[Pax Vobis]

LastDays, I asked you to show the definition of "notorious" heretic.  You posted 2 quotes, none of which answered the question.  You keep using "notorious" as if it means something different than "formal".  It means the same thing. 

Therefore all your quotes where it says that a notorious heretic is a non-catholic means that 1) only FORMAL heretics are non-Catholics and 2) that FORMAL heretics are presumed to be wrong.  

The Church is the only one who can declare someone 'notorious' or 'formal'.  This is the point where you are blurring the lines because you are using 'notorious' incorrectly. 

[Stubborn]

Still repeating your lies Stubborn?

I already know you consider that quote from popes Pius X and XII to be a lie, probably is considered a lie by all dogmatic sedes, at least it is by all the ones who post here - same o same o. At least you have some company.

[Ladislaus]

"Notorious" does not mean formal when applying Church teaching to 'ipso facto" excommunication for public heresy. The 1917 Code of Canon Law states that notoriety can be of law or of fact......

Canon 2917~2. Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge...

Canon 2917~3. Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal opinion could excuse [the act]

Canon 2217~2. A penalty is called: Automatic if a determinate penalty is added to the law or precept such that it is incurred upon the fact of the delict being committed; formal if it must be inflicted by a judge or superior.


Notorious public defection from the faith severs one from the Catholic Church upon the fact (Canon 188~4). A declaration is not required.

Canon 188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
          4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.

Popes are not subject to Canon Law but are above it.  That's the reason Popes are a separate case from all other authority in the Church and why a lot of your principles simply do not apply.

[Ladislaus]

I do not find it unreasonable to apply these principles to the current crisis and make the distinction in the person of the conciliar Popes & Novus Ordo hierarchy as well; especially because of the unprecedented catastrophe we are experiencing.

Indeed, Cantarella.  There's matter and form in everything.  So, for instance, the person who's elected must be proper matter for election (e.g. not a woman, etc.).  Also, there's precedent for it, as there's said to be material Apostolic succession among the Orthodox from the Apostolic Sees.

... from the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre Vatican II)

This Apostolic succession 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.

So the Orthodox, for instance, have material succession but lack formal succession.

[Pax Vobis]

Popes are not subject to Canon Law but are above it.  That's the reason Popes are a separate case from all other authority in the Church and why a lot of your principles simply do not apply.

Exactly!  And this is what they'll say to your rebuttal:  Nothing.  And in the next thread, they'll be quoting canon law incorrectly yet again.  

Or, they'll say, "But, but, but..."cuм ex" says a non-catholic can't hold office" (which completely ignores the fact that ONLY THE CHURCH can declare a pope to be a non-catholic.)  And then the layman-with-no-authority-and-no-training-with-a-protestant-styled-error-filled-interpretation-merry-go-round starts all over again.

[Pax Vobis]

Think of every statement and action of these V2 papal claimants, and not one thing they have said or done is out of line with the doctrine of the anonymous christian.

GJC - exactly!!  This is why modernists have been attacking 'no salvation outside of the church' (i.e. "the doctrine") since the 1800s.  Because once you open the door to 'salvation outside of the Church', even a crack, the logic and foundation of catholicism is compromised and the Faith is open to ALL manner of attacks and errors.

This is why, whether you agree with Feeney or not, his efforts are to be applauded because he was one of a few who was defending "the doctrine" from the modernists in the 40s and 50s.  I'm not saying that Feeney was infallible but at least now, 60 years later, we can see that he was correct as to where these modernist's errors would lead.  We are now able to see the fruits of these errors, which blossomed into the heresies of V2.  Some trads are still unable to see this connection because they are not able to hear the word 'feeney' without being triggered into ONLY thinking of '3 baptisms'.  Feeney was defending the structure of the faith; 3 baptism was just a small part of what he was trying to correct.  If only trads could look at the facts, they would realize that Feeney was looking at 'the big picture' (just as modernists do) and he was fighting the 'slippery slope' where 3 baptisms COULD (and did) lead to, which is one of the main victories of V2 - the promotion of the idea of 'salvation outside of the Church'.  

