As for a sanatio in radice of an illegitimate election, I do not buy it. One of the sedevacantist posters here cited the historical example of a legitimate pope who was hauled off and imprisoned; then another was elected in his place and received "universal adherence". I do not believe that the subsequent universal adherence could effectively depose the legitimately-reigning pope. There's a very fine line between this and conceding that the Church can in fact depose popes.
I forget who it was who cited these case, and he also cited another one..
Let's say he did not leave any such notice of resignation, but just disappeared. After some time, the Cardinals PRESUMED him dead, and elected a new pope. But the actual Pope was still alive. What would the status of that second Pope be?.
See, I believe that there could be material error or error of fact with regard to the identity of the Pope. During the so-called Great Western Schism, with the 3 reigning "popes," the Church as a whole was uncertain about who the true pope was. Despite the uncertainty by the Church, there was still among the three one who was still the legitimate pope.
This notion of sanatio in radice doesn't make sense to me at all. I can see arguing that, if the Church recognizes a man universally, then it's a clear SIGN that he was really the pope, but I don't see how recognition can turn a non-pope into a pope. cuм ex seems to teach the contrary.
Eugene I was elected 10 Aug., 654, and died at Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm), 2 June, 657. Because he would not submit to Byzantine dictation in the matter of Monothelitism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm), St. Martin I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09723c.htm) was forcibly carried off from Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) (18 June, 653) and kept in exile till his death (September, 655). What happened in Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) after his departure is not well known. For a time the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) was governed in the manner usual in those days during a vacancy of the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), or during the absence of its occupant, viz., by the archpriest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01697b.htm), the archdeacon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01693a.htm), and the primicerius of the notaries. But after about a year and two months a successor was given to Martin in the person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) of Eugene (10 Aug., 654). He was a Roman of the first ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) region of the city, and was the son of Rufinianus. He had been a cleric (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) from his earliest years, and is set down by his biographer as distinguished for his gentleness, sanctity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm), and generosity. With regard to the circuмstances of his election, it can only be said that if he was forcibly placed on the Chair of Peter by the power of the emperor, in the hope that he would follow the imperial will, these calculations miscarried; and that, if he was elected against the will of the reigning pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) in the first instance, Pope Martin subsequently acquiesced in his election (Ep. Martini xvii in P.L., LXXXVII).
This is fundamentally different from the whole Church believing someone to be the pope who actually isn't. This is more like the whole Church not knowing who the pope is.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm, St. Pope Eugene I):.
This timeline is confirmed by the Liber Pontificalis.
Summary:
Jul 21, 649 - Pope Martin I elected
Jun 18, 653 - Pope Martin I arrested by agents of emperor Constans and carried off into exile
May 15, 654 - Arrived in modern day Crimea region
Aug 10, 654 - Pope Eugene I elected
Sep 16, 655 - Pope Martin I died (could also be Nov 12, 655)
As for other possible examples, refer to "Saeculum obscurum", the period where the legitimacy of the popes was sometimes shrouded in scandal. In particular there was a lot of confusion concerning the succession around John XII, Leo VIII, and Benedict V.
Let's say he did not leave any such notice of resignation, but just disappeared. After some time, the Cardinals PRESUMED him dead, and elected a new pope. But the actual Pope was still alive. What would the status of that second Pope be?I can't cite anything, but doesn't canon law have a "tacit resignation of office" clause? I mean, if someone just walks away from his duties, it is legally logical to assume he resigned. (This assumes a proper amount of time was involved). I would think the 2nd pope would be valid and true, even if the original one showed up one day.
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head here. Same thing with the Great Western Schism. And so I laugh at the people who are insisting that it is a dogmatic fact that George Bergoglio is the pope. They have no clue about what peaceful acceptance means. They are (willfully?) blind to the confusion that has engulfed Catholics in our times.Why don't you enlighten us as to what (you think) the peaceful an universal acceptance means. And then provide a quote or two to support it.
Why don't you enlighten us as to what (you think) the peaceful an universal acceptance means. And then provide a quote or two to support it.
Why don't you enlighten us as to what (you think) the peaceful an universal acceptance means. And then provide a quote or two to support it.No, I think you need to prove that peaceful acceptance means the cardinals (Roman clergy) are infallible. Because that's basically what your definition of peaceful acceptance is. It is not supported by scripture nor by Apostolic tradition. If it has any support at all, it is based on logical inferences which while they could be true are not sufficiently proven to be true. As far as I know, infallibility is only found in the pope and in the Church when it is united to the pope. If a pope rules that a past pope was a true pope either explicitly or at least tacitly by accepting the acts of that pope as legitimate, then the past pope can be known to be a true pope. Otherwise, I don't think you can be sure that a claimant was (or is) a true pope. However, if there truly is peace within the hierarchy concerning the legitimacy of a claimant, then there is certainly no danger in following them. No one was condemned during the Great Western Schism for following the wrong pope (all of whom were Catholic!). But since the election of J23, there has been no peace in the hierarchy concerning the pope. And none of the claimants were Catholic! This is exceedingly apparent during the "reign" of F1. So the idea that there is peaceful acceptance at this time is laughable.
We can all agree that this acceptance must be made by actual Catholics.Agreed. Sedevacantist's vote doesn't count.
Agreed. Sedevacantist's vote doesn't count.
