[2Vermont]

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 Cassiacuм (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.

[2Vermont]

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.

[Centroamerica]

Also, cuм 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.

[Centroamerica]

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 cuм 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.

[Mithrandylan]

cuм 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 cuм Ex Apostolotus Officio.

But inasmuch as cuм 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 cuм 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 cuм 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. 

[Centroamerica]

cuм 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 cuм 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.

[Mithrandylan]

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.
.

[Clemens Maria]

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 cuм Ex Apostolatus.  Pope Pius XII abrogated part of it.

[Cantarella]

If anything, cuм 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.

[SeanJohnson]

I'm giving 5:1 odds this thread goes at least 15 pages.

[Mithrandylan]

If anything, cuм 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 cuм ex. cuм ex's hypothetical is the entirety of the electorate. Not the universal church. 

[Mithrandylan]

Contextually, "all" clearly refers to the electorate. 

[Stubborn]

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". 

[Stubborn]

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.

[Cantarella]

.
There is no tension between Billot and cuм ex. cuм 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?