Caminus said:
What do you do with the rest of the hierarchy? You're not constrained to even point to a specific heresy and a specific man any longer, it's become a general blanket that casts itself upon all the novus ordo hierarchy, has it not? Where is your moral responsibility in all of this?
For the sede, that is easy to answer, read cuм Ex Apostolatus again. We have the right to separate from all those who are in league with a false pontiff.
But where is your moral responsibility in SSPX when you reject the authority of local ordinaries chosen by a Pope you claim is the true one, with a general blanket? Do you go and interview each one to make sure that he is a heretic before tossing him to the wolves?
As to why we concentrate on heresy rather than lesser notes of censure, it's because, obviously, that cuts to the chase more quickly. If you're fighting a dragon you don't spend your time tickling his armpits, you strike at his heart. Every time Benedict opens his mouth he says something that is at least "ill-sounding" but who is going to waste their time tabulating all of those occasions when we know he's a huge honking heretic already?
I would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Raoul. I do not pretend to be a Theologian, but to me the Sedevacantist position is much more consistent than that of the SSPX.
The SSPX rejects Vatican II, they will not say the Novus Ordo Mass, and they will not use the new Sacraments, yet they claim that Benedict XVI and his Vatican II predecessors are true Popes.
As one writer put it, Benedict XVI is nothing more than a cardboard Pope to them; something to look at, but whom they substantially ignore.
Isn’t one of the prime attributes of a Catholic their union with and obedience to the Pope? If Benedict XVI and his Vatican II predecessors are true Popes, doesn’t the SSPX owe them their obedience and acceptance of all the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical changes promulgated by Vatican II?
No it is the obedience to God not Man when Man contradicts God.
The Sedevacantist position is reactionary, contradicts Canon Law(We Don't) and makes up it's own theology to back up it's position which contradicts the Catholic Theology that has always been handed down.
For instance what you and Raoul have stated. You believe that he loses Office ipso facto, but that is not possible under the Code of Canon Law(Either the 1917 or 1917) you basically believe the Papolatry of the Concillar Church which is itself a violation of the First Commandment. You worship the Pope by virtue of your belief that he can do no wrong.
Sedevacantists do not understand the difference between Ordinary Law and Extraordinary Law.
They do no understand that the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that no Priest loses his Jurisdiction even if he is ipso facto excommunicated unless he has been Declared to have incurred said penalty by a superior. Nor do they bother to read the sections on the rights and privledges of the Cardinals which put them above Canon Law and Jurisdiction since they are directly underneath the Pope.
They state "An Excommunicated Person cannot be Pope that is dogma!" Yet Boniface VI was Pope for 15 days, before he was Deposed. He was Excommincated before he was Pope, they then deposed him and threw him out of the See and elected a New Pope. That is the course you would have to take. You cannot just say there is no Pope, you would have to go and depose him.
They state that "Juridictional Acts of a Pope are defide and must be obeyed on pain of schism!"
Well that is not true, that falls under the penalty of disobedience not schism. Schism is when you deny that your superior is your superior not when you disobey him. And if you disobey him to obey God then it is you who is justified and not he. A Person who is a Pope is not guarenteed Salvation, nor do they lose the power of free will. The only time a Pope is infallibe is when he Defines a Dogma(Which has always been believed and originated from the Apostles because he cannot create new ones) to be held by the whole church on pain of not being Catholic in the virtue of his Apostolic Office(Not his private opinions). That is a defined Dogma.
Now an example of a Pope's Jurisdictional acts not being binding, would be Pope John IX's burning of acts of the sickening Synod of Pope Stephan VII who dug up Pope Formosas his rival and denounced him, falsely charged and convicted him and then threw his body into the Tiber. All the Acts of that Synod which were held by a Pope and none of them were infallible all were disciplinary were burnt to a crisp by Pope John IX and all the Priests who were declared by Pope Stephan VII to have lost their offices had their offices restored. All declared Penalties against them were declared unjust and null and void.
But the Sede's will deny this, or make up some kind of dogma that exists in their own minds to try and refute it. But it is of no avail. The Church can have problems, Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. When he acts against the primary Law of the Church which is the Salvation of Souls he must be disobeyed. So long as you obey when you ought and disobey when you ought and don't fall into the trap of False Obedience which Raoul seems to be advocating, then you will be justified at Judgement.
As the Summa states, to Obey an illegal order is a mortal sin. The Spirit of the Law supercedes the written Law and as the Code itself declares Laws are null when they contradict the Law of God.