[Ladislaus]

It's my understanding that Fr Chazal believes that the pope remains the pope UNTIL the Church deposes him.  This is NOT what Cantarella and the rest of us have been saying.  We are saying that the manifest heretic is no longer pope BEFORE the Church declares it. That is why he can be judged by the Church: he is already no longer pope.

So, no....we definitely do not agree.  Sorry.

No, that's not what he's saying.  Problem here is your failure, and the failure of many straight sedevacantists, to understand the core distinction here.  Father Chazal states quite clearly that this pope has lost all authority and is in a vitandus state.  Yet he remains in material possession of the See.  So he's Pope in one respect (materially) but NOT Pope in another respect.  That's called a distinction.  With sedeprivationism and Father Chazal's position it isn't a simple binary ... either he is or he isn't.

[Ladislaus]

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

As examples.  Develop a thicker skin or stay out of theological debates.  Most women have no business here ... evidently because everything appears to cause emotional problems.

[Ladislaus]

Why doesn't it suffice for the Bellarminists that the man has, according to Father Chazal ... and sedeprivationists, lost all authority, that his teaching and his commands are null and void?  Why are you so insistent to declare the See materially vacant.  You have a real problem then in terms of how the Church will be restored.  There's no more jurisdiction left in the Church ... which most theologians would hold as tantamount to a defection.  There's no mechanism to restore the papacy ... except if a Council of sedevacantist Thuc-line bishops got together and elected one.  But, wait, that kind of thing has already been done a couple times.  So why weren't those attempts legitimate?

[Meg]

If Fr. Chazal believes that the Pope has lost all authority, then why did he say (in part 2 of the video) that he tells the Filipinos that he is under the Pope in Rome? 

[Meg]

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.

That's hilarious. And so true. One does have to have a thick skin to participate on the threads that discuss sedeism. It's often a verbal punching match going on, more often than not.

[Ladislaus]

The body of the hierarchy could not make an official decision in this matter. In order for any decision to be official there would need a valid Pope acting infallibly. Even if all the Cardinals unanimously agreed that the Chair of Peter was vacant, it could not make it official. Also, it is not just a matter of determining (correctly) that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but they also have to elect a true Catholic. 

False.  After a Pope has passed away, the Church's election and recognition of a Pope is considered official and also to have the certainty of faith.  Similarly, the non-Bellarminists argue, the withdrawal of recognition by the Church due to heresy, would have a similar officialness to it and would be protected as infallible due to the indefectibility of the Ecclesia Credens.  In fact, it's on the basis of this same indefectibility/infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens that theologians hold in general that the Church cannot adhere to a false pope and that the legitimacy of the pope can be known with the certainty of faith based on that universal recognition.

[Ladislaus]

If Fr. Chazal believes that the Pope has lost all authority, then why did he say (in part 2 of the video) that he tells the Filipinos that he is under the Pope in Rome?

He explained that very clearly ... it's his shorthand way to demonstrate that he's essentially Catholic, based on the fact that the material papacy remains the visible sign of unity for Catholics.  Again, this isn't difficult ... formally no longer pope; materially still pope.

[Meg]

He explained that very clearly ... it's his shorthand way to demonstrate that he's essentially Catholic, based on the fact that the material papacy remains the visible sign of unity for Catholics.  Again, this isn't difficult ... formally no longer pope; materially still pope.

Well, yes, I agree that it's essentially Catholic, but I don't think he means it in just a symbolic way. I know that's not what you are saying. To say that one is under the Pope in Rome would indicate to me that the Pope has a certain authority. 

[Ladislaus]

There is no problem in restoring the Church. Certain Novus Ordo Roman Clergy have to at least call into question their own heresies and those of the heretic posing as Pope. They would have to call an imperfect council and eventually invite Bishops with valid orders. 

But the problem is that valid orders (and according to many sedevacantists very few remain with valid orders) doesn't suffice to have authority in the Church.  There's the question of jurisdiction ... which would have all but completely evaporated with straight sedevacantism.  But sedeprivationism handles this problem very nicely.

Who constitute the "Roman clergy" if they have not been validly appointed as such by someone with authority?  Do I qualify as Roman clergy because I happen to live within the city limits?

[Ladislaus]

Well, yes, I agree that it's essentially Catholic, but I don't think he means it in just a symbolic way. I know that's not what you are saying. To say that one is under the Pope in Rome would indicate to me that the Pope has a certain authority.

I can see that, but he doesn't mean it that way.  I think he basically said that it's a just lot easier to speak in those terms and that the simple faithful would have no idea what he was blabbering about if he were to go on about these theological fine points.  He uses the expression of being under the Pope as a shorthand for indicating that he's Catholic and not some kind of schismatic.

[Meg]

I can see that, but he doesn't mean it that way.  I think he basically said that it's a just lot easier to speak in those terms and that the simple faithful would have no idea what he was blabbering about if he were to go on about these theological fine points.  He uses the expression of being under the Pope as a shorthand for indicating that he's Catholic and not some kind of schismatic.

Okay, but he said in the video that when he tells the Filipinos that he is under the Pope in Rome, that he is telling them the truth, and that it is not a lie when he tells them this. You seem to be saying that he's not really telling the truth to those Novus Ordo Filipinos. 

[Pax Vobis]

Bellarminists can't address the problem of when heresy has become sufficiently manifest in order for deposition to happen.

