Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Freind on November 29, 2025, 05:55:30 PM
-
I joined a discussion forum connected with an R&R priest. You know, a priest who leads the rosary before Mass and prays for "the conversion of Pope Leo XIV".
It looks like the forum is handled by a designated lay helper, which is not unusual. Priests are busy.
The forum has a section for "Sedevacantism" and is filled with about 20 posts over a few years. No discussions, just posts that are supposed to make sedevacantism look wrong.
One of the posts was a quote from St. Francis de Sales (Doctor the Church) used to make sedevacantism look wrong. The poster decided to emphasize and highlight various sections of of the quote with bold, or underline, or italics.
However, there was a portion of the quote that was NOT emphasized. Overlooked for some reason. I found it to be THE most significant. So for my first post I focused on it, and explained what it meant and what it implied.
I will post what I wrote later, but I want to mention that shortly after I posted, I had my rights to post suspended, and not only did I have my message delete, but the post by the forum operator that contained the Saint's quote was also deleted!
-
Here is an exact copy of what I posted...
I would like to point out something important about this.
This work of St. Francis de Sales is definitive on this matter. Seven years after the dogma of "papal infallibility" was defined in 1870 (at the General Council), in 1877 the same pope, Pius IX, raised this Saint to a "Doctor of the Church". On that occasion the pope called this work, "a complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". After all, when the Saint wrote it, he was writing it to Protestants about the Catholic Church.
Another interesting thing is that the General Council of the Vatican in 1870 took care to condemn what we now refer to as "Gallicanism" or "Conciliarism". Basically saying that nobody can judge a pope. In light of this, we know that this quote promotes no such error. Here is the excerpt:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"
This means that the prelates of the Church who gather to take care of the matter, would be gathering having already personally (even lying in bed one night) concluded that the man is no longer the pope, otherwise the gathering against a believed-to-be-pope would be heretical and a mortal sin.
And so it is across the board with Catholic publications since then. An example is "A Catholic Dictionary", going through several editions in the 1900's saying:
"A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church... "
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
-
You were banned for posting that? No wonder The Catacombs has ~1 active user :smirk:
-
Another interesting thing is that the General Council of the Vatican in 1870 took care to condemn what we now refer to as "Gallicanism" or "Conciliarism". Basically saying that nobody can judge a pope. In light of this, we know that this quote promotes no such error. Here is the excerpt:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"
This means that the prelates of the Church who gather to take care of the matter, would be gathering having already personally (even lying in bed one night) concluded that the man is no longer the pope, otherwise the gathering against a believed-to-be-pope would be heretical and a mortal sin.
And so it is across the board with Catholic publications since then. An example is "A Catholic Dictionary", going through several editions in the 1900's saying:
"A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church... "
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
Trad priests, bishops and lay people are the "nobody" that V1 was talking about in the first paragraph above.
-
Here is an exact copy of what I posted...
I would like to point out something important about this.
This work of St. Francis de Sales is definitive on this matter. Seven years after the dogma of "papal infallibility" was defined in 1870 (at the General Council), in 1877 the same pope, Pius IX, raised this Saint to a "Doctor of the Church". On that occasion the pope called this work, "a complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". After all, when the Saint wrote it, he was writing it to Protestants about the Catholic Church.
Another interesting thing is that the General Council of the Vatican in 1870 took care to condemn what we now refer to as "Gallicanism" or "Conciliarism". Basically saying that nobody can judge a pope. In light of this, we know that this quote promotes no such error. Here is the excerpt:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"
This means that the prelates of the Church who gather to take care of the matter, would be gathering having already personally (even lying in bed one night) concluded that the man is no longer the pope, otherwise the gathering against a believed-to-be-pope would be heretical and a mortal sin.
And so it is across the board with Catholic publications since then. An example is "A Catholic Dictionary", going through several editions in the 1900's saying:
"A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church... "
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
I cannot find the quotes in the 1898 version.
-
I cannot find the quotes in the 1898 version.
It didn't exist then. It's by Attwater, first published in 1931.
-
Trad priests, bishops and lay people are the "nobody" that V1 was talking about in the first paragraph above.
Nobody, means nobody. Because it is NOT judging "a pope", it is judging "a man" is not really a pope. It's the moral (not juridical) judgment in the first part of the quote I presented from the Saint. The latter part of the quote is about declaring the See vacant, but those declaring it already know he isn't the pope and are merely making a declaration of fact in a juridical manner. Until that declaration, the in-between state is referred to in canon law as "sede impedita".
-
Nobody, means nobody. Because it is NOT judging "a pope", it is judging "a man" is not really a pope. It's the moral (not juridical) judgment in the first part of the quote I presented from the Saint. The latter part of the quote is about declaring the See vacant, but those declaring it already know he isn't the pope and are merely making a declaration of fact in a juridical manner. Until that declaration, the in-between state is referred to in canon law as "sede impedita".
First you posted:
"This work of St. Francis de Sales is definitive on this matter...."
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church,and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"
But now you the saint is not actually meaning what he said because it's only "the moral, (not juridical) judgement in the first part of the quote."
We will wait for the Church to declare the Seat Vacant as St. Francis said - which, if it ever even happens, could well be a long, long time after their deaths.
-
First you posted:
"This work of St. Francis de Sales is definitive on this matter...."
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church,and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"
But now you the saint is not actually meaning what he said because it's only "the moral, (not juridical) judgement in the first part of the quote."
We will wait for the Church to declare the Seat Vacant as St. Francis said - which, if it ever even happens, could well be a long, long time after their deaths.
You just overlooked the fact the the individual prelates, even one day in their pajamas in bed, could morally conclude the man is not really a pope. It takes simply reason enlightened by faith to make that conclusion. No other qualification or act of jurisdiction.
-
You just overlooked the fact the the individual prelates, even one day in their pajamas in bed, could morally conclude the man is not really a pope. It takes simply reason enlightened by faith to make that conclusion. No other qualification or act of jurisdiction.
The conclusion is just that, and it could be wrong, what you quoted St. Francis as saying is, as you said, definitive. It actually is up to the Church to decide the matter, which is the qualification and act of authority needed.
Our knowledge of the conciliar popes' heresies in no way qualifies us or gives us the authority to declare him deprived of his office or never to have been elected. Look to Richard Ibranyi to exemplify why in this matter supposed conclusions are at best erroneous and why this is strictly the Church's domain... No popes or cardinals (https://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf) since 1130 (https://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf).
-
The conclusion is just that, and it could be wrong, what you quoted St. Francis as saying is, as you said, definitive. It actually is up to the Church to decide the matter, which is the qualification and act of authority needed.
Our knowledge of the conciliar popes' heresies in no way qualifies us or gives us the authority to declare him deprived of his office or never to have been elected. Look to Richard Ibranyi to exemplify why in this matter supposed conclusions are at best erroneous and why this is strictly the Church's domain... No popes or cardinals (https://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf) since 1130 (https://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf).
The conclusion won't be wrong. It's what the quote the Saint and Doctor is necessarily saying.
-
It didn't exist then. It's by Attwater, first published in 1931.
Oh. Okay. I was referencing a different "A Catholic Dictionary".
-
It takes simply reason enlightened by faith to make that conclusion.
You are correct. First and foremost, it is a judgment in the moral order, which can be made by the simple layman.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre believed the same about the capability of us all to discern this.
In 1986 he said in an address to seminarians, where he even mentioned "sedevacantists" (published twice in The Angelus):
"it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope"
Since his death, the R&R generally try to keep this from the lay people they serve.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre believed the same about the capability of us all to discern this.
In 1986 he said in an address to seminarians, where he even mentioned "sedevacantists" (published twice in The Angelus):
"it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope"
Since his death, the R&R generally try to keep this from the lay people they serve.
Of course it is possible, then again, we might not be obliged to believe it. There's always that possibility (which is usually not considered), although once one convinces themself the conclusion is actually a Catholic truth, then it becomes self obligatory. Once that happens, there's usually (not always) no possibility of ever turning back. Such is the nature of sedeism.
The conclusion won't be wrong. It's what the quote the Saint and Doctor is necessarily saying.
Whether the conclusion is right or wrong is in reality altogether irrelevant, the quote from saint Francis that you posted was certainly right, it is up to the Church and nobody else.
In the end, both sede and R&R do not follow the abominations of conciliar popes, the dividing difference between them is that R&R have no reason to add the deciding of the popes' status into their faith. It is because this is not a part of R&R's faith that causes the sedes to separate themselves from R&R.
-
Of course it is possible, then again, we might not be obliged to believe it. There's always that possibility (which is usually not considered), although once one convinces themself the conclusion is actually a Catholic truth, then it becomes self obligatory. Once that happens, there's usually (not always) no possibility of ever turning back. Such is the nature of sedeism.
Whether the conclusion is right or wrong is in reality altogether irrelevant, the quote from saint Francis that you posted was certainly right, it is up to the Church and nobody else.
In the end, both sede and R&R do not follow the abominations of conciliar popes, the dividing difference between them is that R&R have no reason to add the deciding of the popes' status into their faith. It is because this is not a part of R&R's faith that causes the sedes to separate themselves from R&R.
We are obliged to believe our conscience, and ultimately be judged after our death on it. Conscience is an ordinance of reason. According to "Liberalism is a Sin", reason enlightened by faith is a true "authority".
People who believe Leo XIV is a true pope have necessary moral obligations. They MUST submit to him and his hierarchy, meaning the bishops under him, and the parish priests under them. That is the way God designed His divine Church.
-
We are obliged to believe our conscience, and ultimately be judged after our death on it. Conscience is an ordinance of reason. According to "Liberalism is a Sin", reason enlightened by faith is a true "authority".
People who believe Leo XIV is a true pope have necessary moral obligations. They MUST submit to him and his hierarchy, meaning the bishops under him, and the parish priests under them. That is the way God designed His divine Church.
God gave us the use of reason for a reason, reason enlightened by faith is our guide to know right from wrong, good from evil, so that we always do what is right and turn away from all that is evil. This is the authority that our conscience has over each us - and only over each us, individually, and only as long as we do not ignore it. In a nutshell, this is the extent of the authority you mention above.
God does not permit us to blindly submit to anyone on this earth while we live, not even to popes, not even to saints and angels (Gal.1:8,9). To say that we MUST submit to him and his hierarchy wholly disregards the highest of all the principles in the Church which we are bound to employ in all circuмstances of life until our last breath: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
-
God gave us the use of reason for a reason, reason enlightened by faith is our guide to know right from wrong, good from evil, so that we always do what is right and turn away from all that is evil. This is the authority that our conscience has over each us - and only over each us, individually, and only as long as we do not ignore it. In a nutshell, this is the extent of the authority you mention above.
God does not permit us to blindly submit to anyone on this earth while we live, not even to popes, not even to saints and angels (Gal.1:8,9). To say that we MUST submit to him and his hierarchy wholly disregards the highest of all the principles in the Church which we are bound to employ in all circuмstances of life until our last breath: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
How do you submit partially?
-
We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.
-
We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.
I am asking about your Novus Ordo parish priest. Do you partially submit to him?
-
I am asking about your Novus Ordo parish priest. Do you partially submit to him?
I do not know who he is, or any NO priest for that matter. Always been and hope to die a trad.
-
So, that claim about obeying the Pope in everything that isn't sinful ... it's just an empty platitude. No R&R actually pay attention to or care about anything Prevost says, or Bergoglio said, etc. They just toss that out there since it sounds good. Do they read each Prevostian or Tuchonian teaching with reverence and only reject the parts that are contrary to their conscience, or they say, before it's issued, "oh, here he goes again with more Modernist trash."
-
While R&R simply isn't Catholic ... I think that the term itself, coined by Father Cekada, has been entirely unhelpful.
I believe that a form of D&R (Doubt & Resist) may in fact be a legitimate Catholic position, and it's actually what +Lefebvre himself held.
So, the difference is this, that you must at least entertain some doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants. Per the pre-Vatican II experts in Canon Law, that suffices to exonerate someone from schism for refusing submission to and communion with such a doubtful pope, i.e. doubt suffices to justify resistance.
R&R on the other hand affirm that it's certainly true that Prevost, Bergs, and their predecessors are Popes, thus the "Recognize" part, where i advocate a return to "Doubt" and Resist rather than "Recognize" and Resist.
So, here's the thing that modern R&R fail to recognize. Most theologians consider the legitimacy of a Pope to be dogmatic fact, i.e. something that's known with the certainty of faith. Now, the certainty of faith precludes doubt. That's why it's heresy not merely to deny a dogma but even to doubt the dogma, since one fails to accept it with the requisite absolute certainty of faith.
Well ... +Lefebvre, +Tissier, and +Williamson have all regularly expressed doubts about the legitimacy of various papal claimants. Consequently, they are not, as many R&R assert, sedeplenists, but, rather, sede-doubtists ... which is a term I coined largely tongue-in-cheek here on CI many years ago. If you had the requisite certainty of faith in this dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy, such as that which Catholics living in the 1940s all had about Pope Pius XII, that would preclude any doubt. And, of course papa dubius papa nullus. +Galaretta I know next to nothing about ... as if he's been living in a hermitage for the past 40 years, but the rest of them have all made statements calling into question the legitimacy of the Conciliar papal claimants.
So, then, as Father Schmidberger used to say in defense of non-sedevacantism, melior est conditio possidentis, basically a paraphrase of how "possession is 9/10 of the law", and it means that they give them the benefit of the doubt. Well, giving them the benefit of the doubt is ... to admit there's doubt, or otherwise you'd never have to say tht.
Then, given a doubtful papal claimant, to whom you may refuse submission without schism, there's probably no harm them in trying to obey any commands they issue "just in case" you're wrong in your doubt. Doubt is not the same as being certain of invalidity. This is analogous to the question about the validity of Sacraments. I do not have to prove invalidity with certainty to be able to and, in the case of the Sacraments, even obligated to avoid them.
So if the "R&R" wanted to continue to cling a non-sedevacantist position, they could legitimately adhere to the actual D&R position +Lefebvre actually held.
Now, the biggest issue SV have with R&R is in fact the implicit rejection of the Church's indefectibility, but if you read the statements made by +Lefebvre, he actually affirmed that the Pope could not destroy the Church to this degree due to the promises of Christ and the protection of the Holy Ghost. How then did he avoid the SV conclusion ... even if he did say it was possible? He questioned not the MAJOR of the SV position (as represented in sylllogism), but the MINOR, where he questioned HOW this could have happened. Is it possible the popes were blackmailed, for instance, or something else nefarious was going on where their acts were not free? Since the MINOR cannot be decided upon with the certainty of faith, then the conclusion can't be dogmtic either. That's the core problem with dogmatic SVism, the hidden MINORs and their failure to recognize the logical "weakest link" principle, that the conclusion can only be as strong or as certain as the weakest presmise, peiorem partem sequitur conclusio.
So ...
dogmatic SVism is wrong, since not all the premises are certain with the certainty of faith
dogmatic sedeplenism is wrong, since if it's dogmatically certain that they're popes, then you'd better be in submission to and in communion with them
moderate SVism is OK, since you could even say that you consider their illegitimacy to be morally certain
moderate sedeplenism, in the form of D&R, as articulated above, is also OK
But both the moderate positions are in fact simply the same type of thinking with slightly different emphases.
I hold that the moderate sedeplenism is more dangerous of the two, since it has the tendency to morph into what we see today, a rejection of the Catholic dogma that the Church cannot defect in her mission.
That's why I've long been an advocate of the "Sede-Doubtist" position, since it's a moderate form that avoids the grave errors of the extremes, both of which can be schismatic, and it permits a significant amount of leeway in their expression so that all Traditionl Catholics could easily unite with this "doubtist" framework, for all practical intents and purposes.
-
While R&R simply isn't Catholic ... I think that the term itself, coined by Father Cekada, has been entirely unhelpful.
In the end, both sede and R&R do not follow the abominations of conciliar popes, the dividing difference between them is that R&R have no reason to add the deciding of the popes' status into their faith. It is because this is not a part of R&R's faith that causes the sedes to separate themselves from R&R.
-
So, that claim about obeying the Pope in everything that isn't sinful ... it's just an empty platitude. No R&R actually pay attention to or care about anything Prevost says, or Bergoglio said, etc. They just toss that out there since it sounds good. Do they read each Prevostian or Tuchonian teaching with reverence and only reject the parts that are contrary to their conscience, or they say, before it's issued, "oh, here he goes again with more Modernist trash."
Catholics go by the teaching of St. Peter and the Apostles (see my sig), and I like to reference the example of St. Thomas More: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first." It's not the least bit complicated to Catholics.
-
In the end, both sede and R&R do not follow the abominations of conciliar popes, the dividing difference between them is that R&R have no reason to add the deciding of the popes' status into their faith. It is because this is not a part of R&R's faith that causes the sedes to separate themselves from R&R.
So, yes, of course ... but the problem is WHY the two groups (which IMO is also unhelpful to say there are only two groups ... which contributes to the polarization, as there's actually a continuum between the poles), but the problem is WHY each group do not follow the Conciliar Papal claimants. It's Catholic dogma, in fact the dogma that distinguishes the Catholic Church from all heretical and schismatic sects, that one cannot go seriously wrong, to the point of entering a New Religion, by following a legitimate Catholic pope. Yes, one can quibble about the precise limits of infallibility, but the line is crossed into a rejection of the indefectibility of the Church and the promises of Christ for the Papacy when you hold and claim that this is possible. +Lefebvre did NOT hold that position. He said that he agrees with the SVs that the promises of Christ preclude such destruction, and believes that SV migth be the possible answer to what's going on, but he then starts going on about, what if the pope is ... blackmailed, extorted, has lost his mind, etc.? Unfortunately most modern R&R, and part of the issue was with the Archbishop's failure to put sufficient emphasis on this distinction, most modern R&R do in fact reject the principle that +Lefebvre affirmed, that the promises of Christ for the papacy preclude what's taking place, this systematic destruction (and not just a relatively small error in a non-infallible statement), the promises of Christ preclude that a legitimte pope of sound mind and acting freely, could perpetrate such destruction.
-
Catholics go by the teaching of St. Peter and the Apostles (see my sig), and I like to reference the example of St. Thomas More: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first." It's not the least bit complicated to Catholics.
No ... that's out of context, and heretical in the way you apply it. Prots could say the same thing, or the Orthodox, or any heretic ... they could all claim that they're obeying God rather than man. What heretic ever left the Church or submission to the Holy See who did not believe they were obeying God when the Pope had strayed? Of course, as St. Thomas teaches, it's bullcrap. They're not following God, but, rather, their own interpretation of they claim God revealed vs. what they themselves claim God revealed. So they are their own rule of faith.
Sadly, Stubborn, you are a heretic, possibly even apostate, and have lost the Catholic faith. You remain adamant in your rejection of the Papacy. No, your lip service to "yep, he's pope" doesn't put you in any kind of "submission" to the Pope, nor does it suffice for someone to be Catholic.
You could save yourself from heresy by saying instead that you have doubts and therefore will refuse submission until such time as those doubts are resolved ... which is what Archbishop Lefebvre held.
-
So, yes, of course ... but the problem is WHY the two groups (which IMO is also unhelpful to say there are only two groups ... which contributes to the polarization, as there's actually a continuum between the poles), but the problem is WHY each group do not follow the Conciliar Papal claimants. It's Catholic dogma, in fact the dogma that distinguishes the Catholic Church from all heretical and schismatic sects, that one cannot go seriously wrong, to the point of entering a New Religion, by following a legitimate Catholic pope. Yes, one can quibble about the precise limits of infallibility, but the line is crossed into a rejection of the indefectibility of the Church and the promises of Christ for the Papacy when you hold and claim that this is possible. +Lefebvre did NOT hold that position. He said that he agrees with the SVs that the promises of Christ preclude such destruction, and believes that SV migth be the possible answer to what's going on, but he then starts going on about, what if the pope is ... blackmailed, extorted, has lost his mind, etc.? Unfortunately most modern R&R, and part of the issue was with the Archbishop's failure to put sufficient emphasis on this distinction, most modern R&R do in fact reject the principle that +Lefebvre affirmed, that the promises of Christ for the papacy preclude what's taking place, this systematic destruction (and not just a relatively small error in a non-infallible statement), the promises of Christ preclude that a legitimte pope of sound mind and acting freely, could perpetrate such destruction.
