the illegitimacy aspect does not have to be accepted. That's your opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre accepted them as legitimate. But of course you believe that the Archbishop was a heretic because he didn't hold them to be illegitimate. Is that right?

We do not follow the modernist popes in their error. They are not yet formal heretics. The Refutation of Sedevacantism (from the Dominicans of Avrille website) explains how the conciliar popes are not formal heretics, but I doubt that you will read it. You will likely say that it is emotional, even though it was written by priests. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 11:16:31 AM
Quote
There are only two of us posting on the thread who believe in +ABL's sound stance on the issue.
R&R is like 'conservative'; it means something different to everyone.  +ABL's stance was very similar to Fr Chazal's - +ABL just didn't take the time to explain it, or use a fancy new term.  +ABL was the one who, after repeated dealings with new-rome, said that they must not 'make a deal' with new-rome until they convert.  He was already saying, indirectly, that the pope/new-rome was to be treated as if they are 'impounded'.  He said that 'new-rome does not have the faith'.  His actions, whereby he ordained new priests and bishops, further prove that he separated himself from rome's heresies, which is a main point of sedeprivationism.

The REAL problem has been +Fellay, who has corrupted +ABL's view and approach to new-rome and has continued to operate in the dangerous, gray area.  He has continued his progressive approach towards heresy and has continued to redefine everything +ABL stood and worked for.  +Fellay has given R&R a bad name and he has corrupted it's meaning, and therefore, it's only practical to discard this term and use a new one.

Fr Chazal is attempting to re-clarify, re-teach and return to ABL's original stance.  Many of his points were implicit in +ABL's original stance, but now that he has spent the time he can expand on +ABL's 'summary' ideals and give more complete and historical reasons.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 11:18:53 AM
Even Bellarmine acknowledges the need of some type of warning in dealing with heretics, as per St. Paul's teachings. Again, the heretical pope is deposed by that very fact FIRST, and THEN, he is dealt with by the Church.  

"We cannot shun the pope as long as he remains pope". How R&R responds to that?
What was +ABL's stand on the issue, Cantarella? After all, he personally met with the Pope. He stood up in defense of tradition at the Council, he confronted the Pope with the errors that the Council was proposing.

How many of you sedes have done anything even remotely having to do with dealing directly with the Pope, as +ABL did?

The Archbishop was not a sedevacantist, and he warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over an over again. 

Here is the excellent Refutation of Sedevacantism, posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website. It has quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, and explains his stance on the issue:


http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 11:19:20 AM
Quote
The quote I posted was from you, man...not Lastdays.
Right.  I said Liberius was a heretic, because I was using LastDay's quote, which said the same thing.  I was analyzing his argument, not confirming my belief about this historical fact.
If you want to go back around page 30, you'll see that your sede-buddy, LastDays, said it first.

You never answered the question - are you a dogmatic sede?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 11:24:40 AM
R&R is like 'conservative'; it means something different to everyone.  +ABL's stance was very similar to Fr Chazal's - +ABL just didn't take the time to explain it, or use a fancy new term.  +ABL was the one who, after repeated dealings with new-rome, said that they must not 'make a deal' with new-rome until they convert.  He was already saying, indirectly, that the pope/new-rome was to be treated as if they are 'impounded'.  He said that 'new-rome does not have the faith'.  His actions, whereby he ordained new priests and bishops, further prove that he separated himself from rome's heresies, which is a main point of sedeprivationism.

The REAL problem has been +Fellay, who has corrupted +ABL's view and approach to new-rome and has continued to operate in the dangerous, gray area.  He has continued his progressive approach towards heresy and has continued to redefine everything +ABL stood and worked for.  +Fellay has given R&R a bad name and he has corrupted it's meaning, and therefore, it's only practical to discard this term and use a new one.

Fr Chazal is attempting to re-clarify, re-teach and return to ABL's original stance.  Many of his points were implicit in +ABL's original stance, but now that he has spent the time he can expand on +ABL's 'summary' ideals and give more complete and historical reasons.

