Whomever U are, Morone is the correct spell. Paul IV was mistaken re: Card Morone as was later proved. The Pope is caught in the mid of the Deformation and is confused. This is true in his protection of the Caraffa as well.

The Morone accusation-- after all these yrs-- brings to mind  the C Rampolla/ Fr Feeney scams.

You are exactly the same as this French sophist EA.

 

If you define "sophistry" as arguments advanced that run contrary to your opinion, you'd be correct.  But unfortunately, that's not the definition of sophistry.

What you are doing, God help you if it's deliberate, is scaring people into waiting for "proper authority" in Rome to make a formal declaration about the status of the "Popes" when there no longer is any proper authority in Rome.  This is why -- again, it if it is deliberate -- you really are evil.

First, you create a sensational falsehood "scaring people away from truth."  Secondly, you then induce psuedo-rage, as if you are coming to the defense of those poor people existing in the story.  Thirdly, you fall back on the old "it must be deliberate" routine, which causes even more emotional outrage.  This is a perfect example of the fabricated reality that exists in your mind.  

I suppose the notion "undeclared heretics" has no real meaning for you which is why you think serious men like Lane have no "backbone."  It's not a question of the virtue of justice, of divine order, of the question of authority, rather it is a question of Hollywood action adventure.  None of that boring stuff suits your tastes.      

Do I even have to bother with this?  Where does it speak in cuм Ex Apostolatus about a proper authority being necessary to void the election of a heretical Pope?  Ratzinger's heresies in his books as a Cardinal are numerous; I'm not going to list them here.  Go to the Dimonds' website -- oh that's right, they don't convince you.  Well, you can lead a horse to water...

Yes you do have to bother with this.  Remember my warning to you that your opinions have real consequences and that there are many things to take into account.  You are still to immature to understand this, but some day you will.  I note also that you gloss over the crux of the entire issue, the material fact of heresy.  If it is so easy, start a new thread and post the requisite information for all to see.  

Canon 188:  "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration.  These causes are:
...

(4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith."

By quoting this you merely beg the question.  The term "publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith" includes the external manifestion of this fact, thus it is by "operation of law."  Laws only touch upon external acts.  Benedict still claims to be a member of the Catholic Church and he has not publicly denied a defined dogma of the faith in such a way as to manifest obstinate heresy.  

On the other hand, the Code has several provisions for authoritative admonishment, the conditions for suspicion of heresy, etc. all of which come to bear as well.  For if no one in authority admonishes, there is no pertinacity manifested.  That has always been the test.  Such a resistance to authority is the manifestation of the pertinacity of the will.  

Then you go into the usual routine about how an empty See of Peter is possible, but not for this long... What kind of backwards reasoning is this?

 

Because such a scenario has consequences for other catholic doctrines including, among other things, the necessity that the Church militant must possess actual authority in order for it to retain its divine constitution.  The election of one heretical Pope would not affect this doctrine.  But the absence of several, along with the entire hierarchy does touch upon the Church constitution.  In brief, if the hierarchy goes, so goes the Church.  

First of all, there is no proof anywhere that the chair is somehow exempt from being vacant this long.

I offered an indirect proof in that such an example would render catholic doctrine meaningless.  I could also prove the point by reducing it to the absurd.  If your theory doesn't affect other doctrine, then it must be okay for the Church to be without the Pope for a century, two, three, eight.  Right?  Just so long as true Catholics can "regroup" at a later date.  

Secondly, just because YOUR favored organization, the SSPX, instead of embracing sedevacantism long ago, helped keep this gang of crooks in power for decades, that is supposed to sway my decision?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  You've said this several times now but have failed to adequately show its coherence.

You create the mess; and then you tell me that my theory of sedevacantism is wrong because we are trying to clean up YOUR mess?  Just because an error is old doesn't make it any more venerable.

