Author Topic: On SV (Read 13969 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #165 on:** July 09, 2014, 07:35:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ladislaus
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.

And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.

Uhm, no.

If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.

If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.

Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.

The qualifications to be a validly elected Pope can be found in the Church Canonical Law. What happens in the case of a heretical pope cannot. Canon 332-1 of the 1983 Code states that one already a bishop (not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop.

That means that the Roman Pontiff must:

1. Be a male and be willing
2. Be Baptized,
3. Be an ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and
4. Have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders

There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.

It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church like John XXII who submitted himself to a commission on his heretical teaching of the Beatific Vision.

johnb104 · « **Reply #166 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:53:14 PM »

I don't know enough to argue with anyone in this thread...

...but I'm just gonna say that all those Canon Lawyers in the Church Triumphant who do know enough are telling me that you're wrong.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #167 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:59:26 PM »

Quote

Cantarella says ---> "There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.

That is not enough for you?

Cantarella · « **Reply #168 on:** July 09, 2014, 09:20:52 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote
Cantarella says ---> "There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.

That is not enough for you?

There is not "me" when searching the Truth. The Truth exists independently of you and I so my opinion do not really matter. Church history attests that even in the case of heresy, the pontificate is still valid. Take the example of Pope Honorious, who was condemned at the 2nd Council of Constantinople as a material heretic, (not a formal heretic). Pope Honorious denied nothing less than the Holy Trinity! and however, is still considered a valid, legitimate pontificate, despite teaching such heresy.

Again, no one on earth can depose a Pope but another Pope.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #169 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:23:12 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ladislaus
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.

And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.

Uhm, no.

If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.

If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.

Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.

The qualifications to be a validly elected Pope can be found in the Church Canonical Law. What happens in the case of a heretical pope cannot. Canon 332-1 of the 1983 Code states that one already a bishop (not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop.

That means that the Roman Pontiff must:

1. Be a male and be willing
2. Be Baptized,
3. Be an ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and
4. Have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders

There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.

It is de fide that the Pope can be judged by none in this world, he may be rebuked and corrected, but that would need to happen by the Church like John XXII who submitted himself to a commission on his heretical teaching of the Beatific Vision.

There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?

The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.

Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #170 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:39:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
There is your answer Matto.

Not even the SSPX accepts these antipopes.

They think LIP SERVICE means true acceptance?

Hypocrites, a thousand times hypocrites!

NOBODY accepts these antipopes.

If you dig deep enough, I agree that most Traditional Catholics at the end of the day do indeed have some doubts about who these men are.

I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. It's a state of contradiction due to cognitive dissonance.

You see, Catholics without a Pope to be subject to are, in a manner of speaking, like fish out of water. Our very sensus fidei demands that we be subject to the Pope. Yes, yes, I know that putting up a picture of Francis in the vestibule doesn't count, but as I said, it's their way of dealing with a situation that's almost unbearable for a Catholic.

There's also a "benefit of the doubt" mindset, and they resolve this doubt in favor of their legitimacy because the consequences of breaking from a legitimate pope seem to outweigh the consequences of accepting someone who it would turn out isn't the true pope.

There's a lot going on and it isn't just hypocrisy.

But the dialogue between R&R and sedevacantism isn't helped when both sides radicalize and polarize and feed into a cycle of increasing distrust and mutual recriminations. As with everything, you tend to oversimplify.

I believe that it was John Lane who wrote an excellent article about the R&R mindset and psychology.

It is one thing to be unsure about what's going on and having your doubts and not knowing what to do etc., that's all fine and the way it goes, but when you go around in public and mislead others, and condemn SV when you have been proven wrong on the matter dozens of times, then we have a problem.

This is what the SSPX and the false traditionalists and people like you have done.

You have all been proven wrong for decades but you STILL insist with the same thing.

You're not sure about something? Fine, but don't mislead others and attack those with guts who dare to dig deep and find the truth.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #171 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:41:58 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote
Cantarella says ---> "There is simply not consensus as for what to do in the case of the election of an actual heretical Pope. Also, heresy (material or formal) is the pertinent denial of a Catholic dogma. The only doctrine that the conciliar Popes can be guilty of denying is the EENS dogma, as written, which ironically most traditionalist do anyway.

That is not enough for you?

There is not "me" when searching the Truth. The Truth exists independently of you and I so my opinion do not really matter. Church history attests that even in the case of heresy, the pontificate is still valid. Take the example of Pope Honorious, who was condemned at the 2nd Council of Constantinople as a material heretic, (not a formal heretic). Pope Honorious denied nothing less than the Holy Trinity! and however, is still considered a valid, legitimate pontificate, despite teaching such heresy.