No, the Archbishop was not a sedevacantist privationist. He warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over and over again. Your view is actually the more dangerous of the sede positions, because you now implicate Archbishop Lefebvre in your error.

I hope that you will read the Refutation of Sedevacantism, which has a lot of info about the Archbishop's stance:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 22, 2017, 11:35:35 AM
No, the Archbishop was not a sedevacantist privationist. He warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over and over again. Your view is actually the more dangerous of the sede positions, because you now implicate Archbishop Lefebvre in your error.

I hope that you will read the Refutation of Sedevacantism, which has a lot of info about the Archbishop's stance:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

On this we agree. That was precisely the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre removed Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers from his seminary. It was when Des Lauriers presented his thesis that the Chair of Peter might be vacant because Paul VI was guilty of heresy (sedeprivationism) that he lost his position as a lecturer and professor at the SSPX seminary in Econe, Switzerland.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 12:09:46 PM
Quote
Let's see here...Am I a dogmatic seat?  I'm gonna say no to that one, man...
That's fantastic.  Then we are more friends than enemies.  We may not agree with each other's opinions (or the opinions of the theolgians we prefer) but we recognize that they are just opinions, with limitations. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 12:15:07 PM
Quote
I went back and looked, but I don't see where Lastdays claims that Pope Liberius was a heretic...
I don't want to waste time arguing about what LastDays thinks; he doesn't even know. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 12:27:34 PM
Quote
I hope that you will read the Refutation of Sedevacantism, which has a lot of info about the Archbishop's stance:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/ (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/)
This paper, while very general, agrees with Fr Chazal, who spoke on the topic in much more detail. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 12:37:31 PM
"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic." 

Bellator, I'm sorry, this was YOUR quote (of Bellarmine), not LastDays.  I debated your interpretation of it, but you didn't answer about 30 pages ago and LastDays did, so i forgot who originally posted it.

Liberius was not a heretic, though that was only known later.  At the time of Liberius, Bellarmine says that we must judge him by his external acts.  Ok, fine.  My point is that who judged him?  Was it joesixpack?  Was it one bishop?  Was it 4 priests?  No, the ROMAN CLERGY STRIPPED LIBERIUS OF HIS PONTIFICAL DIGNITY.

So, this argument goes to prove that the Church must act in some capacity before we can declare (with certainty) a pope is no longer pope.  Until he is removed, he's still considered the pope.  Even Bellarmine's example proves this.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 12:38:05 PM
.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 01:21:19 PM
Quote
You shouldn't discuss Bellarmine's position anymore until you read it, and understand it.
I get it.  Just pointing out that the example he used in this case was a poor one.  Didn't prove his point at all.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 02:28:51 PM
This paper, while very general, agrees with Fr Chazal, who spoke on the topic in much more detail.

I don't care anymore about what Fr. Chazal has to say on the subject, since you have made him out to be a sedevacantist. And if he is one, then that's a problem, but not one that I'm willing to get into on this thread. 

Where does the paper advocate sedevacantism as you do? Have you read the ENTIRE document? It's six pages long.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 02:43:29 PM
Meg,
If you haven't listened to Fr Chazal's entire video, then please stop responding as if you have.  No one is making him out to be a sedevacantist and this is obviously a 'trigger word' for you, so maybe you shouldn't discuss it?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 02:45:52 PM
Meg,
If you haven't listened to Fr Chazal's entire video, then please stop responding as if you have.  No one is making him out to be a sedevacantist and this is obviously a 'trigger word' for you, so maybe you shouldn't discuss it?

You are using Fr. Chazal to promote sedevacantism. That's a low thing to do, but not surprising for sedes like youself. Sedes misrepresent nearly everything they attempt to quote or use to justify sedeism. Therefore, I will not now watch the entire video.

It's up to you to refute the document I linked to.