"This Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, A NEW CHURCH which they call themselves the "CONCILIAR CHURCH".
"We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique (review) on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circuмstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a SCHISMATIC COUNCIL.
"Schismatics are in another Church even if they agree with the true Church of Christ in faith and doctrine." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante cap v)Thank you for confirming my point.
And hasn't Praeter aligned himself with the schismatic and heretical Conciliar Church?
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly.from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)
Thank you for confirming my point.
Praeter is a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
As for a sanatio in radice of an illegitimate election, I do not buy it.In that case, you disagree with the doctrine of Universal Acceptance, as explained by Cardinal Billot. Pope John XXIII's (and then Pope Paul VI's) Universal Acceptance is a sufficient proof that Cardinal Siri did not remain Pope, even if he was elected Pope to begin with. Cardinal Siri must, then, have resigned.
From these rough notions we can deduce the approximate definitions of the two churches:
* The Catholic Church is the society of the baptised who want to save their souls in professing the Catholic faith, in practising the same Catholic worship and in following the same pastors, successors of the Apostles.
* The conciliar church is the society of the baptised who follow the directives of the current Popes and bishops, in espousing more or less consciously the intention to bring about the unity of the human race, and in practise accepting the decisions of the Council, following the new liturgy and submitting to the new Code of Canon law.
If this be so, we have two churches who have the same heads and most of the same members,
The material cause: These are the persons united to each other within the society. We will say that in the case of the Catholic Church, as in the conciliar church, these are the baptised.
— The efficient cause is the head of the society: for the Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, it’s founder, and the Popes who are his vicars; and for the conciliar church, the Popes of the Council, therefore the same Popes; in such a way that the same hierarchy seems to govern the two Churches.
Either the Conciliar Church retains the essential characteristics of the Catholic Church or it does not. It it does, then it cannot be called a NEW CHURCH. If it does not, then if this is still the Catholic Church, then you're saying that the Church has defected.Ladislaus, where is the Church with four marks?
If there is one visible head and one hierarchy over two distinct Churches, and if both Churches have most of the same members, how can a Catholic separate from communion with the Conciliar Church without at the same time separating from communion with the Catholic Church?
If the head and hierarchy (efficient cause) are the same, and the members (material cause) are mostly the same and completely intermingled, separating from communion with the Conciliar Church would necessarily result in schism from the Catholic Church.
The error in the equation is the idea that the Conciliar Church is a separate and distinct Church from the Catholic Church.
The simplest explanation is that the Church was infiltrated by her enemies, who are subverting it from within. The crisis is the result of a battle of ideas within the walls of the one Church by two opposing forces, with a majority of the laity and clergy are caught somewhere in the middle.
I agree that there this violates the principle of non-contradiction. It can only ESSENTIALLY (or FORMALLY) be either one OR the other, but not both at the same time. An animal cannot be both a horse and a pig at the same time. It is either one or the other. But a horse can pick up a parasite and be infected and sick. It remains, essentially, a horse.
Now I hold that this Conciliar Church is in fact a new religion, but that it's not at the same time the Catholic Church.
The two Church theory is equivalent to saying you can have two different animals in one body (material cause), with the same visible head and nervous system (efficient cause). No possible.
The problem is twofold. First, you exaggerated the errors and misleading ambiguities by making them into a new religion. All the dogmas are still on the books, and not a single error has been proposed as de fide. Therefore, the faith is still "without spot or wrinkle." 2) If the same institution became a new Church the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.
If there is one visible head and one hierarchy over two distinct Churches, and if both Churches have most of the same members, how can a Catholic separate from communion with the Conciliar Church without at the same time separating from communion with the Catholic Church?What about this......The one visible head and one hierarchy are only over the Catholic Church, the other church is only a masquerade and is not the Church at all, so why can it not be said that they are over the Church, and also over the NO Club of V2, also called the conciliar church?
On the Pope Martin - Pope Eugene case, I think everyone will agree that if Pope Martin didn't resign, then he was the true pope all along until he died. The problem is that many people thought that Pope Eugene was the true pope while Pope Martin was still alive. And to make matters worse, to this day no one is sure if Pope Martin resigned or not. The motivation for asserting that Pope Martin resigned is to save the idea that the Roman clergy can never be wrong about who the true pope is. I don't think that can be the correct way of understanding peaceful acceptance. Only the pope is granted the grace of infallibility. The pope guarantees the legitimacy of his predecessors. Otherwise, how could the cadaver synod have ever been accepted as a legitimate act of the pope? Or how could cuм Ex Apostolatus be a legitimate act of the pope? i.e. declaring that the acceptance of the cardinals can be overruled by a future pope. So if a pope ruled that Pope Martin was the true pope after Pope Eugene's election, then that is what it was/is. It doesn't matter if the Roman clergy accepted Pope Eugene peacefully. And if the pope doesn't rule on that case, then it is even possible that there was no pope during that time. Just like the Great Western Schism. The Liber Pontificalis has decided that there was a pope during that time but it is not infallible. So to this day, some theologians wonder if the Holy See wasn't vacant for the entire 36 years..
I am content to say that, since we don't know what happened after he was taken into captivity, there is no proof either way that another pope was elected while he was alive, which I maintain is impossible anyway.
What about Pope St Celestine?