Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Answers to Sedevacantism  (Read 4543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Answers to Sedevacantism
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2024, 06:34:11 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 04, 2024, 07:17:59 AM
Plenus, the papacy is not merely a "job", and that statement typifies the problem with your thinking, reducing the papacy merely something that's natural, a job for him to do that he either does well or does poorly, without any consideration given to the fact that the Papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost.

+Lefebvre:
I do understand your opinion Ladislaus.
That he can do it poorly is certainly supported by St Robert Bellarmine discussing how to resist the Pope who wants to destroy the Church. obviously he doesn't mention heresy but that is certainly what you would call doing a pretty poor job as Pope!!!
And of course Vatican I defined how the Holy Ghost protects the Pope's 'unfailing faith' and how He keeps the First See 'unblemished' by error.
I just think you are trying to make a complicated situation too simple, and draw certain conclusions where we cannot. This was ultimately the Archbishop's conclusion as well. You know that. Everybody does. There are doubts, yes, certainly. But that is what separates us from the sedevacantist who refuses to admit any doubt whatsoever about his drastic conclusion which has such far reaching consequences.
Logged

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Answers to Sedevacantism
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2024, 06:36:12 PM »
Quote from: Angelus on January 04, 2024, 10:33:06 AM
You still fail to understand the distinctions that are being made in Canon Law.

When JST says, "I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment," JST is saying the same thing that Canon 2314.3 says. The Church, through its Canon Law, has already agreed with JST on that point. You are arguing against a phantom argument that I am not making.

But the key is to understand what the word "avoided" and "deposed" means. Canon Law distinguishes between the three different levels of excommunication. The final level is the "avoided" and "deposed" level. But the earlier two levels of excommunication have their own consequences that occur regardless of whether we ever get to the final level of "avoid" and "depose."

Did you read the Canons that I cited? Or are you just scanning the Avrille website to try to counter what you think I'm saying? Here are the most important Canons for our discussion:


If you will read those Canons carefully, you will notice the distinctions being made between the different levels of excommunication and the consequences of each level.

In the case of a mere ipso facto excommunicated Pope, he is

1. "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts,"
2. "prohibited from conducting ecclesiastical offices,"
3. "prohibited from the right of electing, presenting, and appointing."

In other words, the acts of such a Pope become "illegitimate/illicit/unlawful." This means the Catholic faithful must not follow the illegitimate acts as long as that Pope is in a state of ipso facto excommunication. If the Pope, later repents, then and ONLY then do his earlier acts become legitimate and only at that time can a faithful Catholic follow those prescriptions.

So, as I have been saying, Canon law says that a Pope who is "ipso facto excommunicated" for heresy is in a state of suspension or privation until he repents or the Church bans him. And, for all practical purposes, that illegitimate Pope is a Pope who cannot legally bind the faithful.

The question of final "deposition" of the Pope is not important from the perspective of what the faithful are to do. The question is am I required to obey a Pope who is in a state of ipso facto excommunication. Canon Law clearly says "NO," we must not obey the orders of an illegitimate Pope.


Thanks Angelus, yes I have read the Canons and your argumentation, thank you for all the effort you have put into that. Your posts require a bit more time than I have at the moment, sorry, will try to get back with a response.
Logged

Offline Catholic Knight

Re: Answers to Sedevacantism
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2024, 05:12:56 PM »
Quote from: Angelus on January 03, 2024, 08:18:19 PM
PV, Journet is explaining the same process described in Canon Law that I explained. He is doing it in a very roundabout way.

But a single Latin phrase used by Journet, expresses exactly what I was telling you:

Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus.

That is, he is not immediately "deposed," but he will be "deposed" after the second and third steps are taken (See Titus 3:10-11 and Canon 2314).

But this is what you are missing, even though the "Papa hereticus" is not immediately "deposed," according to 2314.1, he still "incurs by the fact [ipso facto] excommunication." Immediately upon his public manifestation of heresy, he is automatically excommunicated. No declaration by any authority is necessary to establish ipso facto excommunication.

Now, what penalties are associated with "automatic [ipso facto or latae sententiae] excommunication?" These penalties are described in the section on Excommunication, specifically 2257-2267. Do you have a copy of 1917 Canon Law. Here is a copy for your convenience.