I will keep discussing it.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 02:55:49 PM
If you haven't watched the video, then you don't know if the letter agrees with Fr Chazal or not.  Good golly.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 02:58:50 PM
You are using Fr. Chazal to promote sedevacantism. That's a low thing to do, but not surprising for sedes like youself. Sedes misrepresent nearly everything they attempt to quote or use to justify sedeism. Therefore, I will not now watch the entire video.

It's up to you to refute the document I linked to.

I will keep discussing it.
*deleted*






Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 22, 2017, 03:07:00 PM
If you haven't watched the video, then you don't know if the letter agrees with Fr Chazal or not.  Good golly.

I'm not interested in whether or not the document agrees with what Fr. Chazal says.

The document shows Archbishop Lefebvre's view of sedevacantism, which most of the Resistance is maintaining.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2017, 03:40:16 PM
Quote
Proclaiming that a notorious heretic IS a true Pope (such as what you are doing in regards to Bergoglio), is exactly the opposite of what a Catholic should do.
Who decides if Francis is a notorius heretic?  THIS IS THE QUESTION.  You?  Me?  2 priests in Somalia?  A sedevacantist chapel?
Bellarmine didn't address this.  Suarez, Cajetan "filled in the blanks" and said that THE CHURCH must decide if the pope is a notorius heretic.  No one else can decide this.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 22, 2017, 03:54:14 PM
Meg,
If you haven't listened to Fr Chazal's entire video, then please stop responding as if you have.  No one is making him out to be a sedevacantist and this is obviously a 'trigger word' for you, so maybe you shouldn't discuss it?
:laugh2:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 22, 2017, 04:40:33 PM
Well, that's actually progress for you.  Before you kept claiming that erroneous stuff was simply not part of the Magisterium.  Indeed, there are non-infallible things in the Magisterium.  But this isn't about nitpicking the limits of infallibility.  We're not talking about a couple of offhand comments in an Encyclical letter that can be respectfully questioned ... but rather about a wholesale corruption of the Magisterium and the replacement of Catholic truth with a new non-Catholic theological system.  R&R posits that the Magisterium has become so thoroughly corrupt, and the Church's Universal Discipline so defective, that Catholics cannot in good conscience go to that Mass or submit to the Magisterium without corrupting the faith.  So R&R lose the forest (of indefectibility) for the trees (of infallibility).  If Catholics have to reject the Magisterium and refuse to attend the Mass, if the Magisterium and Mass have become dangers to the faith, then the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church would have defected.

On the one hand you have a number of dogmatic sedevacantists who exaggerate the scope of infallibility, right down to "negative infallibility" Nado who basically was on record saying that anything the Church has failed to condemn must be true, and others who claim that any minor book with an imprimatur from a local ordinary must be considered de fide for all intents and purposes.  On the other you have the R&R who claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can lead souls to hell.  So the dogmatic sedes overreact to the R&R minimalization of infallibility (basically limiting it to solemn definitions) by exaggerating the scope of infallibility in the other direction.
You have an ambiguous idea of what the Magisterium is.

Per V1, we know that there can be no new doctrines and if in fact anyone, literally anyone - even an angel from heaven - teaches any new doctrines, we are not permitted to accept or believe them - period. The whole of V2's NO is a new doctrine, ergo, we are bound to reject it. No "magisterium sifting" or nitpicking involved. The Church prior to V2 already taught since the time of the Apostles  that we are to reject new doctrines. Simple.  

The indisputable fact is that the NO doctrines of V2 are new doctrines, the only thing guaranteed by the Church in regards to the new, NO doctrines, is that they are most certainly *not* protected from error by the Holy Ghost, as such, they are not binding on the faithful and are in fact to be completely avoided by the faithful. Again, simple.

The sedewhateverists, for whatever reason, profess these doctrines are supposed to be infallible because they are taught by the hierarchy whom they call "the Church" or "the magisterium", but since even they know that these new doctrines are in fact heresies, they say falsely the pope lost his office because popes are not permitted to teach heresies, they further say that those who disagree with their false idea of what the Church and magisterium is are either wrong or heretics. All V1 states is infallibility is not promised to make known new doctrines.    