Whether popes are popes or not popes is not what really matters to R&R, it only matters to sedes. Either way we both do not follow them in their abominations. As the OP quoted St. Francis saying, only the Church can decide the matter, R&R is content to wait for the Church to decide the matter.
-
No ... that's out of context, and heretical in the way you apply it. Prots could say the same thing, or the Orthodox, or any heretic ... they could all claim that they're obeying God rather than man.
No, prots do not have the truth, they are supposed to be searching for the truth - which is found only in the Catholic Church. You forget that we have the true faith so we know the truth, we know that St. Paul's warned of anyone who preaches a different Gospel is anathema. What he taught the prots and all heretics ignore while Catholics heed it. So we obey God first, and then man, and we obey man only as long as what man teaches is not a different Gospel.
-
Sadly, Stubborn, you are a heretic, possibly even apostate, and have lost the Catholic faith. You remain adamant in your rejection of the Papacy. No, your lip service to "yep, he's pope" doesn't put you in any kind of "submission" to the Pope, nor does it suffice for someone to be Catholic.
You could save yourself from heresy by saying instead that you have doubts and therefore will refuse submission until such time as those doubts are resolved ... which is what Archbishop Lefebvre held.
Lip service? Be sure to alert me whenever the pope issues a command that I am bound to follow. Always remember that it is way easier for us to remain the popes' good subject but God's first, then it was for St. Thomas More to remain the Kings good subject, that's for sure. This is Catholic, not heresy. fyi
-
I do not know who he is, or any NO priest for that matter. Always been and hope to die a trad.
You are suppose to hope to die a Catholic.
Catholics obey Christ and His divine Church that he designed for our salvation.
You live in a diocese. Your Sunday obligation is not fulfilled without going to Mass in your parish.
You say you cannot trust him to save your soul because of the heresies flowing in the parish? then contact your bishop.
You say your bishop won't do anything about it because he is filled with the same heresies? then contact Rome.
You say Rome won't do anything about your bishop's heresies, and you know of no other parish that is any better?
Then you just effectively concluded the man in Rome is not a true pope. Otherwise Christ would have designed His Church in vain, and that is a blasphemy to say.
The hierarchical structure is divine, those who are heretics don't represent that structure. It's impossible for a true pope to know about it and do nothing.
-
You are suppose to hope to die a Catholic.
Catholics obey Christ and His divine Church that he designed for our salvation.
You live in a diocese. Your Sunday obligation is not fulfilled without going to Mass in your parish.
You say you cannot trust him to save your soul because of the heresies flowing in the parish? then contact your bishop.
You say your bishop won't do anything about it because he is filled with the same heresies? then contact Rome.
You say Rome won't do anything about your bishop's heresies, and you know of no other parish that is any better?
Then you just effectively concluded the man in Rome is not a true pope. Otherwise Christ would have designed His Church in vain, and that is a blasphemy to say.
The hierarchical structure is divine, those who are heretics don't represent that structure. It's impossible for a true pope to know about it and do nothing.
They preach a different Gospel, per St. Paul this makes them anathema whether the pope is the pope or not, so we do with them the same as with all heretics, as the Scripture below teaches us, we do not listen to them.
Jer. 23:16 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=23&l=16-#x)"Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Hearken not to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord."
-
I think this is an impossible scenario for sedes to even imagine, but have you ever considered that something like the following scenario really and truly could actually happen some day...
Suppose instead of pope Leo, they elected another pope St. Pius X, and by now he is 5 or 6 years into his papacy and has accomplished a great deal for the Church. He has wholly condemned the new mass, all the heresies and errors of V2, brought back the TLM and restored the Church and sacraments so that now, the Church is as it was pre-V2, BUT, through it all he has *not* declared that any of the conciliar popes were not popes.
-
I think this is an impossible scenario for sedes to even imagine, but have you ever considered that something like the following scenario really and truly could actually happen some day...
Suppose instead of pope Leo, they elected another pope St. Pius X, and by now he is 5 or 6 years into his papacy and has accomplished a great deal for the Church. He has wholly condemned the new mass, all the heresies and errors of V2, brought back the TLM and restored the Church and sacraments so that now, the Church is as it was pre-V2, BUT, through it all he has *not* declared that any of the conciliar popes were not popes.
You already believe something impossible about the divinity of the Church, and now you just continue to invent something from you imagination that is impossible.
-
I think this is an impossible scenario for sedes to even imagine, but have you ever considered that something like the following scenario really and truly could actually happen some day...
Suppose instead of pope Leo, they elected another pope St. Pius X, and by now he is 5 or 6 years into his papacy and has accomplished a great deal for the Church. He has wholly condemned the new mass, all the heresies and errors of V2, brought back the TLM and restored the Church and sacraments so that now, the Church is as it was pre-V2, BUT, through it all he has *not* declared that any of the conciliar popes were not popes.
Do you think there is a possibility of a future Pope declaring the Conciliar popes to be false-popes?
-
You already believe something impossible about the divinity of the Church, and now you just continue to invent something from you imagination that is impossible.
The pope is not divine, he's not God. He has free will and everything. I post my reasons and references for saying what I've said, you do not believe such a thing is possible, this means your conclusion is a matter of faith when it shouldn't be.
-
Do you think there is a possibility of a future Pope declaring the Conciliar popes to be false-popes?
Absolutely. If the future pope deemed it were necessary for the good of the Church, sure, a future pope could make such a declaration.
-
Absolutely. If the future pope deemed it were necessary for the good of the Church, sure, a future pope could make such a declaration.
Why do you think it is possible?
-
Why do you think it is possible?
It's more that I do not think it is impossible, that, and I hope he does for the sake of the sedes.
-
It's more that I do not think it is impossible, that, and I hope he does for the sake of the sedes.
Right, so you do think it is possible. In this possible scenario, what would be the reason for a future Pope to declare the Conciliar popes false-popes?
-
Do you think there is a possibility of a future Pope declaring the Conciliar popes to be false-popes?
I think it's a necessity. Along with the docuмents of V2 being publicly burned in St Peter's square. There should be public burnings of the new mass "missal" in every diocese across the globe.
-
You are suppose to hope to die a Catholic.
Catholics obey Christ and His divine Church that he designed for our salvation.
You live in a diocese. Your Sunday obligation is not fulfilled without going to Mass in your parish.
You say you cannot trust him to save your soul because of the heresies flowing in the parish? then contact your bishop.
You say your bishop won't do anything about it because he is filled with the same heresies? then contact Rome.
You say Rome won't do anything about your bishop's heresies, and you know of no other parish that is any better?
Then you just effectively concluded the man in Rome is not a true pope. Otherwise Christ would have designed His Church in vain, and that is a blasphemy to say.
The hierarchical structure is divine, those who are heretics don't represent that structure. It's impossible for a true pope to know about it and do nothing.
There is another option. Not Stubborn's option. His option of believing that a man can be a heretic and Pope at the same time is itself heretical.
In the situation you describe, it is possible that the legitimate Pope could be hindered from doing something about the heresies. Our Lady of Fatima (and other private revelations) say that "the Holy Father will have much to suffer." His enemies inside the Church will make him appear to be weak, stupid, heretical, etc.
The Cardinals running the Curia are the real problem. And, let me be clear, Bergoglio and Prevost are nothing but usurping Cardinals because they were never elected in a lawful conclave to begin with.
And, the Parable of the Wheat and the Cockle suggests that the legitimate Popes will be providentially prevented from doing what you wanted them to do in the end times [Matthew 13:24-30]:
24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. 26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants [Popes] of the goodman of the house [Jesus] coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
See Aquinas's commentary on why God would allow such a thing:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Matt.C13.L2.n1145
-
Right, so you do think it is possible. In this possible scenario, what would be the reason for a future Pope to declare the Conciliar popes false-popes?
As I said, anything is possible. The reason would be, wait, lemme pull out my sede recording......."those popes were heretics, heretics are not members of the Church therefore they could not have been popes."
-
As I said, anything is possible. The reason would be, wait, lemme pull out my sede recording......."those popes were heretics, heretics are not members of the Church therefore they could not have been popes."
Anything is possible? So a future Pope could declare, say, Pope St. Pius X to have been a false pope? Would that actually make St. Pius X to have been a false pope?
-
The question was to you though Stubborn. Not what your sede recording says, which you disregard anyway.
-
The question was to you though Stubborn. Not what your sede recording says, which you disregard anyway.
IOW, I actually would like him to make that declaration so that the sedes could boast of being right the whole time.
-
Anything is possible? So a future Pope could declare, say, Pope St. Pius X to have been a false pope? Would that actually make St. Pius X to have been a false pope?
How about you answer what if he did *not* declare that any of the conciliar popes were not popes?
-
How about you answer what if he did *not* declare that any of the conciliar popes were not popes?
You said that it is *absolutely* possible that a future pope declares the Conciliar popes to have been false popes. What would be the reason for him to do so? Do you think that a pope simply declaring a prior Pope to have been a false pope actually means that he was a false pope? Or is there some sort of criteria that needs to be met to make the popes declaration true?
To your question, if you mean that a future Pope simply remained silent on the Conciliar popes, while condemning V2, the Novus Ordo, the rest of the new sacrament, etc. then the matter would remain an open question. But I do not believe that will happen.
If you mean a future Pope actually declaring them to have been true popes, while condemning V2, the NO, the rest of the new sacraments, etc., I do not believe this will happen either. In fact, I admit no possibility of this happening, I would say I am morally certain it will not happen. But you say that it is absolutely possible that a future Pope does declare the Conciliar popes to have been false popes
-
See Aquinas's commentary on why God would allow such a thing:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Matt.C13.L2.n1145
"Likewise, what was said, that the prince of a people should not be excommunicated, if you should see that there will be a greater scandal if he is excommunicated than in the fact that he does wrong, he should not be excommunicated; but if he had done something which was dangerous to the faith, without doubt he should be excommunicated, whatever damage might come from it."
-
"Likewise, what was said, that the prince of a people should not be excommunicated, if you should see that there will be a greater scandal if he is excommunicated than in the fact that he does wrong, he should not be excommunicated; but if he had done something which was dangerous to the faith, without doubt he should be excommunicated, whatever damage might come from it."
Yes, normally those people should be officially excommunicated. No doubt. But if a Pope is prevented from doing so, either by an unwilling Curia or, according to the parable, by God's providential power itself, then the fact alone that excommunications did not happen cannot be said to be the fault of the Pope.
The point is that in the end times, God has a design that is beyond human understanding. It is to allow the self-separation of the wheat from the weeds. Two paths are open: true traditional Faith and Sacraments or false new (novus) polluted faith and invalid sacraments.
In the end, Catholics are free to choose their own path. One leads to salvation. One leads to damnation. God wants it that way.
The questions about the justice of God's final plan are dealt with in 4 Esdras and the Book of Job.
-
You said that it is *absolutely* possible that a future pope declares the Conciliar popes to have been false popes. What would be the reason for him to do so? Do you think that a pope simply declaring a prior Pope to have been a false pope actually means that he was a false pope? Or is there some sort of criteria that needs to be met to make the popes declaration true?
As I've repeatedly said while referencing saint Francis in the OP, it is up to the Church. If she decides to give or to not give any criteria at all, it's all good. I am good with whatever the Church declares - should she even declare anything at all, which I don't think she will - but I certainly could be wrong.
There are those like me who do not believe such a declaration could ever happen because they have all been popes, period.
Then there are those also like me who say that were such a declaration made, it would not affect me or my faith one way or the other, except I would be happy for the sedes.
Then there are the sedes who would have reason to rejoice if he made the declaration that they were not popes because for sedes, it is a critically important doctrine and is a necessary part of their faith.
-
Yes, normally those people should be officially excommunicated. No doubt.
What principle was he stressing? when he said, "whatever damage might come from it."?
-
As I've repeatedly said while referencing saint Francis in the OP, it is up to the Church. If she decides to give or to not give any criteria at all, it's all good. I am good with whatever the Church declares - should she even declare anything at all, which I don't think she will - but I certainly could be wrong.
There are those like me who do not believe such a declaration could ever happen because they have all been popes, period.
Then there are those also like me who say that were such a declaration made, it would not affect me or my faith one way or the other, except I would be happy for the sedes.
Then there are the sedes who would have reason to rejoice if he made the declaration that they were not popes because for sedes, it is a critically important doctrine and is a necessary part of their faith.
I asked if you believe that there is a possibility the Conciliar popes are declared false popes in the future. You said, "absolutely". Why do you think it is absolutely possible that it could happen? Would you say the same regarding Pius X, Pius IX, Leo XIII, etc., or is there something different between them and the Conciliar popes?
-
The pope is not divine, he's not God. He has free will and everything. I post my reasons and references for saying what I've said, you do not believe such a thing is possible, this means your conclusion is a matter of faith when it shouldn't be.
If someone said they had a relic of Our Lady, a piece of bone. It would be a matter of faith to say that was impossible.
It's not a matter of the pope being divine, but his actions become the Church's actions, and the Church IS divine. It is impossible for a true pope to issue a harmful liturgy. The Church said anathema to anyone who says otherwise. Get it?
-
I asked if you believe that there is a possibility the Conciliar popes are declared false popes in the future. You said, "absolutely". Why do you think it is absolutely possible that it could happen? Would you say the same regarding Pius X, Pius IX, Leo XIII, etc., or is there something different between them and the Conciliar popes?
You just answered why I do not think any such declaration will be made, although anything is possible.
-
If someone said they had a relic of Our Lady, a piece of bone. It would be a matter of faith to say that was impossible.
It's not a matter of the pope being divine, but his actions become the Church's actions, and the Church IS divine. It is impossible for a true pope to issue a harmful liturgy. The Church said anathema to anyone who says otherwise. Get it?
The conciliar popes did issue a harmful liturgy. Your saying that this is impossible for true popes is your opinion, which IMO, is misguided.
The Church with St. Paul anathematizes anyone who preaches a different Gospel, but she does not anathematize anyone who says popes can issue a harmful liturgy, especially when that's exactly what they did.
-
I asked if you believe that there is a possibility the Conciliar popes are declared false popes in the future. You said, "absolutely". Why do you think it is absolutely possible that it could happen? Would you say the same regarding Pius X, Pius IX, Leo XIII, etc., or is there something different between them and the Conciliar popes?
So, anyone who says that does not hold to the legitimay of the Conciliar papal claimants with the certainty of faith. That would be like saying I believe that in the future the Church might reverse the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If you say that, you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception with the certainty of faith.
If they would only have the introspection to realzie this, and then invoke the principle that any well-founded doubt regarding papal legitimacy can absolve someone of schism for refusing submission, i.e. shift over to a "Doubt and Resist" type of position, we'd be much closer to a kind of unity among Traditional Catholics, not an operational unity, but at least where Trads can recognize that we're merely divided by a difference of opinion.
But those like Stubborn will refuse to take that out and will continue to insist that the Church can become so corrupt as to lose its notes, and to require a refusal of submission and communion in order to keep the Catholic faith. That's where they show themselves to be pertinacious heretics.
I've appealed to "R&R" in the past to consider adopting Father Chazal's position, which does not labor under any problems for Catholic ecclesiology ... but they refuse, against steadfastly clinging to their heresy.
One could adopt SedeImpoundism (Chazal), Doubt & Resist (+Lefebvre), or some other variation (e.g. where Montini was pope but his acts were invalid because they were not free, but forced by blackmail), etc. There are a fair number of ways to avoid committing to that ultimate evil of SVism without destroying Catholic ecclesiology and losing the faith.
-
What principle was he stressing? when he said, "whatever damage might come from it."?
His comment must be understood as based on the premise that the actor CAN DO what Aquinas says should be done in principle.
But if the Pope CANNOT DO (is impeded either naturally or supernaturally from doing it), then we must accept that it is God’s Will.
As I said, the exact question, “WHY would a good God allow these bad things to happen to His Church in the end times,” are dealt with in 4 Esdras and in Job.
-
You just answered why I do not think any such declaration will be made, although anything is possible.
Sorry, so you are saying it is also "absolutely" possible for a future pope to declare St. Pius X to have been a false pope? If that happened, would you accept it as true? Because you said you are "good" with whatever the Church declares. Or is there some criteria that would need to be met for you to accept a past pope being declared a false pope as true?
-
But if the Pope CANNOT DO (is impeded either naturally or supernaturally from doing it), then we must accept that it is God’s Will.
If God commands what one must do and can do, then He must supply the means to acquire the graces necessary to fulfill those commands.
How can one who receives the supernatural power/grace tied to the office of the papacy that, "whatever you bind is bound, whatever you loose is loosed."
but at the same time he is supernaturally "impeded" and he CANNOT DO what he has already received the power/grace to do? It seems to run contrary to the liberty of the Church.
Concerning the post-concilar claimants to the papacy:
1) Either God gave them the graces of the papacy, which they accepted and retained,
or,
2) They were impeded from receiving the graces of the papacy and therefore never received them,
or,
3) God did give them the graces, but they each went on to subsequently deviate from the faith and lose those graces.
Are you suggesting a 4th option; i.e.,
4) "God gave them the graces of the papacy, but then he impeded them from using them, because it is all part of the test of faith during the Great Apostasy."?
-
His comment must be understood as based on the premise that the actor CAN DO what Aquinas says should be done in principle.
I think he is stressing the principle that faith is supreme, and no matter if the whole visible Church is burning around you, you cannot compromise on matters of faith.
-
Sorry, so you are saying it is also "absolutely" possible for a future pope to declare St. Pius X to have been a false pope? If that happened, would you accept it as true? Because you said you are "good" with whatever the Church declares. Or is there some criteria that would need to be met for you to accept a past pope being declared a false pope as true?
No, what makes you think that's what I'm saying? The pope is condemning all things V2 so now the Church is where it was pre-V2. What reason would the pre-V2 popes even enter the picture?
-
:facepalm: ... no, the free exercise of legitimate papal authority cannot possibly wreck the Church so badly that we must leave submission to and communion with the hierarchy in order to remain Catholics, where they effectively establish a New Religion alien to the Catholic Religion.
It's not about receiving graces, but about receiving the office of the papacy. You would be a wicked occult apostate, and you would receive the offices even if no graces of the office. Of course, if you received the office, God would strike you down before you'd be allowed to corrupt the Church's teaching.
As far as God allowing it ... well, of course God allowed the Crisis, but it does not mean he would somehow renig on the Promises of Christ for the papacy, but instead would allow it to happen in some other way.
There's so much muddled and even non-Catholic thinking about the papacy among Trads that it's mind-boggling.
-
I think he is stressing the principle that faith is supreme, and no matter if the whole visible Church is burning around you, you cannot compromise on matters of faith.
Stop it with the "Visible Church" nonsense too. Church is instrinsically Visible, and there's no mysterious "Invisible Church" that's somehow operating in a parallel universe, where it's still the Catholic Church while this Visible one has become non-Catholic.
Please just stop posting, those of you who have no concept about Catholic ecclesiology, before you lose your own faith. You're better off just devoting yourselves to the Holy Rosary or something and stop thinking about theology altogether.
-
So, anyone who says that does not hold to the legitimay of the Conciliar papal claimants with the certainty of faith. That would be like saying I believe that in the future the Church might reverse the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If you say that, you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception with the certainty of faith.
No, that would not be like saying I believe that in the future the Church might reverse the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Unlike the legitimacy of popes, the Immaculate Conception is a defined dogma. The legitimacy of popes is an act of the Church's administration via the cardinals voting and him accepting his election.
You sure come with your share of some real doozies.
-
Stop it with the "Visible Church" nonsense too. Church is instrinsically Visible, and there's no mysterious "Invisible Church" that's somehow operating in a parallel universe, where it's still the Catholic Church while this Visible one has become non-Catholic.
The Church is visible in different ways, i.e., Her laity, hierarchy, doctrine, sacraments, monuments, etc.
You may choose to read into my statement, but I in no way advocate for the Protestant idea of the "invisible church".
I believe that the visibility of the Church has gone into somewhat of an "eclipse".
-
Please just stop posting, those of you who have no concept about Catholic ecclesiology
You are not any more qualified than anyone else here to post about these matters, and your opinion is only as valuable as the authoritative sources you can furnish to support your arguments .
-
You're better off just devoting yourselves to the Holy Rosary or something and stop thinking about theology altogether.
What sloppy "advice" to give to anyone!
Prayer and study together is Catholic.
Like it or not, with no actual theologians or true Pastors, everyone must now step up and seek the answers they need.
You are no one to stand in their way or discourage them from doing so.
