[Pax Vobis]

Pius XII mentions excommunication.  All heretics are excommunicated, therefore a lifting of this penalty applies to heretics.

It's on you to prove that there is such a thing as a divine impediemnt to the papacy.  If there is, then it has to come directly from Christ.  So where in scripture does Christ tell us that heretics cannot hold material office?  The examples of Annas and Chaiphas, whom Our Lord and the Apostles recognized as authority figures, are examples which refute your assertion.

[Neil Obstat]

From physically occupying an office  of   which he has NO RIGHT  TO  being the heretic that he is.

Correction: 

From physically occupying an office to which he has NO RIGHT, being the heretic that he is.   

[Neil Obstat]

28...

.
But the rhetoric is getting more heated:

you are a shameless liar and heretic
you continue to spew your venom.
This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've heard yet on cathinfo
How many times do I have to post this?
 You make yourselves mini-popes.

[Pax Vobis]

2nd request for "Last Days"
Please define:  divine impediment to the papacy.
Please prove:  Heresy is a divine impediement to the papacy.

[2Vermont]

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."

Actually, no, for these two it doesn't change day by day. I pointed it out so that the sedevacantists on this thread that are saying the material/formalists are heretics would re-consider their condemnations.

[Stubborn]

2nd request for "Last Days"
Please define:  divine impediment to the papacy.
Please prove:  Heresy is a divine impediement to the papacy.

"Divine impediment" is a Lastdays sede-term.

We've debated the constitution of Pius X and XII in the past, re: the popes making it a law that even heretic cardinals had to vote in the conclave. As Fr. Chazal so eloquently explained, the pope didn't mention the word heretic in his law because heretics are inclusive of the excommunicated who had to vote- and don't forget, the popes made it a requirement, they had to vote in the conclave.

This whole idea is altogether inconceivable to the dogmatic sedes.   

[Pax Vobis]

actually, no, for these two (Fr Cekada vs Bishop Sanborn) it doesn't change day by day. I pointed it out so that the sedevacantists on this thread that are saying the material/formalists are heretics would re-consider their condemnations.

2Vermont,
Thanks for the post; good point.  Sorry, I assumed your post was negative.  

[Pax Vobis]

"Divine impediment" is a Lastdays sede-term.

This is what I assumed.  He is inferring this idea from a few papal decrees, which is understandable because they usually talk about heretics being against God, but theologians do not make this dinstinction.  

I had never heard of the Pius X and XII decrees until Fr Chazal mentioned them.  They are VERY important to the discussion.  If these popes foresaw the coming catastrophe (and they would be in the best position to see it, because they know who in Rome was orthodox or not) then their decisions are a testament that, even in the midst of a monsterous storm, God's Divine Providence is always prepared and planning ahead.  

[2Vermont]

2Vermont,
Thanks for the post; good point.  Sorry, I assumed your post was negative.  

No problem Pax Vobis.  I understand.  I was in a rush to post at the time and probably could have phrased it better.

Here's a link to Bishop Sanborn's explanation of the Cassiciacuм Thesis.  You will see that he addresses totalist vs material-formalist views:

http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf

Here is one part that is relevant to my earlier post:

Q. Does not the thesis cause a rift among sedevacantists? A. No. This discussion has been going on since the 1970’s among sedevacantists. Totalists and material-formalists respectfully disagree on the issue, but it has never caused any kind of rift among them. They commonly work together and have friendly contacts one with another.

I'm not convinced of the Thesis but I am open to it.

[Pax Vobis]

Great point.  That's why this topic is important because we are distinguishing that the pope still occupies the material office, even though, in the grand scheme of things, this is a VERY SMALL amount of power he has, due to his own acceptance of heresy.  And it's important that he occupies it due to the NECESSITY for the church to be visible.  If the Church disappears, visibly, then we are all Protestants.  

[Neil Obstat]

You know, I was just thinking while reading this thread: 99% of the world's Roman Catholic population recognize Francis and his Vatican 2 predecessors as popes.

We are debating and reading through these various arguments but consider for a minute that Our Lord has permitted billions to be duped. Whether actual, material or vacante thesis applies.

No wonder Leo XIII collapsed at the vision he saw before penning the Prayer to Saint Michael.

Whoever you think is right on this thread just pause for a minute and consider the fact that ...

... most Catholics consider Francis as the Vicar of Christ!

.
So then why doesn't Francis ever SAY he is the Vicar of Christ?
.

.

[reconquest]

How do you figure that?  Our Lord didn't institute the Church until Pentecost Sunday.
.
That was AFTER His time.

It's easy to verify that in Christ's time the High Priests were chosen in a manner which was not in accord with the Mosaic Law; the legitimate line of High Priests lived in exile in Egypt. Yet scripture tells us that Caiphas was a High Priest and does not address his legitimacy directly; the Apostles had to keep quiet on some of the scandals of the Jєωιѕн people to ensure the conversion of the Gentiles.

