[Stubborn]

I'm also still interested in knowing what Herm's position is on the Crisis.  It seems he disagrees with both sedevacantists and sedeprivationists.  Is he a Novus Ordo trad?

I don't know but Lad said something similar in this post:

I accept Father Chazal's position as the most Catholic of them all.  But straight R&R which has Catholics sifting the papal Magisterium is abhorrent.  Straight sedevacantism, especially of the dogmatic variety, is equally abhorrent.

I am asking for actual examples of exactly what is being sifted.

[Stubborn]

And your religion has a non-Catholic for a Pope. Sooo......You are in communion with a heretic and are subject to him. Just like the Novus Ordo. To top it off, you refuse communion with his hierarchy, which would be schismatic were it the real "church", but it's not and neither is yours, so at least there's that.

I completely understand that's the way it looks from your church. We are of different faiths which is why you will never understand no matter how well it is communicated to you. It's as if we speak different languages.  

[Stubborn]

Most of the folks on this thread believe that heretics remain Catholics, and members of the Church...  I think I even saw a post claiming that heretics are formally separated from the Church, but remain materially united to the Church??  More material / formal nonsense...adding gray area to a black and white situation.  
  

As I already told Lastdays:

The Church, through a member or members of Her hierarchy, first accuses then judges the sinner, if this does not prompt the sinner to repent, She then dictates which sins are to receive which censures, and She does so primarily for the purpose of prompting the sinner to repent.

After the Church pronounces Her judgement, Her censures are *always* primarily medicinal in nature with the intent of inducing the sinner to repent, they are never, nor are they ever intended to be an infallible decree that kicks the poor bastard permanently out of the Church and condemn him to hell with no hope at all, no matter how obstinate he is.  

The point being - you and I, or you and I and all human creatures in unison saying the pope is a heretic, has no bearing whatsoever on his status. Until the Church makes the declaration to the contrary, the Catholic Church gave us the infallible assurance that the Roman pontiff is indeed the successor of St. Peter.

[Pax Vobis]

Here's an interesting article from a sede where he condems Cajetan AND St Robert Bellarmine, both as heretics.  Most of you sedes put +Bellarmine on a pedastal and put his opinions above all other theologians - but this guy says he's a heretic, in his efforts to support sedevacantism.  The irony is hilarious...

http://johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/articles/rjmi/tr28_cajetan_bellarmine_heresies.pdf

[Cantarella]

Most of the folks on this thread believe that heretics remain Catholics, and members of the Church...  I think I even saw a post claiming that heretics are formally separated from the Church, but remain materially united to the Church??  More material / formal nonsense...adding gray area to a black and white situation.  
  

The Eastern Orthodox are not members of the Church; yet they possess material succession. This term is universally used by Catholic theologians to describe the claim of apostolic succession made by the schismatics, so we know that there is such a thing as material succession. I do think it is very important to make the appropriate distinctions between material vs. formal; and also, designation vs. jurisdiction. In Catholicism, all formal jurisdiction (formal apostolic succession) comes from the Pope; not from a confederation of bishops.

In a scenario such as the one Lastdays described, even if the valid bishops can be found (which according to him, MUST be both sedevacantists AND feeneyites, a rarity indeed, I dot not know of the existence of even ONE!), I do not see a way in which they could claim valid, formal apostolic succession any better than the Orthodox (I am exclusively talking here about apostolicity), who claim they have perpetually nominated bishops to succeed to bishoprics established by the Apostles. However, no Catholic would consider their succession to be formal, but merely material, that is, they occupy the place, but have absolutely no Jurisdiction since Jurisdiction must derive from the Roman Pontiff, whom they reject, (or in the case of the totalist sedevacantist, simply does not exist).

[Meg]

Theologians will debate just about anything if you give them the opportunity. That is no proof of anything. Many heresies arise in this manner. The same would have been true for the heresy that heretics are members of the Church and able to hold offices in the Church if the Church hadn't squashed it. It is found nowhere in the Dogma, Scripture, or the UOM. In fact, the opposite is stated many times. You just don't want to see it. I guess I will just have to post the following AGAIN for the people of good will reading this thread...

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)


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.

Note the words "impeded by divine law". For those of good will, this would be considered a divine impediment. Get it? Impeded by divine law = divine impediment. Is that clear enough for you? This teaching and the one from the Catholic Encyclopedia as well as cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio just reflect this matter which is of divine law and concerns the faith. It is completely irreformable.

Who are the sources whom you quote above? I've never heard of them. They are: 

1. "Moroto, Institutiones, I.C. 2:784"  
2. "Coronata, Institutiones, I.C. 1:312"
3. "Wernz-Vidal Jus Can 2:415"

[Meg]

Who are the sources whom you quote above? I've never heard of them. They are:

1. "Moroto, Institutiones, I.C. 2:784"  
2. "Coronata, Institutiones, I.C. 1:312"
3. "Wernz-Vidal Jus Can 2:415"

In googling the sources that Lastdays has cited, I only found info on #3 above.

Evidently, there were Jesuit priests by the names of Rev. Wernz and Rev. Vidal, from the 1930's, and the quote by Lastdays appears to be from works written these two Jesuits, in which we, as Catholics are not bound to accept as authoritative. They are just opinions by two priests.

