[2Vermont]

You deny scripture. A lack of Faith will do that to a person.

What teaching in Scripture have I denied here?  

[Cantarella]

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.

[2Vermont]

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:

[Pax Vobis]

2Vermont,
The entire code of canon law isn't in scripture.  What's your point?

[Meg]

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?

[2Vermont]

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.  

[2Vermont]

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. 

[Meg]

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?

[2Vermont]

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". 

[Meg]

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.

[Meg]

Apparently, Saint Robert Bellarmine "had no Faith".

He was not a sedevacantist. Therefore, he did have Faith. 

[2Vermont]

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?

[2Vermont]

He was not a sedevacantist. Therefore, he did have Faith.

But Meg, he denies Scripture according to you! 

[2Vermont]

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.

[Meg]

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