[Mithrandylan]

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.

[Cantarella]

.
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 cuм 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 cuм ex Apostolatus already dealt with the hypothetical scenario.

[Mithrandylan]

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. 
.

My argument is that cuм 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 cuм 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. 

[Mithrandylan]

Quite frankly, this is what cuм 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.

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 cuм Ex are dogma, and what parts are legislation (which can be reformed).  So don't go throwing them out just yet, since cuм 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.

[Stubborn]

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?

[Stubborn]

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 himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

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?

[Mithrandylan]

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.

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. 

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

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 cuм 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.

[Stubborn]

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?

[Neil Obstat]

.

John Salza, Call Your Office: Fr. Kramer Releases His Text Showing that Heresy Automatically Separates one from the Catholic Church WITHOUT declaration.

November 19, 2017


Dr, Chojnowski: Here are the first 19 pages of a 222 page docuмent explaining the Catholic doctrine on Leaving the Church and Falling from Office due to Heresy, Schism, or Apostasy. The rest of the UNFINISHED docuмent 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. 

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
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." 2 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 3 ). 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 cuм 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, cuм 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 4 ; 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") 5 ; 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
2 Sancti Thomae de Aquin o; Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, PROOEMIUM

3 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."

4 "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.

5 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." 7 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 ...
6 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 11:20 AM
  
• If the 'pope' is teaching contrary to Magisterium/Sacred Tradition, than the pope claimant is not pope. The Vicar of Christ has the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio departed from dogma. 
  .
  Neither men renounced the Lutheranized/masonic novus ordo missae; neither renounced the UNholy Second Vatican II 1962-65 Council with its MANY contradictions; neither renounced the Assisi Meetings began by John Paul II............
  .
  There is NO GRAND AUTHORITY in the new religion of the post Vatican 2 Council. 
  .
  If any call Francis pope than they must adhere to all that he teaches without exception and not sift his teachings.

.
November 27, 2017 at 7:45 PM
.

• Per Father Kramer, it is the nature of the sin of heresy which separates the Heretic from his office, not the judgment of any man. The declaration by clergy is simply an acknowledgment that the deposition from office has already taken place.

[Meg]

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? 

[Neil Obstat]

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.
.

[Stubborn]

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.  

[Stubborn]

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 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.

[Mithrandylan]

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.

[Stubborn]

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.

Right Myth, to me, the person elected can be dead, or why not say a mirage? Honestly! I already replied 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.