[Pax Vobis]

If a Catholic encounters notorious public heresy, then he must presume malice in the external forum. This can potentially mean that "for a time" he may may be rejecting a true Pope.

What you are proposing is nothing less than catholic anarchy.

[Pax Vobis]

I never said that the decision of the imperfect council (that the Chair of Peter was Vacant) was "official". I just said that they (the imperfect council) "would have to come to a conclusion".

Your scenario could lead to multiple, multiple popes at the same time - even multiple bishops for the same diocese.  It would make the situation when St Vincent Ferrer lived (with 3 different popes) a catholic 'norm'.  This is total chaos.

[Meg]

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.

How is this different from What +ABL believed and taught?

[Pax Vobis]

Sorry, I meant your 'explanation' of how to handle my scenario. 

Of course, I disagree.  In my scenario, what would happen is that the process of canon law would be followed (this is why canon law exists).  There would be an inquiry, and evidence of heresy would be presented and the college of cardinals would determine that the pope was not guilty but innocent - and he would remain pope throughout all of this.  The italian king, if it was able to be proved that he was involved, would probably be put under an interdict and the evil Cardinals would've been punished in some way as well (maybe excommunication, certainly they would've been banished to a monastery or clerical prison).  The rich italian family might been excommunicated until they did satisfactory public penance.

In your explanation, the pope is 'guilty until proven innocent'.  I realize you read this in canon law commentary somewhere, and it is applicable in some cases, but a heretic pope is not the same flavor as any other heretic.  The papacy is a different situation than any other situation in catholicism.

[Cantarella]

How is this different from What +ABL believed and taught?

It is not. Ladislaus was just explaining "run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism".

[Meg]

It is not. Ladislaus was explaining "run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism".

He didn't actually explain it. But that's not unusual for Ladislaus. 

[Stubborn]

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.

So in other words, V2 taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things which are of the Magisterium. But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty, which being at least error, is not of the Magisterium. We reject those parts of V2's teachings that are not of the Magisterium, whereas we accept the rest.

This is not "Magisterium sifting".

Can you come up with an actual example?

[Cantarella]

That's not what I said - I said a pope could never become Faith-less. Likewise the local Roman Church can never defect from the Faith.

If a pope can never become Faith-less; then that is proof right there that the conciliar popes are not true popes, unless you want to argue that the conciliar popes have indeed kept the Faith.... and....you attend the FSSP.  

[Meg]

That's not what I said - I said a pope could never become Faith-less. Likewise the local Roman Church can never defect from the Faith.

No, you didn't say that. 

You said that Christ protects the pope from ever falling from the faith. You said..."THE FAITH." I took that to mean that the Catholic faith was the main subject, and the pope's faith secondary to that. 

What does the Church teach regarding the Pope "never becoming faithless," as you say? What does this mean, exactly, in the eyes of Church teaching? Can you cite any specifics from Church teaching to qualify this? 

[Ladislaus]

St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic."

"Taken from him" how?  He loses it ipso facto.  So did he not lose it ipso facto because he was "considered" a heretic?  How did he get his office back?  Bellarmine can't even keep his own argument straight ... unless he too assumes the the office must be materially stripped from him by some authority.

[Ladislaus]

So in other words, V2 taught some perfectly Traditional Catholic things which are of the Magisterium. But it also taught, say, Religious Liberty, which being at least error, is not of the Magisterium. We reject those parts of V2's teachings that are not of the Magisterium, whereas we accept the rest.

This is not "Magisterium sifting".

Can you come up with an actual example?

Of course that's Magisterium sifting.  Yes, I know, you have redefined Magisterium to be only those things taught by the Church which you decide are in accordance with Tradition.  So you define Magisterium in a way that no other Catholic has ever defined it ... including R&R folks.  Most R&R folks would simply refer to it as non-infallible Magisterium ... whereas you just cross it out from the Magisterium entirely.

[Ladislaus]

It is not. Ladislaus was just explaining "run-of-the-mill Magisterium-sifting R&Rism".

Yes, that is opposed to, say, Father Chazal's position, in which the entire Magisterium of the V2 papal claimants has become null and void ... not just the bad parts.

[Ladislaus]

There is the physical removing of a heretic from the office that must take place. This physical presence does not imply that the heretic rightly holds some sort of material office. In fact he has no right to it and should not be holding it. That's why it must be taken from him.

Sure.  Nice try.  Pathetic actually.  So you're claiming that this means physical removal from the building.  Would dragging him off the chair suffice?

Except that Bellarmine said:
"stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity"

[Pax Vobis]

Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic.

We've already discussed this, but i'll post it again.  The clergy ACTED to strip Liberius of his pontificate.  It wasn't assumed, and it did not happen without due process, order and an authoritative act.

[Pax Vobis]

...a heretic pope is not the same flavor as any other heretic.

Bellator said:  Pax, where do you come up with this garbage?? 

It comes from canon law.  Some of you want to quote canon law regarding ipso facto excommunications and simply apply them to the papal question.  But you are forgetting that canon law also states:  "The first see is judged by no one".  (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur).  So, how do we interpret this contradiction?  Well...its not simple!  this is why theologians have argued about it for centuries.  It must mean that canon law contains a legal hierarchy and that excommuication penalities apply to all heretics, unless he be the pope, for this would require additional actions.  A papal heretic is not the same as you, I or a bishop being a heretic.  It's just not.