[Meg]

It would be more consistent to say that Christ protects the pope from ever falling from the Faith.

I think it was Vatican l that stated that the Pope is free from error when speaking ex cathedra, and he is infallible only under certain conditions. 

[2Vermont]

The important phrases are highlighted:  "Church confirms" vs "Church deposes".  Potato / potatoe.  The overarching principle is that THE CHURCH MUST ACT in some capacity.  Before that happens, we cannot say, with 100% certainty, that "pope x is not the pope".  

What we are living through now is the situation where any Tom, Dick or Harry is going around proclaiming there's no pope.  That's not how Catholicism works - there's a process, there's hierarchy, there's order.

We have folks making private, personal judgments that there is no pope.  Each and every member of the hierarchy needs to make the same private judgment before making a public, formal declaration.  That private judgment is the realization that the man in white is a manifest heretic already deposed by God. Once they all come to this realization, then they can "act".  

Exactly how do you think the members of the hierarchy would "know" for certain that the man is not pope before making their declaration?  A phone call from God?

[songbird]

Christ said, You will know them by their fruits.

[songbird]

Be sure to read your prophesies!  Don't be like the scribes, who had the prophecies and ignored them.  Christ was in their midst and they did not recognize him.  

[Pax Vobis]

Exactly how do you think the members of the hierarchy would "know" for certain that the man is not pope before making their declaration? 

No catholic knows 'for certain' that pope x is not the pope UNTIL the Church tells us it 'is certain'.  This is the whole point of church authority, otherwise we'd have the chaos and confusion of protestants.  In your example, the hierarchy makes a personal judgment that *he thinks* the pope has said/acted heretically.  Then, the hierarchy makes a judgement together, which equates to the Church's judgement.  The individual judgments of each cardinal have no weight (just like your or my judgements have no weight) unless/until they make a decision together.

[Cantarella]

No catholic knows 'for certain' that pope x is not the pope UNTIL the Church tells us it 'is certain'.  This is the whole point of church authority, otherwise we'd have the chaos and confusion of protestants.  In your example, the hierarchy makes a personal judgment that *he thinks* the pope has said/acted heretically.  Then, the hierarchy makes a judgement together, which equates to the Church's judgement.  The individual judgments of each cardinal have no weight (just like your or my judgements have no weight) unless/until they make a decision together.

How come the R&R partisans are rejecting an entire Ecuмenical Council, then? Last time I knew the "Church" has not declared Vatican II invalid either, so I guess they are also exercising certain personal judgement there. 

[Pax Vobis]

A church judgment is one that comes from the body of the hierarchy, which makes a decision using known and established procedures from canon law.  It doesn't come from 2 cardinals, or 15 bishops, or 4,000 priests.  It is a decision by the Church as a whole and it must be followed by all.  Until that happens, it's not an official decision.  Doesn't mean that it's the wrong decision, it just means it's not official.  

I don't want to get off on a tangent about V2, but those errors which are rejected are pretty easy to reject, considering they contradict previously defined and infallible doctrines.  There are other reasons too, but really, this is off topic.

[Pax Vobis]

Further, yes, people exercise personal judgment but that doesn't mean THEIR Judgment is infallible, right?  Do you or I have the right to preach on the street corner that "anyone who does not publicly reject V2 is a heretic"?  No we don't have that right or authority because we're not the Church.  

In the same way, you can have a large group of the hierarchy think a pope has "lost it" but that doesn't make it an established fact, with an authority to bind the faithful.  This determination only becomes official when there is a process that's followed and the hierarchy makes a formal decision.  

That's the basis of any legal or governmental decision - formal process.  And it's also related to the attribute of the Church, namely, Visibility.  

[2Vermont]

A church judgment is one that comes from the body of the hierarchy, which makes a decision using known and established procedures from canon law.  It doesn't come from 2 cardinals, or 15 bishops, or 4,000 priests.  It is a decision by the Church as a whole and it must be followed by all.  Until that happens, it's not an official decision.  Doesn't mean that it's the wrong decision, it just means it's not official.  

I don't want to get off on a tangent about V2, but those errors which are rejected are pretty easy to reject, considering they contradict previously defined and infallible doctrines.  There are other reasons too, but really, this is off topic.

No, it's really not.  
Then again, the OP was asking how many sedes there were on the forum right now, so everything other than that is off-topic.

[2Vermont]

I wonder what the odds are that the whole so-called "Catholic hierarchy" in the Vatican will ever come to the conclusion that Francis is not a true pope.  

[Ladislaus]

I just can't figure out why the Bellarminists are so eager to materially vacate the Holy See.  Do you plan on holding a Council to elect one of your own?

Biggest problem with Bellarminism ... in practice anyway, not in theory ... is who can decide whether a Pope has become a manifest heretic and when does deposition actually occur.  2Vermont or Myrna, armed with their Penny Catechism, hear a Pope say something in public and decide that it's heretical.  Does the Pope vacate his See at that moment ... or do we need to wait for someone in some position of AUTHORITY to make the determination?  IPSO FACTO-ism is fraught with all manner of difficulties in the practical order.  That's precisely why John of St. Thomas came to the conclusions that he did.  Sure, fine, Popes are deposed ipso facto ... but AT WHAT POINT does the heresy become sufficiently known by someone with the competence/authority to make that determination so that the See is KNOWN by all with sufficient certainty to be vacant.  Otherwise, every time Myrna or 2Vermont stand up and yell heresy, the See goes vacant, eh?

[2Vermont]

Apparently you haven't read a number of posts since you've been in the thread Lad.  But thanks for more belittling.  I guess I was wrong. I see you're no better than some of the other anti-sedes here.

[Ladislaus]

I think it was Ladislaus who at the beginning of the thread said that Fr. Chazal's position resembled Sedeprivationism; but I am not sure about that. This is a Resistance priest and to them, the Pope is still the pope, whereas to sedeprivationists, he is NOT Pope. He has already ceased to be.

It is like the difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine as of the timing of the deposition. In Bellarmine's position the Church does not depose the pope, but it is Christ himself Who does, the Church only confirms the fact. Whereas with Cajetan we would have to wait until an imperfect Council of Bishops deposes the Pope. Vermont explained it right.

Difference between Father Chazal and run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism is that Father Chazal declares all of the Magisterium, Universal Discipline, etc. of the V2 papal claimants to be null and void ... not JUST THE ERRONEOUS PARTS.  Standard R&Rism holds that if the Pope teaches or commands something Traditional, then it has binding force.  Chazal states that they have lost their authority ... essentially that the See is formally vacant.  He says that the only thing left is the visible sign of unity (i.e. the material occupancy of the See).  Whether he knew the term or not, Father Chazal basically articulated sedeprivationism.

Even in the cases where we "WAIT" for an Imperfect Council to declare deposition (i.e. ministerially or materially depose), John of St. Thomas for instance holds the they've lost their authority while in that limbo state.  And that lines up with sedeprivationism.

[Ladislaus]

Apparently you haven't read a number of posts since you've been in the thread Lad.  But thanks for more belittling.  I guess I was wrong. I see you're no better than some of the other anti-sedes here.

I'm belitting EVERYBODY.  Stop taking it personally.  I chose a couple of the ardent sedevacantists as examples.  I could have used myself ... except that I don't consider the See to be materially vacant.

[2Vermont]

I'm belitting EVERYBODY.  Stop taking it personally.  I chose a couple of the ardent sedevacantists as examples.  I could have used myself ... except that I don't consider the See to be materially vacant.

Don't take it personally??  You specifically named ME  (and Myrna) in that last post.  You can't be serious....lol.