Yes, there is a danger that one can misinterpret something - that danger is real for EVERYONE and was ALWAYS TRUE in ANY AGE!
So, please calm down and try asking clarifying questions before you go off on one of these rants which make you look somewhat manic.
But we all have our foibles, so I accept your mania.
-
No, what makes you think that's what I'm saying? The pope is condemning all things V2 so now the Church is where it was pre-V2. What reason would the pre-V2 popes even enter the picture?
It can be confusing when you evade the question and are vague
I said:
I asked if you believe that there is a possibility the Conciliar popes are declared false popes in the future. You said, "absolutely". Why do you think it is absolutely possible that it could happen? Would you say the same regarding Pius X, Pius IX, Leo XIII, etc., or is there something different between them and the Conciliar popes?
You replied:
You just answered why I do not think any such declaration will be made, although anything is possible
See, this is confusing, because I'm not sure how I "answered" why you do not think any such declaration will be made, and I never even asked if you think it will happen to begin with. You said there is "absolutely" a possibility of the Conciliar popes being declared false popes by a future pope. I asked if this is because there is a difference between the pre V2 and Conciliar popes that would cause you to say that..or if you would say the same ("absolutely" a possibility) regarding any past pope at all.
So, are you saying:
A) That the V2 popes differ in such a way from the pre-V2 popes that there is "absolutely" a possibility of them being declared false popes in the future, and not the pre-V2 popes? You said you would be "cool" with whatever the Church declares regarding the Conciliar popes
OR
B) That there is "absolutely" a possibility of a future pope declaring any past pope at all a false pope? Would you also be "cool" with this, or just whatever the Church declares regarding the Conciliar popes?
-
See, this is confusing, because I'm not sure how I "answered" why you do not think any such declaration will be made, and I never even asked if you think it will happen to begin with. You said there is "absolutely" a possibility of the Conciliar popes being declared false popes by a future pope. I asked if this is because there is a difference between the pre V2 and Conciliar popes that would cause you to say that..or if you would say the same ("absolutely" a possibility) regarding any past pope at all.
You answered your own question because you are right, there is nothing to stop one pope from declaring whichever previous popes he wants to have not been popes. I mean, what is there to stop him? Nothing.
Yet, if he declared only the conciliar heretic popes to have not been popes, which I do not think he would, but if he did, I would be on board....because of the damage they've done to the Church that I've witnessed with my own eyes.
If in some psychedelic world he added some pre-conciliar popes as not being popes "while he was at it," then, unlike the conciliar popes, we would know he is a bad pope.
-
If God commands what one must do and can do, then He must supply the means to acquire the graces necessary to fulfill those commands.
How can one who receives the supernatural power/grace tied to the office of the papacy that, "whatever you bind is bound, whatever you loose is loosed."
but at the same time he is supernaturally "impeded" and he CANNOT DO what he has already received the power/grace to do? It seems to run contrary to the liberty of the Church.
Concerning the post-concilar claimants to the papacy:
1) Either God gave them the graces of the papacy, which they accepted and retained,
or,
2) They were impeded from receiving the graces of the papacy and therefore never received them,
or,
3) God did give them the graces, but they each went on to subsequently deviate from the faith and lose those graces.
Are you suggesting a 4th option; i.e.,
4) "God gave them the graces of the papacy, but then he impeded them from using them, because it is all part of the test of faith during the Great Apostasy."?
I am suggesting that a Pope not doing something (e.g., expelling heretics and eliminating confusion) could have many different causes. And most importantly, the drama is still unfolding and everything will be revealed very soon.
As Leo XIII testified, Satan was to be given 100 years. Jesus allowed it as a test/temptation for Catholics, many of whom had become lukewarm in the Faith. What better way to test their faith than by the ecclesiastical Beast created in the mid-20th century.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics embraced a false Mass and false sacraments. Why? Because it was "above their pay grade." They just did whatever "the Church" suggested to them. They shrugged their shoulders and jumped in feet first. Tradition...meh...that's so boring. We need to be more up-to-date, they thought.
But you will say, they were innocent. They were just doing their duty to follow their superiors. No, they were choosing the easy path because the putative hierarchy said they could choose it. No one put a gun to their heads. No one excommunicated Catholics simply for keeping the traditional faith. That it was a choice is clear from the fact that many traditional Catholics chose not to give up the Faith and Sacraments, and they were persecuted for that choice by the Novus Ordites.
There will be a great reversal of fortunes very soon. See Wisdom Chapter 5. God allows an apparent evil for a greater good. His ways are not our ways. What is the greater good? He will have accomplished the purge of the closet heretics and the lukewarm from His Church while respecting their free will. He will also have purified the elect through their suffering.
-
You answered your own question because you are right, there is nothing to stop one pope from declaring whichever previous popes he wants to have not been popes. I mean, what is there to stop him? Nothing.
Yet, if he declared only the conciliar heretic popes to have not been popes, which I do not think he would, but if he did, I would be on board....because of the damage they've done to the Church that I've witnessed with my own eyes.
If in some psychedelic world he added some pre-conciliar popes as not being popes "while he was at it," then, unlike the conciliar popes, we would know he is a bad pope.
Okay, thank you. So you do entertain some possibility of a future pope declaring the Conciliar popes to have been false popes..and, if he did, you would accept that and hold them to be false popes "because of the damage they've done to the Church"
So you do have at least some criteria that would need to be met for you to accept a past pope being declared a false pope, e.g. "doing damage to the Church". You wouldn't accept a future pope just willy nilly declaring St. Pius X to have been a false pope, right? You might say that there's nothing stopping a future pope from saying those words, but I take it you wouldn't agree with him, and you would still hold St Pius X to be a true pope?
-
Okay, thank you. So you do entertain some possibility of a future pope declaring the Conciliar popes to have been false popes..and, if he did, you would accept that and hold them to be false popes "because of the damage they've done to the Church"
So you do have at least some criteria that would need to be met for you to accept a past pope being declared a false pope, e.g. "doing damage to the Church". You wouldn't accept a future pope just willy nilly declaring St. Pius X to have been a false pope, right? You might say that there's nothing stopping a future pope from saying those words, but I take it you wouldn't agree with him, and you would still hold St Pius X to be a true pope?
Certainly I would hold Pope St. Pius X to be a true pope, otherwise it would nullify all his appointments, teachings etc. that made him a saint. But again, except for his own conscience there would be nothing to stop a new pope from doing that. This is why no one should expect a future "true pope" to declare some previous popes to have not been popes. After all, if he would be wrong about PPX, then that would only serve the purpose of showing that he could be wrong about every other pope, which would make the whole episode at least scandalous, or at best worthless.
Even Pope Formosus 891-896 (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06139b.htm) at the Cadaver Synod, whose dead corpse was was accused of not being pope, was put on trial and thrown into the Tiber, was later exonerated, then later condemned again, in the end he was still pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm).
I mean, there are certainly some very good reasons PPIX did not condemn, correct nor even make any mention whatsoever of the greatest of all theologians St. Thomas Aquinas' error when he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. We can only guess and hypothesize what those reasons were, as we can guess the reasons why a future pope might not condemn previous popes.
-
The conciliar popes did issue a harmful liturgy. Your saying that this is impossible for true popes is your opinion, which IMO, is misguided.
The Church with St. Paul anathematizes anyone who preaches a different Gospel, but she does not anathematize anyone who says popes can issue a harmful liturgy, especially when that's exactly what they did.
What do you think of St. Thomas stating: "it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain"
Don't you think "the Church" did Vatican II? Don't you think "the Church" created the Novus Ordo Mass, both of which you say are harmful?
-
What do you think of St. Thomas stating: "it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain"
Don't you think "the Church" did Vatican II? Don't you think "the Church" created the Novus Ordo Mass, both of which you say are harmful?
The Church does not do anything in vain.
The Church did not do V2 nor create the NOM.
The pope is not the Church.
-
The Church does not do anything in vain.
The Church did not do V2 nor create the NOM.
The pope is not the Church.
Go look at the books. A solemn General Council is the solemn magisterium, and a pope approving of whatever is in it, means the Church did it. The pope represents Christ and His Church. And if you want to still deny this, you tell us when "the Church" does something.
-
Go look at the books. A solemn General Council is the solemn magisterium, and a pope approving of whatever is in it, means the Church did it. The pope represents Christ and His Church. And if you want to still deny this, you tell us when "the Church" does something.
The Church's magisterium is how we know, because it is what tells us that V2 taught errors. What you are saying here ^^ is that the solemn magisterium can teach error, which is altogether wrong. The Church's magisterium is always, always infallible. So when you see errors, if you know noting else, you know those teachings are not of the magisterium.
The Magisterium is the Church authoritatively teaching all those truths contained in the Deposit of Faith.
Ordinary Magisterium is the Church teaching Catholic truths in her usual, day to day activities.
Universal Magisterium is infallible, binding teachings that the Church has taught always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles.
Extraordinary Magisterium or Solemn Magisterium is the Church teaching in an unusual manner, such as through a Council or an ex cathedra statement made by the pope.
-
The Church's magisterium is how we know, because it is what tells us that V2 taught errors. What you are saying here ^^ is that the solemn magisterium can teach error, which is altogether wrong.
I've never understood this particular intellectual malfunction of yours. No, what he's clearly saying is that it cannot be Solemn Magisterium ... but that it SHOULD have been, had it actually been approved by a legitimate Pope. It's a form of modo tollentis argument for SVism.
You CONSTANTLY beg the question that the Conciliar papal claimants are Popes and engage in egregious circular argumentation as a result.
Then the other circular nonsense you engage in is that if the "Pope" (as you consider each Conciliar papal claimant to be) teaches truth, then it's Magisterium, but then if the "Pope" teaches error, then what he taught is not Magisterium ... based on the Stubbornian "rule of faith [sic]". Consequently, you reduce both the Magisterium and infallibility to an absurd tautology.
Since only true teachings are Magisterium, the Magisterium is infallibly true (since you simply exclude error by definition from Magisterium).
What's true is true, and what's false is false.
Utterly absurd. Magisterium is anything that the Pope (for our purposes here) teaches in his official capacity as Pope to the Universal Church ... say, vs. something he might say from the pulpit, or an interview on a plane or with Scalfari, etc. -- and not merely the stuff he HAPPENS TO get right. Infallibility is an a priori GUARANTEE of truth, and not simply the fact that a teaching happens to be true.
-
Certainly I would hold Pope St. Pius X to be a true pope, otherwise it would nullify all his appointments, teachings etc. that made him a saint. But again, except for his own conscience there would be nothing to stop a new pope from doing that. This is why no one should expect a future "true pope" to declare some previous popes to have not been popes. After all, if he would be wrong about PPX, then that would only serve the purpose of showing that he could be wrong about every other pope, which would make the whole episode at least scandalous, or at best worthless.
Right, you would still hold St. Pius X to be a true pope because he did nothing while exercising his office that would give anyone reason to think otherwise. There is no doubt there. However, you have admitted that you would assent to a future pope declaring the V2 popes to be false popes. You, Stubborn, would accept a future pope declaring Francis, who you believe was the Vicar of Christ until his death earlier this year, a false pope. You would accept a future pope declaring Leo XIV, who you believe is currently the Vicar of Christ, a false pope. And yet you claim to hold zero doubt as to the legitimacy of the Conciliar popes?
Even Pope Formosus 891-896 at the Cadaver Synod, whose dead corpse was was accused of not being pope, was put on trial and thrown into the Tiber, was later exonerated, then later condemned again, in the end he was still pope.
This is a great example. A later Pope condemning Formosus did not render Formosus a false pope..because Formosus was guilty of no act that would have made him a false pope. He didn't become a false pope after his condemnation, and then a true pope after his exoneration, and then a false pope again. He was a true pope during his reign, and nothing anyone could say in the future would change that. If someone is a false pope, a later Pope declaring him to have been so is only that. A declaration of a fact. The false pope doesn't become a false pope because a later Pope says so, a later Pope can say so because he was a false pope
But again, you have admitted the possibility of a future pope declaring the Conciliar popes to have been false popes. And more importantly you said that, if that happens, you would assent to it and hold them to have been false popes.
If you admit the possibility and claim that you would assent to it, not just because a future Pope says it but because there is some criteria that has been met (they were heretics, did damage to the Church), how can you say that you hold the Conciliar popes to be true popes with absolutely certainty? Isn't there some level of doubt here?
-
I've never understood this particular intellectual malfunction of yours. No, what he's clearly saying is that it cannot be Solemn Magisterium ... but that it SHOULD have been, had it actually been approved by a legitimate Pope. It's a form of modo tollentis argument for SVism.
One of the reasons you've never understood is because you have a misunderstanding of what the Magisterium and papal infallibility even is. Yes, you, the great CI theologian misunderstand something. Incredible but true.
The Solemn magisterium is what I posted in my last post, and PPVI said more than once that there was purposely no pronouncements of the solemn magisterium.
Pope Paul VI, Jan. 12, 1966, General Audience
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority..."
In the above, he is telling us that the council was not magisterial, not infallible. By now everyone should know this. What he is saying below is that it was only disciplinary and pastoral.
Pope Paul VI, Aug. 6, 1975, General Audience
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”
It's of your own doing that you continually insist, even in light of V2, that all councils are ipso facto infallible and magisterial. This is the real intellectual malfunction.
-
If you admit the possibility and claim that you would assent to it, not just because a future Pope says it but because there is some criteria that has been met (they were heretics, did damage to the Church), how can you say that you hold the Conciliar popes to be true popes with absolutely certainty? Isn't there some level of doubt here?
I don't know that there is doubt there, because I honestly do not care if they're popes or not. To me it's like the weather - whatever it's gonna be, nobody can do anything about it. So if the "true pope" declared they were not popes I would be happy for the sedes. Or if he said nothing, or said they were true popes, it would not change my faith one iota, but I wonder if he said they were true popes or nothing at all, on that account would the sedes consider him a non-pope?
You ask all these questions as if you are trying to catch me or something, but you gotta remember I do not care about the status of the conciliar popes. I hope the sedes are right, I really do - I do not think they are right, but I hope they are for their own sake.
And if he ever does say they were not popes, then the sedes can celebrate the fact that they were right the whole time - hooray for them! I'd like to celebrate with them. It'd be a useless celebration to me, but why not? Now they have bragging rights! It'd be a very big deal to them, not to me, but I would celebrate with them. Would they return to attending Mass with all other Catholics after that?
-
I don't know that there is doubt there, because I honestly do not care if they're popes or not. To me it's like the weather - whatever it's gonna be, nobody can do anything about it. So if the "true pope" declared they were not popes I would be happy for the sedes. Or if he said nothing, or said they were true popes, it would not change my faith one iota, but I wonder if he said they were true popes or nothing at all, on that account would the sedes consider him a non-pope?
You ask all these questions as if you are trying to catch me or something, but you gotta remember I do not care about the status of the conciliar popes. I hope the sedes are right, I really do - I do not think they are right, but I hope they are for their own sake.
And if he ever does say they were not popes, then the sedes can celebrate the fact that they were right the whole time - hooray for them! I'd like to celebrate with them. It'd be a useless celebration to me, but why not? Now they have bragging rights! It'd be a very big deal to them, not to me, but I would celebrate with them. Would they return to attending Mass with all other Catholics after that?
And that right there, folks, is precisely where dogmatic R&R leads: "I honestly do not care if they're popes or not," Stubborn says. It really is exactly the same position taken by the Old Catholics.
Stubborn decides "his faith" to be whatever suits him. Papal infallibility? Who cares? He can take if or leave it. If a "Pope" defined something Stubborn didn't think was "the Magisterium," then Stubborn has the authority to simply ignore it.
The whole thing Jesus said about "upon this rock I will build my Church," Stubborn interprets away. Stubborn is his own "rule of faith." No "rock" needed.
-
And that right there, folks, is precisely where dogmatic R&R leads: "I honestly do not care if they're popes or not," Stubborn says. It really is exactly the same position taken by the Old Catholics.
Stubborn decides "his faith" to be whatever suits him. Papal infallibility? Who cares? He can take if or leave it. If a "Pope" defined something Stubborn didn't think was "the Magisterium," then Stubborn has the authority to simply ignore it.
The whole thing Jesus said about "upon this rock I will build my Church," Stubborn interprets away. Stubborn is his own "rule of faith." No "rock" needed.
You don't even have any room to speak since you don't even have a pope, you have not had a pope for some 60 years and your rule of faith is a heretic yet you criticize me? :facepalm:
But please, obsess and care all you want, in the mean time keep the faith and strive to do God's holy will in all circuмstances of life. Do that, and, although you don't believe it, you can make it to heaven regardless of the status of popes.
-
I don't know that there is doubt there, because I honestly do not care if they're popes or not. To me it's like the weather - whatever it's gonna be, nobody can do anything about it. So if the "true pope" declared they were not popes I would be happy for the sedes. Or if he said nothing, or said they were true popes, it would not change my faith one iota, but I wonder if he said they were true popes or nothing at all, on that account would the sedes consider him a non-pope?
My point is to hopefully show you that some of the SV-type positions are not so unreasonable as you make them out to be.
You can say that you don't know if there is doubt there..but if there was zero doubt the answer would be "No, I do not believe there is a possibility that the Conciliar popes will ever be truly declared false popes. I don't even need to answer if I would accept such a true declaration were it to happen, because there is no chance such a true declaration will happen".
Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all humans. The "doubt" in question is precisely what allows Catholics to refuse subjection to the Conciliar popes. The fact that the Conciliar popes are manifest heretics, idolaters, promulgated non-Catholic liturgies, Sacrament, etc. is why Catholics can say "Somethings not right here..this has never happened before. These popes do not profess the true faith, and even worse they teach this false faith to the faithful! I know I cannot be 'in communion' with heretics, so how can I be subject to one as my supreme shepherd?"
You ask all these questions as if you are trying to catch me or something, but you gotta remember I do not care about the status of the conciliar popes. I hope the sedes are right, I really do - I do not think they are right, but I hope they are for their own sake.
Yeah, right :facepalm: Again, the fact the the Conciliar popes are manifest heretics, idolaters, apostates, etc. etc. is justification enough to hold them as, at least, doubtful popes. No Pope has ever been a manifest heretic prior to the late 20th century.. that's literally a reason why people think, "Uh, I don't think this is possible".
If the SVs are absolutely right, or the sedeprivationalists, or sedeimpoundists, or the "sede doubters"..it doesn't really matter to us, now. Some SV great grandmother isn't going to hell because the status of the papacy was actually "sede plena" or "sede impounded", while she thought it was "sede vacant" because these men are manifest heretics and do not profess the true faith.
What you can't say is "I don't care". If these men are somehow true popes, and you believe it to be so, you must be subject to them. That is necessary for your salvation. If you hold some reasonable doubt (e.g. they are heretics, idolaters, do not profess the true Faith) as to whether or not they are true popes, you can refuse subjection to them
-
The Solemn magisterium is what I posted in my last post, and PPVI said more than once that there was purposely no pronouncements of the solemn magisterium.
You forgot the rest of the quote...
"Some wonder what authority, what theological qualification, the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions that would commit the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who recall the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the hallmark of infallibility; but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary and so manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, in accordance with the Council's intention regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents." - Paul VI - General Audience 12 Jan. 1966
“The supreme ordinary magisterium of the Pope is infallible when he teaches the universal Church in matters of faith or morals, even without a solemn definition. For the Pope, as supreme teacher, can bind the faithful by his ordinary teaching authority, provided he clearly intends to do so.” - AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959,
-
You don't even have any room to speak since you don't even have a pope, you have not had a pope for some 60 years and your rule of faith is a heretic yet you criticize me? :facepalm:
But please, obsess and care all you want, in the mean time keep the faith and strive to do God's holy will in all circuмstances of life. Do that, and, although you don't believe it, you can make it to heaven regardless of the status of popes.
You cannot be Catholic and not care who the Pope is. One may be mistaken about the status of a particular papal claimant. But to say the Pope does not matter is a heretical statement.
I do agree with you that the SV position is factually/historically problematic because I believe that most of the blame for the Crisis lies with the Cardinals and Bishops. But at least the SVs are logically and doctrinally consistent.
The SSPX invents a novel ecclesiology that shreds the promises of Jesus Christ and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium concerning the papacy.
-
My point is to hopefully show you that some of the SV-type positions are not so unreasonable as you make them out to be.
