Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

What does Cum Ex expect us to do about Francis?

Judge or insist that he is not pope?
0 (0%)
Decide if he is pope or not?
0 (0%)
Contradict him? (do not deviate from the faith with him)
1 (12.5%)
Acknowledge without any declaration being necessary that he deviated from the faith or was heretic before his election and therefore is no pope at all because his election was null and void.
5 (62.5%)
Other (please explain)
2 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 7

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: Poll: cuм Ex - What did Pope Paul VI say we should do?  (Read 32721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Poll: cuм Ex - What did Pope Paul VI say we should do?
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2025, 10:59:31 PM »

Quote
You can twist yourselves into knots with all the Church law, definitions, and legalisms you want,
So you’re setting your opinion above canon law?  And even above a well-respected Sede Bishop such as +Sanborn?  
Logged

Online Plenus Venter

Re: Poll: cuм Ex - What did Pope Paul VI say we should do?
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2025, 11:04:43 PM »
Quote from: Johannes on January 09, 2025, 08:57:36 PM
You know what it means in the context I just gave. You can twist yourselves into knots with all the Church law, definitions, and legalisms you want, that isn't my M.O. Heretics don't belong to the Church - every basic catechism teaches this Catholic truth. The sin of heresy "severs one from the Body, by its very nature" no one needed Pope Pius XII to tell us that - Catholics always knew this.
Your M.O., Johannes, as you put it, seems rather to set yourself up as pope and ignore all the Church law and definitions??? Just ignore the entire theological debate and choose the conclusion of your liking and state it as dogma?

It is good to hear a sedevacantist saying that Pope Pius XII only intended in his encyclical MC to tell us what had always been known in this regard. His intention was obviously not to settle the long standing debate about if and how and when the heretic Pope loses office and jurisdiction.

Yet is it not in order to try to prove your sedevacantist theory that you are making such a noise? Pope Francis is a heretic. Heretics are outside the Church. Therefore he cannot be Pope. End of story?

Do you know more than, for example, the great Fr Garrigou-Lagrange?:

Here are a few questions from the Avrille Dominicans' Little Catechism of Sedevacantism:

7. But isn't it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the Pontificate?
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church's magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's line of conduct.
8. If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope's heresy.
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.3
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
9. But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-­exist with his own heresy.




Logged

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Poll: cuм Ex - What did Pope Paul VI say we should do?
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2025, 05:04:08 AM »
Quote from: Seraphina on January 09, 2025, 03:45:40 PM
Did you read the question? It’s about Pope Paul VI, (6th), not IV, (4th).
I didn't even notice that, my bad, but it's just a typo on his part.
Logged

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Poll: cuм Ex - What did Pope Paul VI say we should do?
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2025, 05:34:40 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on January 09, 2025, 03:29:53 PM
Well, one thing Cuм Ex clearly does, it gives a layman authority to withdraw obedience, etc.:

"7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering)."

For my part, I wouldn't call withdrawing obedience, avoiding as a warlock and heresiarch, etc. as "doing nothing." That's lawful rebellion.
Quote from: Johannes on January 09, 2025, 03:42:11 PM
Right.

(musingly) How does one submit to the Roman Pontiff - without which it is impossible to be saved - when they are in rebellion towards the Roman Pontiff? :confused:
Here again, you are ignoring the explicit instruction that DR posted from the pope promulgating in his official capacity as supreme head of the Church specifically to the laity, that we are not to obey those superiors who have deviated from the faith, not even the pope.

So first and foremost in the very beginning of cuм ex, the pope makes sure to explain to us that we must contradict a pope who deviates from the faith, then here above he tells us not to obey such a pope (or cardinal etc.)

This papal constitution therefore teaches three important things all Catholics are bound to believe, all of which you deny:
1) Cardinals and popes, contrary to your personal opinion-turned-de fide-doctrine, can indeed deviate from the faith.
2) They remain cardinals and popes who deviate from the faith.
3) We are not to obey them when they deviate from the faith.

^^This is what cuм ex teaches.
NOTE: #1 solves your conundrum:"The pope cannot fall into heresy, but if he does... but the pope cannot fall into heresy, but if he does... and on and on ad infinitum."

To answer your question: "(musingly) How does one submit to the Roman Pontiff - without which it is impossible to be saved - when they are in rebellion towards the Roman Pontiff?"

We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

For Catholics, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever complicated about any of this.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Poll: cuм Ex - What did Pope Paul VI say we should do?
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2025, 06:09:12 AM »
:sleep:

You all can prattle on forever about the "5 Opinions" and personal heresy of a pope ... and waste your time.  Better minds than ours failed to agree and we won't resolve it here.

It's the wrong question and is moot.  Bottom line is that the Church cannot be wrecked like this by the free exercise of legitimate papal authority.  If you want to be an SP, a Chazalian, a Siri Theorist (my own favorite), or theorize that Pope Paul VI was drugged, tied up in a dungeon, and replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double ... more power to you.  You may be right, you may be wrong, you may be crazy ... but you're still Catholic.  Just don't claim like all the heretics that the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship and Universal Discipline have been so thoroughly corrupted by the free exercise of legitimate papal authority that Catholics are permitted or even obliged in conscience to (as many Trads hold) to refuse submission to and communion with the legitimate pope and Catholic hierarchy in order to remain Catholic.  That entails an overly heretical denial of the indefectibility of the Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre upheld this Catholic dogma ... despite the false claims of many modern R&R.  Unfortunately he did not sufficiently emphasize the nuances of his position and thereby left a legacy of many who today claim to be his followers but are in fact nothing more than thinly-veiled Old Catholics and in some respects Protestants.

You're not defending Tradition by rejecting the indefectibility of the Church but are absolutely gutting it.  Shame on you for throwing the Catholic Church under the bus to rescue the likes of a Bergoglio, just so you can pretend to be superficially Catholic by paying lip service to a clown running around Rome in a white cassock and putting the heresiarch's picture up in your vestibule.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
« previous next »