[Stubborn]

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!

This is the common saying or misconception, but Our Lord played no part in the people choosing to be duped. Our Lord gave us everything we need and then some, specifically so that we would *not* allow ourselves to get duped into sinning, no matter who wants us to sin or who sits in the Chair.

People cannot and will not be led to where they refuse to go, people will only allow themselves to be led to where they really want to go, this is true regardless of who sits in the Chair. Rest assured that no one will be able to blame anyone but themselves if they end up in hell. They will not blame their parents, their teachers, their comrades in sin, nor will they be able to blame their priest, bishops or pope, it's all on them. But Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. - Jeremias 23:1





   

[2Vermont]

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.

It is my understanding that the "material/formalists" of the Cassiciacuм Thesis still do not believe that the papal claimant is valid/legitimate.  In other words they believe, just as the totalists believe, that he is a false pope.  I think once one understands this then the CT makes more sense.  The CT is not saying that a valid, true pope can only be a material valid pope.  It sounds like Fr Chazal's beliefs are not the same as the Cassiciacuм Thesis.  I think this is what Cantarella has been trying to explain. 

[2Vermont]

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.

Exactly.  This distinction must be made and then there is no contradiction with Vatican I.  On the other hand, there are some on this thread that are saying that a true and valid pope can have the material office only.  

[2Vermont]

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



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.

Isn't there a difference between the crime of heresy (canon law/ecclesiastical) and sin of heresy (divine law)?  

[Cantarella]

It is my understanding that the "material/formalists" of the Cassiciacuм Thesis still do not believe that the papal claimant is valid/legitimate.  In other words they believe, just as the totalists believe, that he is a false pope.  I think once one understands this then the CT makes more sense.  The CT is not saying that a valid, true pope can only be a material valid pope.  It sounds like Fr Chazal's beliefs are not the same as the Cassiciacuм Thesis.  I think this is what Cantarella has been trying to explain.

That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)


St. Bellarmine refers to the first and third of these elements here. If you notice, he also clearly makes the distinction between matter / form:

“... the cardinals, when they create a Pontiff, exercise their authority, not on the pope as such, since he is not yet such, but on the matter, that is to say, on the person which they dispose in some way by the election in order that he might receive from God the form of the pontificate.”

The thesis argues that the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, that is, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, so he is not formally the Pope.

[Pax Vobis]

Talk about splitting hairs!  How can Fr Cekada take such a complicated matter, expect everyone to agree with him, and then propose that if priests say the pope's in the canon ('una cuм'), they are in union with a heretic?

I have less and less respect for Fr Cekada's divisiveness the more I see the complexity of the issue - is the pope just valid, or just material or (insert theological distinction here)?  I need to pray for God to grant me the grace of forgiveness because the amount of turmoil, hate, and chaos he has caused, over minute points such as these is ABOMINABLE!  He has caused just as much destruction to the unity of trads as the heretics in Rome have caused to catholicity overall!

[2Vermont]

Talk about splitting hairs!  How can Fr Cekada take such a complicated matter, expect everyone to agree with him, and then propose that if priests say the pope's in the canon ('una cuм'), they are in union with a heretic?

I have less and less respect for Fr Cekada's divisiveness the more I see the complexity of the issue - is the pope just valid, or just material or (insert theological distinction here)?  I need to pray for God to grant me the grace of forgiveness because the amount of turmoil, hate, and chaos he has caused, over minute points such as these is ABOMINABLE!  He has caused just as much destruction to the unity of trads as the heretics in Rome have caused to catholicity overall!

Huh?  What does this have to do with the difference between a totalist and a materialist-formalist sedevacantist?  Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada actually both agree on the una cuм issue.
I think your hatred for Fr Cekada does blind you.

[2Vermont]

That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)


St. Bellarmine refers to the first and third of these elements here. If you notice, he also clearly makes the distinction between matter / form:

The thesis argues that the conciliar popes lack the "form" of the Pontificate, that is, the determining and formal element which makes the Pope to be such, so he is not formally the Pope.

I think the totalists would argue that heretics don't have the correct "matter" either.  If the Cardinals elected a woman, then she still wouldn't be materially pope.  She is not a man and therefore does not have proper matter.  Likewise, a non-Catholic man does not have proper matter.  I think the key here for material/formalists is that the man was not "elected" per se, but "designated".  

ETA: Cantarella definitely correct me if my understanding is wrong about election vs designation....I have read the Thesis and tried to make sense of it, but I know my understanding is shaky.

[Meg]

That is right, Vermont! He is no formally Pope because he does not have Divine Assistance, therefore has no jurisdiction. He is lacking the third of these elements for a legitimate pontificate:

1. Election
2. Acceptance of the election
3. Plenitude of power (Divine Assistance)

Can you explain where #3 is derived from in Church teaching? I've never heard of "Plentitude of power" at all anywhere in Church teaching.

That's doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But I'd like to know where in Church teaching it comes from specifically.