You can say that you don't know if there is doubt there..but if there was zero doubt the answer would be "No, I do not believe there is a possibility that the Conciliar popes will ever be truly declared false popes. I don't even need to answer if I would accept such a true declaration were it to happen, because there is no chance such a true declaration will happen".
Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all humans. The "doubt" in question is precisely what allows Catholics to refuse subjection to the Conciliar popes. The fact that the Conciliar popes are manifest heretics, idolaters, promulgated non-Catholic liturgies, Sacrament, etc. is why Catholics can say "Somethings not right here..this has never happened before. These popes do not profess the true faith, and even worse they teach this false faith to the faithful! I know I cannot be 'in communion' with heretics, so how can I be subject to one as my supreme shepherd?"
Ok, first off, let me re-phrase what I said: "because I honestly do not care if they're popes, at least not as much as you do." So right, somewhere in there I do care, but very little. The reason for this is because there is nothing that I can do about it, nothing that anyone can do about it whether they're popes or not.
The dogma clearly states that we must be subject to the pope, not blindly submit to everything he says, wants and wishes - this dogma is why I am not a sede, this dogma is why I won't even entertain the possibility of ever going sede regardless of the conciliar popes all being anti-Catholic conspirators, liars, apostates, heretics, idolaters, commie liberals etc. etc. Here again, please reference the example given by St. Thomas More's last words: "I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first."
Using his example, there is zero need for me to decide his status. Nobody has ever proven that there is any need to decide his status. All they strive to prove is that those who disagree are the lowest form of non-Catholic heretics.
If I am wrong, no harm no foul, but I do not know the same can be said for the sedes if they're wrong. And
IF the dogma meant it is absolutely necessary to blindly submit to the pope no matter what, then V2 is infallible and all trads need to abandon tradition and immediately join the NO.
-
You forgot the rest of the quote...
.. but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary and so manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, in accordance with the Council's intention regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents." - Paul VI - General Audience 12 Jan. 1966
This, obviously, is a lie. Simple. Purposely or not, he misused his supreme authority in that the faithful are told they must go along with whatever is in the docuмents.
“The supreme ordinary magisterium of the Pope is infallible when he teaches the universal Church in matters of faith or morals, even without a solemn definition. For the Pope, as supreme teacher, can bind the faithful by his ordinary teaching authority, provided he clearly intends to do so.” - AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959,
The problem is:
1st, Both V2 popes already said there was no infallibility at V2. This is true, accept it.
2nd, per V1 the pope is not infallible when he preaches new doctrines - which V2 was full of.
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
-
You cannot be Catholic and not care who the Pope is. One may be mistaken about the status of a particular papal claimant. But to say the Pope does not matter is a heretical statement.
I do agree with you that the SV position is factually/historically problematic because I believe that most of the blame for the Crisis lies with the Cardinals and Bishops. But at least the SVs are logically and doctrinally consistent.
The SSPX invents a novel ecclesiology that shreds the promises of Jesus Christ and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium concerning the papacy.
I corrected what I said: "because I honestly do not care if they're popes, at least not as much as you do." Which is to say that, while sedes insist on deciding their status, I do not care to. So what?
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
-
The Church's magisterium is how we know, because it is what tells us that V2 taught errors. What you are saying here ^^ is that the solemn magisterium can teach error, which is altogether wrong. The Church's magisterium is always, always infallible. So when you see errors, if you know noting else, you know those teachings are not of the magisterium.
The Magisterium is the Church authoritatively teaching all those truths contained in the Deposit of Faith.
Ordinary Magisterium is the Church teaching Catholic truths in her usual, day to day activities.
Universal Magisterium is infallible, binding teachings that the Church has taught always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles.
Extraordinary Magisterium or Solemn Magisterium is the Church teaching in an unusual manner, such as through a Council or an ex cathedra statement made by the pope.
General Councils are only General Councils because a pope approved of the result. If a pope approves of the result, it is "the Church" that gave us the result. Things have been presented in General Councils that the pope did not approve of, and it was simply laid aside as not part of the result, and the Church didn't give us those things.
Do you believe "the Church" gave us canon law?
-
This, obviously, is a lie. Simple. Purposely or not, he misused his supreme authority in that the faithful are told they must go along with whatever is in the docuмents.
1st, Both V2 popes already said there was no infallibility at V2. This is true, accept it.
He never said it wasn't infallible, he said, "given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the hallmark of infallibility."
He said, "they avoided using that mechanism of extraordinary pronouncements of dogmas."
He did not say, that it was not infallible in any sense.
He literally follows with, "This ordinary and so manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful."
This shows his intent was to bind the consciences of he faithful because he is COMMANDING that it "MUST BE ACCEPTED" with docility and sincerity.
Catholics are never free to disregard Dogmatic Constitutions of a true General Council.
If Paul VI was Pope, Catholics are not free to impugn his supreme ordinary magisterial teaching. You decide that he "misused his supreme authority" to teach error. That is calling "judging the Pope".
You have decided he is wrong, therefore you think you are free to dissent. That is the classic Old Catholic position in a nutshell.
You cannot relegate the "Pope Question" to the dust bin as if we could somehow all get along if it wasn't for that pesky "sedeism".
How you think of the papacy and who you think is the Pope during this time, is actually of vital importance to one's salvation.
-
He never said it wasn't infallible, he said, "given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the hallmark of infallibility."
He said, "they avoided using that mechanism of extraordinary pronouncements of dogmas."
He did not say, that it was not infallible in any sense.
He literally follows with, "This ordinary and so manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful."
This shows his intent was to bind the consciences of he faithful because he is COMMANDING that it "MUST BE ACCEPTED" with docility and sincerity.
OF COURSE the intent was to bind the faithful - to heresies and lies. God hates heresies and lies, and He would hate it if we bound ourselves to those heresies and lies. It does not matter who the heresies came from or who the authority was that commanded us to accept them, we cannot do it because God said no. Simple.
Catholics are never free to disregard Dogmatic Constitutions of a true General Council.
If Paul VI was Pope, Catholics are not free to impugn his supreme ordinary magisterial teaching. You decide that he "misused his supreme authority" to teach error. That is calling "judging the Pope".
You have decided he is wrong, therefore you think you are free to dissent. That is the classic Old Catholic position in a nutshell.
You cannot relegate the "Pope Question" to the dust bin as if we could somehow all get along if it wasn't for that pesky "sedeism".
How you think of the papacy and who you think is the Pope during this time, is actually of vital importance to one's salvation.
That's right, we cannot disregard dogmatic constitutions that actually are dogmatic constitutions. Are you going to say that you actually believe V2 produced true dogmatic constitutions? No, you're saying the Holy Ghost would prevent a "true pope" from producing the heretical docuмents of V2. Well, you are wrong. The heretical V2 docuмents proves unequivocally that you are wrong. But you and all sedes refuse to see it this way, instead, you turn papal infallibility into papal impeccability, which in turn means the only way you get out of it is by deciding that popes are not popes, then insist there is no other possible reason and those who know better and disagree are low down heretics.
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
-
I corrected what I said: "because I honestly do not care if they're popes, at least not as much as you do." Which is to say that, while sedes insist on deciding their status, I do not care to. So what?
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
You say you don't care to decide the status of the Popes. But that is not true. You are constantly calling various papal claimants "heretics." And you then call those "heretics" the "Pope." That is untenable according to Catholic dogma.
On the one hand, if you want to call the papal claimant a "heretic," then you must accept that he either was never "the Pope" or that he lost his office ipso facto for manifest heresy. Those are the only two avenues left open to you in Catholic theology.
On the other hand, if you want to say that the papal claimant is not a "heretic" but that he was deceived or confused or in error on lesser matters or that his pen was used without his consent, etc., and, because of these factual/historical anomalies, he remained "the Pope" while the Crisis raged around him, that would be a different matter altogether. The criteria to determine the truth of that claim are factual/historical in nature not propositional/doctrinal.
-
1) On the one hand, if you want to call the papal claimant a "heretic," then you must accept that he either was never "the Pope" or that he lost his office ipso facto for manifest heresy. Those are the only two avenues left open to you in Catholic theology.
2) On the other hand, if you want to say that the papal claimant is not a "heretic" but that he was deceived or confused or in error on lesser matters or that his pen was used without his consent, etc., and, because of these factual/historical anomalies, he remained "the Pope" while the Crisis raged around him, that would be a different matter altogether. The criteria to determine the truth of that claim are factual/historical in nature not propositional/doctrinal.
I already , made this distinction to him (between 1&2 above) here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/15/
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/15/)He would rather spout off and say "yes they are heretics"., but then he maintains that they must still be true Popes (contradiction)
He either;
1) Thinks they are indeed manifest, public, heretics, but this in no way affects their claim to the papacy (heretical)
or,
2) He lacks the moral certainty that they are indeed manifest, public heretics and thinks of them as "erring bad-dad Popes". (honest mistake).
I think when Stubborn says they are heretics, he really doesn't believe that they are in the strict legal sense, it is just more a figure of speech with him i.e, "I have been a trade my whole life, of course they are heretics!"
-
That's right, we cannot disregard dogmatic constitutions that actually are dogmatic constitutions. Are you going to say that you actually believe V2 produced true dogmatic constitutions? No, you're saying the Holy Ghost would prevent a "true pope" from producing the heretical docuмents of V2. Well, you are wrong. The heretical V2 docuмents proves unequivocally that you are wrong.
:confused: The existence of the docuмents prove nothing of what you allege.
They only "prove" that what appeared to be a General Council headed by the Pope created docuмents that contain heresy and therefore prove themselves to be manifestly heretical by signing and implementing those false teachings.
I really don't think you understand the concept of "manifesting" heresy publicly and this is at the heart of your error/Old Catholic heresy.
-
You say you don't care to decide the status of the Popes. But that is not true. You are constantly calling various papal claimants "heretics." And you then call those "heretics" the "Pope." That is untenable according to Catholic dogma.
On the one hand, if you want to call the papal claimant a "heretic," then you must accept that he either was never "the Pope" or that he lost his office ipso facto for manifest heresy. Those are the only two avenues left open to you in Catholic theology.
On the other hand, if you want to say that the papal claimant is not a "heretic" but that he was deceived or confused or in error on lesser matters or that his pen was used without his consent, etc., and, because of these factual/historical anomalies, he remained "the Pope" while the Crisis raged around him, that would be a different matter altogether. The criteria to determine the truth of that claim are factual/historical in nature not propositional/doctrinal.
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
-
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
1) I don't think they would do anything different - it would just be a validation of what they were already morally (or absolutely) certain of (depending on the level of their convictions).
2) By such an omission he would be proving himself no "true Pope" at all, because such errors would need to be officially condemned to bring the conflict to a resolution. In fact, most everyone who holds the sede position agrees that the only true sign of a true Pope back in Rome would be a repudiation of Vatican II. Well, an official condemnation of Vatican II would be an official condemnation of the "concilar popes." Error does not live in the clouds, it lives in men's minds and spreads through their false teachings. Condemning Vatican II would be to condemn them all. So, in this case, again, they would do nothing differently. They would not accept such a one as a true Pope and they would carry on.
-
I already , made this distinction to him (between 1&2 above) here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/15/
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/15/)He would rather spout off and say "yes they are heretics"., but then he maintains that they must still be true Popes (contradiction)
He either;
1) Thinks they are indeed manifest, public, heretics, but this in no way affects their claim to the papacy (heretical)
or,
2) He lacks the moral certainty that they are indeed manifest, public heretics and thinks of them as "erring bad-dad Popes". (honest mistake).
I think when Stubborn says they are heretics, he really doesn't believe that they are in the strict legal sense, it is just more a figure of speech with him i.e, "I have been a trade my whole life, of course they are heretics!"
It's not the least but complicated.
I have quoted Fr. Wathen who said: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
It only becomes complicated for some when it's the pope who speaks heresy.
It is best to do like St. Francis in the OP and leave it up to the Church to decide.
-
:confused: The existence of the docuмents prove nothing of what you allege.
They only "prove" that what appeared to be a General Council headed by the Pope created docuмents that contain heresy and therefore prove themselves to be manifestly heretical by signing and implementing those false teachings.
I really don't think you understand the concept of "manifesting" heresy publicly and this is at the heart of your error/Old Catholic heresy.
I understand it alright, I also accept reality.
-
1) I don't think they would do anything different - it would just be a validation of what they were already morally (or absolutely) certain of (depending on the level of their convictions).
2) By such an omission he would be proving himself no "true Pope" at all, because such errors would need to be officially condemned to bring the conflict to a resolution. In fact, most everyone who holds the sede position agrees that the only true sign of a true Pope back in Rome would be a repudiation of Vatican II. Well, an official condemnation of Vatican II would be an official condemnation of the "concilar popes." Error does not live in the clouds, it lives in men's minds and spreads through their false teachings. Condemning Vatican II would be to condemn them all. So, in this case, again, they would do nothing differently. They would not accept such a one as a true Pope and they would carry on.
*You* say they need to be officially condemned, just like you say popes are not popes. But the "true pope" can choose not condemn them on purpose and for very good reasons he has that you do not have.
So what you're saying is that regardless of him restoring the Church back to all things pre-V2, sedes will remain sede even when a "true pope" is sitting in the Chair because he did not do what they think must be done. Do you not see the folly here? You are dictating to a "true pope" what popes must and must not do, or what they can and cannot do.
-
But the "true pope" can choose not condemn them on purpose and for very good reasons he has that you do not have.
So, here are my questions for you;
1) If the hypothetical "true Pope" you put forth, just takes everything back to 1961 without condemning Vatican II, you are good-2-go then?
2) Do you not see that a "true Pope" would have to condemn those heresies otherwise they would just keep being used to promote the hetropraxy of the times?
To not condemn them is to tacitly approve of them.
There is no reason under heaven that could justify a true Pope approving of heresy or passing over it in silence (especially when it is on such a scale).
Save yourself the trouble and just admit that you only think they are in "error", or when you say they are "heretics" you mean it in the loose sense not a strict legal sense.
-
Do you not see the folly here? You are dictating to a "true pope" what popes must and must not do, or what they can and cannot do.
:confused: isn't ^ this what you have been doing your whole life?
Actually, for you it is much worse I think.
In your scenario question to me, he is only a "hypothetical true Pope." There are many factors to consider about such an alleged "true Pope", i.e., where did he come from? Where did he get his orders? Has he always been Catholic, or was he ever at one point heretical? Is he disqualified as eligible for some reason?, etc.
But in your case, - who you think the actual Popes are - you publicly accuse of being heretics!
You hate their heresies and have fought against them your whole life.
But what you fail to grasp is by blasting them as heretics, you are constantly "judging the Pope".
Do you not see the folly here?
The Church cannot act to give an "official condemnation" at this time (or perhaps never will before the Second Coming).
God has manifested their heresy quite publicly for all with eyes to see and/or ears to hear.
This is so that you may understand they are not with the Church in faith and therefore are not true Popes.
-
2 questions:
1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?
2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?
1) The Sedes would rally around that true Pope because he will have confirmed what they already believe.
2) The Sedes would submit themselves to the true Pope's judgment in the matter because they know that a true Pope is guided by Jesus Christ. Again, you said this man would be a "true Pope." Let's say there was a miraculous sign that confirmed his status as such. If a Sede did not submit to him, they would betray their own principles.
Again, Sedevacantism is nothing more than an opinion that tries to make sense of the Crisis. It is not a dogma. But it is not formally inconsistent with Catholic dogma. The version of R&R that claims that the true Popes can be "heretics" while continuing to be true Popes is formally inconsistent with Catholic dogma.
-
The version of R&R that claims that the true Popes can be "heretics" while continuing to be true Popes is formally inconsistent with Catholic dogma.
There are too many in R&R that holds to this, unfortunately.
-
So, here are my questions for you;
1) If the hypothetical "true Pope" you put forth, just takes everything back to 1961 without condemning Vatican II, you are good-2-go then?
2) Do you not see that a "true Pope" would have to condemn those heresies otherwise they would just keep being used to promote the hetropraxy of the times?
To not condemn them is to tacitly approve of them.
There is no reason under heaven that could justify a true Pope approving of heresy or passing over it in silence (especially when it is on such a scale).
Save yourself the trouble and just admit that you only think they are in "error", or when you say they are "heretics" you mean it in the loose sense not a strict legal sense.
Your hypothetical is untenable because without condemning V2 there is no restoration at all.
-
:confused: isn't ^ this what you have been doing your whole life?
No, all I've been doing is striving to live according to the traditional Catholic faith, knowing I must avoid everything that contradicts that faith.
-
1) The Sedes would rally around that true Pope because he will have confirmed what they already believe.
2) The Sedes would submit themselves to the true Pope's judgment in the matter because they know that a true Pope is guided by Jesus Christ. Again, you said this man would be a "true Pope." Let's say there was a miraculous sign that confirmed his status as such. If a Sede did not submit to him, they would betray their own principles.
Thank you, good answer.
Again, Sedevacantism is nothing more than an opinion that tries to make sense of the Crisis. It is not a dogma. But it is not formally inconsistent with Catholic dogma. The version of R&R that claims that the true Popes can be "heretics" while continuing to be true Popes is formally inconsistent with Catholic dogma.
Yes, sedeism is nothing more than an opinion, the problem with that opinion is that for most who've convinced themselves that their opinion is fact, it is no longer an opinion, it becomes a binding dogma of the Church wherein all those who do not agree with that dogma are low life heretics.
There are valid arguments re: heretics can/cannot be popes on both sides. In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse makes some sense of it from a non-sede point of view, but in the end, whether they're popes or not, there. is. nothing. anyone. can. do. about. it - anymore than anyone can make the sun shine on a cloudy day. Which, like St. Francis in the OP, is why non-sedes do not dwell on the idea, and like St. Francis in the OP, are content to leave the matter up to the Church, in her own good time.
Then there's the dogma stating "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Referencing, as I have already done in this thread, St. Thomas More's last words, non-sedes absolutely, positively and unequivocally achieve this even if the pope is a lying, modernist, no good thieving apostate, murderer, adulterer, commie heretic.
But for sedes whose opinion had morphed into dogmatic certainty, the reality is that they can only rely on their opinion/conclusion to be right. For non-sedes, the price is too high, that's too much to risk on our opinion. Leave it up to the Church.
-
Your hypothetical is untenable because without condemning V2 there is no restoration at all.
:confused:
So what you're saying is that regardless of him restoring the Church back to all things pre-V2, sedes will remain sede even when a "true pope" is sitting in the Chair because he did not do what they think must be done. Do you not see the folly here? You are dictating to a "true pope" what popes must and must not do, or what they can and cannot do.
So we agree that a future "true Pope" would have to condemn V2?
-
:confused:
So we agree that a future "true Pope" would have to condemn V2?
Only if he is going to restore the Church.
-
Only if he is going to restore the Church.
OK, I think I understand you.
You are saying:
No matter what, whoever the Cardinals say is Pope is Pope.
For you Stubborn, he will always be the Pope no matter what.
If he decides to keep Vatican II - he is a true pope.
If he decides to condemn it so he can "restore" the Church - he is a true Pope.
If he renounces every dogma of the Catholic Faith openly and in writing - he is still a true Pope.
For you, what matters most is that you are consistent, and stubbornly so I might add. :laugh1:
Your position is, come hell or high water, they are true Popes no matter what.
That is...
Unless the Cardinals issue a special declaration stating that he had already lost the papacy due to his heresy, you Stubborn will "play it safe".
Did I understand correctly?
-
OK, I think I understand you.
You are saying:
No matter what, whoever the Cardinals say is Pope is Pope.
No, I already said like St. Francis, I am content to leave it up to the Church. If the "true pope" "dethrones" the conciliar popes, I would accept it, why wouldn't I? - why wouldn't anyone for that matter? IF he never "dethroned" them, I would accept that as well, why wouldn't I? - I don't see why anyone wouldn't.
Even if not likely, it is at least possible to condemn everything V2 without dethroning the (now dead) conciliar popes. Exsurge Domine comes to mind, where there was a blanket condemnation of errors and Luther was named....
Exsurge Domine
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circuмstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present docuмent; their substance is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
and so on.
IOW, the errors can be condemned and the popes can even be named as the authors - without declaring them to have been non-popes.
What matters is the heresies and errors in the teachings, because teachings can live on and on and must be effectively "killed" no matter who taught them. Unlike you, I do not think dethroning is at all necessary, what is necessary is condemning the errors.
-
Thank you, good answer.