1) Joe Sixpack reads a papal encyclical and determines that it's heretical.
2) Several priests and a bishop decide that the pope is a heretic.
3) Several bishops determine that a pope is a heretic but most other bishops disagree with them.
4) 49% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 51% don't.
5) 51% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 49% don't.
6) 90% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 10% don't.
7) General Council declares the pope a heretic and to have lost office.

Right now we're somewhere between #1 and #3. 

Ok, everyone, let's put aside theory and talk about real life.  How/when does the pope get deposed?  The above questions from Ladislaus must be raised again.  I'll also step it up a notch.  Riddle me this, and tell me what happens in this scenario.

Imagine you're living in a normal, sane catholic world, sometime between 1100-1500. A catholic cardinal, (not yet saintly but far from immoral, and who cares about the church) is elected pope, but the election was full of politics and manuevering because 2 powerful, italian families wanted their sons to be pope (actually happened a few times during the middle ages).  The worldliness and ambition of many of the cardinals is boarderline sinful, with not a few living very scandalous lives.  The major european kings of the time, who basically rule the world, while not openly at war, are constantly involved in little battles and skirmishes here and there, at various country borders, not amounting to the loss of many soldier's lives, but surely preventing the catholic world being at peace.  Such small battles and constant bickering of the monarchs proved that while catholicism reigned as the religion of the world, far, far too many in the royal courts lived their religion with any kind of effort; most were immoral (including the kings).  Let's also throw in some religious bickering, because, when has the catholic world not argued about something?  So there was a large debate in the world at the time over the evils of nepotism and "alms" (i.e. bribery) given to bishops and cardinals, in exchange for help with political issues.

Into this make-believe world (which, if you read history, is not all that make-believe) a new pope is elected into the middle of political mayhem - with conflicts building in all 3 major areas of life - political, social and religious.  The new pope has also said he wants to get rid of nepotism and the political corruption in rome.  So 15 Italian Cardinals (out of 70) hatch a plan to get rid of this new pope, because they are friends of one of the uber-wealthy italian families.  They are also supportive of the Italian-Spanish king, who is in 'disagreements' with France.  The current pope's family is french, so of course, he is a political enemy of these 15 cardinals (even though the current pope cares nothing for politics and only for the faith and has openly said so.  Again, he is a good man.). 

Many of these 15 cardinals are very evil and caught up in the sins of nepotism and receiving alms/bribes.  They talk to 10 other Cardinals who are politically neutral but who are also only Cardinals because of nepotism and bribery.  So these 30 cardinals dream up a plan to claim that the new pope supports heresy.  They plant false evidence, they get a few advisors of the Italian-spanish king involved in order to gain political support, as well as some of the governors of the italian provinces.  The plan is set, the false evidence is brought forth and the wheels of conspiracy and lies begin to move.  The entire college of cardinals is in shock, as is most of Italy.  Of course, the rich italian family which stands to gain from the ousting of the pope is using every means possible to sway public opinion and tempt those cardinals who are neutral that 'everyone saw this coming' and that 'this pope has a lot of skeletons in his closet'.  The 25 cardinals who are in on the plot are doing their best to contact every bishop and papal emissary who will listen and tell them of the pope's heretical ideas.  In the end, based on public opinion, the pope is deposed.  There is no trial, no council called to discuss facts, but the cardinals sign a letter which states the pope is to be removed, but this all happens 'after the fact' - with the letter being signed without discussion, just passed around like a birthday card for each cardinal to sign as a matter of formality - a testament to mob rule and the democratic extremes which are allowed (and encouraged) by Church law, for heresy in any degree must be removed at all cost, for the heretical man deposes himself.  And the evidence against the pope was too damning.  What other choice did the Cardinals have, but to kick out a deposed pope?  The whole catholic world was witness to his heresy and self-judgement - there was no other option.

And so, with a +Bellarmine mindset, we must use this scenario to show the errors and extremes which a lack of due process and canon law procedures would allow, if the law was just simply 'a heretic deposes himself'.  Such anti-heretical idealism is very catholic and sounds wonderful, but without practical measures and checks/balances, will lead to more mayhem and confusion than the actual heresy.
 

[Pax Vobis]

Ha ha, LastDays!  You contradicted yourself in a matter of minutes!

First you said:
The body of the hierarchy could not make an official decision in this matter. In order for any decision to be official there would need a valid Pope acting infallibly. Even if all the Cardinals unanimously agreed that the Chair of Peter was vacant, it could not make it official. Also, it is not just a matter of determining (correctly) that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but they also have to elect a true Catholic.

Then you said:
There is no problem in restoring the Church... They would have to call an imperfect council and eventually invite Bishops with valid orders. They would have to come to the conclusion that the Chair of Peter is Vacant, and they would have to acknowledge and abjure their own heresies and acknowledge their questionable holy orders. They would be conditionally consecrated and ordained and elect a new Pope.

[Stubborn]

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 ... ......

Define "Magisterium sifting" and give at least one case that "magisterium sifting"  has occurred.

[Ladislaus]

Define "Magisterium sifting" and give at least one case that "magisterium sifting"  has occurred.

This isn't difficult.  Vatican II taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things.  Those things are part of the Magisterium.  But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty.  We reject that PART of it, whereas we accept the rest.