Yet most trads are oblivious as to how this V2 victory was won.  It was won in the 40s/50s when "the doctrine" was not fully defended.  And this error of 'universal salvation' still affects many trads today...

[Pax Vobis]

LastDays,
Now you have a NEW term - a 'public' heretic.  Please tell me where this is defined in canon law?  What's the difference between 'public' and 'notorious'?  Why aren't these mentioned in the catholic encyclopedia, which only mentions 'material' and 'formal'?  So you say there are 4 types of heretics, is that right?  Material, Formal, Notorious and public?  What's the difference between all 4?  

You completely ignore these differences and when you quote canon law and it says 'heretic', do you stop and consider WHICH TYPE of heretic they are referring to?  No, you don't.  You just interpret it to mean whichever type supports your pre-determined conclusion.  Your lack of distinction is embarrassing.  Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling.  You quote canon law (which you have no training or authority to do) and you don't even understand the terms it uses.  Pathetic and prideful.  I'm tired of your 1st grade-level commentary.

[Stubborn]

No, I consider your twisting of those quotes from popes Pius X and XII to be a lie. I also consider you to be liar and possibly an infiltrator. If not, then you're just incredibly stupid.

I quoted the "true" popes directly, you are the one doing the twisting - that is, after all, what dogmatic sedes do. You do prove that you believe "true" popes to be liars, infiltrators and just incredibly stupid. Same o same o.

[Pax Vobis]

Which canon law are you referring to? 

Haha.  All of them.

[2Vermont]

Noooooooooooo, I wagered a nickel this thread would get to 100 pages. I don't care if it goes off topic, lets get it to 100.

I wonder what the record is for sede-related threads.  I don't think I recall one longer than this since I have been around, but that could be because I usually lose interest MANY pages beforehand.

[Ladislaus]

Wrong again Laddy. In places where Canon Law reflects the divine law then Popes are subject to it.

Not wrong.  Popes are subject to Divine Law and not Canon Law.  If something of Divine Law appears in Canon Law then the popes are subject to it as Divine Law and not because it's in Canon Law.  Move along now.

[Ladislaus]

It is divine law that public heretics are not considered members of the Church.

It's divine law that public FORMAL heretics are not considered members of the Church.  But, apart from that addition, I have conceded this.  Apparently your feeble mind is incapable of following the rest.  Question under dispute is who has the competence to discern the existence of said public formal heresy.  Also under dispute is whether or not this state of heresy ipso facto strips a papal claimant of office.  I hold, with many other theologians, that it does deprive them of their ability to formally exercise the office but not of the material office itself.  And because you latch onto a core premise, which I have conceded, you blur the rest of it together as being invalidated by your initial premise.

[TKGS]

Do the theologians actually discuss the term "formal heretic"?  

I've seen "manifest heretic", "notorious heretic", and "public heretic" (and, of course, the heresy has to be pertinacious), but I've not seen "formal heretic" except in recent years.

Of course, there is "formal heresy" as opposed to "material heresy", but I've not seen the adjective, formal, applied to the person before.

Can you point me to the appropriate theologians?  I'd like to see how the term is explained.

[2Vermont]

Do the theologians actually discuss the term "formal heretic"?  

I've seen "manifest heretic", "notorious heretic", and "public heretic" (and, of course, the heresy has to be pertinacious), but I've not seen "formal heretic" except in recent years.

Of course, there is "formal heresy" as opposed to "material heresy", but I've not seen the adjective, formal, applied to the person before.

Can you point me to the appropriate theologians?  I'd like to see how the term is explained.

It's my understanding that Catholics can not become "material heretics", only non-Catholics.

[Ladislaus]

It's my understanding that Catholics can not become "material heretics", only non-Catholics.

It's the opposite.