Yes, sedeism is nothing more than an opinion, the problem with that opinion is that for most who've convinced themselves that their opinion is fact, it is no longer an opinion, it becomes a binding dogma of the Church wherein all those who do not agree with that dogma are low life heretics.
There are valid arguments re: heretics can/cannot be popes on both sides. In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse makes some sense of it from a non-sede point of view, but in the end, whether they're popes or not, there. is. nothing. anyone. can. do. about. it - anymore than anyone can make the sun shine on a cloudy day. Which, like St. Francis in the OP, is why non-sedes do not dwell on the idea, and like St. Francis in the OP, are content to leave the matter up to the Church, in her own good time.
Then there's the dogma stating "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Referencing, as I have already done in this thread, St. Thomas More's last words, non-sedes absolutely, positively and unequivocally achieve this even if the pope is a lying, modernist, no good thieving apostate, murderer, adulterer, commie heretic.
But for sedes whose opinion had morphed into dogmatic certainty, the reality is that they can only rely on their opinion/conclusion to be right. For non-sedes, the price is too high, that's too much to risk on our opinion. Leave it up to the Church.
Here are the options we are discussing:
Sede Lapsa (dogmatic R&R) = the See is legitimately occupied AND the true Pope is a heretic = Old Catholic Heresy
Sede Vacante = the See is illegitimately occupied AND the usurper is a heretic = Roman Catholic
Sede Impedita = the See is legitimately occupied BUT the true Pope is prevented from acting = Roman Catholic
This is a good article that explains the Roman Catholic Options:
https://novusordowatch.org/2024/11/when-shepherd-is-struck-sedevacantist-disunity/
"As we have seen, such possible contingencies include sede impedita as well as an extended period of sede vacante. They manifestly do not include what we might call sede lapsa, the idea that heresy and error can come from the Chair of Truth. (This idea of a “Holy See gone bad” is held by a great many “traditional Catholics” today who have chosen to acknowledge the Vatican II popes as true Popes yet resisting any exercise of these claimants’ office judged to be contrary to pre-Vatican II teaching or practice.)"
-
Here are the options we are discussing:
Sede Lapsa (dogmatic R&R) = the See is legitimately occupied AND the true Pope is a heretic = Old Catholic Heresy
Sede Vacante = the See is illegitimately occupied AND the usurper is a heretic = Roman Catholic
Sede Impedita = the See is legitimately occupied BUT the true Pope is prevented from acting = Roman Catholic
This is a good article that explains the Roman Catholic Options:
https://novusordowatch.org/2024/11/when-shepherd-is-struck-sedevacantist-disunity/
"As we have seen, such possible contingencies include sede impedita as well as an extended period of sede vacante. They manifestly do not include what we might call sede lapsa, the idea that heresy and error can come from the Chair of Truth. (This idea of a “Holy See gone bad” is held by a great many “traditional Catholics” today who have chosen to acknowledge the Vatican II popes as true Popes yet resisting any exercise of these claimants’ office judged to be contrary to pre-Vatican II teaching or practice.)"
The terms sede vacante, sede impedita and sede plena are in canon law.
The term "sede lapsa" is not. It shouldn't be used.
Those who use it are only introducing an occasion for more confusion.
-
The terms sede vacante, sede impedita and sede plena are in canon law.
The term "sede lapsa" is not. It shouldn't be used.
Those who use it are only introducing an occasion for more confusion.
It is not used in Canon Law because it is not Catholic. It is a descriptive term for the heretical position staked out by the Dogmatic R&R adherents.
-
It is not used in Canon Law because it is not Catholic. It is a descriptive term for the heretical position staked out by the Dogmatic R&R adherents.
I agree. It is not "Catholic" per se, but it is human Latin the Church wouldn't condemn being used.....but I am saying it shouldn't be implicitly put on a par with terms that truly are in canon law.
-
Sede Vacante = the See is illegitimately occupied AND the usurper is a heretic = Roman Catholic
e.)"
Where did you come up with this nonsense? It does not mean that at all, never has.
Sede Vacante = The Latin term that is used for when the Pope dies or resigns and a successor hasn't yet been elected, the phrase means "the seat is vacant."
It does not mean because the pope is a heretic we have no pope, it does not mean that everyone should slander the man who is actually occupies the seat, nor does it encourage anyone to condemn as heretics all those who disagree.... it's a phrase that has been maliciously usurped by sedes to mean all of this, but only to some sedes.
-
Where did you come up with this nonsense? It does not mean that at all, never has.
Sede Vacante = The Latin term that is used for when the Pope dies or resigns and a successor hasn't yet been elected, the phrase means "the seat is vacant."
It does not mean because the pope is a heretic we have no pope, it does not mean that everyone should slander the man who is actually occupies the seat, nor does it encourage anyone to condemn as heretics all those who disagree.... it's a phrase that has been maliciously usurped by sedes to mean all of this, but only to some sedes.
Do you, Stubborn, believe that "the Church" has decided what are (and aren't) the inspired writings for the New Testament?
-
Do you, Stubborn, believe that "the Church" has decided what are (and aren't) the inspired writings for the New Testament?
Council of Trent:
SESSION THE FOURTH
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in
the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--
keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of
the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the
prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first
promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His
Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral
discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written
books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of
Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come
down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following
the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection
of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--
seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those
appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word
of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous
succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this
decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received
by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books
of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges,
Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the
second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter,
consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of
Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel;
the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum,
Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees,
the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19]
to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the
Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the
Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to
the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle
James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one
receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they
have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old
Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions
aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in
what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of
faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in
confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
-
Council of Trent:
SESSION THE FOURTH
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in
the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--
keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of
the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the
prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first
promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His
Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral
discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written
books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of
Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come
down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following
the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection
of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--
seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those
appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word
of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous
succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this
decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received
by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books
of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges,
Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the
second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter,
consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of
Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel;
the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum,
Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees,
the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19]
to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the
Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the
Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to
the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle
James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one
receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they
have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old
Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions
aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in
what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of
faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in
confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Can you say the word "yes" to my question?
-
Don't you think Trent is "The Church?"
-
Don't you think Trent is "The Church?"
I asked you a question first.
-
Where did you come up with this nonsense? It does not mean that at all, never has.
Sede Vacante = The Latin term that is used for when the Pope dies or resigns and a successor hasn't yet been elected, the phrase means "the seat is vacant."
It does not mean because the pope is a heretic we have no pope, it does not mean that everyone should slander the man who is actually occupies the seat, nor does it encourage anyone to condemn as heretics all those who disagree.... it's a phrase that has been maliciously usurped by sedes to mean all of this, but only to some sedes.
In our times of the Crisis, the Latin term "Sede Vacante" is used by the Sedevacantists to refer to the situation that I described. They believe there is a heretical usurper in the See of Peter. So, according to Catholic teaching, the See is Vacant because a heretic automatically loses his office/jurisdiction ipso facto (assuming that he was ever legitimately elected to begin with).
It doesn't surprise me that this seems like nonsense to you, Stubborn. You don't care what the actual Catholic teaching on these matters is. You prefer to use Old Catholic heresy as your guide. Just admit that fact and stop pretending.
It is not Catholic to believe that a papal claimant can be both a legitimate Pope and a heretic at the same time.
-
It is not Catholic to believe that a papal claimant can be both a legitimate Pope and a heretic at the same time.
Correct.
-
In our times of the Crisis, the Latin term "Sede Vacante" is used by the Sedevacantists to refer to the situation that I described. They believe there is a heretical usurper in the See of Peter. So, according to Catholic teaching, the See is Vacant because a heretic automatically loses his office/jurisdiction ipso facto (assuming that he was ever legitimately elected to begin with).
It doesn't surprise me that this seems like nonsense to you, Stubborn. You don't care what the actual Catholic teaching on these matters is. You prefer to use Old Catholic heresy as your guide. Just admit that fact and stop pretending.
It is not Catholic to believe that a papal claimant can be both a legitimate Pope and a heretic at the same time.
In our times, Sede Vacante has a universal meaning, iow, it means the same as it has always meant, except to sedes. To say it means something else IS nonsense. To say it means what you said, is to change it's meaning to suit your purpose. It's not rocket science.
You are the one who does not care what the Church teaches in this matter. There is no good reason, in fact, there is absolutely ZERO reason to go contrary to what St. Francis said in the OP - far as you're concerned, to leave it up to the Church is heresy.
It is not Catholic to decide the status of popes, never has been, never will.
-
In our times, Sede Vacante has a universal meaning, iow, it means the same as it has always meant, except to sedes. To say it means something else IS nonsense. To say it means what you said, is to change it's meaning to suit your purpose. It's not rocket science.
You are the one who does not care what the Church teaches in this matter. There is no good reason, in fact, there is absolutely ZERO reason to go contrary to what St. Francis said in the OP - far as you're concerned, to leave it up to the Church is heresy.
It is not Catholic to decide the status of popes, never has been, never will.
Besides avoiding giving me a yes answer, you go against what St. Francis said in the OP. The Church makes the legal status of vacancy for "the see" not the pope. Those who do so already morally and positively determine the man is not a pope. Perfectly Catholic to do, and in fact a duty. Read the OP again.
-
Besides avoiding giving me a yes answer, you go against what St. Francis said in the OP. The Church makes the legal status of vacancy for "the see" not the pope. Those who do so already morally and positively determine the man is not a pope. Perfectly Catholic to do, and in fact a duty. Read the OP again.
Point out where it is our duty to "positively determine the man is not a pope."
From the OP:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"
-
Point out where it is our duty to "positively determine the man is not a pope."
From the OP:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"
The Church must declare the man deprived of his Apostolic See, because he is no longer pope. As in, the Church is compelled to do so. The Church cannot allow a man to pretend to hold the Apostolic See.
This isn't saying he is still pope until declared otherwise, it is saying that the false pope cannot be allowed to illegitimately hold the See. If he was still pope until declared otherwise, then he could never be declared otherwise..because the First See is judged by no one
-
Point out where it is our duty to "positively determine the man is not a pope."
From the OP:
"when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: let another take his bishopric"
Look at the clause just before the one you highlighted. He falls ipso facto from his dignity AND “out of the Church.” That is said first. That automatic “fall” is primary. Canon Law says exactly the same thing.
Then, secondarily, the Church must either throw the bum out by force “deprive him” or, if he voluntarily vacated the premises, the Church “declares him deprived.”
Why is the second step mentioned? Because the Church must elect a new Pope. So before the election, the Church legally declares that the See vacant. The See did not become vacant because they declared it. It was vacant ipso facto. The Church simply formally expressed its agreement with the reality of automatic vacancy.
-
Look at the clause just before the one you highlighted. He falls ipso facto from his dignity AND “out of the Church.” That is said first. That automatic “fall” is primary. Canon Law says exactly the same thing.
Then, secondarily, the Church must either throw the bum out by force “deprive him” or, if he voluntarily vacated the premises, the Church “declares him deprived.”
Why is the second step mentioned? Because the Church must elect a new Pope. So before the election, the Church legally declares that the See vacant. The See did not become vacant because they declared it. It was vacant ipso facto. The Church simply formally expressed its agreement with the reality of automatic vacancy.
You missed the word "and" ...."out of the Church, "and the Church must either..."
You have to keep reading, don't stop after "out of the Church."
-
The Church must declare the man deprived of his Apostolic See, because he is no longer pope. As in, the Church is compelled to do so. The Church cannot allow a man to pretend to hold the Apostolic See.
This isn't saying he is still pope until declared otherwise, it is saying that the false pope cannot be allowed to illegitimately hold the See. If he was still pope until declared otherwise, then he could never be declared otherwise..because the First See is judged by no one
This is saying the Church must declare the man deprived of his Apostolic See because no one else can do it.
-
This is saying the Church must declare the man deprived of his Apostolic See because no one else can do it.
You withhold your judgment that "the Church" has ever done a particular thing!
That's REALLY concerning.
When's the last time you spoke to a priest for direction?
-
You missed the word "and" ...."out of the Church, "and the Church must either..."
You have to keep reading, don't stop after "out of the Church."
And you missed the definition of the Latin phrase "ipso facto."
"Ipso facto" is a Latin legal and theological term meaning "by the very fact" or "by that very act itself," indicating that a consequence follows automatically and directly from an action or condition, without the need for further declaration or intervention.1 (#post_footnote-1) 2
(#post_footnote-2)
Meaning and Usage in Catholic Teaching
In everyday English, "ipso facto" describes something that is inherently or immediately true based on a given fact, such as "committing a felony ipso facto disqualifies one from certain rights." Within Catholic doctrine and canon law, it carries precise significance, particularly in matters of ecclesiastical penalties, jurisdiction, and sacramental validity.
- In Canon Law: It denotes automatic effects from certain acts. For example, under the 1917 Code of Canon Law (now revised in the 1983 Code), certain grave offenses, like apostasy, heresy, or schism, result in excommunication or loss of office ipso facto—that is, by the fact of the offense itself—without requiring a formal sentence from a bishop or the Holy See (cf. 1917 CIC, canons 2314, 2332).1 (#post_footnote-1) This ensures swift protection of the Church's unity and purity, though the 1983 Code emphasizes declaratory processes for transparency (1983 CIC, canon 1331). Similarly, a bishop's resignation takes effect ipso facto upon acceptance by the Pope (1983 CIC, canon 401).
- Theological Implications: The term underscores the objective nature of divine and ecclesiastical law. For instance, in the context of schism, as seen in historical condemnations like those against the Old Catholics, separation from the Pope's communion occurs ipso facto by the act of rejecting papal authority, rendering one outside the visible Church. It reflects the principle that some realities are self-evident and binding by their intrinsic force, aligning with the Church's understanding of law as rooted in God's eternal wisdom (cf. CCC 1950-1953).
This usage avoids arbitrariness, emphasizing that penalties or effects arise from the gravity of the act itself, guided by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. For deeper study, the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on related topics like schism and error provide historical context.1 (#post_footnote-1)
[1] Catholic Encyclopedia Presumption (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Presumption)
[2] Catholic Encyclopedia Notoriety, Notorious (https://www.magisterium.com/docs/f2c979a8-871d-4f46-a059-320d3b837a76/ref/Notoriety, Notorious)
-
You withhold your judgment that "the Church" has ever done a particular thing!
That's REALLY concerning.
When's the last time you spoke to a priest for direction?
It doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. What should be concerning to you is that you wholly believe that your opinion is a de fide teaching of the Church, making it a dogmatic fact.
-
And you missed the definition of the Latin phrase "ipso facto."
"Ipso facto" is a Latin legal and theological term meaning "by the very fact" or "by that very act itself," indicating that a consequence follows automatically and directly from an action or condition, without the need for further declaration or intervention.1 (#post_footnote-1) 2 (#post_footnote-2)
NO, I did not miss anything, I know what ipso facto means.
I also know that I do not have the right, responsibility, authority, or any reason whatsoever to decide, insist or declare that the pope is not the pope, no reason whatsoever. I am content to wait for after the heretical pope is dead that the Church, Who alone has the right, responsibility and authority, to officially decide the matter and to make the declaration if She so chooses to do so.
What should be.......
"...However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
-
Look at the clause just before the one you highlighted. He falls ipso facto from his dignity AND “out of the Church.” That is said first. That automatic “fall” is primary. Canon Law says exactly the same thing.
Then, secondarily, the Church must either throw the bum out by force “deprive him” or, if he voluntarily vacated the premises, the Church “declares him deprived.”
Why is the second step mentioned? Because the Church must elect a new Pope. So before the election, the Church legally declares that the See vacant. The See did not become vacant because they declared it. It was vacant ipso facto. The Church simply formally expressed its agreement with the reality of automatic vacancy.
Correct.
-
NO, I did not miss anything, I know what ipso facto means.
I also know that I do not have the right, responsibility, authority, or any reason whatsoever to decide, insist or declare that the pope is not the pope, no reason whatsoever. I am content to wait for after the heretical pope is dead that the Church, Who alone has the right, responsibility and authority, to officially decide the matter and to make the declaration if She so chooses to do so.
What should be.......
"...However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
What you continue to misunderstand is that the "decision" was made ipso facto by the law applied to the facts themselves. The Church already made the "decision" and that "decision/judgment" and the criterion of the decision was written in to Canon Law itself.
The criterion is "defection from the faith" (apostasy, heresy, schism). The law states than when any person holding ecclesiastical office manifestly defects from the faith, that person automatically loses his office. There is no ADDITIONAL judgment/decision required by any human authority on that "decision." The Law has spoken.
The second part of the St. Francis quote does not use the verb "decision," but instead uses the verbs "deprive" and "declare/announce."
No one is asking Stubborn to drive up the Vatican and "deprive" Prevost of his access to the buildings in the Vatican. No one said that is Stubborn's job. That is what the verb "deprive" means. But just because the cowards in the Vatican have so far refused to do this does not mean that Prevost has not automatically "lost his office." It means he continues to usurp the office and no on at the Vatican is doing anything about it.
No one is asking Stubborn to pretend that he is a Cardinal and officially "declare/announce" that Prevost "lost" or has been "deprived" of his office. The Vatican has other people to do that. But they are not doing it.
Stubborn's job is to always speak the truth and to uphold the faith, even with other people don't do that. Your job is not to enforce the law as a vigilante. But it is your job to recognize the law and support it in your mind and on your lips.
Example, if you had seen with your own eyes that a person had murdered someone. He would be a manifest murderer, right? Do think it is appropriate for you to walk around telling everyone, "Yes, I saw him murder someone, but until the police declare him a murderer, he is not one. I mean who am I to judge? I wasn't elected to the office of judge."
Do you see how stupid that is? That is exactly what you are doing.
And, although it is not clear from his quote, if Fr. Wathen thought that a person could be both a heretic and a Pope at the same time, then he is wrong on that. Why do you make Fr. Wathen your rule of Faith? You have the Canon Law that tells you exactly how to handle the situation. Fr. Wathen is not above Canon Law. He is subject to it.
-
It doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. What should be concerning to you is that you wholly believe that your opinion is a de fide teaching of the Church, making it a dogmatic fact.
I already showed in the OP that the men who make the moral judgment do so merely has people, like lying in their beds wearing pajamas and thinking it over. The conclusion is human. Reason enlightened by faith. For some reason you cannot do it yourself, but that is your problem. The quote says what it says and means what it means despite you incapability to understand.
-
What you continue to misunderstand is that the "decision" was made ipso facto by the law applied to the facts themselves. The Church already made the "decision" and that "decision/judgment" and the criterion of the decision was written in to Canon Law itself.
As far as you are concerned, Canon law has spoken, made the decision and that's all there is to it. I do not agree. The Church does not work that way. It's one thing for the pope to be a heretic, it's another thing altogether to have a few hundred or thousand sedes take Canon Law into their own hands and insist popes are not popes.
Stubborn's job is to always speak the truth and to uphold the faith, even with other people don't do that. Your job is not to enforce the law as a vigilante. But it is your job to recognize the law and support it in your mind and on your lips.
I do speak the truth and abide by the law, I've said many times that the pope is a heretic. It is not my job to decide his status, anymore than it is my job to arrest, try, convict and sentence the murderer.
And, although it is not clear from his quote, if Fr. Wathen thought that a person could be both a heretic and a Pope at the same time, then he is wrong on that. Why do you make Fr. Wathen your rule of Faith? You have the Canon Law that tells you exactly how to handle the situation. Fr. Wathen is not above Canon Law. He is subject to it.
As he said, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this.
Now if you think that you can do something about this, then go ahead and do it already. Your insisting that popes are not popes is not doing anybody any good. I hope that your opinion is right, but you need to realize that's all it is, your opinion.
Incidentally, Fr. Wathen was quite versed in Canon Law, enough to know that "we his subjects are not permitted to do anything about this."
-
As far as you are concerned, Canon law has spoken, made the decision and that's all there is to it. I do not agree. The Church does not work that way. It's one thing for the pope to be a heretic, it's another thing altogether to have a few hundred or thousand sedes take Canon Law into their own hands and insist popes are not popes.
I do speak the truth and abide by the law, I've said many times that the pope is a heretic. It is not my job to decide his status, anymore than it is my job to arrest, try, convict and sentence the murderer.
As he said, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this.
Now if you think that you can do something about this, then go ahead and do it already. Your insisting that popes are not popes is not doing anybody any good. I hope that your opinion is right, but you need to realize that's all it is, your opinion.
Incidentally, Fr. Wathen was quite versed in Canon Law, enough to know that "we his subjects are not permitted to do anything about this."
