The Society did not separate itself from communion with the NO Church. The NO Church "separated" the Society from "full communion" (whatever that means) with it.

Stevus, when I showed you the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and showed you that this is the teaching of ALL the Church Fathers, you just dismissed him because he's not the Pope.

The teaching of all or even a morally unanimous number of Fathers makes that teaching dogmatic.

"466. Q*. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?
*A.* - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, /ipso facto/, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, /jure divino/, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 1887

Steve, do you actually believe the heretical hierarchy of the Vatican II sect, it's cardinals, bishops, etc - who are apostates themselves just like Benedict XVI - will ever proceed against him for charge of heresy?

It will never happen, just like the followers of Arius would never denounce Arius as a heretic, unless he denied their new heretical belief.

Benedict would probably be denounced by his sect if he ever upheld the true dogmas and actually condemned the Muslims, Jews, etc. For these people in the Vatican II sect are so far gone in their heresies, that they no longer care at all about the Catholic Faith, but only about following their heresies or apostasies, hence that no one ever lift a finger in denouncing any of the apostasies, scandals, or heresies of any of the antipopes, cardinals, bishops or priests, etc.

The only "heresy" Benedict has ever excommunicated was the denial of the Jєωιѕн version of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. Anyone remember the bishop Williamson controversy? Such can he excommunicate, but real heresy? No!

so, if you will wait for the Vatican II sect to denounce their own apostate pope (when they are apostates themselves), it will never happen. And if you actually believe this, then you most certainly deserve Benedict XVI as your pope - and you will have your eternal reward accordingly.

That is why we must make these judgments, since no one else is willing.

So when we have seen Benedict XVI's apostasies and manifest public heresies, such as when he demands SSPX to accept Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty and ecuмenism,

then must we judge him as an obstinate heretic and apostate, since people have presented the true position to him (SSPX), but he obstinately rejects it.

And if you don't agree with this, then then why continue with being in communion with schismatical and heretical societies which refuse to be in communion with your pope, Benedict XVI?

Both Benedict and SSPX is heretical, by the way, but this still serves to prove a point. If you don't think Benedict XVI is a heretic, then stop be in schism with your own pope - it's just that simple...

Steveusmagnus, do you believe that your pope is a traditional or liberal pope?

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote

"466. Q*. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate?
*A.* - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, /ipso facto/, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, /jure divino/, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 1887

This "declaration" would be the error of conciliarism (a council judging the pope), unless we agree the pope falls ipso facto from the pontificate due to the heresy.

The quote says, "Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecuмenical council of the College of Cardinals."

Therefore the Church must declare the fact that the Pope is guilty of heresy before he is divested. That's how I read it at least.

"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

This question betrays one of the fundamental problems of sede thinking. Black and white! No nuance. No distinctions.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

He is Traditional in his liturgical preferences and the fact that he sticks to Traditional morality and keeps Catholic dogmas.

At the same time he has kept the post-VCII novelties and liberal options for liturgy and is a big believer in ecuмenism and religious liberty. He is a mix!