Again, no one on earth can depose a Pope but another Pope.

Do you care at all, to know that this Honorius case IS NOT AS YOU THINK?

Do you care at all that the TRUTH about his case is not comparable to the modern day antichrists?

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #172 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:45:09 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?

The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.

Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."

You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?

She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.

That is some serious bad will.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #173 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:54:58 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Mithrandylan
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?

The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.

Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."

You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?

She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.

That is some serious bad will.

Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #174 on:** July 10, 2014, 12:16:15 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.

There is simply no point in arguing with such a dishonest and bad willed person like Cantarella over this in an internet forum, where she can just ignore whatever you say and keep repeating the same old thing over and over again with no consequence.

The only way you could MAYBE do something with such people is if you had them in person, face to face, or in any other situation where she won't be able to just ignore what you say and be forced to answer.

But in here, forget about it. Total waste of time.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #175 on:** July 10, 2014, 12:30:07 AM »

The point of my last post, which I failed to express, is that I'm not arguing with her, rather I'm offering a reply for readers and lurkers. Not for Cantarella.

PG · « **Reply #176 on:** July 10, 2014, 01:10:04 AM »

Thanks to all for this exhibition(ladislaus, 2vermont, mithran, and friends). One can learn a lot reading threads like this.
For example: I did not know that cantarella was SBC.

2Vermont · « **Reply #177 on:** July 10, 2014, 08:04:23 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ladislaus
Most of them would accept Nancy Peℓσѕι as pope.

And you would have to say that you're not 100% certain that she's not pope.

Uhm, no.

If Francis died today and a conclave elected Nancy Peℓσѕι in a few weeks time you would have to say - she's not the pope but I can't be 100% certain.

If you disagree please explain why. And please explain why you would be 100% certain that Peℓσѕι wouldn't be pope but you are not 100% certain about Bergoglio.

Because Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't even legitimate "matter" to be the Pope. She couldn't even be materially pope, much less formally. What requires the intervention of Church authority is when there are allegations that an actual MATERIAL pope has formally lost the office. Peℓσѕι can't even be material pope. It's really not that hard, Heremenegild.

You are not consistent with your own arguments. You can't be sure that Nancy Peℓσѕι isn't a man because you don't have certainty about this.

I'll give you another example - the Dalai Lama. Could you be 100% certain about him?

This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.

I can't answer for Ladislaus, but I think my very small percentage of doubt comes from my concern that my opinion of Vatican II popes and of Vatican II itself as non-Catholic could be wrong. But then my common sense seems to kick in and tell that part of myself to get a grip.

2Vermont · « **Reply #178 on:** July 10, 2014, 08:13:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do).

Not to turn this into a thread about BOD, but I'm pretty sure you have called the BODers here heretics. Your posts, as well as others on that topic, absolutely come across as if the anti-BOD view is not just private judgment.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #179 on:** July 10, 2014, 08:22:09 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Mithrandylan
There's no consensus as for what "to do" in the case of a heretic being elected? Or there's no consensus over whether or not such a man can be pope?

The former question is one of practicalities. The latter question indeed has a consensus, and it's that such a man is not pope, he either is invalidly elected (having been a heretic at the time of the election and being invalid matter for the papacy) or, having been validly elected, loses his office by his own action when he exits the Church. There is absolutely a consensus on this, let's not pretend otherwise.

Not that it's immediately relevant, but anyone may rebuke a superior. It is untrue that it must happen "by the Church."

You think someone like her will care to know that she is completely wrong and that what she says is false?

She probably doesn't even READ or CONSIDER or ANALYZE CRITICALLY anything that proves her wrong.

That is some serious bad will.

Oh, I know. But others read the forum as well. Cantarella is a anti-sedevacantism vending machine, she dispenses day in and day out the same old stale, recycled and repackaged crap, calls it an argument ( which would be like calling a Snickers bar dinner)and expects people to eat it up. Point being, she only employs strawmen, completely lacks circuмspection, and couldn't care less what the SV argument actually IS. So, she ends up conveniently representing the entirety of the anti SV position on her own, which would be convenient if it weren't so offensive.

Poor Myth.

It's so hard to defend the indefensible in a forum where you can't be a mod.

The objective error of sedevacantism continues to spread its poison, unabated.

Why? Because it's not a threat.

There are sedevacantist priests in the SSPX and in NovusOrdo dioceses all over the world, and they are not disciplined or expelled or marginalized. Not even Pope Francis is hard on them -- because they are not a threat.

And likewise Myth is not a threat. Poor Myth.

.