You are a walking contradiction. You say you cannot judge the Pope. But you have absolutely judged him to be a "heretic." You don't say, "I think he might be a heretic but I will never say that because I have no right to pass judgement on him." No, you judge him to be a heretic plain and simple.
But then after definitively judging him to be a heretic, you say, "but I cannot judge that he is not the Pope just because he is a heretic." This is beyond stupid. You have already judged him to be a heretic. If you have already made that judgement, the sentence for that crime is automatic in Canon Law.
You will happily use the Canon Law criterion of judgment (that when a person manifestly denies articles of the faith, he becomes a heretic), but you will not then recognize and accept the necessary, AUTOMATIC (ipso facto) sentence required for that same crime. You do not understand how Canon Law works at all, but you act as if you are educated in these matters.
Here is the definition of heresy in the 1917 Code:
Can. 1325 §2. Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquid de fide divina et catholica credendum neget aut in dubium vocet, hæreticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedat, apostata; si denique subiectionem S. Pontifici renuat vel cuм membris Ecclesiæ eidem subiectis communionem recuset, schismaticus est.
In plain English, this canon stipulates:
- Heresy: If anyone, after the reception of baptism and while retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed of the divine and Catholic faith, such a person is a heretic.
- Apostasy: If he totally recedes from the Christian faith, such a person is an apostate.
- Schism: If, finally, he refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff (the Pope) or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, such a person is a schismatic.
Key Elements of Heresy
The definition of heresy in this canon is highly precise and requires three essential conditions to be met for the canonical crime to be committed:
- Post-Baptismal: The person must have been validly baptized. This distinguishes a heretic from a non-Christian.
- Dogmatic Object: The denial or doubt must concern a truth of the divine and Catholic faith (i.e., a dogma proposed by the Church's Magisterium as divinely revealed).
- Obstinacy (Pertinaciter): The denial or doubt must be pertinacious (obstinate). This means the person knows the Church officially teaches the doctrine but deliberately and willfully refuses assent. This is what separates formal heresy (the canonical crime) from material heresy (an unwitting error).
This canon, along with the penalty stipulated in Canon 2314, § 1 (automatic excommunication), formed the cornerstone of the penal law against offenses against the faith in the 1917 Code.
------------------------------
Here is the 1917 Canon 2314 on automatic excommunication of heretics:
Can. 2314 §1. Omnes a fide apostatæ, et omnes et singuli hæretici aut schismatici:
1. Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem;3
2. Amittunt ipso facto quælibet officia, beneficia, dignitates, pensiones, munera a Sede Apostolica, sive immediate sive mediate, vel ab alio quovis collata;
3. Si vero sunt clerici, post admonitionem, a qua tamen in casu pertinacis ab hæresi non est appellandum, deponantur; in integrum autem restitui nequeunt sine Sedis Apostolicæ dispensatione;
4. Si contrahant matrimonium, illud est nullum ipso iure.
Key Takeaways from Canon 2314, §1
- Automatic Excommunication (Latae Sententiae): The phrase "Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem" (They incur ipso facto excommunication) means the penalty is incurred automatically by the very fact of committing the offense, without the need for a formal trial or sentence (ferendæ sententiæ).
- Crimes Covered: The canon applied this automatic excommunication to:
- Apostates from the faith (those who totally renounce the Christian faith).
- Heretics (those who obstinately deny or doubt a truth that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after receiving baptism).
- Schismatics (those who refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him).
- Other Penalties: The canon also included other penalties, such as the automatic loss of any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities.
The concept of automatic excommunication for heresy continues in the current 1983 Code of Canon Law, but is located in Canon 1364
-------------------------
Here is canon 188 which discusses the automatic loss of office by the heretical office holder. Notice that it is considered a "tacit resignation." You don't need to judge him to have lost his office. Your prior judgment that he is a heretic immediately causes the heretic's "tacit resignation":
Can. 188. Quælibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione per tacitam resignationem ab ipso iure admissam, si clericus:
4. A fide catholica publice defecerit;
Meaning and Effect
- Vacant ipso facto (Vacant by the fact itself): The office is automatically lost the moment the prohibited action occurs. No judgment, decision, or declaration from a superior is legally necessary for the vacancy to take effect.
- Sine ulla declaratione (Without any declaration): This emphasizes the automatic nature of the loss.
- Tacitam resignationem (Tacit resignation): The law interprets the cleric's action as an implicit act of resignation from their office, as the prohibited act is fundamentally incompatible with holding an ecclesiastical office.
- Publice defecerit a fide catholica (Publicly defected from the Catholic faith): This is the specific offense mentioned in number 4. While heresy (defined in Canon 1325 § 2 of the same Code) is a specific form of defection from the faith, Canon 188 n. 4 covers the broader public act of defection, which would certainly include the public espousal of heresy or apostasy.
Relationship to Heresy
This canon, when combined with Canon 2314, § 1, n. 2 (which stated that heretics automatically lose any ecclesiastical office), was a powerful and explicit legal mechanism in the 1917 Code to ensure that those who publicly abandoned the faith could not retain their positions of authority within the Church.
-
You are a walking contradiction. You say you cannot judge the Pope. But you have absolutely judged him to be a "heretic." You don't say, "I think he might be a heretic but I will never say that because I have no right to pass judgement on him." No, you judge him to be a heretic plain and simple.
But then after definitively judging him to be a heretic, you say, "but I cannot judge that he is not the Pope just because he is a heretic." This is beyond stupid. You have already judged him to be a heretic. If you have already made that judgement, the sentence for that crime is automatic in Canon Law.
You cannot be serious. You're saying that you see no difference between calling someone a heretic, and taking Canon law into your own hands taking it upon yourself to distribute justice as you see fit? Not sure why you feel the need to do that, but that's not the way the Church works.
You will happily use the Canon Law criterion of judgment (that when a person manifestly denies articles of the faith, he becomes a heretic), but you will not then recognize and accept the necessary, AUTOMATIC (ipso facto) sentence required for that same crime. You do not understand how Canon Law works at all, but you act as if you are educated in these matters.
Again, it doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. Is that in Canon Law? If it is, I did not even know that, I thought it was just basic Catholicism. Personally, I have no need of Canon Law to call heresy a heresy - no matter who says it. In this case it's the pope who says it. To me, that means the pope is a heretic. To you, that means he is out of office, outside of the Church, not the pope, and so on - and you feel the need to promote all of that. For me just saying that the pope is a heretic is all that is necessary. I hope folks who didn't know that he is a heretic do not listen to his teachings anymore. You feel they are not to listen because he is not a pope, and I hope you are right. The main thing is, that they do not listen to his teachings. All the rest is just a waste imo.
-
You are a walking contradiction. You say you cannot judge the Pope. But you have absolutely judged him to be a "heretic." You don't say, "I think he might be a heretic but I will never say that because I have no right to pass judgement on him." No, you judge him to be a heretic plain and simple.
But then after definitively judging him to be a heretic, you say, "but I cannot judge that he is not the Pope just because he is a heretic." This is beyond stupid. You have already judged him to be a heretic. If you have already made that judgement, the sentence for that crime is automatic in Canon Law.
I have already went over this in a whole thread with him.
He either;
A) lacks the moral certainty to consider Leo a manifest, public heretic and then think/act accordingly - according to the teaching (which you have superbly laid out).
Or,
B) He is an old Catholic heretic who thinks the Popes are heretics and "submission" to them is nothing other than simply saying, "yes of course the Pope is a heretic."
For his sake, I will just assume A) is what he holds.
When he says, "the Pope is a heretic." He doesn't mean it in the legal sense - he is just shooting off his mouth against them as it is probably just a force of habit for him at this point.
He seems to think that a morally certain private judgement of public facts does not necessitate a change in how one views or acts in regards to the heretic. Or, if such a change in stance towards them is warranted, he simply bypasses the law and chooses to make up his own way of dealing with the problem.
It is actually sad, because it was the moral certainty that +Lefebvre had that necessitated the consecrations of 88. It is the defense he used to blow off the charge of schism.
The SVs use same principle. the SVs use it to conclude that the post-concilar claimants are actually NOT Popes. A morally certain judgment must be followed, it cannot be ignored. But if you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant (as far as we can tell).
He did what he did to preserve the priesthood. SVs are acting in a similar manner to avoid the inevitable conclusion of defection that necessarily follows if one holds, "the Pope can be a manifest, public heretic and foist his heresy upon the Universal Church, but he is still legally Pope."
Same motivation - defend the faith, defend the Church.
Stubborn doesn't see it. Stubborn doesn't want to see. Stubborn is...stubborn.
If you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, and you have spent years and years writing the same arguments ad nauseum against it, then there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant.
His arguments are bad, his theology is worse, and his intransigence is the worst of all.
He has already stated many times that he repudiates SVism because, "it is not safe." and he "hopes Sedes are right for their sake, he doesn't think they are but really hopes they don't get cast into hell because of their "opinions". But simple point, he should really just be saying all this about +Lefevbre as well.
-
I have already went over this in a whole thread with him.
He either;
A) lacks the moral certainty to consider Leo a manifest, public heretic and then think/act accordingly - according to the teaching (which you have superbly laid out).
Or,
B) He is an old Catholic heretic who thinks the Popes are heretics and "submission" to them is nothing other than simply saying, "yes of course the Pope is a heretic."
You just place too high a value on your opinion. You had just better hope that you're right. I hope you're right. I really do, but calling me a heretic for disagreeing with your opinion is not going to change anything with me. I lived through the "advent of sedeism" and I've seen first hand what the idea has done to those who got sucked into it. While it is not as drastic as TDS is, there are similarities.
BTW, the dogma is not "submission" to the pope," it's "be subject to the pope." For that, all that you need to be the pope's good subject, is to be God's first.
No doubt this makes no sense to you at all, and is likely even heretical, but that's the way it works.
-
You cannot be serious. You're saying that you see no difference between calling someone a heretic, and taking Canon law into your own hands taking it upon yourself to distribute justice as you see fit? Not sure why you feel the need to do that, but that's not the way the Church works.
Again, it doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. Is that in Canon Law? If it is, I did not even know that, I thought it was just basic Catholicism. Personally, I have no need of Canon Law to call heresy a heresy - no matter who says it. In this case it's the pope who says it. To me, that means the pope is a heretic. To you, that means he is out of office, outside of the Church, not the pope, and so on - and you feel the need to promote all of that. For me just saying that the pope is a heretic is all that is necessary. I hope folks who didn't know that he is a heretic do not listen to his teachings anymore. You feel they are not to listen because he is not a pope, and I hope you are right. The main thing is, that they do not listen to his teachings. All the rest is just a waste imo.
Stubborn, you are ignorant of so many things. You say you didn't know Canon Law defines exactly what a "heretic" is. I provided the exact Canon 1325. Again it says,
"If anyone, after the reception of baptism and while retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed of the divine and Catholic faith, such a person is a heretic."
Your first error is that you use the word "heresy." You think it is just "basic Catholicism." No, Stubborn. Heresy is a special theological term defined in Canon 1235. It includes ONLY the core body of truths that the Catholic Church holds as having been divinely revealed by God and are definitively proposed by the Church's Magisterium to be believed. A Pope who changes feast days and fasting schedules is not a "heretic" simply for making those kind of changes.
Your second error is that you think you are not judging when you say that the Pope is a heretic. But you clearly are judging, as anyone with a brain knows.
Your third error is that you think some tribunal of the Church is required to enact the sentence to excommunicate or remove an ecclesiastical officeholder from his office when he has been judged to be a heretic. As I have shown, this is not true. Canon Law says that the sentence occurs automatically after the judgment is made. Since you have made the judgment (that the Pope is a heretic), the sentence (that loses his office) is automatic.
I am trying to help you understand that you are the one who is promoting heresy. Your heresy is the same as the Old Catholics, whether you accept that or not. By calling a true Roman Catholic Pontiff a heretic, you do exactly what the Old Catholics were condemned for. Here is how Pius IX explains it:
"They love to deceive the unwary and the innocent and to draw them into error by deception and hypocrisy. They repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine declaring that they are the heirs of the ancient faith and the only true Catholics. But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme magisterium." [Pius IX, Graves ac Diuturnae (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9graves.htm#:~:text=This sect overthrows the foundations,souls in so many ways.)]
That sounds exactly like you. You are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine, but claim that a man you call "the vicar of Christ" is also heretic and you "refuse to submit to His supreme magisterium."
We are all trying to tell you that there is an easy way out of your heresy. You simply need to say that you don't understand the Crisis, but the Magisterium teaches that a true Pope cannot be a heretic at the same time. Therefore, if in your estimation, the guy claiming to be "the Pope" is a "heretic," then you must say that cannot possibly be the Pope, the Holy Father. He cannot be both at the same time.
-
I have already went over this in a whole thread with him.
He either;
A) lacks the moral certainty to consider Leo a manifest, public heretic and then think/act accordingly - according to the teaching (which you have superbly laid out).
Or,
B) He is an old Catholic heretic who thinks the Popes are heretics and "submission" to them is nothing other than simply saying, "yes of course the Pope is a heretic."
For his sake, I will just assume A) is what he holds.
When he says, "the Pope is a heretic." He doesn't mean it in the legal sense - he is just shooting off his mouth against them as it is probably just a force of habit for him at this point.
He seems to think that a morally certain private judgement of public facts does not necessitate a change in how one views or acts in regards to the heretic. Or, if such a change in stance towards them is warranted, he simply bypasses the law and chooses to make up his own way of dealing with the problem.
It is actually sad, because it was the moral certainty that +Lefebvre had that necessitated the consecrations of 88. It is the defense he used to blow off the charge of schism.
The SVs use same principle. the SVs use it to conclude that the post-concilar claimants are actually NOT Popes. A morally certain judgment must be followed, it cannot be ignored. But if you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant (as far as we can tell).
He did what he did to preserve the priesthood. SVs are acting in a similar manner to avoid the inevitable conclusion of defection that necessarily follows if one holds, "the Pope can be a manifest, public heretic and foist his heresy upon the Universal Church, but he is still legally Pope."
Same motivation - defend the faith, defend the Church.
Stubborn doesn't see it. Stubborn doesn't want to see. Stubborn is...stubborn.
If you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, and you have spent years and years writing the same arguments ad nauseum against it, then there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant.
His arguments are bad, his theology is worse, and his intransigence is the worst of all.
He has already stated many times that he repudiates SVism because, "it is not safe." and he "hopes Sedes are right for their sake, he doesn't think they are but really hopes they don't get cast into hell because of their "opinions". But simple point, he should really just be saying all this about +Lefevbre as well.
Sedevacantism is not the only doctrinally-sound conclusion. I am not a 1958 Sedevacantist. But I understand their convictions, and their conclusions follow logically from their convictions. I simply think their convictions (about the historical facts) are mistaken.
Stubborn could say, for example, that he doesn't think the errors of the post-VII Popes were actual "heresies." Or he could say that the errors were actual heresies, but the Popes were not to blame because the Cardinals were manipulating the situation and tying the hands of the Popes. Or he could say that the heresies were real and the papal claimants were heretics, but those papal claimants were not legitimate Popes because of some defect in their elections. There are other options that people have come up with in good faith. Our understanding of the facts is guesswork to some degree. But Stubborn's claim that a true Pope is at the same time a "heretic" is definitely a heretical statement.
And the reason I continue to discuss it is not only for Stubborn's benefit, but for all of the dogmatic R&R crowd on this forum who parrot the nonsense taught by the SSPX. Stubborn gets support for his ideas from the SSPX.
-
Sedevacantism is not the only doctrinally-sound conclusion. I am not a 1958 Sedevacantist. But I understand their convictions, and their conclusions follow logically from their convictions.
Agreed. The facts are unclear and those particulars of how, who, & when can vary to some degree.
The idea is, "One should follow their convictions based on the formation of their conscience according to Catholic teaching."
To ignore a well-formed conscience that is alerting one to these contradictions in the teachings is perilous for one's soul.
The chance that Stubborn already had his time to consider these things is probably well past.
His intransigence is the natural outcome of his pertinacity.
No human arguments can shake him from his stupor.
Or he could say that the errors were actual heresies, but the Popes were not to blame because the Cardinals were manipulating the situation and tying the hands of the Popes.
Maybe this could apply in some situations, but I do not think it theologically sound for what we are living through. It seems to cut against the freedom of Church.
And the reason I continue to discuss it is not only for Stubborn's benefit, but for all of the dogmatic R&R crowd on this forum who parrot the nonsense taught by the SSPX.
Sure, but at a certain point it is just endless "circle flying with no end in sight".
It doesn't take but one word to reignite the debate with someone else and Ol' Stubborn will be at it yet again.
This time it was you doing most of the arguing, last time it was me, the time before that it was Pax, next time it will be Lad, etc.
Come at it from the POV of membership, heresy, moral certainty, Old Catholic mentality, whatever - it is all quite pointless with him.
The day Stubborn accepts the teaching, that day - CathInfo will change it's name to SedeInfo :laugh1:
But, for the benefit of others, you are right - it must be gone over again, and again and...
-
Well far as you're concerned, I am just full of errors. But as far as the status of popes go, I've repeated plenty of times where I stand and why.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, up to us to decide the status of popes. I am fine with that. You are not.
For me, I am happy that I do not carry that extra burden, I don't have to make that decision. In all of tradition, all those who took it upon themselves to decide he status of popes were declared to be in schism by the Church, which btw most often leads to heresy - why would I want to bother with making such a decision as that? There s zero reason to even think about it for more than a minute or two - and I did all the thinking about it that I'm going to do a long time ago. My opinion does not mean that much to me.
-
It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, up to us to decide the status of popes. I am fine with that.
You long ago "decided their status" when you judged them to be heretics.
You just tell yourself you have not because in your own mind you cling to a paper Pope who isn't real and possesses no power from God at all.
That is why their teaching is crap. That is why they cannot produce good teaching, disciplines, ceremonies, laws, etc. nor uphold Tradition.
They do not have the assistance of the Holy Ghost and are alien to the Body of Christ.
This it is a discernible fact in the external forum and you have already made that judgement.
The burden has been thrust on you, even if you don't see it, even if you never see it.
You already made "the decision", you have just have failed to make the necessary logical connections out of an ill-founded fear - that while historically Sedevacantism has surface similarities with the heretical movements of the past - is SUBSTANTIALLY different then those actual heretical movements.
Plus, the dogmatic R&R's such as yourself have the same look, smell, and feel of SVs when it comes to impugning Vatican II, the post-concilar claimants, the changes to the sacraments, etc.
WE ALL LOOK LIKE PROTESTANTS in our PROTEST against false Rome. But that doesn't make any of us actually Protestant.
Hell, the Novus Ordos look Protestant for all the RIGHT reasons, while SVs and R&R can only be compared to them in this one way - dissenting from Rome.
But if Rome is truly false now, then there is nothing heretical about either group in that sense.
My opinion does not mean that much to me.
I vote this to be the most laughable of all comments ever made on CathInfo :laugh2:
-
You long ago "decided their status" when you judged them to be heretics.
:facepalm:
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1009716/#msg1009716)
Quote from: Angelus on Today at 01:13:22 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1009716/#msg1009716)
Or he could say that the errors were actual heresies, but the Popes were not to blame because the Cardinals were manipulating the situation and tying the hands of the Popes.
Maybe this could apply in some situations, but I do not think it theologically sound for what we are living through. It seems to cut against the freedom of Church.
I absolutely agree that what we are living through since Bergoglio took over cannot possibly fit the simple Cardinal manipulation scenario, as if Bergoglio had been manipulated by his Cardinals. No, Bergoglio was nothing but the Antichrist Cardinal who usurped the Papacy. And Prevost is his False Prophet mini-me.
Esdras 4 describes this period as that of the Fourth Beast, "unlike all the others" (Daniel 7:7). The Fourth Beast is described as an Eagle with three heads and twelve wings.
The Eagle is a symbol of "Rome." The Eagle is the image on the original Roman standard, created during the days of the Republic. SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), which translates as "the Senate and the People of Rome," on the standard explains the situation. What is missing? The Absolute Monarchy of the Emperor (Pope). The aristocratic senate (the Cardinals) rule the Republic (the NuChurch) along with the people (Synodality). It symbolizes a democratic undermining of monarchical Papal authority.
Anyway, the Cardinals took over the Church when BXVI "resigned." The 2013 Conclave was a farce. Bergoglio had a deal with his fellow Cardinals that they would rule the Church together. Then a few years later, he got rid of three of the ones on his Council of Cardinals.
