[Pax Vobis]

just curious what exactly do you need to see to deem him an apostate for example

You know, your question implies that YOU or I can judge the pope an apostate and that our judgement matters.  This mindset is just wrong - the idea that a layman can judge a pope - and it comes from the democracy mindset that we are so used to, politically.  The Church is not a democracy; She is a MONARCHY.  And just as in the middle ages the people cannot overthrow a bad king, in the same way, we laymen cannot overthrow a bad pope.  The Church can depose a pope, but not the laity. 

[TKGS]

You know, your question implies that YOU or I can judge the pope an apostate and that our judgement matters.  This mindset is just wrong - the idea that a layman can judge a pope - and it comes from the democracy mindset that we are so used to, politically.  The Church is not a democracy; She is a MONARCHY.  And just as in the middle ages the people cannot overthrow a bad king, in the same way, we laymen cannot overthrow a bad pope.  The Church can depose a pope, but not the laity.

So, can I take this to mean that if Bergoglio comes out of the balcony of St. Peter's and tells the assemble masses that there is no god by Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, you would condemn anyone who dare say that he is not the pope?  Sure, he a bad pope, but a Catholic pope nonetheless?

By the way, history is rife with examples of "bad kings" being overthrown.

[Cantarella]

Reply #1147 addressed to Cantarella....
Cantarella?

I do not think that Fr. Chazal of the Resistance is a sedesprivationist. I think he aligns himself more to Cajetan; than he does Bellarmine. This is because, they consider the pope to be the pope until the competent authority (most likely an imperfect Council) declares the pope to be a heretic and just then, deprives him from office. In the CT, he ceases to be the pope as soon as he presents the impediment (heresy) to receive Divine Assistance. The need for legal declaration (juridical warnings, removal of office) happens after that fact. In this scenario, the imperfect Council is not judging the pope, but a mere man who has already long lost the pontificate.    

I actually don't see much difference from Fr. Chazal's view to the original Lefebvrist position but I can see why Ladislaus may find similarities between Fr. Chazal's and Fr. Des Lauriers, in that they both agree that there is a "visible man in white" as a head of the Church, a materialiter pope. He is occupying the office materially until the Church declares it otherwise. In this aspect, I think the difference is more about semantics than anything else and also, the timing of the deposition. They both agree that the conciliar popes are manifested heretics and that there were heretical errors in the VII docuмents. The CT argues that a true pope could have never promulgated such errors and that is the proof right there that Paul VI was not a pope. In both sedevacantism and R&R Lefebvrism, everyone has been acting like the conciliar popes are NOT popes, anyway, even if they profess in words otherwise.  

However, in what I do see a big difference between what Ladislaus thinks and the CT is the notion of "sededoubtism" as a legitimate reason for Catholics to reject either an ecuмenical Council or the pope behind it (and further, consider separating from the hierarchy on that account). In CT, there is no "doubt" but rational certainty that can be objectively proved given the Catholic Principle of non - Contradiction. The Thesis even gives an exact time when the error indicating a false pope could have been discovered: the promulgation of Dignatatis Humanae in 1965. This docuмents contradicted previous Magisterial teaching.

[Ladislaus]

I do not think that Fr. Chazal of the Resistance is a sedesprivationist. I think he aligns himself more to Cajetan; than he does Bellarmine. This is because, they consider the pope to be the pope until the competent authority (most likely an imperfect Council) declares the pope to be a heretic and just then, deprives him from office.

I actually don't see much difference from Fr. Chazal's view to the original Lefebvrist position but I can see why Ladislaus may find similarities between Fr. Chazal's and Fr. Des Lauriers, in that they both agree that there is a "visible man in white" as a head of the Church, a materialiter pope. He is occupying the office materially until the Church declares it otherwise.

Of course, Fr. Chazal is not technically a sedeprivationist; he himself would most certainly reject the label since it's generally associated with being another flavor of sedevacantism.