The quote was translated into English by a sede named John Daly. I think he is associated with Novus Ordo Watch, and is affiliated with John Lane.

I assume that the other two quotes are also from priests, though maybe not.

[Stubborn]

You're correct. We are different religions. My religion is Catholic. I am subject to the Popes. I am not in communion with heretics and I would not separate myself from legitimately Catholic Hierarchy.
Your religion is being subject to Heretics, being in communion with heretics and separating yourself from hierarchy which you consider Catholic and refusing obedience to your "pope" in all things except "infallible" matters, which is condemned by Pope Pius IX.

You cannot be a Catholic when you presuppose the pope is not a pope, such a perverse belief system as that obviously rejects all papal teachings from popes and negates all Catholic teachings regarding the pope and is therefore inherently anti-Catholic. OTOH, my popes have infallibly decreed that the pope is indeed the successor of St. Peter.

Though I've never heard of a sede pope, your popes to which you are subject to, apparently teach to reject all Catholic teachings regarding the pope since you must first presuppose the pope is not the pope - which makes me wonder how there could ever be a sede pope. I don't really care, I just wonder.

At least we agree that in your religion, it is by design that you have no pope, no hierarchy, no Church and never will.

[Stubborn]

In googling the sources that Lastdays has cited, I only found info on #3 above.

Evidently, there were Jesuit priests by the names of Rev. Wernz and Rev. Vidal, from the 1930's, and the quote by Lastdays appears to be from works written these two Jesuits, in which we, as Catholics are not bound to accept as authoritative. They are just opinions by two priests.

The quote was translated into English by a sede named John Daly. I think he is associated with Novus Ordo Watch, and is affiliated with John Lane.

I assume that the other two quotes are also from priests, though maybe not.

All those are among the ones I like to refer to as "well respected" 19th /20th century theologians. It is my opinion that many of those "well respected" theologians' felonious opinions were accepted and promoted throughout all the manifestations of the Church as authentic Church teachings, hence, one of the primary reasons that so many people are so confused in this crisis. Their opinions are largely responsible for dogmatic sedes presupposing the pope is not the pope, as if that were dogma.   

[Stubborn]

You cannot be a Catholic when you presuppose the pope is not a pope
AES: I agree. The Pope is a Pope and a heretic is not the Pope. Point?


So let it be written, so let it be done - is that right?


my popes have infallibly decreed that the pope is indeed the successor of St. Peter.
AES: I don't remember your conciliar Novus Ordo "popes" decreeing this. Vatican Council decreed this, not your "church". It says the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. It does not say that a heretic is the successor of Peter.

My NO popes have never decreed anything that we need to concern ourselves with submitting to. Your religion rejects the teachings of all popes since the time of St. Peter, which is another reason why your church will never have a pope, or hierarchy.

 Do you know where your church is?  

[Meg]

All those are among the ones I like to refer to as "well respected" 19th /20th century theologians. It is my opinion that many of those "well respected" theologians' felonious opinions were accepted and promoted throughout all the manifestations of the Church as authentic Church teachings, hence, one of the primary reasons that so many people are so confused in this crisis. Their opinions are largely responsible for dogmatic sedes presupposing the pope is not the pope, as if that were dogma.  

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that there well-respected priest-theologians in the 19th/20th century who pushed these ideas, that have now been adopted by dogmatic sedes. The dogmatic sedes do indeed treat the issue as if it were dogma.

It's interesting that the two priests in question, whom Lastdays quoted, were Jesuits. Jesuits, of course, sometimes think outside of the box, and outside of true Catholic teaching.

[Stubborn]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that there well-respected priest-theologians in the 19th/20th century who pushed these ideas, that have now been adopted by dogmatic sedes. The dogmatic sedes do indeed treat the issue as if it were dogma.

It is only a theory of mine but so far the "well respected" theologians theory explains how come so many people are so confused about the issue. +ABL knew there were many false teachings even in the seminaries, but he never put 2 and 2 together, iow, how the heck else could all these errors, all these liberal ideas infiltrate into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church - if not by the opinions of certain "well respected" theologians?

[Stubborn]

Indeed...proper distinctions must be made.  I agree with you.  

Proper distinction yes - but ONLY when you presuppose the pope is not the pope, which is not what Catholics do, not ever. Presupposing the pope is not the pope is only a practice, made into a doctrine, found only among non-Catholics.

[Pax Vobis]

Let me tell you what Catholics never do. They never call a notorious heretic their Pope.

How would you, or anyone, know this?  Give me one historical example previous to the 1960s?

[Cantarella]

They have valid orders not succession. When talking about Apostolic Succession, every definition I have ever read, has one thing in common when defining it. They must have the Faith of the Apostles. Without the Faith of the Apostles, there is no Apostolicity. Are they priests? Yes. Do they have succession? No.

I am talking strictly about the historical reality that the Orthodox have nominated bishops who can be easily traced to the Apostles, such as the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt. An unbroken continuation of bodies. I am not saying they have Apostolic succession, but that there is a type of "material" succession that would be important to consider in this crisis and which is the basis of the Cassiciacuм Thesis.

From the CE entry on Apostolicity:

In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic sucession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.