I think this explains it nicely - from an old Catholic Dictionary:

It only remains to determine the subject-matter to which this infallibility extends. Clearly neither pope nor Church can put forth new dogmas for acceptance. The faith has been “once delivered to the saints”. The [First] Vatican Council lays down this point with great lucidity. “The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of  Peter in order that, through His revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but in order that, through his assistance, the successors of Peter might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of faith.”


The Church has no inspirations, She cannot receive fresh revelations to be imposed on the belief of the faithful. Her office is confined to expounding the original revelation, to the condemnation of new error and the drawing out of ancient truth, which may not, as yet, have been perfectly understood by the faithful.  


When the Church defines an article of faith, we are bound to confess that this doctrine is true and to be accepted without doubt, next, that the doctrine was revealed to the Apostles and preserved in the Deposit of Faith, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.

So what we have are Magisterial teachings that infallibility is not promised to any new doctrines and that we are to reject new doctrines, but we have a hierarchy preaching new doctrines. For our part, we are expected to listen to the Magisterial teachings of the Church - if we do that, then we reject the new doctrines taught by the hierarchy. That is not sifting the magisterium, that is simply remaining faithful to the magisterium.
 

 




 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 07:48:19 PM
No, the Archbishop was not a sedevacantist privationist. He warned of the errors of sedevacantism, over and over again. 

Garbage.  +Lefebvre was always open to the sedevacantist position and often leaned that way himself.  And if you even entertain the possibility of sedevacante then you are NOT a sedeplenist because Catholics MUST recognize popes with the certainty of faith.  Catholics can no sooner question the legitimacy of Pius XII than they can the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  +Lefebvre questioned the legitimacy of the V2 popes on a regular basis.

Would you like me to produce the quotes for ya, Meg?
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 07:50:05 PM
A Catholic decides. You obviously didn't read my last post. You are also mistaking an infallible decision for a decision.

And you obviously don't know anything about Catholic theology.  If you were alive during the time of Pius XII and decided to consider him illegitimate, you'd have been a HERETIC.  At most you could begin to ask questions and start probing and begin to create awareness of the doctrinal problem you perceive among the hierarchy.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 07:50:58 PM
You have an ambiguous idea of what the Magisterium is.

I know exactly what the Magisterium is; it is YOU who have no clue.  In most of your posts I don't even recognize a Catholic.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 07:54:35 PM
Per V1, we know that there can be no new doctrines and if in fact anyone, literally anyone - even an angel from heaven - teaches any new doctrines, we are not permitted to accept or believe them - period. The whole of V2's NO is a new doctrine, ergo, we are bound to reject it.

Idiot.  When VI teaches that infallibility does not mean "new doctrines", the Council is DEFINING the term as distinct from Revelation where the entire Deposit was handed over by God.  Infallibility was not given to add to the Deposit but to clarify and safeguard it.  Infallibility itself, however, is an a priori guarantee that, when the notes are present, the truth handed over CANNOT be false.  So if I disagreed with it before, I must now accept it with the certainty of faith and reject my former opinion ... rather than reject the new definition based on my former opinion.  You have it ass backwards ... as do most R&R who distort this passage.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 08:05:15 PM
I just want to say, Pax, how refreshing it is to find ONE PERSON on this thread who is discussing this issue rationally and honestly seeking the truth rather than being a slave to one or another of the ideological camps.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 08:14:46 PM
I just want to say, Pax, how refreshing it is to find ONE PERSON on this thread who is discussing this issue rationally and honestly seeking the truth rather than being a slave to one or another of the ideological camps.

I was remiss in forgetting to mention Cantarella as well.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2017, 08:16:25 PM
Who decides if Francis is a notorius heretic?  THIS IS THE QUESTION.  You?  Me?  2 priests in Somalia?  A sedevacantist chapel?
Bellarmine didn't address this.  Suarez, Cajetan "filled in the blanks" and said that THE CHURCH must decide if the pope is a notorius heretic.  No one else can decide this.