[Merry]

Prima sedes a nemine judicatur.  This is Canon 1556, which I failed to quote in my book, though I did state the fact of the law and the ecclesiastical admonition.  These words mean:  "The First Chair is judged by no one," which means that none of the pope's subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the throne of St. Peter.  We may judge his theology and his public acts, as we are bound to judge the beliefs and ideas of everyone with whom we come into serious contact; but we may not judge whether he is the legitimate pope.  Sedevacantists claim to be very expert about Canon 181, but Canon 1556 has somehow eluded them.    - Fr. Wathen



Sedes are :  Impatient - anarchists - and prone to lynching.  They, themselves, are of no authority to do anything about these Popes except avoid their Masses, their bad advice or commands, and to pray for them.  The Church in the future will evaluate and decide concerning the Vatican II Popes - then we will know the full of it all and will abide accordingly.  

There is no knowing EVERYTHING that has gone on in these modern Pontificates - the Church will weed all this out in the future.  There is much hidden, and in the background, that we do not know and that will make a difference.  Let the future Church do Her work.  That is how She goes about Her duty.  The manner in which this will take place Our Lord knows, and is quite capable of accomplishing, though to us it seems impossible.  "Why are you fearful, o ye of little faith?"  - to the frightened apostles in the boat.

There is no knowing EVERYTHING of misinformation we have perhaps been given on these Popes that the sedes think they possess - even in the day of the Internet.   For all we know of the full story, "Sedevacantism" could be a theory backed and promoted by Our Lord's enemies just to ensure confusion and discord in the ranks of those resisting their Vat. II Council. (And by the way, who is giving money to this sedevacantism movement and theory - is there some nefarious interest being the financial backer to this thing or these supporters?) 

That is why we leave it to the future Church to deal with this.  Meanwhile, we keep to our orthodox Catholic life as best we can in this age of Modernism.  

God does not expect more of us than he would of, say, 12th century Catholics in a similar situation.  No Internet there for finding out the hidden scoop and then presuming to make everyone somehow responsible for it.  How about the Great Western Schism?  Three different Popes with saints on the side of all of them, and souls supporting all three.  Only one could have been the true Pope, and maybe none were.  Did God condemn the confused, or those wrong in the matter?  Did the holy saint go into sin over a bad choice and lose chance of canonization/salvation?  No - the Church went on to the other side of the problem:  She dismissed the three candidates and elected another, entirely separate one - behind whom all gathered.  And the supporting saints of the various "Popes" were none the less holy or canonized for the experience.  All the Church expected was for souls to keep the Commandments and Precepts - to keep personally their orthodox faith and keep free from sin. And then to back Her final solution to the crisis.  


Sedevacantism is a good way for those wanting their own Church, nay territory to rule (say we, "kingdom"?), to have as an excuse for just going off on their own, and having to answer to nobody.  How hard is obedience - how heady we can be!  And with such anarchy goes their spirit of humility, meekness - and orthodoxy on other matters as well.  They are judge, jury and executioner of the Vat. II Popes, though being NOBODY themselves - having no authority themselves.  They take over the Church's job - Her future job.  

And (often?) they actually say to boot, there is no salvation outside of Sedevacantism!  They make matters worse, if such be possible. Some, maybe most, may mean well - but generally one is left to say:  It's anarchy.

[Meg]

Lastdays,

You haven't actually refuted anything that Merry has written. You just repeat the same old tired anarchist sede stuff, hoping that it will convince the non-sedes. It cannot convince us, because what you have written does not show that you the authority to judge that the Seat of Peter is vacant. 

[Merry]

Right!  What WE think does not matter - we have no AUTHORITY.  It's what the Church finally decides on this situation that matters.

Sure - maybe Francis will be proclaimed to not have been a Pope - same back to John XXIII.  But the CHURCH deciding that in the future and saying so will make it so and all things will go accordingly.  SHE will apply Her laws where they do apply in this matter.   

Meanwhile - don't start making your own Church - don't start casting out and not praying for whoever is given us as Pope.  Don't assume the condemnation and lynch accordingly.  We have no vote.   

[Meg]

Please show me the dogmas, authoritative Church teachings and Scriptures. I could care less about the opinions of Merry, Father Wathan or anyone else. Especially yours.

You have proven that you could care less about dogma and Church teaching which refutes your anarchist sede thesis.

You seem to believe that you are above the rest of us, and that your opinion is without question.

Who are you, that you can presume superiority, and claim that whosoever does not agree with you are heretics? Are you not a layman?

[Merry]

Lastdays and those like him, are citizens arresters, sheriff, judge and executioner.  

It's illegal but they don't want to quibble about that.  "JUST GET THE ROPE!  Then we'll run things our way."

Not only are they often thickheaded, but they fight with non-sede trads.

They seem bored with keeping their eye on the ball - the Novus Ordo church, the true enemy.  

[Merry]

Yes, hypocrite I am.  But not on this.  To ignore commands that are sinful is one thing - we all have that duty even regarding what our parents might say.  To say, "It won't be surprising to find that the Church will declare, or find, that these Popes were not actually Popes" - whatever - is certainly understandable given the situation we are in during this Modernist age.  But to usurp the Church's prerogative of a trustworthy, final decision in the future as to what these Vat. II Popes were all about, is entirely a different matter.  Her authority to promulgate about this belongs to Her alone, not the anarchist sedevacantists or hypocrites such as myself.