[Pax Vobis]

I understand...  But (V1 commentary) directly in line with what Bellarmine says about Pope Liberius:

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

[Pax Vobis]

One must be notoriously heretical. He must publicly teaching heresy to the whole Church. Not an opinion (such as John XXII). Not a private letter (Such as Honorius I).

If you watched the video, Fr Chazal mentions Pascal II who no doubt was a heretic because the college of cardinals were discussing his removal.  Some wanted to say he was automatically removed, but it was decided that a formal process was needed.  How do you answer this fact of history?

[Cantarella]

Once one is considered to be a Roman Pontiff, full and supreme jurisdiction comes with it. Period. To depose him, just means to depose a heretic. The word "him" refers to "him" the heretic and not "him" the Pope. For after he says that "the Council of Bishops could depose him", he says "for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic."


"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"

Notice that they are not deposing a Pope, but a heretic. For the Pope had already become a heretic (by his heresy), and is alien to the Church.

Well, yes, at the point of deposing, they would be deposing the heretic and not the Pope. He would have lost the Pontificate (before God) at the very first moment of heresy; but he still occupies the office until is taken away from him by the competent authority (council of bishops). 

Now apply that reasoning to the Vatican I quote, which is referring to the true pontiff, who of course, has a full and supreme jurisdiction; but we start from the basic premise that we are dealing with a false pope, and not a true pontiff. 

[Pax Vobis]

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

Yes and no.  Yes, it's overruled that a pope is no longer automatically barred from being elected.  No, it's not contrary to Pius X and XII's rules that a heretic pope can still be deposed by the cardinals or council.  Pius X and XII were only changing the rules for the ELECTION of a pope; not what happens afterwards to remove him.

[Pax Vobis]

How can a false pope occupy a real office? Can anyone who says they occupy the office actually occupy it?

It's happening right now, in rome.  Francis sits in the chair of St Peter.  He appoints new bishops; alters dioceses; changes rules about non-essential, non-moral matters.  He's running the temporal side of the government of the Church.  That's reality.

[Stubborn]

I'll fix it for you...

"It's happening right now, in rome.  Francis sits in the chair of St Peter.  He appoints new false bishops; alters places fake bishops in dioceses; changes rules about non-essential, non-moral matters in a false counterfeit church. He's running the temporal side of the government of a false counterfeit Church.  That's reality."

Yep, that's reality.  


OR

I could just tell you the same thing you keep telling everyone else - Your post is merely an opinion...don't be so dogmatic about it, man.

Ahhh, the mind of sedes, they have no pope, no bishops, no cardinals, no Church - by design.

[Stubborn]

Ahhh, the mind of a man who claims to be the good subject of a heretic - knowingly and willingly.  

Ahhh, the man who claims God is a heretic, and nothing can change his mind.

[Pax Vobis]

Neither Pope St. Pius X or Pope Pius XII changed the rules to allow heretics (non-Catholics) to be elected pope. 

Bellator Dei,
So if they didn't change the rules, what did they change?  What was the purpose of their docuмents?  Of course, those officials who, (BEFORE V2 mind you), study such things would totally disagree with you.

Secondly, if Pius X and XII did change such rules (and they did, this is historical fact), are you willing to label them heretics?

Further, as you like to quote from V1 and since V1 declares that the pope enjoys supreme jurisdiction, how can you say that they have not the power to change such things?  Are you denying that Pius X and XII were true popes? 

[Stubborn]

C'mon, man...  That's just nonsense.  All you can do to try and save face is make up lies about people.  That's not very nice, and certainly not very Catholic of you, sir.  

You're the one who believes it is dogma that being subject to the pope is being subject to God, yet you say the pope is a heretic, ergo, God is a heretic.

Ahhhh, the screwed up minds of the dogmatic sedes.

Have you guys ever found out where your Church is yet?

[Ladislaus]

V1 condemns the idea of a material Papacy.

No, it most certainly does not ... despite how many times you want to huff and puff and say the same thing.

Yeah, sure, theological heavyweight des Lauriers is just too much of an idiot to know that he's directly contradicting Vatican I.  You should have been around to correct him with your catechism in hand.

[Stubborn]

Bellator Dei,
So if they didn't change the rules, what did they change?  What was the purpose of their docuмents?  Of course, those officials who, (BEFORE V2 mind you), study such things would totally disagree with you.

Secondly, if Pius X and XII did change such rules (and they did, this is historical fact), are you willing to label them heretics?

Further, as you like to quote from V1 and since V1 declares that the pope enjoys supreme jurisdiction, how can you say that they have not the power to change such things?  Are you denying that Pius X and XII were true popes?

Dogmatic sedes don't answer questions - except with questions.

[Ladislaus]

"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"

Notice that they are not deposing a Pope, but a heretic. For the Pope had already become a heretic (by his heresy), and is alien to the Church.

Deposing him from WHAT?

[2Vermont]

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?

I would like to point out here that some of the most well-known "totalist" sedevacantists (ie. Fr Cekada) do not consider the material/formalist sedevacantists (Bishop Sanborn) as heretical (and vice versa). 

[Pax Vobis]

I would like to point out here that some of the most well-known "totalist" sedevacantists (ie. Fr Cekada) do not consider the material/formalist sedevacantists (Bishop Sanborn) as heretical (and vice versa).

Probably changes day to day.  I can see some rabid sedes sitting by the fire thinking:  "Hmm, should I consider them a heretic or not?  Well, probably, since they disagree with me, but it is Advent, so I'll give them a pass...for now."

[Pax Vobis]

You're the once claiming that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII changed the rules so as to allow heretics to be elected to the papacy!!  That's utter nonsense and I've never heard this argument until now.  

This is new to me too; just heard about it.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter...

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)."

Translation:
No cardinal may, in any way, no matter whatever Church penalty they have incurred (i.e. excommunication, suspension, interdict, heresy) be excluded from the conclave.  All penalties are suspended only for the conclave.  At other times, the penalties are to remain in effect.

Meaning:
A cardinal who is a heretic, excommunicate, or other can be an active participant in the conclave.

Conclusion:
Heretical/excommunicated Cardinals are allowed to elect a new pope; their penalties are suspended during the conclave.
All Cardinals present at the conclave are eligible to be elected as pope.
Therefore, heretical/excommunicated cardinals are eligible to be elected as pope, since their penalties are suspended.  Once the election is over, their penalties return.

This is the conclusion of what Pius XII said.  Pius X's order is similar.