Nevertheless, he states quite clearly that the man has NO authority.  +Lefebvre vacillated and sometimes held the typical R&R position (of Magisterium-sifting) where the popes had authority when they taught correctly but had no authority when they didn't.  But Chazal makes it very clear that it's all to be thrown out, that the V2 papal claimants have NO authority, can and MUST be ENTIRELY disregarded.  That is much more than a pope who remains pope until he's materially removed from office.  Some R&R also equivocate about whether the V2 papal claimants are in fact heretics.  Father Chazal concedes to the sedevacantists that there's NO QUESTION but that these men are notorious, manifest, public heretics.

So I would have thought that this would appease many sedevacantists, whose chief objections to R&R are the Magisterium-sifting problem as well as the question of whether the V2 papal claimants are heretics.  But I guess I was wrong; their contempt for the Conciliar Church is so fierce that they cannot intellectually entertain the notion that these men might even have a material hold of the office.

[Ladislaus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the theory you are using to vindicate the V2 claimants?  

No, it's the other part that that I cited.  Whether they're sincere or not, or the degree of their good will, is irrelevant to the matter.

[Pax Vobis]

So, can I take this to mean that if Bergoglio comes out of the balcony of St. Peter's and tells the assemble masses that there is no god by Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, you would condemn anyone who dare say that he is not the pope?

First off, since i'm not the Church, my condemnation of either you, or the pope, or anyone else is just a bunch of words - such a condemnation is meaningless.  It affects nothing, it means nothing, it changes nothing.  If it makes you feel better to condemn others, go right ahead, as long as you understand that your condemnation is a waste of time (except that it is probably a sin, being it is against charity and justice).  Any catholic layman (or laymen) is/are not the Church - it's not their job to do anything in regards to 'fixing' the church/pope except to pray and to offer sacrifices.  Anything else is meaningless because we have ZERO authority, education or mission to act on behalf of, in place of, or for the Church, in an official capacity, ESPECIALLY in relation to canon law and theology, which are areas STRICTLY limited to clerics who are part of the hierarchy and Church govt.

This is my entire debate against DOGMATIC sedevacantism, of which LastDays is one, and to which my post was for.  If you are not a dogmatic sede, then my argument was not towards you.

[Ladislaus]

I say 'correction' has to come from a church official, in a public manner.

Indeed.  I'm the pope and Joe Catholic comes up to me to "correct" me.  What am I to make of this?  I know that some people who could barely read have "corrected" me on various issues (which THEY had wrong).  I blew them off as ignorant.  Does that make me a heretic because I rejected THEIR correction.  It's just a small step up to be corrected by a handful of bishops and their priest/lay followers.  More bishops and priests tried to correct Pius IX at Vatican I.

[Ladislaus]

However, in what I do see a big difference between what Ladislaus thinks and the CT is the notion of "sededoubtism" as a legitimate reason for Catholics to reject either an ecuмenical Council or the pope behind it (and further, consider separating from the hierarchy on that account). In CT, there is no "doubt" but rational certainty that can be objectively proved given the Catholic Principle of non - Contradiction.

Of course, and that's why I don't refer to myself as a sedeprivationist but, rather, a sede-doubtist.  In fact, Father Chazal is much closer to sedeprivationism than I am on that particular point.  He says that there's NO doubt that these men are heretics and are deprived of authority.  I add the element that even on the formal side it's not certain but still in the realm of our own private judgment ... awaiting the authority of the Church for resolution into the requisite certainty for papal legitimacy (which is dogmatic fact and must be known with the certainty of faith).  But on the principle of papa dubius nullus papa they are deprived of any authority.  Father William Jenkins of SSPV has articulated a similar position and cited theologians regarding this principle.  But then Father Jenkins believes that the See is completely vacant, and not just formally.  So my position is a little bit unique ... which is why I came up with the tongue-in-cheek name for it.

[Ladislaus]

So, can I take this to mean that if Bergoglio comes out of the balcony of St. Peter's and tells the assemble masses that there is no god by Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, you would condemn anyone who dare say that he is not the pope?  Sure, he a bad pope, but a Catholic pope nonetheless?

By the way, history is rife with examples of "bad kings" being overthrown.

This is a case where he'd IMO be immediately out of office.