THIS^^^
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 23, 2017, 02:54:42 AM
I know exactly what the Magisterium is; it is YOU who have no clue.  In most of your posts I don't even recognize a Catholic.
You have a very strange idea of what the magisterium is. But we can keep at it and eventually you may unlearn the errors you've learned. I mean, there's always hope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 23, 2017, 03:00:21 AM
Garbage.  +Lefebvre was always open to the sedevacantist position and often leaned that way himself.  And if you even entertain the possibility of sedevacante then you are NOT a sedeplenist because Catholics MUST recognize popes with the certainty of faith.  Catholics can no sooner question the legitimacy of Pius XII than they can the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  +Lefebvre questioned the legitimacy of the V2 popes on a regular basis.

Would you like me to produce the quotes for ya, Meg?
Yes, +ABL is quoted as showing he had his doubts - EVERYONE had their doubts in those days, but he banned it because *he knew better* - he knew better because it was he was the one on the front line, the one who dealt *directly*, face to face with the pope on numerous occasions, often daily, debating and arguing, speaking and pleading with the pope - if anyone ever had the opportunity to know one way or the other if the pope was not the pope, it would have been +ABL, and we can be certain that he would have broadcast sedeism to his priests and seminarians first and then to the whole world. Instead, he banned it - - what does that say about +ABL and sedesim?  According to the sedes, he considered it. Iniquitous.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Stubborn on December 23, 2017, 03:52:45 AM
Idiot.  When VI teaches that infallibility does not mean "new doctrines", the Council is DEFINING the term as distinct from Revelation where the entire Deposit was handed over by God.  Infallibility was not given to add to the Deposit but to clarify and safeguard it.  Infallibility itself, however, is an a priori guarantee that, when the notes are present, the truth handed over CANNOT be false.  So if I disagreed with it before, I must now accept it with the certainty of faith and reject my former opinion ... rather than reject the new definition based on my former opinion.  You have it ass backwards ... as do most R&R who distort this passage.
Poop head. When V1 teaches the protection from the Holy Ghost was not promised so that some new doctrines may be made known, that is what it means. *You* must accept this with certainty of faith just the same as the rest of us, even though you disagree with it. You extend infallibility to places that only certain well respected 19th and 20th century theologians have taken it to. You will need to try to unlearn such things.

Just so you know, the notes are not present whenever new doctrines are. Simple.

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 23, 2017, 08:45:28 AM
Quote
Stubborn said:

Per V1, we know that there can be no new doctrines and if in fact anyone, literally anyone - even an angel from heaven - teaches any new doctrines, we are not permitted to accept or believe them - period. The whole of V2's NO is a new doctrine, ergo, we are bound to reject it.

Ladislaus said:
Idiot.  When VI teaches that infallibility does not mean "new doctrines", the Council is DEFINING the term as distinct from Revelation where the entire Deposit was handed over by God.  Infallibility was not given to add to the Deposit but to clarify and safeguard it.  Infallibility itself, however, is an a priori guarantee that, when the notes are present, the truth handed over CANNOT be false.  So if I disagreed with it before, I must now accept it with the certainty of faith and reject my former opinion ... rather than reject the new definition based on my former opinion.  You have it ass backwards ... as do most R&R who distort this passage.

-----
Gentlemen,
I see nothing contradictory between your 2 statements.  Not sure why you're debating this.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Centroamerica on December 23, 2017, 09:00:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 23, 2017, 09:03:00 AM
Be here and your OK with Laddy.(https://jasonalanwriter.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fencesitter.jpg)
To be fair to Pax, I don't think he's decided to remain undecided.  I think he just hasn't decided one way or another yet. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0

Making Archbishop Lefebvre out to be a sedevacantist is deceitful. Not surprising, though, that Fr, Cekada would resort to doing such a deceitful thing. He has misled so many people. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 23, 2017, 11:26:48 AM
Yes, I am undecided but we all should be, because the Church has not spoken.  I do lean one way, definitely avoid "dogmatism" on the issue because none of us will ever know for sure until 1) we live through the upcoming chastisement and the church returns to sanity and tells us or 2) we can ask God in heaven.  

