Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

I gave you a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia showing that historically there were "wandering bishops" without ordinary jurisdiction, and no mention they were not Catholic. This is because the laws of the Church require a bishop to at least have a title to a diocese, even if the see doesn't really exist (titular bishop).

The Pope and the hierarchy are still visible in Rome to "supply jurisdiction" for these "wandering popes" but of course, in the sede pet theory not such thing can occur, since there is no Pope. Again, supplied jurisdiction comes from the authority which is wielded by the Pope, and held by the Church (Bishops). This supplied jurisdiction arises when there is an error on the part of the laymen as to the validity of the faculties, if the laymen were to receive the sacraments from a Priest who lacked faculties and was ignorant of that fact, the Church would supply it. It is the Church that supplies it, not a lone self-proclaimed Bishop hiding in the crowd which is what the CMRI cult pretends.

Supplied jurisdiction is automatically supplied by the Church whether there is a reigning pope, or whether they are still waiting to elect a new one. It is something that simply occurs automatically upon each act that is performed out of necessity. How many times do I have to say this to you while you ignore it? I already gave quotes from an approved Catholic dissertation to support it.

Quote from: Cantarella

As said before, the bishop has absolutely no right to his own diocese. It is the Pope who grants the title of a diocese to a bishop.

This is true, but it has nothing to so with the fact that wandering bishops (without title or diocese) have historically been considered Catholic and part of the hierarchy.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

But the point is, what Trent is demanding is NOT divine law, but ecclesiastical law.

Ecclesiastical Law DOES NOT and CAN NOT contradict Divine Law. End of story.

This is true, but I don't know why you are saying this, because I have never claimed otherwise.

Well, Ecclesiastical Law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. These ecclesiastical laws serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence, especially when dealing with the Roman Pontiff!. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith.

Why would the Church be waiting more than half a century ago, to elect a New Pope? That is imprudent non-sense.

Let it be seen here, that all you did was click REPLY, as if you were going to actually respond to my points, but instead you completely changed the subject!

What you say here is what Stubborn has been denying (that a man who ceased to be pope, can finally be judged to not be a pope), yet don't expect a fellow Feeneyite traveler to publicly object!  If he is consistent, he should be saying to you that you are going against the dogma that nobody can judge a pope.

You are here admitting that a pope can become a heretic, and that "great caution and prudence" are needed to determine it. I don't object to this. However, I have in another thread explained how this can become certain....and all you did was post a picture of a unicorn because you didn't want to hear it!

First of all, that the Pope can become a heretic is only but speculation not a fact. Second, what happens IF the Pope does become a heretic, also belongs to the realm of theological speculation. Bellarmine's opinion is only that, an opinion. Not Church teaching. Whatever it is, fact remains that it is de fide that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone in this earth. A Pope can be rebuked and corrected but this can be done by the Catholic bishops (particularly cardinals and archbishops), not individual laymen. In a worst case scenario, an ecuмenical council of the whole Catholic Church can be called, as we saw with the Council of Constance.

These are opinions. There is no consensus among theologians about what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. I personally tend to share Suarez opinion: that the Pope in fact CAN become a heretic, and that he needs to be resisted and eventually properly dealt with by competent authority (bishops and cardinals) following the necessary procedures and warnings.

Whatever it is, reality does not fit with sede pet logic.

I see you insist to stay to the subject you suddenly switched to, instead of to the original points.

All this has been addressed with you before, and you bail out every time, only to return weeks later as if you never heard anything.

Bellarmine is the Saint, as well as the declared "Doctor" (Teacher) of the Church. What he wrote as being the "fifth opinion" he said was the "true" one, supported by all the Church fathers. St. Francis de Sales, also the Saint and Doctor, absolutely taught the same, as the truth, when writing to Protestants about it. Pope Pius IX, on the occasion of declaring St. Francis a Doctor, said that what he wrote to the Protestants was a "full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". After the Vatican Council (1870), all approved Catholic publications for general clergy and laity, even scrutinized by the Holy See directly, teach this as the truth, with no other opinion mentioned.

It's all based on the solid Church teachings that:

1) God forces no man's free-will.
2) a man can be neither pope nor Catholic without the divine virtue of Faith.
3) a pope can be judged by nobody.

All the quotes say the man who ceases to be pope, can be judged and punished by the Church. This is because the man is already recognized with certainty to no longer be pope.

Cantarella I agree there is no question that CMRI is schismatic. Yet the Modernist Mr. Bergoglio was a docuмented manifest heretic (as were Ratzinger, Wojtyla and the other V2 impostors) prior to their "elections as pope", which cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio clearly teaches made them ineligible to ever become pope.

It is impossible for a human being who is a non-pope to create Catholic Cardinals. How are you claiming Mr. Bergoglio was lawfully elected? You are familiar of the eternal curses emanating from Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio for those who disobey its infallible teachings?

cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

"Providently, Church judgments, such as the Bulla of Pope Paul IV, become operative without need of official action.  The Bulla of Paul IV is conditional not on reprimand but on public heresy.  The Bulla, itself, constitutes the essential canonical reprimand.  Accordingly, one who, before his election to the Papal Chair, was a hardened, public heretic, as in the case of Paul 6, cannot be the legitimate successor of Peter.  If he should sit in the Holy Chair, he does so as an usurper." (TVS, 1979)


BULLA OF PAUL IV (from cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio)

     "We declare that if ever a Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate, a Cardinal or a Legatee, OR EVEN A SOVEREIGN POPE, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is INVALID and NULL, without value and one cannot say that it is valid because the person concerned accepts the Office, receives the Consecration and then enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office], or by the homage rendered to him by all; one cannot accept him as legitimate, and none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid whether Bishops, Cardinals OR SOVEREIGN POPES.  All their words, deeds and actions, their administration and all that proceeds from them - all these are without value and have no authority or command over anyone. These men, so promoted and elevated, will be by the same fact deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title and power." (February 15, 1559.)