Whoa there partner.  No traditional Catholic "created this mess."  The novus ordo hierarchy did.  It is because of comments like these that I question your sincerity.  You are really starting to look like some kind of fraudulent plant.  No one can mock traditional Catholicism the way you do and retain any real credibility.        

By no means do I dissent from the Bull of Paul IV. Never the less I do not consider the Cardinal Morone incident as irrelevant. If one were to accept what U originally said it would give the impression that Morone was heretical and this is not the case. Paul IV new that he had made mistakes and asked for all to pray for his soul.

Quote:
It is the Holy Ghost protecting the church now and forever and is here for this very time. All we have to do is apply this church teaching to this present apostasy.  


That's the crux, Cecelia.  No one denies the principles involved.  The question involved here is whether you have a firm grasp of the meaning of the principles themselves and in their application to concrete circuмstances.  When we read historical encounters of Catholics espousing some kind of heresy, the action and reaction has been quite different than your own.  For example, when those learned theologians examined works containing what they thought to be one or several heretical propositions, what did they do?  Did they declare from the rooftops with absolute assurance and certainty that the author was a heretic who had cast himself out of the Church?  No, they did not.  They presented their findings to Rome for consideration.  They made no declarations beyond that.  And you know what else?  Sometimes Rome did not act on their recommendations.  Thus, the presumption (a very weightly legal and moral concept) remained that they were still members of the Church, even though they could warn agains their works.  This is just the tip of the iceburg regarding such rashness and incompetence.  

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:

"...for men are not bound, or Able to read hearts;  BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AN SIMPLE, AND CONDMEN HIM AS A HERETIC."

I think you are forgetting the unprecedented times we are living in...the time of the Great Apostasy.   No one has ever had experience of this before.  We can only apply church teaching to given situations we find ourselves in.  Hence, if Pope Paul IV, Pius V, and canon law 1917 all teach that a heretic cannot hold office in the catholic church, we are not incorrect to follow this teaching.

Caminus said:

For example, when those learned theologians examined works containing what they thought to be one or several heretical propositions, what did they do?  Did they declare from the rooftops with absolute assurance and certainty that the author was a heretic who had cast himself out of the Church?  No, they did not.  They presented their findings to Rome for consideration.

Once again, shameless sophist, you have conveniently "forgotten" the errors and/or heresies of the dummy post-VII Magisterium, the promulgation of a liturgy that could be intrinsically harmful or invalid, the almost definitely invalid new rite of consecration, an ecuмenical Council riddled with error ( an impossibility from the true Church ), and you are trying to make it look as if this is just about a "bad Pope," a Pope who is teaching error as a private doctor.  

With absolutely stomach-turning disingenuity, you also continue to act as if we can consult Rome, which has been completely hijacked, for some kind of solution to this crisis.

OH YE OF BAD FAITH.  REPENT!!!  REPENT IN SACKCLOTH AND ASHES!  I WILL SEE YE GROVEL BEFORE THE LORD!!!

By the way, don't ever give Caminus a kind word until he repents and apologizes with bitter tears.  Don't let him try to befriend you unless it is after he has changed his ways, until after Saul has become Paul ( I reject your offer of friendship as phony, Caminus, since you have not yet shown any ability to even respect my opinion by remembering what I say, and there is no friendship without honesty and respect ).  If he says something in another thread, on a tangential subject, that seems good or praiseworthy, don't let him charm you.  With his narcissistic personality disorder, he will only use your weakness against you, to leech every drop of blood out of your body.

Ah, how blissfully naive Cecelia is, trying to use reason with Caminus. It's like water through a sieve. Give her a year and she will be a battle-scarred veteran, and will understand why I call him SOPHIST.

Quote

He isn't forgetting anything. No one is that dumb. Remember the other day I called him out on his "lapses in and out of amnesia." Amnesia comes in very handy when trying to exhaust and frustrate your opponent, to plunge any trace of good sense and fair debate in a morass of confusion and evasion.

Thanks for the advice Raoul.

It should be remembered that the 1917 Code of Canon Law was a project of St Pius X.