I do think the debate is fun but I still take it serious.  LastDays, I did not mean to misinterpret your postings.  That doesn't solve anything and I find it a waste of time.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 11:30:04 AM
Meg, sedeprivationism is NOT sedevacantism.  Please calm down.  Maybe you'd understand if you watched the video??

Sedeprivationism is a form of sedevacantism. Your form of sedeism says that the pope is the pope, but he has little jurisdiction. What is the use of saying at all that the pope is the pope if he has little jurisdiction? It boils down to the same thing as the regular old sedevacantism.

I'm going to keep referring to sedeprivationism as sedevacantism.

And no, I haven't watched the first part of Father's video. I'm not a fan of sede propaganda.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 23, 2017, 11:34:03 AM
No, exactly the opposite.  He has earthly, governmental jurisdiction because he's still sitting in Rome.  But he has no spiritual authority because his heresies have made him impotent and we must separate from a heretic.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 11:38:44 AM
No, exactly the opposite.  He has earthly, governmental jurisdiction because he's still sitting in Rome.  But he has no spiritual authority because his heresies have made him impotent and we must separate from a heretic.  

You sedevacantist privationists need to be consistent in what your brand of sedevacantism is exactly. Ladislaus also considers himself to be a sedeprivationist, but he also believes that I am a heretic if I believe that Francis has jurisdiction.

Ladislaus too believes that Fr. Chazal backs up sedeprivationism. Not good. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 23, 2017, 11:42:29 AM
Haha.  You may be right - it can confusing!
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 23, 2017, 12:09:55 PM
You sedevacantist privationists need to be consistent in what your brand of sedevacantism is exactly. Ladislaus also considers himself to be a sedeprivationist, but he also believes that I am a heretic if I believe that Francis has jurisdiction.

Ladislaus too believes that Fr. Chazal backs up sedeprivationism. Not good.

Sedeprivationism is indeed a form of sedevacantism. In the thesis, the conciliar popes are NOT true popes, because the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church prevent us from saying that a true pope could ever promulgate false teachings, false liturgy, evil disciplines, etc. The errors that traditionalists perceive "officially" emanating from Vatican II.

The distinction is that among sedevacantists, there are "totalists" and "material-formalists" (also, those who can be said to be merely "opinionists" but still attending the SSPX, or such). The totalists say that Bergolio is not pope in any way, that is, he has neither the papal jurisdiction nor even a valid election. The material-formalists (this is, the sedeprivationists) say that he is not the pope because he lacks the jurisdiction, but that he does possess a valid election, and therefore, have the potential to become the pope.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 12:25:38 PM
Sedeprivationism is indeed a form of sedevacantism. In the thesis, the conciliar popes are NOT true popes, because the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church prevent us from saying that a true pope could ever promulgate false teachings, false liturgy, evil disciplines, etc. The errors that traditionalists perceive "officially" emanating from Vatican II.

The distinction is that among sedevacantists, there are "totalists" and "material-formalists" (also, those who can be said to be merely "opinionists" but still attending the SSPX, or such). The totalists say that Bergolio is not pope in any way, that is, he has neither the papal jurisdiction nor even a valid election. The material-formalists (this is, the sedeprivationists) say that he is not the pope because he lacks the jurisdiction, but that he does possess a valid election, and therefore, have the potential to become the pope.

I appreciate your explanation, and your agreement that sedeprivationism is a form of sedevacantism. 

The two main branches of sedevacantism seem to be the 'totalists,' and the 'material-formalists,' though I think that there are other branches as well. 

I don't recall that Archbishop Lefebvre made the 'material-formalist' distinction, in regards to the conciliar Popes. He seemed to differentiate between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church (conciliar Rome and eternal Rome). The sedevacantists (of whatever branch) don't seem to make this distinction. 

Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 23, 2017, 12:56:34 PM
Meg you keep talking about Archbishop Lefebvre but he has been dead now for over 1/4 of a century;  a lot has happened since then.  

If he is as smart as you say, today he would be a sedevacantist.  
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 01:04:08 PM
Meg you keep talking about Archbishop Lefebvre but he has been dead now for over 1/4 of a century;  a lot has happened since then.  

If he is as smart as you say, today he would be a sedevacantist.  

Archbishop Lefebvre dealt with the popes personally. No sede has ever done that, or ever will.  And yet, even though he suffered directly at the hands of the pope who pronounced his unjust excommunication, the Archbishop did not declare him a heretic. The archbishop was prudent - something that many sedes cannot fathom. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: MyrnaM on December 23, 2017, 01:36:51 PM
The Archbishop is dead and might be the reason God took him; God wanted to see the SSPX and people like you stand up yourself for the truth.  Have you ever heard of the "dark night of the soul?"

God wants us to stand up on our own!
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
The Archbishop is dead and might be the reason God took him; God wanted to see the SSPX and people like you stand up yourself for the truth.  Have you ever heard of the "dark night of the soul?"

God wants us to stand up on our own!

So you think that God wants us to judge the situation on our own, without the sound teaching of an Archbishop who was at the forefront of the battle for Tradition?

We aren't protestants or anarchists who have no one above us to guide us. We don't invent truth, and we don't have to figure it out all on our own, regarding how to deal with the Crisis. We can follow the good lead of an Archbishop who was a good example of prudence and fidelity to Tradition.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 02:00:03 PM
AeS,

I'm not going to respond to your quote above.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 23, 2017, 02:01:57 PM
So you think that God wants us to judge the situation on our own, without the sound teaching of an Archbishop who was at the forefront of the battle for Tradition?

We aren't protestants or anarchists who have no one above us to guide us. We don't invent truth, and we don't have to figure it out all on our own, regarding how to deal with the Crisis. We can follow the good lead of an Archbishop who was a good example of prudence and fidelity to Tradition.
A Lefebrvist.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 23, 2017, 02:02:34 PM
AeS,

I'm not going to respond to your quote above.
Of course you aren't.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 02:03:32 PM
A Lefebrvist.

That's what the Novus Ordo types and progressives call us too. You are the same as them in many ways. Two sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 23, 2017, 02:06:32 PM
That's what the Novus Ordo types and progressives call us too. You are the same as them in many ways. Two sides of the same coin.
Yes, we are both consistent in our positions although two very different positions.  The Lefebrvists are not consistent.  They are full of contradiction. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 02:08:36 PM
Yes, we are both consistent in our positions although two very different positions.  The Lefebrvists are not consistent.  They are full of contradiction.

Sedes and progressives are both consistent in not letting go of their errors, and condemning as heretics or schismatics anyone who does not agree them. 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 23, 2017, 02:11:05 PM
Sedes and progressives are both consistent in not letting go of their errors, and condemning as heretics or schismatics anyone who does not agree them.
:laugh1:  You mean like you don't do to.....sedes?
You're a piece of work.
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 02:12:54 PM
:laugh1:  You mean like you don't do to.....sedes?
You're a piece of work.

Yeah, I'm a piece of work. At least I'm not a sede or a progressive, so I've at least got that going for me.  ;)
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: 2Vermont on December 23, 2017, 02:14:27 PM
Yeah, I'm a piece of work. At least I'm not a sede, so I've at least got that going for me.  ;)
ANYTHING, but sedevacantism!   :jester:
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Meg on December 23, 2017, 02:16:51 PM
ANYTHING, but sedevacantism!   :jester:

Well, no, not ANYTHING. I stay with the good example of Archbishop Lefebvre, by not agreeing with extremists to the left and to the right (progressives and sedevacantists). 
Title: Re: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now?
Post by: Cantarella on December 23, 2017, 02:36:14 PM
Well, no, not ANYTHING. I stay with the good example of Archbishop Lefebvre, by not agreeing w