[Ladislaus]

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.

[Pax Vobis]

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 docuмent.  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.

[Meg]

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 docuмent.  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. 

[Pax Vobis]

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.

[Meg]

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. 

[Ladislaus]

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.

[MyrnaM]

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!  

[Pax Vobis]

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?

[Ladislaus]

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.

[Ladislaus]

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.

[Meg]

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. 

[Pax Vobis]

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.

[Pax Vobis]

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...

[Ladislaus]

Congratulations . 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?

[Ladislaus]

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.