[Ladislaus]

Calling your own argument pathetic? You correctly admitted the possibility when you said...

"unless he too assumes the the office must be materially stripped from him by some authority"

Hmm, you actually got something right for once, and then you turned on yourself.

The word "dignity" does not pertain to the spiritual domain, but rather the temporal. It refers more to human pride and respect. Here is a good example, which you can apply to yourself...

"A fool set in high dignity, and the rich sitting beneath" (Ecc. 10:6)

Nonsense.

You guys are simply too obtuse to understand the distinction being made here.

[Pax Vobis]

The clergy did what they were supposed to do in the situation.

+Bellarmine doesn't say the clergy has to do anything.  In this case, Liberius doesn't have to be stripped, he already stripped himself.  So, all the clergy must do is elect a a new pope and ignore Liberius.  BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED, IS IT?  No.  The clergy ACTED to strip Liberius and THEN they elected a new pope.  So this historical record contradicts the impractical approach of +Bellarmine.

[Pax Vobis]

Then Suarez, Cajetan, John of St Thomas, etc, etc are also heretics because they said that a council could depose a bad pope.

[Stubborn]

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.

No, that is not Magisterium sifting. Yes, I know you define a Magisterium as infallible but can also teach error - not sure if that can happen at the same time though - where you learned that who knows?, but you have still not given any actual example of "magisterium sifting", likely because you can't, because we do no such thing. But although meaningless, it does have a nice ring to it in a strange sort of way.

Now out of necessity the sedewhateverists do indeed twist the teachings of the Church without regard to their degree of solemnity, and in order to show how the surest position is the happy place is right in the luke warm middle, the only recourse you have is to make unfounded accusations, re: R&R Magisterium sifting. Never heard of such a thing - it's right up there with Fr. Cekada's "pope sifting", which is another novel sede-inspired term for sure.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, see if you or anyone can actually give an actual example of R&R "Magisterium sifting".

[Pax Vobis]

See comments in red...What you describe below is the basic understanding of the difference between the material vs spiritual offices of the pope.  You basically just described sedeprivationism.  I tell ya, i'm going insane here, trying to figure out why we can't understand each other.

Indeed Liberius Francis (by his external works) showed himself to be stripped of his office (his spiritual office). As long as he was thought to be Pope by the Church at large (his dignity remained). It was this dignity that the clergy needs to strip from Francis but has not yet had to now strip, by denouncing Liberius, and they need to denounce Francis and remove him from the material office (of which he had no right to) and electing a new Pope.

Ergo, until Francis is denounced and removed, he still holds his dignity/material/earthly part of his papacy because he is thought to be pope by the church at large.  This is sedeprivationism.


These are your own words.  If you disagree with yourself, then go collect yourself, think about it and come back and refute yourself.

[Pax Vobis]

If they said that a true Pope could be deposed by a council, then they should be considered heretics (absolutely).

No, you misquoted me.  They didn't say a 'true' pope could be deposed, but a bad one.

[2Vermont]

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.

Interestingly you selected two women as your "examples"..... 

[Pax Vobis]

As long as he was thought to be Pope by the Church at large (his dignity remained).

How do you reconcile your earlier statement, with your current one below?

The problem lies in the fact that a notorious heretic has no right to a material office, dignity, recognition etc.

No one is arguing he has a RIGHT to his material office, but as you said to yourself earlier, as long as he is viewed as the visible pope, he still has his dignity.  As Fr Chazal puts it, though the pope has no spiritual authority, he remains in his office as a sign of 'unity' among catholics, so that the visible church would remain.  (Is this not what you mean by 'dignity'?)  So, until the cardinals denounce and remove him, he's still (materially) the pope.  He's just a figurehead at this point.  He has no spiritual power (which is about 90% of the pope's powers anyway).  This is why I said, in this scenario, he would be a glorified 'paper pusher', whose duties would be as simple as a CEO running some business.  Nothing more.
Can we not agree on this?

[Pax Vobis]

Pax, please tell us what happened to Pope Liberius, and how the clergy applied due process, order, and explain how they acted with authority...

Bellator Dei, See answer from Last Days below:

LastDays said:

It was this dignity that the clergy had to now strip, by denouncing Liberius, removing him from the material office (of which he had no right to) and electing a new Pope.

Liberius was a bad/heretical pope.  He was deposed by a council.  This is what Suarez, Cajetan, etc taught could (and did) happen.
So, you say that Liberius was removed by the clergy, but then you earlier said, that the papal see cannot be judged.

LastDays said:

You claim that the first see CAN be judged, provided due process, order and a supposed authoritative act takes place. We have never said such things. In fact you are a heretic for even believing that the first see could possibly judged, as it is a dogma that he cannot be judged.

How do your lines of reason not contradict each other?

[Pax Vobis]

Indeed Liberius Francis (by his external works) showed himself to be stripped of his office (his spiritual office). As long as he was thought to be Pope by the Church at large (his dignity remained). It was this dignity that the clergy needs to strip from Francis but has not yet had to now strip, by denouncing Liberius, and they need to denounce Francis and remove him from the material office (of which he had no right to) and electing a new Pope.

Ergo, until Francis is denounced and removed, he still holds his dignity/material/earthly part of his papacy because he is thought to be pope by the church at large.  This is sedeprivationism.

If you say there is a problem with the above, then you must retract your logic from the italicized above.  Please correct it.  I'd really like to know.