Bergoglio is the Little Horn of Daniel. He is the large head in the middle of the Eagle that reigned before the other two heads (4 Esdras 11-12]. They are false heads, antipopes, of a false Church of Synodality, which is the post-Vatican II heresies taken to their logical conclusion.
https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/2esdr.htm
-
Well far as you're concerned, I am just full of errors. But as far as the status of popes go, I've repeated plenty of times where I stand and why.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, up to us to decide the status of popes. I am fine with that. You are not.
For me, I am happy that I do not carry that extra burden, I don't have to make that decision. In all of tradition, all those who took it upon themselves to decide he status of popes were declared to be in schism by the Church, which btw most often leads to heresy - why would I want to bother with making such a decision as that? There s zero reason to even think about it for more than a minute or two - and I did all the thinking about it that I'm going to do a long time ago. My opinion does not mean that much to me.
You can't even make the decision that "the Church" even does a particular thing! What a mess.
-
You can't even make the decision that "the Church" even does a particular thing! What a mess.
I made the decision to remain faithful and abide by the laws of the Church. If with God's grace I can persevere unto the end, I shall be saved. Apparently for you, this is heretical because I made no mention of the conciliar non-popes.
In order to suit your opinion, you would have to add:
"I made the decision that we have had no pope since the death of PPXII," and to remain faithful..."
I do not add it because it is unnecessary, useless, a waste of time, and we are not permitted to act on that opinion as if we are duty bound to make that decision under pain of mortal sin.
-
It sounds like a good pope, a bad pope, or an apostate 'pope' are all equally meaningless for you as you're not in a position to officially determine the difference.
-
It sounds like a good pope, a bad pope, or an apostate 'pope' are all equally meaningless for you as you're not in a position to officially determine the difference.
What it actually is, is sedes feel that we are all obligated to determine the status of popes.
-
What it actually is, is sedes feel that we are all obligated to determine the status of popes.
See, you consider the true Pope (who he is or if there is one) an irrelevant question. Because in your heretical understanding of the faith, the Pope is just a kind of figurehead. He is not really very important. Dogma is all that matters.
This is not a Roman Catholic way to think about it. That is why Sedes do think the status of the Pope is important.
They have read Catholic theology and understand the Pope is an integral part of the true Catholic faith. And following a false "Pope" into heresy is just as bad as holding the heresy that the Pope is irrelevant.
-
It sounds like a good pope, a bad pope, or an apostate 'pope' are all equally meaningless for you as you're not in a position to officially determine the difference.
Did you even read the OP?
-
See, you consider the true Pope (who he is or if there is one) an irrelevant question. Because in your heretical understanding of the faith, the Pope is just a kind of figurehead. He is not really very important. Dogma is all that matters.
This is not a Roman Catholic way to think about it. That is why Sedes do think the status of the Pope is important.
They have read Catholic theology and understand the Pope is an integral part of the true Catholic faith. And following a false "Pope" into heresy is just as bad as holding the heresy that the Pope is irrelevant.
The status of the pope is important, but if he is no pope then you win the debate and I lose the debate. So what?
All that matters to me is that I keep the faith, avoid all sin and do God's Holy Will until I draw my last breath - "he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is what is matters to me, and this can be done without ever concerning myself with the status of popes.
-
The status of the pope is important, but if he is no pope then you win the debate and I lose the debate. So what?
All that matters to me is that I keep the faith, avoid all sin and do God's Holy Will until I draw my last breath - "he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is what is matters to me, and this can be done without ever concerning myself with the status of popes.
I am not trying to win a debate. I am trying to help you see that the position you take is heretical.
You say all that matters to you is that you "keep the faith." Good. But you are not "keeping the faith" when you spread heretical concept, which you use to attack Sedes constantly.
By all means, give up your heretical idea that a man can be at true Pope and an heretic at the same time. Then you will be on the road to keeping the faith. But until you renounce that, you are in the same danger as the Old Catholics, who will tell you that they believe all or most of the same dogmas you believe in. And, like you, they think the true Pope is a heretic.
-
Did you even read the OP?
I did.
-
I am not trying to win a debate. I am trying to help you see that the position you take is heretical.
You say all that matters to you is that you "keep the faith." Good. But you are not "keeping the faith" when you spread heretical concept, which you use to attack Sedes constantly.
By all means, give up your heretical idea that a man can be at true Pope and an heretic at the same time. Then you will be on the road to keeping the faith. But until you renounce that, you are in the same danger as the Old Catholics, who will tell you that they believe all or most of the same dogmas you believe in. And, like you, they think the true Pope is a heretic.
Good heavens Angelus, you'd do better to go evict your local NO priest from his office, but even that is impossible. Do you concern yourself with those NO priests that regular people actually might deal with and listen to? No, you worry about a heretic pope that nobody on earth can do anything about while he lives.
You accuse me of doing the very thing you are guilty of doing. And Old Catholics denied the primacy of good and holy popes, are you saying the conciliar popes are good and holy? If not, then sthu with that bs remark, not because it offends me, it doesn't, but because it's ridiculous. I will strive to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
If you did that, maybe you would not be so adamant about something you can do nothing about.
-
Good heavens Angelus, you'd do better to go evict your local NO priest from his office, but even that is impossible. Do you concern yourself with those NO priests that regular people actually might deal with and listen to? No, you worry about a heretic pope that nobody on earth can do anything about while he lives.
You accuse me of doing the very thing you are guilty of doing. And Old Catholics denied the primacy of good and holy popes, are you saying the conciliar popes are good and holy? If not, then sthu with that bs remark, not because it offends me, it doesn't, but because it's ridiculous. I will strive to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.
If you did that, maybe you would not be so adamant about something you can do nothing about.
As I have said before, I think that JXXIII through BXVI were legitimately-elected Popes. I don't think everything they did was good and holy. And I think the Cardinals and the Bishops were running the show most of the time anyway.
However, they were not "manifest heretics," in my opinion. So they did not lose their office automatically, IMO. The break in the legitimate line of Popes comes with Bergoglio. Prevost just continues the usurpation. These last two are the Antichrist and False Prophet prophesied in Scripture. They are manifest heretics and more.
I have no problem with your statement that you are subject to God first. That is correct. You must follow your conscience. So I don't think Catholics are required to follow dictates of a Pope if the Catholic believes those things are morally wrong. But the Catholic has the duty to submit to things commanded by a true Pope that do not go against his conscience.
The problem is that you call all of those men true Popes, but you dismiss them heretics. The Church teaches that is impossible. You ignore everything those Popes taught regardless of whether they were teaching sin or not. So you are practically a Sedevacantist, but you rail against the Sedes whenever you get a chance.
But doctrinally you take a position identical to the Old Catholics. That is a heretical position. The Sedes do not take that heretical position that you take. So they are doctrinally Catholic. I don't take the position you take. So I remain doctrinally Catholic.
-
The Old Catholics rejected the dogma of papal infallibility defined at V1. I do not reject that dogma, I preach that dogma to those sedes who insist it is actually the dogma of papal impeccability. So that remark about being an old catholic is truly stupid. It's as stupid as one who concerns himself with defending or protecting the Church's indefectibility and giving himself the title of being an "Indefectibilist." Ridiculous. Christ is the Church, Christ and the Church are one and the same. That's why the Church is indefectible and the gates of hell will never prevail against her.
The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is His vicar, or representative on earth, the pope is God's problem, nobody else's - we know that ALL the conciliar popes have preached heresies, yet they ALL believe that all councils are infallible, V2 included. But unlike sedes, they really and truly do believe this. They believe that the Holy Ghost "moved through the council" and on that account believe all the V2 heresies are Catholic truths. This makes them material heretics, not manifest heretics. Until one of them says something like: "I don't care what the Church always taught, the Church was wrong, I say that henceforth..." they are not manifest heretics.
Nobody can depose even a manifest heretic pope because the Church is not a democratic Church, it's government is hierarchical, that's just they way it is. Only a future pope can depose a dead pope, that's just the way that is. While I am sure that all of this I've said seems heretical or perhaps blasphemous to you, we have zero need to concern ourselves with deciding the status of popes.
-
I did.
Then you didn't comprehend it, or are just rejecting it.
-
The Old Catholics rejected the dogma of papal infallibility defined at V1. I do not reject that dogma, I preach that dogma to those sedes who insist it is actually the dogma of papal impeccability. So that remark about being an old catholic is truly stupid. It's as stupid as one who concerns himself with defending or protecting the Church's indefectibility and giving himself the title of being an "Indefectibilist." Ridiculous. Christ is the Church, Christ and the Church are one and the same. That's why the Church is indefectible and the gates of hell will never prevail against her.
The pope is not the head of the Church, Christ is. The pope is His vicar, or representative on earth, the pope is God's problem, nobody else's - we know that ALL the conciliar popes have preached heresies, yet they ALL believe that all councils are infallible, V2 included. But unlike sedes, they really and truly do believe this. They believe that the Holy Ghost "moved through the council" and on that account believe all the V2 heresies are Catholic truths. This makes them material heretics, not manifest heretics. Until one of them says something like: "I don't care what the Church always taught, the Church was wrong, I say that henceforth..." they are not manifest heretics.
Nobody can depose even a manifest heretic pope because the Church is not a democratic Church, it's government is hierarchical, that's just they way it is. Only a future pope can depose a dead pope, that's just the way that is. While I am sure that all of this I've said seems heretical or perhaps blasphemous to you, we have zero need to concern ourselves with deciding the status of popes.
Yes, the Old Catholics rejection of the dogma of PI was the flashpoint of their heresy. But the underlying theological reason they thought they could reject the dogma is their belief that Pius IX taught heresy and Pius IX was the true Pope, and they started their own Church.
You don't claim to have started your own Church (yet), but you take positions that would justify starting your own Church. You are a member of the Stubbornized Wathen/SSPX Church, which you call the Catholic Church. You pick and choose what you like and those things are dogmas, and people who don't agree are "heretics." You don't use the Church's criteria for what a heresy is. You have your own criteria. So you have practically started your own Church.
The Church through its theologians and Canon Law teach that any ecclesiastical officeholder who "defects from the faith" tacitly resigns from his office. The heretic is the one who removes himself. You are not removing or deposing anyone when you recognize that a heretic is not the Pope.
The loss of office (the tacit resignation) happened automatically according to Canon Law. It happens if any Catholic detects that the Pope truly manifests as a heretic. That Catholic who detects this (you in this case) are told to act as if the officeholder has lost is authority/jurisdiction immediately upon manifesting heresy.
So you say the Pope is a heretic. If you truly believe that, then Canon Law requires you to act as if there is a vacancy in that office. This is what the Sedes do. They do it because they understand the law and theology behind calling a putative Pope a heretic.
The Sedes don't play this insane contradictory game of having your Pope and your heretic too. If the man is a heretic (and Prevost is), then he is not a true Pope. He is a usurper.
-
Then you didn't comprehend it, or are just rejecting it.
Why do you say that oh great one?
-
Who teaches that a pope who commits acts of schism alone, without formal public heresy, ceases to be a valid pope?
-
Who teaches that a pope who commits acts of schism alone, without formal public heresy, ceases to be a valid pope?
This need not be "taught", since it's self-evident by a definition of terms. If the Pope is in schism, he's cut off from unity with the Body of the Church, and He cannot be the Head of a Body from which he's been severed. As Pius XII taught, both heresy and schism sever membership in the Church, and the same consequences regarding loss of office follow from each.
-
What it actually is, is sedes feel that we are all obligated to determine the status of popes.
Strawman. You are not required to determine the status of PUTATIVE popes (you constantly beg the question).
You ARE however required to uphold Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the Church, the papacy, the Magisterium, and the obligations Catholics have to remain in submission to and communion with these ... nor are you premitted to effectively deny the indefectibility of the Church in her mission like many of you R&R do, and you in particular have been pertinacious in this heretical depravity of yours.
You could, for instance, adopt a "Doubt & Resist" type of position, or else adopt the position of a Father Chazal or even, for all I care, entertain the hypothesis that the legitimate Popes are drugged, imprisoned, branwashed, Manchurian candidates, and therefore effectively out of their minds and not acting freely, or else they've been replaced by doubles and are being chained up in the Vatican dungeons. Now, you might be crazy for believing some versions of these things, but at least you wouldn't be a heretic as you are now, by constantly rejecting Catholic ecclesiology and denying the indefectibilty of the Church exactly as any Prot, Orthodox schismatic, or Old Catholic would.
-
This need not be "taught", since it's self-evident by a definition of terms. If the Pope is in schism, he's cut off from unity with the Body of the Church, and He cannot be the Head of a Body from which he's been severed. As Pius XII taught, both heresy and schism sever membership in the Church, and the same consequences regarding loss of office follow from each.
Happy to see you hear Ladislaus, I thought you left cathinfo?
“And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition … If [the Pope] ... gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him”
–Francisco Suárez, S.J. De Caritate (On Charity) — Disputation XII, Section I, No. 2, Pages: 733–734
-
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!“
In Session XVI of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680–681), Honorius I was formally labeled a “heretic”, alongside other Monothelite leaders, yet he remained pope until his death. The council’s acclamation reads verbatim:
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul, the heretic, anathema!
To Peter, the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen, the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius, the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga, the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema!
To all who side with heretics, anathema!”
— Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV: The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, Session XVI
The council language itself used the word “heretic” in association with his name.
The dogmatic decree itself (as recorded in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637) also states:
“…Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae… haeretico anathema…”
English: “…Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome… anathema to the heretic…”
The Council repeatedly identified Honorius as a heretic, both in the acclamations of the bishops and in the formal dogmatic decree
-
Strawman. You are not required to determine the status of PUTATIVE popes (you constantly beg the question).
You ARE however required to uphold Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the Church, the papacy, the Magisterium, and the obligations Catholics have to remain in submission to and communion with these ... nor are you premitted to effectively deny the indefectibility of the Church in her mission like many of you R&R do, and you in particular have been pertinacious in this heretical depravity of yours.
You could, for instance, adopt a "Doubt & Resist" type of position, or else adopt the position of a Father Chazal or even, for all I care, entertain the hypothesis that the legitimate Popes are drugged, imprisoned, branwashed, Manchurian candidates, and therefore effectively out of their minds and not acting freely, or else they've been replaced by doubles and are being chained up in the Vatican dungeons. Now, you might be crazy for believing some versions of these things, but at least you wouldn't be a heretic as you are now, by constantly rejecting Catholic ecclesiology and denying the indefectibilty of the Church exactly as any Prot, Orthodox schismatic, or Old Catholic would.
So says the self proclaimed dogmatic indefectibilist of CI. :facepalm:
-
Yes, the Old Catholics rejection of the dogma of PI was the flashpoint of their heresy. But the underlying theological reason they thought they could reject the dogma is their belief that Pius IX taught heresy and Pius IX was the true Pope, and they started their own Church.
You don't claim to have started your own Church (yet), but you take positions that would justify starting your own Church. You are a member of the Stubbornized Wathen/SSPX Church, which you call the Catholic Church. You pick and choose what you like and those things are dogmas, and people who don't agree are "heretics." You don't use the Church's criteria for what a heresy is. You have your own criteria. So you have practically started your own Church.
The Church through its theologians and Canon Law teach that any ecclesiastical officeholder who "defects from the faith" tacitly resigns from his office. The heretic is the one who removes himself. You are not removing or deposing anyone when you recognize that a heretic is not the Pope.
The loss of office (the tacit resignation) happened automatically according to Canon Law. It happens if any Catholic detects that the Pope truly manifests as a heretic. That Catholic who detects this (you in this case) are told to act as if the officeholder has lost is authority/jurisdiction immediately upon manifesting heresy.
So you say the Pope is a heretic. If you truly believe that, then Canon Law requires you to act as if there is a vacancy in that office. This is what the Sedes do. They do it because they understand the law and theology behind calling a putative Pope a heretic.
The Sedes don't play this insane contradictory game of having your Pope and your heretic too. If the man is a heretic (and Prevost is), then he is not a true Pope. He is a usurper.
While you are satisfied to take it upon yourself and decide popes are not popes due to their heresies, I will stick with tradition. I am satisfied to leave that judgement up to the Church after the popes' deaths. I have zero reason to make that call, zero reason to even think about it, zero desire to get sucked into the idea. I will stick with tradition.
"....The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind *us* to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed.
Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head and we have a right to say that the Church has no head - and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the *only* consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism....." - Fr. Wathen in an interview with one of the Dimonds
-
Strawman. You are not required to determine the status of PUTATIVE popes (you constantly beg the question).
You ARE however required to uphold Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the Church, the papacy, the Magisterium, and the obligations Catholics have to remain in submission to and communion with these ... nor are you premitted to effectively deny the indefectibility of the Church in her mission like many of you R&R do, and you in particular have been pertinacious in this heretical depravity of yours.
You could, for instance, adopt a "Doubt & Resist" type of position, or else adopt the position of a Father Chazal or even, for all I care, entertain the hypothesis that the legitimate Popes are drugged, imprisoned, branwashed, Manchurian candidates, and therefore effectively out of their minds and not acting freely, or else they've been replaced by doubles and are being chained up in the Vatican dungeons. Now, you might be crazy for believing some versions of these things, but at least you wouldn't be a heretic as you are now, by constantly rejecting Catholic ecclesiology and denying the indefectibilty of the Church exactly as any Prot, Orthodox schismatic, or Old Catholic would.
Affirm or deny:
Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
-
Thanks for posting about this ArmandLouis!
From Magisterium AI...
"Yes, Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (also known as Constantinople III, held from 680 to 681) for his role in promoting or confirming the Monothelite heresy, which posited that Christ had only one will (theandric) rather than two distinct wills (divine and human) in harmony.
This condemnation occurred in the council's thirteenth session on March 28, 681, and was reiterated in the final dogmatic decree of September 16, 681, as well as in an accompanying imperial edict."
Well gee wiz, look at that will ya? A mere 43 years after the death of a heretic pope, the Church officially declared him a heretic - but did not declare him to not be pope.
You all can stop insisting that to even say such a thing makes one an old catholic heretic.
Snip of the list of popes in historical order from the CE....
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
-
Who teaches that a pope who commits acts of schism alone, without formal public heresy, ceases to be a valid pope?
No one because a Pope cannot be in "schism" from himself.
When people say the Pope is a schismatic, they are using the term imprecisely. They actually mean that he is a heretic or an apostate.
-
Thanks for posting about this ArmandLouis!
From Magisterium AI...
"Yes, Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (also known as Constantinople III, held from 680 to 681) for his role in promoting or confirming the Monothelite heresy, which posited that Christ had only one will (theandric) rather than two distinct wills (divine and human) in harmony.
This condemnation occurred in the council's thirteenth session on March 28, 681, and was reiterated in the final dogmatic decree of September 16, 681, as well as in an accompanying imperial edict."
Well gee wiz, look at that will ya? A mere 43 years after the death of a heretic pope, the Church officially declared him a heretic - but did not declare him to not be pope.
You all can stop insisting that to even say such a thing makes one an old catholic heretic.
Snip of the list of popes in historical order from the CE....
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
We don't live in the 600s. We live in the 2020s. In the 600s, Canon Law, as we know it, did not exist. In Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, any ecclesiastical office holder who "defects from the faith" automatically loses his office.
But just like the Old Catholics do, you will appeal to practices that have been abrogated or superseded by new ones.
Next thing you'll be doing is following the Old Catholics in making St. Vincent of Lerin's quote ("That which has been believed everywhere, always, by all") the "rule of faith" and misinterpreting it to mean we must reject Pastor Aeterus.
-
Thanks for posting about this ArmandLouis!
From Magisterium AI...
Well, well, what do you know...
I can use Magisterium AI too!
Was Honorius a heretic or was he condemned and named as a heretic because he did not do his duty to extirpate the heresy?
Pope Honorius I (r. 625–638) was posthumously condemned by the Third Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680–681) not primarily for personally embracing the Monothelite heresy—that Christ possessed only one will (divine)—but for failing in his papal duty to actively suppress and extirpate it. This distinction is crucial in Catholic historical and theological understanding, as it underscores a lapse in pastoral vigilance rather than a formal endorsement of error in his official teaching capacity. The council's anathema targeted his letters to Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople, which ambiguously tolerated or even seemed to favor Monothelitism by discouraging further debate on the issue, thereby allowing the heresy to spread. In essence, Honorius was faulted for negligence in upholding orthodox doctrine, a serious dereliction for a pope tasked with guarding the faith.