[By this Papal Decree allegiance and loyalty to the Second Vatican Council, a council dishonoring the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and introducing false doctrine (heresy) into the Church disqualifies one from legitimate succession to the Chair of Peter. Paul IV's Decree marks the V-2 holders of the Holy Office as bogus popes having absolutely no power, dignity, honor or title.  Thus no obedience or respect is owed to them.]

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or
passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante
Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

Quote from: Cantarella

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

These disciplines from Popes Pius X, and Pius XII on voting procedures at a Papal Conclave must to be understood by the "mind of the Church".

I have seen docuмentation that Roncalli was a manifest heretic prior to the October 1958 Conclave, which he voted at. As a Freemason he was a hidden heretic as well. He alluded detection to get into the 1958 Conclave to commit one of the gravest crimes in the history of the world. (The violent pushing aside of the true Pope elected on Oct 26, 1958).

So Roncalli's being a manifest heretic prior to the 1958 Conclave, made him ineligible to ever be pope, according to Pope Paul IV's infallible cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.


"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God. Woe to man when
he [not God] places him upon the See of Peter for then, the Great Day of the Lord is at hand." -Pope St. Pius X:

Regarding Pope Pius XII. No one can judge a pope. However it is a fact that there have been strong and weak popes. He was a WEAK pope, and perhaps the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which will be with us until the end of time, may make some solemn judgement against him, in the future.

"God will permit a great evil against His Church"

"These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything." -Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th c.)

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: magisterium

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: magisterium

Quote from: Cantarella

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

These disciplines from Popes Pius X, and Pius XII on voting procedures at a Papal Conclave must to be understood by the "mind of the Church".

I have seen docuмentation that Roncalli was a manifest heretic prior to the October 1958 Conclave, which he voted at. As a Freemason he was a hidden heretic as well. He alluded detection to get into the 1958 Conclave to commit one of the gravest crimes in the history of the world. (The violent pushing aside of the true Pope elected on Oct 26, 1958).

So Roncalli's being a manifest heretic prior to the 1958 Conclave, made him ineligible to ever be pope, according to Pope Paul IV's infallible cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.


"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God. Woe to man when
he [not God] places him upon the See of Peter for then, the Great Day of the Lord is at hand." -Pope St. Pius X:

If cuм Ex Apostolic was infallible (divine law) then it could not have been modified. To teach opposite would be heresy but that was precisely done by three pontiffs: Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII.

In any case, where is the docuмentation proving that Roncalli was a "Manifest Heretic"? and if his heresy was so undoubtedly manifest, how come Pope Pius XII did not ever say anything, but in fact appointed him and placed him in positions of power within the Vatican?. Why there was no legal procedure conducted on him as required in the 1917 Code of Canon Law in cases of heresy?.  

What are you claiming Pius X, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII precisely taught that was opposite of Pope Paul IV's infallible *cuм ex Apostolatus Officio?

*which is part of the Ordinary Magisterium

Because they clearly teach that an excommunicated person can still be elected Roman Pontiff. Major excommunications are incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins.

From Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis:

Quote

"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor"

"The excommunications spoken by Pope Pius XII are not referring to heretics, apostates, and Freemasons because they fall under the rubric of MAJOR excommunication. God Himself cannot lift them! What Pope Pius XII is referring to are MINOR excommunications. Such excommunications come by way of declaration for things like the selling of relics or stealing money from the Church. If a Cardinal becomes a heretic, he ceases to be a Cardinal, but a Cardinal who sells or steals money gets a minor excommunication but remains a Cardinal. The provisional law of Pope Pius XII is calling for Cardinals who were excommunicated by declaration, not ex-Cardinals who were excommunicated by Divine Law. Remember, a Cardinal who becomes a *heretic/apostate/Mason is not a Cardinal any longer and so Pius XII was not calling on them. All minor excommunications can be lifted for good, but not major excommunications. ("Can a Catholic Pope be a Non-Catholic" by Steven Speray)

*Pope Paul IV teaches that even if the whole world acknowledged a heretic as pope, such a man would not be pope. Automatic excommunications for these crimes apply regardless if they are known, because they are of Divine law.

Quote from: magisterium

Quote from: Nado

A sect is created after admonitions are given, rejected by the suspect, and then an official excommunication is promulgated to the world to tell Catholics that all who join the following will also be excommunicated.

Popes Gregory XVII & Gregory XVIII and their delegated representatives have given admonitions to various leaders of the V2 sect & pseudo traditionalists (of all stripes) and their followers. And unfortunately it can be said, the leaders/controllers of these two sects have rejected their admonitions. One case that comes to mind is Richard Williamson who was confided intimate detail about Pope Gregory XVII and his hierarchy over a period of time - and [Williamson] said he was "not ready" at that time (to be part of the Church governed by St. Peter's Successors). There is One Church.

The Petrine Hierarchy has clearly communicated to millions all over the world, that to be part of the schismatic N.O. or schismatic pseudo-traditionalists "religious societies", is to be in opposition to the Church and, hence to to be a member of a non-Catholic sect.

Fr. Joseph Fenton writes:

"Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point?  Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?

There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries.  The Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is.  Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep.[7]  Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.

And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."[8]

St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs.  Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt[/u] for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain." (Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ALLOCUTIONS, c. 1956)
                                                                                                                 

To clarify. The point in adding Fr. Fenton's words (above) was to convey that a pope is not limited [boxed in] in any way, on how [i.e., the means he judges most effective and apt to employ] to fulfill his obligation of feeding/admonishing his sheep. This is an important point to stress when the enemies of the Faith have stolen the Holy Father's patrimony.