Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: soulguard on February 17, 2014, 03:18:20 PM
-
I spoke to someone about Sedevacantism. He thought that Francis was pope and was giving me this main reason why he believes that he is. I want to know if he is right.
He said that when Francis received the dignity of the office of pope, that it left an indelible mark on his soul, and that because of this he possesses "jurisdiction".
Now he reminded me that a priest who is outside the church, or in mortal sin, can still give the sacraments, and they will be valid. He said that even if the pope is a manifest heretic and outside the church, that he still retains "jurisdiction" because of the indelible mark on his soul. Hence he is still the pope.
The other thing he said was that he can only be removed from office IF the bishops condemn him.
Is he right?
-
Is he right?
No.
-
Is he right?
No.
Why isint he right?
-
The character of a moral act which makes it attributable to a certain person is called imputability. The imputability of a crime depends on the malice (dolus) of the culprit or on his culpability (culpa) in being ignorant of the law or in failing to use due diligence; hence all causes which increase, diminish, or excuse from malice or culpability, automatically increase, diminish, or excuse from the imputability of a crime (c. 2199).
Malice here means the deliberate will to violate the law; opposed to it on the part of the mind is want of knowledge, on the part of the will, want of freedom (c. 2200, §1). When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200, §2).
Persons who conspire to commit a crime and physically concur in it are all held equally guilty, unless circuмstances increase or diminish the guilt of some or one of them (c. 2209, §1). In a crime which by its nature requires an accomplice, each party has the same guilt unless the contrary is clear from the circuмstances (c. 2209, §2). Not only the one who commands a crime and who is thus the principal culprit, but also those who induce the commission of the crime or concur in it in any way, incur no less guilt, other things being equal, than the one who perpetrated it, if without their help the crime would not have been committed (c. 2209, §3). But if their co-operation only made easier a crime which would have been committed even without their concurrence, it is less guilty (c. 2209, §4). One who by timely retraction completely withdrew his influence toward the commission of the crime is freed from all imputability, even though the perpetrator neverless completed the crime for reasons of his own; if he did not completely withdraw his influence, the retraction diminishes but does not entirely remove culpability (c. 2209, §5). One who concurs in a crime only by neglecting his duty incurs imputability proportionate to the obligation which he had to prevent the crime by doing his duty (c. 2209, §6). Praise of the crime after its commission, sharing in its fruits, concealing and harboring the culprit, or other acts subsequent to the completion of the crime, may constitute new crimes, namely, if they are punished by a penalty in the law; but, unless before the crime there was an agreement with the criminal to perform those acts, they do not entail imputability for the crime (c. 2209, §7).
Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the following canons, and which cannot be separated (c. 2257, §1). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical (c. 2257, §2).
Some excommunicated persons are vitandi, others tolerati (c. 2258, §1). No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and the excommunication has been publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he is to be avoided, without prejudice to canon 2343, §1, 1° (c. 2258, §2). The canon cited declares anyone who lays violent hands on the Supreme Pontiff ipso facto vitandus.
An excommunicated person is forbidden licitly to consecrate or administer sacraments and sacramentals, except as follows (c. 2261, §1). Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c. 2261, §2). But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, §3).
An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264).
A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284).
All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a reception of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4°, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded (c. 2314, §1). The abjuration [from crimes] is regarded as legally made when it is made before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and at least two witnesses (c. 2314, §2).
One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis; if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (c. 2315).
One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected of heresy (c. 2316).
Those who obstinately teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned, though not as formally heretical, by the Holy See or by a General Council, are to be excluded from the ministry of preaching the word of God or of hearing sacramental confessions, and from teaching in any capacity, in addition to any other penalties which the condemnatory sentence may inflict or which the Ordinary, after due warning, may deem necessary to repair the scandal (c. 2317).
Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).
- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary
-
So if Francis is excommunicated he is "Tolerati", and he retains jurisdiction illicitly but validly?
IF this is true I might just have to give up sedevacantism. But I will wait and see.
-
Is he right?
No.
Why isint he right?
The pope is supreme authority of the Church on earth, as such, no one, including the all the Bishops together cannot remove him from his office.
Popes do not receive the indelible mark when they are elected pope - they have that mark when they are ordained to the priesthood.
Now he reminded me that a priest who is outside the church, or in mortal sin, can still give the sacraments, and they will be valid. He said that even if the pope is a manifest heretic and outside the church, that he still retains "jurisdiction" because of the indelible mark on his soul. Hence he is still the pope.
He is still a priest due the mark on his soul, he is still pope because according to the law, there is no authority on earth capable of deposing him.