This condemnation reflects the Church's emphasis on the pope's responsibility to defend unity and truth, as articulated in later teachings like those on papal primacy (e.g., Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus). However, it does not imply that Honorius was a heretic in the full sense of willfully adhering to false doctrine; the evidence points to ambiguity and inaction rather than outright heresy. The council's decree explicitly named him alongside other promoters of Monothelitism, but historical analysis, including from Catholic sources, interprets this as a rebuke for omission—failing to "extirpate the heresy" as you phrased it—rather than personal conviction.
Notably, nearly 160 years later, Pope Leo III (r. 795–816), who was later canonized as a saint, issued a formal decree in 799 absolving Honorius of the heresy charges. This exoneration, recorded in contemporary sources like the Liber Pontificalis, restored his reputation by clarifying that his errors were not heretical in intent but stemmed from a desire for ecclesiastical peace at the expense of doctrinal clarity. Leo III's action highlights the Church's nuanced approach to such historical judgments, allowing for reevaluation without undermining conciliar authority.
In Catholic doctrine today, this episode is often cited to illustrate that popes are protected from error only when teaching ex cathedra on faith and morals (as defined by Vatican I), not in private correspondence or administrative decisions. Honorius's case serves as a cautionary example of human frailty in the papal office, reinforcing the need for vigilant orthodoxy without contradicting the gift of infallibility. For deeper study, resources like the Catholic Encyclopedia or conciliar acts provide further context on how the Church reconciles such events with its magisterial tradition.
https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8
(https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8)But really Stubborn, you yourself already said that AI is janky and "should not be trusted" so what are you crowing about?
-
We don't live in the 600s. We live in the 2020s. In the 600s, Canon Law, as we know it, did not exist. In Canon Law of 1917 and of 1983, any ecclesiastical office holder who "defects from the faith" automatically loses his office.
But just like the Old Catholics do, you will appeal to practices that have been abrogated or superseded by new ones.
Next thing you'll be doing is following the Old Catholics in making St. Vincent of Lerin's quote ("That which has been believed everywhere, always, by all") the "rule of faith" and misinterpreting it to mean we must reject Pastor Aeterus.
You are wrong, you are preaching contrary to the Council of Constantinople. I agree with the Council, you do not. You made your opinion superior to the declaration of an infallible Ecuмenical Council of the Church.
Your only recourse now is to post walls of texts showing the Council did not say that or did not mean what it said or was wrong.
-
You are wrong, you are preaching contrary to the Council of Constantinople. I agree with the Council, you do not. You made your opinion superior to the declaration of an infallible Ecuмenical Council of the Church.
Your only recourse now is to post walls of texts showing the Council did not say that or did not mean what it said or was wrong.
You apparently just heard about this controversy? It was resolved over a thousand years ago. St. Robert Bellarmine said that he was not a formal heretic. Many other theologians have commented on the very complex situation of Honorius.
But it has not relevance to us now. Because, again, we don't look to older practices of the Church that have been abrogated and superseded by later Canon Law. We look to what current Canon Law tells us.
-
You apparently just heard about this controversy? It was resolved over a thousand years ago. St. Robert Bellarmine said that he was not a formal heretic. Many other theologians have commented on the very complex situation of Honorius.
But it has not relevance to us now. Because, again, we don't look to older practices of the Church that have been abrogated and superseded by later Canon Law. We look to what current Canon Law tells us.
You cannot look to older practices (Church tradition) when it comes to this issue, but you use it for all other issues. Sedeism is found nowhere in the traditions of the Church, but now you know that there was an heretical pope, condemned as a heretic pope after his death by another pope - as I have been saying.
And as far as Canon Law goes, we can debate that as well. Start with Canon 1556 "The First See is judged by no one."
-
You cannot look to older practices (Church tradition) when it comes to this issue, but you use it for all other issues. Sedeism is found nowhere in the traditions of the Church, but now you know that there was an heretical pope, condemned as a heretic pope after his death by another pope - as I have been saying.
And as far as Canon Law goes, we can debate that as well. Start with Canon 1556 "The First See is judged by no one."
Yes, Canon 1556 is a good one to hold on to, especially for you since you constantly judge the First See by calling the person you say it sitting in that See a "heretic."
But it is also important because is explains why Canon 188 is worded the way that it is. The Canon is saying that he loses his office by the law itself. So no person is "judging" the First See. He "tacitly resigns" his office. He is not told to resign by others.
Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194)
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
-
Why do you say that oh great one?
Because St. Francis clearly says that determining a pope ceased to be pope BEFORE the Church acts is an ordinary thing humans have the power of doing.
-
So says the self proclaimed dogmatic indefectibilist of CI. :facepalm:
So ... you don't think it's dogma that the Church cannot defect? Well, now that I put it that way ... you actually do NOT, but say in fact that the Church has defected.
No, you vile heretic ... thus says every Catholic pope, Doctor, theologian, and every Catholic in general for the entire history of the Church. You've lost your faith and will end up in hell unless you convert first. Don't fool yourself that you're Catholic simply because of the externals, where you go to Latin Mass and read Catholic docuмents. Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas describe of all heretics, you have made your own judgment your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith, but only something that might superfically resemble it by outward appearances.
-
So ... you don't think it's dogma that the Church cannot defect? Well, now that I put it that way ... you actually do NOT, but say in fact that the Church has defected.
No, you vile heretic ... thus says every Catholic pope, Doctor, theologian, and every Catholic in general for the entire history of the Church. You've lost your faith and will end up in hell unless you convert first. Don't fool yourself that you're Catholic simply because of the externals, where you go to Latin Mass and read Catholic docuмents. Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas describe of all heretics, you have made your own judgment your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith, but only something that might superfically resemble it by outward appearances.
Affirm or deny:
Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
-
So ... you don't think it's dogma that the Church cannot defect? Well, now that I put it that way ... you actually do NOT, but say in fact that the Church has defected.
No, you vile heretic ... thus says every Catholic pope, Doctor, theologian, and every Catholic in general for the entire history of the Church. You've lost your faith and will end up in hell unless you convert first. Don't fool yourself that you're Catholic simply because of the externals, where you go to Latin Mass and read Catholic docuмents. Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas describe of all heretics, you have made your own judgment your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith, but only something that might superfically resemble it by outward appearances.
Christ and the Church are one and the same. This is why the Church is indefectible. The Church's indefectibility is Christ's indefectibility. The Church's indefectibility is the foundation of our faith, it is there to support our faith, it's how all Catholic know with dogmatic certainty that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Yet you doubt this....you vile heretic! You dumbell! You poop head you!
It is only the enemies of Christ who, like you, doubt or do not believe that the Church is indefectible, which explains why they will never stop trying (in vain) to destroy the Church.
From now on, always remember (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1010151/#msg1010151)that a true pope and heretic, Pope Honorius I, was formally and officially declared a heretic and anathematized by the pope during the infallible Third Council of Constantinople. The pope at that Council declared that a valid, true pope to be a heretic the whole time he occupied the Chair of St. Peter until his death.
-
Yes, Canon 1556 is a good one to hold on to, especially for you since you constantly judge the First See by calling the person you say it sitting in that See a "heretic."
But it is also important because is explains why Canon 188 is worded the way that it is. The Canon is saying that he loses his office by the law itself. So no person is "judging" the First See. He "tacitly resigns" his office. He is not told to resign by others.
Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194)
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
But that is where you are wrong, because they are judging the First See. To prove this, all anyone needs to do is reference the Third Council of Constantinople who declared that a previous true and valid pope (First See) was a heretic while he occupied the Chair of St. Peter. If that canon proves anything, it proves that that Canon does not apply to popes.
-
But that is where you are wrong, because they are judging the First See. To prove this, all anyone needs to do is reference the Third Council of Constantinople who declared that a previous true and valid pope (First See) was a heretic while he occupied the Chair of St. Peter. If that canon proves anything, it proves that that Canon does not apply to popes.
We don't live by the rules that were in place at the Third Council of Constantinople. We live by the rules of Canon Law.
-
We don't live by the rules that were in place at the Third Council of Constantinople. We live by the rules of Canon Law.
If what you are trying to suggest is that truth or dogma can change over time, this is condemned by Pope Saint Pius X as part of the heresy of Modernism.
The truth is that Honorius was condemned for heresy by the dogmatic Sixth Ecuмenical Council, and no human law, past or present, can undo that divine judgment. Pope Leo II later confirmed this condemnation, ratifying the Council’s judgment and reinforcing its already binding authority.
-
If what you are trying to suggest is that truth or dogma can change over time, this is condemned as part of the heresy of Modernism.
Honorius was condemned for heresy by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, and no human law, past or present, can undo that divine judgment. Pope Leo II later confirmed this condemnation, ratifying the Council’s judgment and reinforcing its already binding authority.
It was not a divine judgment.
-
If what you are trying to suggest is that truth or dogma can change over time, this is condemned by Pope Saint Pius X as part of the heresy of Modernism.
The truth is that Honorius was condemned for heresy by the dogmatic Sixth Ecuмenical Council, and no human law, past or present, can undo that divine judgment. Pope Leo II later confirmed this condemnation, ratifying the Council’s judgment and reinforcing its already binding authority.
No, what I am talking about is the disciplinary guidelines about how "heresy" is handled ordinarily in the Church. These disciplinary guidelines do not get into the substance of each heresy. That is handled elsewhere by the Magisterium.
Canon Law determines only the disciplinary guidelines and procedures on must follow when heresy is recognized. Those disciplinary guidelines have developed over many centuries. The procedures in the 7th century have been superseded by later procedures clarified in Canon Law.
-
It was not a divine judgment.
The Sixth Ecuмenical Council’s condemnation of Honorius is a divine judgment, infallibly declaring his objective heresy; to claim it was not is to deny the guidance of the Sanctus Spiritus and the binding authority of an Ecuмenical Council. This principle is reinforced by the Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon 3), which affirms that the decrees of the Church, when defining doctrine, are binding on all the faithful.
-
No, what I am talking about is the disciplinary guidelines about how "heresy" is handled ordinarily in the Church. These disciplinary guidelines do not get into the substance of each heresy. That is handled elsewhere by the Magisterium.
Canon Law determines only the disciplinary guidelines and procedures on must follow when heresy is recognized. Those disciplinary guidelines have developed over many centuries. The procedures in the 7th century have been superseded by later procedures clarified in Canon Law.
Thank you for your response. In reality, you are just talking about how disciplinary procedures have developed over time, which, with all due respect, does not change the substance of Honorius’ condemnation. Unless this is being used to downplay the historical judgment’s impact today, it is a subtle form of relativizing. It does not affect the divine judgment or the immutability of dogma.
-
Thank you for your response. In reality, you are just talking about how disciplinary procedures have developed over time, which, with all due respect, does not change the substance of Honorius’ condemnation. Unless this is being used to downplay the historical judgment’s impact today, it is a subtle form of relativizing. It does not affect the divine judgment or the immutability of dogma.
Honorius condemnation was not a dogma. The evidence of this is that different "Doctors of the Church" disagreed about the matter.
-
The Sixth Ecuмenical Council’s condemnation of Honorius is a divine judgment, infallibly declaring his objective heresy; to claim it was not is to deny the guidance of the Sanctus Spiritus and the binding authority of an Ecuмenical Council. This principle is reinforced by the Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon 3), which affirms that the decrees of the Church, when defining doctrine, are binding on all the faithful.
To declare one a heretic is not a divine judgment. It is a human judgment. Even a pope cannot have more than moral certitude that one is guilty before God for the public sin of heresy.
-
To declare one a heretic is not a divine judgment. It is a human judgment. Even a pope cannot have more than moral certitude that one is guilty before God for the public sin of heresy.
I tend to agree.
Condemnations are secondary objects of infallibility. But that is concerning doctrines.
No one but God can read the internal forum, so if one is declared a heretic, that judgment must be followed in the external forum out of obedience.
Not only that, if you are morally certain someone is a manifest, public heretic that judgement MUST BE followed as well.
Now why was his name removed then?...
(https://i.imgur.com/ahkDVaw.png)
Bares repeating, "a legitimate council errs on facts but not faith definitions."
I would argue where a council ratified by the Pope cannot error would include condemnations of doctrines as these are objects that directly affect faith definitions.
Whereas, the facts about WHO was actually heretical can be subject to human error, and are open to later revision - if further evidence comes to light (as in the case of Honorius).
But the idea he is pushing is basically, "if you don't affirm that Honorius was condemned as a heretic then you are a heretic."
What a loopy thing. :facepalm:
It proves nothing, but it is one of those flimsy attempts the Prots and Orthos grab at as well to undermine the papacy.
But for him, "this DESTORYS the evil doctrines of the satanic Sedes" :jester:
Maybe later I will post some vids of Prots and Orthos doing the same thing.
-
I tend to agree.
Condemnations are secondary objects of infallibility. But that is concerning doctrines.
No one but God can read the internal forum, so if one is declared a heretic, that judgment must be followed in the external forum out of obedience.
Not only that, if you are morally certain someone is a manifest, public heretic that judgement MUST BE followed as well.
Now why was his name removed then?...
(https://i.imgur.com/ahkDVaw.png)
Bares repeating, "a legitimate council errs on facts but not faith definitions."
Which I would argue where a council ratified by the Pope cannot error would include condemnations of doctrines.
Whereas, the facts about WHO were actually heretical can be subject to human error, and are open to later revision.
But the idea he is pushing is basically, "if you don't affirm that Honorius was condemned as a heretic then you are a heretic."
What a loopy thing. :facepalm:
It proves nothing, but it is one of those flimsy attempts the Prots and Orthos grab at as well to undermine the papacy.
No one but God can read the internal forum with absolute certitude. A judge declaring a heretic only needs moral certitude.
-
No one but God can read the internal forum with absolute certitude. A judge declaring a heretic only needs moral certitude.
Right.
and a morally certain judgment must be followed.
-
No one but God can read the internal forum with absolute certitude. A judge declaring a heretic only needs moral certitude.
:facepalm: you can't judge the internal forum period, with any kind of certitude. After I exposed you for the same error on the other thread, you try to salvage it over hear by making pseudo distinction.
-
Right.
and a morally certain judgment must be followed.
Not right. Nobody can judge the internal forum with any degree of certitude ... other than someone with a supernatural gift, like a Padre Pio of course.
We follow judgments regarding the extrenal forum, and the Church can discern a non-pope based on their pertinacious adherence to heresy, whether or not they are in good faith, sincere, insincere, evil Satanists bent on destroying the Church, or well-meaning morons. What the case there happens to be means nothing, since we cannot know this with any degree of certitude unless these things make it out to the internal forum, i.e. someone intercepts a letter from Wojtyla bragging about how he's serving Satan and trying to destroy the Church.
-
:facepalm: you can't judge the internal forum period, with any kind of certitude. After I exposed you for the same error on the other thread, you try to salvage it over hear by making pseudo distinction.
Maybe that is what he meant to say.
But it ain't what he said here.
I took it to mean, "a judge only needs moral certitude of external acts of heresy." You would have to read into it otherwise. But maybe you did call him out before - I know not.
-
Nobody can judge the internal forum with any degree of certitude ... other than someone with a supernatural gift
We follow judgments regarding the extrenal forum, and the Church can discern a non-pope based on their pertinacious adherence to heresy, whether or not they are in good faith, sincere, insincere, evil Satanists bent on destroying the Church, or well-meaning morons. What the case there happens to be means nothing, since we cannot know this with any degree of certitude unless these things make it out to the internal forum, i.e. someone intercepts a letter from Wojtyla bragging about how he's serving Satan and trying to destroy the Church.
Agreed.
-
Maybe that is what he meant to say.
But it ain't what he said here.
I took it to mean, "a judge only needs moral certitude of external acts of heresy." You would have to read into it otherwise. But maybe you did call him out before - I know not.
So, if you know his history, that's not what he meant at all. He holds that Bergoglio and Prevost are Anti-Popes, but that Ratzinger / Wojtyla were not. As evidence for Bergoglian heresy he and his guru (Father Kramer) cite (among other things, but this was the first thing Fr. Kramer used to discern Bergoglio to be Anti-Pope) Bergs' denial of the teaching of the Council of Florence by claiming that the Old Testament remains in force, has not been revoked, and is salvific for the Jews.
So I point out that Wojtyla actually invented this heresy, taught it repeatedly, and then Ratzinger taught it repeatedly, his responds by insisting that those two didn't really mean it ... whereas Bergoglio does. Ridiculous. But it's his act of desperation to upholds his theological worldview that the Bergoglio and Prevost are the Crisis in the Church, and Anti-Popes, but the predecessors were not. If anything, Wojtyla / Ratzinger are likely MORE guilty since Bergoglio is a moron who appears to just regurgitate what the others taught and invented, but those predecessors of his were well educated prior to Vatican II and were the INVENTORS of the heresy, so if anything it's the exact opposite.
-
So, if you know his history, that's not what he meant at all. He holds that Bergoglio and Prevost are Anti-Popes, but that Ratzinger / Wojtyla were not. As evidence for Bergoglian heresy he and his guru (Father Kramer) cite (among other things, but this was the first thing Fr. Kramer used to discern Bergoglio to be Anti-Pope) Bergs' denial of the teaching of the Council of Florence by claiming that the Old Testament remains in force, has not been revoked, and is salvific for the Jews.
So I point out that Wojtyla actually invented this heresy, taught it repeatedly, and then Ratzinger taught it repeatedly, his responds by insisting that those two didn't really mean it ... whereas Bergoglio does. Ridiculous. But it's his act of desperation to upholds his theological worldview that the Bergoglio and Prevost are the Crisis in the Church, and Anti-Popes, but the predecessors were not. If anything, Wojtyla / Ratzinger are likely MORE guilty since Bergoglio is a moron who appears to just regurgitate what the others taught and invented, but those predecessors of his were well educated prior to Vatican II and were the INVENTORS of the heresy, so if anything it's the exact opposite.
Ok, good to know thanks.
-
:facepalm: you can't judge the internal forum period, with any kind of certitude. After I exposed you for the same error on the other thread, you try to salvage it over hear by making pseudo distinction.
Prummer's Moral Theology of 1910
“When the confessor is certain that the penitent is in mortal sin ...the priest in the internal forum must judge with the prudence of a spiritual father whether true contrition for sins is present.”
-
Not right. Nobody can judge the internal forum with any degree of certitude ... other than someone with a supernatural gift, like a Padre Pio of course.
We follow judgments regarding the extrenal forum, and the Church can discern a non-pope based on their pertinacious adherence to heresy, whether or not they are in good faith, sincere, insincere, evil Satanists bent on destroying the Church, or well-meaning morons. What the case there happens to be means nothing, since we cannot know this with any degree of certitude unless these things make it out to the internal forum, i.e. someone intercepts a letter from Wojtyla bragging about how he's serving Satan and trying to destroy the Church.
You can judge the internal forum with moral certitude. Otherwise, any judgment regarding the guilt of sin of another would always be a rash judgment. But rash judgment occurs when the evidence of moral guilt is not sufficient.
Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.
https://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0104/_P2F.HTM (https://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0104/_P2F.HTM)
(https://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0104/JB.HTM)
-
Not right. Nobody can judge the internal forum with any degree of certitude ... other than someone with a supernatural gift, like a Padre Pio of course.
We follow judgments regarding the extrenal forum, and the Church can discern a non-pope based on their pertinacious adherence to heresy, whether or not they are in good faith, sincere, insincere, evil Satanists bent on destroying the Church, or well-meaning morons. What the case there happens to be means nothing, since we cannot know this with any degree of certitude unless these things make it out to the internal forum, i.e. someone intercepts a letter from Wojtyla bragging about how he's serving Satan and trying to destroy the Church.
Pertinacity is that element of heresy that makes it a formal sin.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Pertinacity-Prummer.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Handbook-of-Moral-Theology-Prummer.png)
-
"Sin", which regards the internal forum, is the basis for "crime", which regards the external forum.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Crime-Volume-III-Book-V-Augustine.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Imputability-Volume-III-Book-V-Augustine.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Commentary-on-Canon-Law-Volume-III-Book-V-Augustine.png)
-
Every try to tell Protestants that we don't worship Mary, and go through a lot of proofs to show it, and they say nothing?
And then a few days after they talk as if Catholic worship Mary?
This is what I feel with the OP. Clearly St. Francis de Sales says men can morally judge a man to not be a pope.
Then a few days later the people reading it say that nobody can judge a man to not be a pope!