The Jєωιѕн hierarchy was also never promised infallibility.

They were infallible under certain conditions; the analogy between the Mosaic High Priesthood and the Papacy was one of the things that convinced rabbi David Drach to become a Catholic in the 19th century.

On the other hand, the Church was promised infallibility and the Church has already decreed that heresy automatically renders the heretic outside the Church and results in the loss of office--even before any declaratory sentence (N.B. Nestorius).  With these Bible verses, the only relevant passages would be those passages that say Church officials do not lose office due to heresy (of which there are none).

This is a half-truth, and a half-truth can be more dangerous than a complete falsehood. A heretic or schismatic who's maintained in his office by a higher authority can retain his jurisdiction

[Cantarella]

From physically occupying an office of which he has NO RIGHT TO being the heretic that he is.

That is the material occupancy right there. Add to that physical presence, the power of designation (so he can still appoint cardinals and bishops and therefore, have an actual way of continuing the Church; instead of falling into ecclesiavacantism) and you have the core of the Thesis of Cassiciacuм, which I now believe to be the most proximate to the truth... at least until a totalist sedevacantist can come up with a reasonable solution to the problem of Apostolic succession. I have open ears to a totalist sedevacantist telling me how the Church can continue if the false pope does not have the faculty to nominate valid bishops and cardinals. Those who believe Pope Pius XII was the last true Pope will have a difficult time coming up with this solution and the difficulty is getting worse by the day, since the old cardinals appointed by him are dying.

So....I have not heard such a reasonable solution coming from a totalist sedevacantist as of yet.

[reconquest]

Bp. Guérard ("Guérard des Lauriers" is a family name; his given name was Michel-Louis) did not actually believe that a purely material pope could make valid ecclesiastical appointments. His thesis is best understood as a form of totalist sedevacantism which does its best to avoid the theological absurdities inherent in totalist sedevacantism by positing a metaphysical absurdity instead.

I on the other hand agree with Fr. Chazal that Francis et. al. can make valid appointments and would presumably enjoy infallibility were they to define a doctrine with all the required theological notes (as John Paul II did when he condemned the ordination of women), but that we should reject everything that does not fall under strict infallibility as defined at Vatican I (including canonizations) as potentially tainted with heresy.

The "material-formalists" in this thread (and I'm one of them) would do well to cast aside the material-formal dichotomy and speak in terms of validity and legitimacy. Francis is a valid pope, but we can make a personal judgment on the basis of his exteriorized heresies that he has lost whatever legitimate right to the pontificate he may once have held.

[Stubborn]

This is what I assumed.  He is inferring this idea from a few papal decrees, which is understandable because they usually talk about heretics being against God, but theologians do not make this dinstinction.  

I had never heard of the Pius X and XII decrees until Fr Chazal mentioned them.  They are VERY important to the discussion.  If these popes foresaw the coming catastrophe (and they would be in the best position to see it, because they know who in Rome was orthodox or not) then their decisions are a testament that, even in the midst of a monsterous storm, God's Divine Providence is always prepared and planning ahead.  

Yes, because Pope Pius X and XII never actually gave their reasoning for including excommunicated cardinals in the conclave, we can only guess their reasons behind it, but they clearly did not exclude any cardinal whatsoever. The fact is, both popes Pius X and XII made it a requirement, iow, it was not a suggestion or an option - every cardinal that was capable of voting HAD to be part of the conclave and HAD vote, without regard to any censures they might be under, or suspected of, or falsely accused of being under at the time.



I hadn't considered it before but I really like the possible reason that Fr. Chazal's gave betterthan mine, here is another possible reason to consider that I wrote here:

St. Pius X in 1904 said:
 
 “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
 
 
 Pius XII in 1945 said:
 
 “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

"....it is the popes who appoints or creates the cardinals. Presumably the popes appoint only cardinals they trust, those who are strong in the faith and who are the accusers of heretics, not themselves heretics. They only appoint cardinals they trust will vote the right candidate into office.

If you look at it from pope Pius X and XII's point of view, it actually makes more sense for popes Pius X and XII to make the conclave all inclusive regardless of the cardinal's presumed censure, so as to ensure that the cardinals they appointed will out number or have majority vote or in some way sway the votes in the election of his predecessor, thus helping to insure that the next pope is a good one, even if there are heretical cardinals casting votes  in the conclave.

Comparing cuм ex with the new rules, it's as though Pope Paul IV did not trust his cardinals to be faithful, whereas Pius X and XII trusted and depended on their cardinals."


Either way, the law is the law and the popes made a law that apparently, actually risked voting a heretic into the office of the papacy.