Billot:

For if by a material heretic you meant one who, professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church, but still denies something defined by the Church which he does not know has been defined, or holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church, it would in this case be absurd to posit that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church

In the Allah example above, Bergoglio would have ceased "professing that in matters of faith he depends on the Magisterium of the Church".  And that's what I've said all along.  These guys, whether sincerely or not, still PROFESS being Catholic and depending on the Magisterium.  There's a big difference between that and someone who embraces Allah and Islam.

Most of the V2 papal claimants fall into the category of "hold[ing] an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine for the reason that he thinks that it is taught by the Church".

[Ladislaus]

You wrote the jury is still out on Jewgorglio , just curious what exactly do you need to see to deem him an apostate for example , does he need to tell everyone to hail Satan? Has he not already done enough? His praying with jews , not enough ?

See my previous post about why Bergoglio is a special case.  He said stuff to the effect that he doesn't care if what he believes is heresy.  In addition, he's been corrected by a group of cardinals and remains pertinacious.

But his predecessor were adamant that their beliefs were Catholic.

[Ladislaus]

Are you saying that because a person thinks that what he proclaims is Catholic or taught by the Catholic Church, they possess supernatural faith?

Well, they CAN possess supernatural faith.  But, yes, that's what Billot is saying (in that other section), and I agree.

I am a Catholic who either out of sheer ignorance have embraced a heretical proposition (thinking it to be Church teaching) or else have drawn a logical conclusion that ends up being heretical but think that my logic is good.  So long as I am still in submission formally to the Magisterium, these are just material errors.  Really the litmus test is when the person is corrected (in some cases by competent authority).  When I held some propositions like this, as soon as someone told me, "Uhm, the Church does not teach that, but, rather, ..." I immediately dropped it.

Prots, however, reject wholesale the infallible supernatural rule of faith.  Consequently, their beliefs are based on natural reasoning and are not the object of supernatural faith.  But that's a digression.

[Ladislaus]

But aren't you in fact vindicating the V2 claimants by using the Billot theory for Protestants of possessing supernatural faith to get these claimants into the Church?

No, because I reject Billot's [Pelagian] notion that good will can supply for supernatural motive.  They reject the Church as the rule of faith and so lack that supernatural motive.  Here with the V2 papal claimants is the case of men who profess the Magisterium as their proximate rule of faith but who happen to hold somethings at odds with the material content of the Faith. 

[Pax Vobis]

This is a case where he'd IMO be immediately out of office.

I don't see where there's ANY situation where a pope would lose his material office, 'ipso facto' (assuming he doesn't resign) without the Church hierarchy being involved.  Fr Chazal would say he's already lost his spiritual office, so any further heresy, even if it's the most clear, absolute and permanent denial of the Faith, is irrelevant.

[Ladislaus]

I don't see where there's ANY situation where a pope would lose his material office, 'ipso facto' (assuming he doesn't resign) without the Church hierarchy being involved.  Fr Chazal would say he's already lost his spiritual office, so any further heresy, even if it's the most clear, absolute and permanent denial of the Faith, is irrelevant.

Well, in this case "I am no longer Catholic but have embraced Mohammedism", the reaction of the Church would be rather automatic ... a rubber stamp on his loss of office more than anything else.  In the case of the heresies mentioned by Father Chazal, there can be some dispute about it ... and that's why we're in a limbo state.  But if he were to profess a false religion, the reaction would be automatic.

[Ladislaus]

I hear you.

So it could be possible then that there is such a thing as salvation outside of the Church for the ignorant (but by the Catholic Church), implicit faith, BoD...and no repercussions for the Feeneyites, they would be just material heretics?

BTW, I'm aware, as you pointed out Billot's theory could open 6 different threads... just curious of the above question?

Well, I don't believe in the existence of purely-material "heresy" outside the Church.  Sure, heresy actively rejects the rule of faith, but the mere absence of the rule of faith also disqualifies someone from having supernatural faith ... unless you think like a Pelagian.  I do, however, believe that there are many in the Novus Ordo who are material heretics only.  In the Novus Ordo, many still profess submission to the Magisterium ... but they think the Magisterium taught some of the heresies they hold.  This is completely different from a Prot who doesn't profess or belief in this rule of faith.