[TKGS]

I'm giving 5:1 odds this thread goes at least 15 pages.

You should have given 500:1 odds.

[Pax Vobis]

I agree with you guys in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate how it works in real life.  How many catholics does it take to recognize a heretical pope?  Just 1?  5?  1,500?  Just the ones in rome?  Or based on an encyclical only?

What if there's a disagreement on if he's a heretic?  We presume he's a heretic, is your answer.  What if everyone in the college of cardinals thinks everyone else is a heretic?  Who decides then?  So everyone has lost his office? 

What if, like during the period of the 3 popes - everyone thought that the other 2 popes (and their followers) were heretics?  So, that means that EVERY CATHOLIC was a heretic, and is excommunicated, right?  Catholicism ceases to exist, because we must 'presume evil intent' for heresy, right? 

So, if a pope says heresy, first you said he retains his dignity until the clergy removes him and he retains his material office (I agree with this).  Then you DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF, and you said the dignity is just a 'false dignity' and he has the material office but not a right to it (not sure I understand the difference.)  Then you said he can't hold the material office because a heretic can't hold office.

Anyway, I'm just trying to understand but I see that it's impossible.  You just keep repeating the same quotes without explaining how it works.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your theory is not adequately formulated at this point.  +Bellarmine's theory suffered from the same problem.

[Meg]

There's a six-page docuмent on the Dominicans of Avrille website, called "A refutation of sedevacantism."

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/refutation-of-sedevacantism/

It doesn't cover every aspect of the debate, but it does go into detail about the issue of material vs. formal heresy. From page 2:

"1) "A heretical pope is deposed from his pontificate by the very fact of his heresy"

"To start with, it must be noted that this doctrine is not recognized as certain or even common among great theologians who dealt with this question: some think that this cannot happen, some others think that such a pope should be deposed, or forced to resign, and yet others who think that he would lose his pontificate ipso facto. Hence, it is only a probable opinion shrouded with doubts.

"Next, the word "heretic" must be understood in the moral sense. For it is in this sense that there is unanimity among theologians and canonists, that one cannot condemn someone of heresy unless it be formal (an obstinate sin, willfully denying an article of the faith defined by the Magisterium of the Church). However, it not possible for us to affirm with certainty, that of a conciliar pope, neo-modernism being just a heresy that does not directly deny defined articles of the previous Magisterium, but empties them of their substance.

"It is difficult to know if a conciliar pope is truly aware of being in formal opposition with the traditional Magisterium, especially when he speaks of the "hermeneutic of continuity." Even if that is the case objectively, it is not evident subjectively and before God that he has contracted the sin of heresy, a sin that the law of the Church requires to be declared, before being able to impute to him a crime punishable by canonical sanctions. Therein lies a new doubt. Yet, a decree of the holy office (20-07-1898 states that in case of doubt, there is presumption of material heresy.

"With the dictionary of Catholic theology (v.6 col.2221) let us add that "even feigned ignorance excuses one from the sin of formal heresy, though it does not mean that it excuses one from the sin itself."
That these conciliar popes are heretics at least materially, this is commonly agreed among us, and this is what the Superior General of the SSPX declared publically in Fideliter (No. 92, p.44) in 1993. But that they are formally, that is doubtful."

[Meg]

I agree with you guys in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate how it works in real life.  How many catholics does it take to recognize a heretical pope?  Just 1?  5?  1,500?  Just the ones in rome?  Or based on an encyclical only?

What if there's a disagreement on if he's a heretic?  We presume he's a heretic, is your answer.  What if everyone in the college of cardinals thinks everyone else is a heretic?  Who decides then?  So everyone has lost his office?

What if, like during the period of the 3 popes - everyone thought that the other 2 popes (and their followers) were heretics?  So, that means that EVERY CATHOLIC was a heretic, and is excommunicated, right?  Catholicism ceases to exist, because we must 'presume evil intent' for heresy, right?

So, if a pope says heresy, first you said he retains his dignity until the clergy removes him and he retains his material office (I agree with this).  Then you DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF, and you said the dignity is just a 'false dignity' and he has the material office but not a right to it (not sure I understand the difference.)  Then you said he can't hold the material office because a heretic can't hold office.

Anyway, I'm just trying to understand but I see that it's impossible.  You just keep repeating the same quotes without explaining how it works.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means your theory is not adequately formulated at this point.  +Bellarmine's theory suffered from the same problem.

Maybe it's not a matter of material or spiritual office at all (the sedeprivationist doctrine?), but a matter of not being able to prove that the pope is a formal heretic.

Your doctrine is still sedevacantist, Pax. It may seem more reasonable, but it's not. 

[Clemens Maria]

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?

The hierarchy is competent to decide.  The hierarchy consists of all those clergy who are actually Catholic, who profess the Catholic faith.  And if there is some disagreement within the hierarchy, and there is no definitive authority who can settle the dispute (i.e. the Pope), then a general council should be held and it should be determined by a vote.  But I think that a general council is not absolutely necessary.  If the Catholic clergy of the Roman province decide that the man wearing a white cassock is actually a usurping non-Catholic, then they are certainly competent to resolve the issue themselves.  But prior to a resolution it is possible to discuss the situation and even make accusations without thereby causing a schism.  There is an objective reality and we can grasp it with our intellects.  Is Frank Catholic?  Don't say, "Who am I to judge."