[Ladislaus]

This is your own heretical distinction which was never taught by the Catholic Church.

EVERYthing is heretical with you buffoons.  That's how you discredit sedevacantism.  There's no such thing as simple error, but every darn little mistake is heresy.

There's nothing heretical about material vs. formal holding of office.  Disagree with it if you must, but to label it heretical?

[Meg]

The office of Bishop derives from God. Not just the Bishop of Rome. For God chose 12 apostles (not just St. Peter), and the Holy Ghost placed them (as Bishops) to rule the Church of God...

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28 )

The teachings I gave pertained directly to the Papacy anyway. Go back and read them. I posted several of them.

No, the office of the papacy is not just like the office of a bishop. That's what the modernists believe. There is no earthly authority over the Pope. That's what makes it so difficult to deal with a heretical pope. The bishops have ecclesial authority over them, but the Pope does not, since the power of the papacy is derived from God.

[Pax Vobis]

Vatican I says: "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...let him be anathema."
Vatican I says: "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has...only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power...let him be anathema."

 This whole theory is definitely condemned. It's astounding that some will claim the Vicar of Christ does not have the fullness of power given him by Christ Himself.

No one who has studied Vatican I for longer than 5 minutes interprets this passage as you do.  In fact, the exact question of a heretic pope came up at Vatican I, and it came up AFTER the council was complete, which proves that the council did not address the question adequately.

[Cantarella]

Limiting the Pope's jurisdiction and/or authority over the Universal Church is heretical. This position is condemned by Vatican I.

Vatican I, Sess. 4, Ch.3, #9: “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.

But we begin with the premise that this is NOT the Roman Pontiff at all, but an usurper.

If I were to bring the first paragraph of cuм Ex Apostolatus to disprove your sedevacantism:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

...you would probably tell me that you are not judging the Roman Pontiff at all; but a simple man which has either ceased to be pope or was not ever pope to begin with.

The same can apply to the Vatican I quote, which is referring to a true pope.

[Pax Vobis]

Last Days,
Do you agree, then, that Leo XXIII was the last true pope and that Pius X and XII are heretics for changing canon law papacy procedures?

[Pax Vobis]

Yes, i've read this before.  But this is just an opinion.  It is not an official Church teaching.

If it was anything more than opinion, then Pius X and Pius XII would be heretics, since they rejected this line of thinking.

[Ladislaus]

It is a dogma of the Church that heretics are not in any way members of the Church. Hence to claim that they are "in some way a member" is to advance a heretical proposition. Did you read the teachings of the Church that I posted? Are they my words? Did I say the word "alien" or did Pope Leo XIII say it? Think about that before you start labeling someone as a "buffoon". Also, understand that you contradict the V1 dogma on the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (as well) by your man made distinction, so that you actually end up making 2 heretical propositions.

No, it is not DOGMA that heretics cannot be members of the Church.  It is clear and certain teaching ... since the Council of Trent at least, but it's not dogma.  Investigate the theological notes a little bit before spouting off.

That isn't the question.  Question is whether a heretic is automatically deposed from his office.

Bellator Dei just cited a quote which completely backs Father Chazal's position.

[Cantarella]

That's true..  Here's what was said about it:

The Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.

[Ladislaus]

That's true..  Here's what was said about it:

Let's actually READ the quote you cited.

the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

So, then, what is there to "DEPOSE" if he is no longer the head of the Church?  So on the one hand he is deposed by God Himself while, on the other, deposed by the "Council of Bishops".  If God has already deposed him, then in what way is the Church deposing him?  What's left to depose?

It's quite clear that there's a distinction here and that we're speaking about different kinds of deposition.

We know that no earthly authority, but only God Himself, can depose a pope ... since the pope's authority comes from God.  That's why theologians who have dealt with this subject treat of a distinction between deposing the pope authoritatively (taking away his authority) and deposing the pope ministerially or declaratively.  In the first case, God takes away his formal authority as pope.  In the second case, the Council of Bishops can strip away his material possession of the office.

Also the quote cited the fact that no one is bound to listen to a heretical pope ... again perfectly backing up the John of St. Thomas position and the one adopted by Father Chazal.  This quote basically say that BOTH Bellarmine and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas are right in their own way.

[Ladislaus]

That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.

Exactly.  What is the Council deposing if the heretical pope has already been deposed by God?  There's SOMEthing left to depose.  Sedeprivationism holds that the material possession of the office is then stripped away by a Council.  This follows Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and Bishop des Lauriers.

[Meg]

You claimed that that the Papacy was different from that of other Bishops because it derived from God. You said...

"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."

Instead of admitting your error (that the office of Bishop did not derive from God), you go and put words in my mouth. I know very well that the Bishops do not have authority over the Pope. That is not my contention. The Church teaches that notorious heretics are not members of the Catholic Church in any way. Non members of the Catholic Church cannot be Popes. This is Church teaching. This is taught dogmatically in cuм Ex, also by the doctors of the Church and also shown in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The teaching that non members of the Church (particularly notorious heretics) cannot hold offices applies even more so for a Pope because of his greater responsibility. Common sense (alone) should tell you that.

And yet there have been heretical popes in the past. How do account for that?

[Pax Vobis]

That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.

True, but the change in canon law made by Pius X and XII supercedes these penalties.  Before, a heretic was censured automatically and ceases to be a catholic; now, such penalties are not in effect.

[Ladislaus]

It's dogma. Is Cantate Domino (Council Florence) not dogma to you? If not, then there is nothing that I can do to help you.

Non members of the Church cannot hold office. This includes notorious heretics. How many times do I have to post this?

Not even close.  Cantate Domino nowhere uses the term membership.  MUCH less does it teach that non-members cannot at least materially hold office in the Church.

[Ladislaus]

I'm only interested in what the Catholic Church has taught. Thanks anyway.

What incredible hubris!  You clowns INVARIABLY equate your personal theological positions with the teaching of the Catholic Church.  You make yourselves mini-popes.  That is what repulses so many people against your position.  You think that you're defending it but you only discredit it with each post.

[Pax Vobis]

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.

This is outdated.  Superceded by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio , Feb. 15, 1559: “6.  In addition, [by this Our  Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and  define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his  promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic  Faith or fallen into some heresy... (ii)  it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity  (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the  office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of  administration, nor through the putative  enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or  Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period  of time in the foregoing situation;...” 

This is outdated.  Superceded by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

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)

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: " A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ( per se ) ceases to be pope and head , just as he ceases automatically to be a  Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by  the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction

This is all theological opinion.  Overruled by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

Pope Leo XIII,  Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:  “The practice of the Church has always b een the same, as is shown by the unanimous  teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND  ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE  MAGISTERIUM.” 

This is outdated.  Superceded by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.

St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church,  The Catholic Controversy , pp.  305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."  

St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 :  “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and  condemn him as a heretic.

St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice , II, 30:  “For, in the first place,  it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed . The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate –  which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence . And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of  Christ.” 

This is all theological opinion.  Overruled by Pius X and Pius XII's new rules.
.