Look specifically at Canons 2263 and 2264 and 2265. Notice the language uses the phrase "One excommunicated" and "Anyone excommunicated." Those Canons apply even to those who have been "automatically excommunicated" (Level 1). Then look at Canon 2266. That Canon explains the consequences of a "declared excommunicate" (Level 2) and a "banned excommunicate" (Level 3). You will see in Canon 2266 that "a banned [excommunicate is deprived] of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, and duty itself."

In other words, until the excommunicate is "banned," he retains the hope of resurrecting the fullness of his position. But from a practical standpoint, according to Canons 2263 and 2264, the automatic [ipso facto] excommunicate loses his power and jurisdiction even before he gets to Level 2 or Level 3.

That is what is meant by Sedeprivationism. He, as an automatic excommunicate, has been deprived of his power and jurisdiction until he revives himself by responding properly to the warnings. But if he ignores the warnings (or there are no warnings given), that doesn't mean that he continues to exercise his full powers and jurisdiction. No! He lost his powers and jurisdiction the moment he manifests his heresy. This means that no faithful Catholic is subject to him while he is in that state of privation (Level 1).

Do you understand this? The Canons, Journet and Cajetan all agree on when a Pope is "deposed." It is after the third warning. But a heretical Pope is "deprived" or "loses his power and jurisdiction" automatically at the moment he manifests heresy.

Angelus, do you hold to Opinion No. 4 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine?
Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: Answers to Sedevacantism
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2024, 06:27:29 PM »
Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 07, 2024, 05:12:56 PM
Angelus, do you hold to Opinion No. 4 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine?

The requirements of those 1917 Canons that I cited seem to contain a hybrid of the 4th and 5th Opinions.

For example, this statement from Opinion 5 seems to be represented in the Canons:

"a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction."

Canons 188 and 2314, together, provide exactly HOW the process will work for a "public defection from the Catholic faith." The mechanism of "ipso facto excommunication" is immediate and automatic, with no need for any declaration or condemnation by any authority.

Canons 2257-2267, in various parts, provide exactly WHAT occurs at each of the 3 "levels" of excommunication. Canons 2264 and 2261, for instance, deal specifically with the privation of "jurisdiction" for a person burdened with the different levels of excommunication. Canon 2263 explains that any excommunicate (ipso facto included) is "removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts," i.e., his legislative acts become illegal. And the faithful must never follow an illegitimate dictator. 

But, under Opinion 4, Bellarmine says something that is definitely incompatible with 1917 Canon Law:

"...a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed..."

The Church apparently did not agree with Bellarmine on that point. Instead, the Church is careful to distinguish between the removal of certain powers or benefits (at excommunication levels 1 and 2) and the final "deposition" from the office that occurs only at excommunication level 3.

In the case of the Pope, who "is judged by no one [in a trial]" (Canon 1556), it would seem to be impossible for a Pope to ever get to the Level 2 or Level 3 of excommunication. A heretic Pope would be "ipso facto excommunicated" (Level 1) but could never be officially "declared excommunicated" (Level 2) or "condemned/banned/deposed excommunicated" (Level 3).

So, this heretic Pope for all practical purposes is to be treated as having zero legitimacy and limited jurisdiction unless and until he revives his papal authority with a complete abjuration of his errors, at which point, his legitimacy would come back to him.


To be clear, however, Jorge Bergoglio, was never lawfully-elected Pope because a conclave cannot be called before the Apostolic See is vacant. And the Apostolic See only becomes vacant upon "death of the Pope." So none of the limitations concerning "judging a Pope" apply to him. 

The confusion of BXVI's "resignation" boils down to the distinctions, in 1983 Canon Law, between the "Roman See" and the "Apostolic See." The "Roman See" is held by the "Roman Pontiff" alone. The "Apostolic See" includes the Roman Pontiff plus all of the Roman Curial officials (1983 Canon 361). And those curial offices are not vacated until after "the death of the Pope" (Universi Dominici gregis, 14 and Pastor Bonus Article 6. Since a new papal election is only triggered by "the vacancy of the Apostolic See," and BXVI was not dead in March 2013, the March 2013 election was unlawful and UDG, 76 requires the following:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

Game. Set. Match.


..
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
« previous next »