Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 64284 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #310 on:** January 08, 2015, 12:34:29 AM »

Actually, re-reading these quotes again:

Quote

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).

It states clearly that a cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy by reason of ANY excommunication…whatsoever”. "Any" excommunication whatsoever” necessarily includes an excommunication for heresy, which demonstrates that st. Pius X and st Pius XII did abrogate Paul IV's cuм Ex.

wxg101 · « **Reply #311 on:** January 08, 2015, 02:45:13 PM »

Hey magisterium, could you provide any evidence that Siri released a public docuмent containing the names of his in pectore Cardinals before his death?

wxg101 · « **Reply #312 on:** January 08, 2015, 04:52:50 PM »

Well, I guess my only remark on this would be that since God has provided that the Holy Catholic Church would not cease to be, and that it is required for Cardinals created via in pectore to have their names released by means of a public consistory, given the fact that even facing the dire circuмstances of the situation, one could conclude that the Pope could release such information publicly, without being too presumptuous of God's Providence and placing oneself in unnecessary danger, the latter point especially because in this case it would be absolutely necessary that this be done for the sake of the faithful.

I do not "judge" this action, rather I see the secretiveness of it to be unnecessary, given the Church has faced greater foes in the past. Death being only a fleeting thing if one is surely in the Church. A simple docuмent stating who these Cardinals are with a date, that is not a Word docuмent. This is sufficient.

wxg101 · « **Reply #313 on:** January 09, 2015, 02:33:33 PM »

Quote from: magisterium

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.

So could a Pope, under this train of thought, ordain a woman to the priesthood and raise her to the bishopric, in order "to fulfill his obligation of feeding his sheep?"

TKGS · « **Reply #314 on:** January 09, 2015, 08:03:10 PM »

Quote from: wxg101

So could a Pope, under this train of thought, ordain a woman to the priesthood and raise her to the bishopric, in order "to fulfill his obligation of feeding his sheep?"

Such has already been seriously discussed in Conciliar circles.