[Stubborn]

Hard for me to accept this as coming from you Cantarella, sad day.

[Ladislaus]

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.

[Ladislaus]

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.

[Ladislaus]

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.

[MyrnaM]

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.    
 

[Ladislaus]

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".

[Cantarella]

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 Cassiciacuм 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 docuмent "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 docuмent, 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

[Stubborn]

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.  

[Pax Vobis]

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.

[Stubborn]

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 circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty. - The Great Sacrilege

[Ladislaus]

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.

[Pax Vobis]

Not everything is black and white...life is complex.

[Ladislaus]

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.

[Ladislaus]

Not everything is black and white...life is complex.

Indeed.

[MyrnaM]

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!