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

Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic?  (Read 64286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is the CMRI schismatic?
« Reply #305 on: January 07, 2015, 07:40:03 PM »
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?.  


Is the CMRI schismatic?
« Reply #306 on: January 07, 2015, 09:23:35 PM »
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"


Is the CMRI schismatic?
« Reply #307 on: January 07, 2015, 09:28:12 PM »
Quote from: magisterium


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.)


I don't see any problem with your post above, but let me ask you out of curiosity, where can a Siri partisan receive the Sacraments from? We both agree that the CMRI is schismatic, and as I said before somewhere, I would be more willing to give the Siri Thesis / Hierarchy in Exile the benefit of the doubt rather than believing in the absurdity of a See Vacante for over half century.

Is the CMRI schismatic?
« Reply #308 on: January 07, 2015, 09:47:50 PM »
But the main problem with the Siri Thesis and the invalidity of the elections is that it is unanimously believed that the acceptance of a Papal election by the Church, (Cardinals and Bishops) "is a sign and infallible effect" of a valid election. There have been such acceptance by the legitimate bishops and cardinals of the Church in all the elections of the post-conciliar pontificates.



Is the CMRI schismatic?
« Reply #309 on: January 08, 2015, 12:17:24 AM »
Quote from: magisterium
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.


Well, Pope Pius XII did not make such distinctions between major and minor excommunications. In fact, none of these docuмents where Ex cuм is abrogated made the difference or were explicit about that, so it seems to be a case in which one reads into these paragraphs distinctions that the authors did not put in.