-
Manifest heretic. Proof, says the New Order. No sacrifice, no altar. Words are changed, to say the New Order, is manifest. That sin, against God's institution, is disobedience and that goes against Quo Prium which is infallible teaching with definition. Holy Mother Church has all her Canon Laws in place and well defined. It is there for anyone to read.
-
SG, what is your friend's source for the papacy imprinting an indelible mark on the soul?
I guarantee you, he has none. He made it up. The papacy is not a sacrament, and the soul does not receive an indelible mark from being raised to it. Even if it did, it does not therefore follow that Francis must be pope.
In fact, all the baptized receive an indelible mark on their soul. Yet, through heresy, apostasy or schism they are removed from the Church.
-
SG, what is your friend's source for the papacy imprinting an indelible mark on the soul?
I guarantee you, he has none. He made it up. The papacy is not a sacrament, and the soul does not receive an indelible mark from being raised to it. Even if it did, it does not therefore follow that Francis must be pope.
In fact, all the baptized receive an indelible mark on their soul. Yet, through heresy, apostasy or schism they are removed from the Church.
He said that because Francis was elected that he is the pope, and basically says that whether he is removed from the church for apostasy or not is of no consequence, since, he was elected and possesses jurisdiction. He says that a priest who is outside the church can still perform the sacraments, and that a pope can be outside the church and still exercise his office.
I have not heard this way of reasoning before, which reduces the state of being outside the church to insignificance. Does it matter if a pope is outside the church? Can he exercise the office he was elected to?
-
Soulguard,
As Mithrandylan said, your friend first came to a conclusion then made up his theogolical "facts" to fit the conclusion.
What you wrote that he said here is preposterous.
-
SG, what is your friend's source for the papacy imprinting an indelible mark on the soul?
I guarantee you, he has none. He made it up. The papacy is not a sacrament, and the soul does not receive an indelible mark from being raised to it. Even if it did, it does not therefore follow that Francis must be pope.
In fact, all the baptized receive an indelible mark on their soul. Yet, through heresy, apostasy or schism they are removed from the Church.
He said that because Francis was elected that he is the pope, and basically says that whether he is removed from the church for apostasy or not is of no consequence, since, he was elected and possesses jurisdiction. He says that a priest who is outside the church can still perform the sacraments, and that a pope can be outside the church and still exercise his office.
I have not heard this way of reasoning before, which reduces the state of being outside the church to insignificance. Does it matter if a pope is outside the church? Can he exercise the office he was elected to?
He's still making things up.
In the first place, only a baptized Catholic male can be elected to the papacy. So if one of those three things are not present in the putative pope, he isn't even elected to begin with. Your friend can't argue anything based on the fact that he was elected since whether or not he was elected is one of the points of contention.
In the second place, jurisdiction can indeed be lost. This happens when a bishop retires or resigns to a valid superior, when he has a penalty inflicted upon him from a lawful superior (suspending or removing his powers of jurisdiction), when he dies, etc. Furthermore, our priests do not "have" jurisdiction; in fact they don't have it at all which is why it is supplied to them for certain acts. The supplication of jurisdiction to our traditional priests does not mean that they "have" jurisdiction in an ordinary & habitual sense, and nor does their lack of possessing it in that sense mean that they are outside the Church.
Now, a heretic (being a non-Catholic) cannot participate in the economy of salvation which includes governing the Church. Heretics cannot and do no posses ordinary jurisdiction.
-
This person is expressing (although in deficient terms) one school of thought regarding the heretical pope question:
It's the Papa Haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus school (a heretical Pope must be deposed by the Church).
And a different twist on the same question was put out there by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers in his sedeprivationist theology.
With both the deponendus school and the sedeprivationists, there IS in fact this notion of there being a material / juridical component to the papacy that needs to be addressed even in a heretical pope scenario. I wouldn't call it an "indelible mark" as if it were some kind of Sacramental character.
With the deponendus school, the papacy continues formally but in some kind of crippled state that needs to be addressed by the Church, whereas with the sedeprivationists, the papacy continues only materially, with the one consequence being that if, say, Jorge Bergoglio would convert back to Catholicism, he would formally take up the exercise of the papacy without any further action by the Church, since he retains the material designation.
Both these avoid the problem of "conclavism".
In short, the question is NOT as simple as what most SVs would have you believe. It's complicated by a question of needing AUTHORITY to make the determination of heresy and to establish the dogmatic fact of legitimacy.
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
-
To the OP, I've heard even Sedes say that the excommunication issue is a red herring. I forget the specifics of the rationale, but something about the fact of arguing a divine law perspective rather than a canonical perspective. I forget why. I'm sure the arguments are googlable...
I'm not a Sede, but I just wanted to potentially keep you from going down a rabbit hole.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
-
I spoke to someone about Sedevacantism. He thought that Francis was pope and was giving me this main reason why he believes that he is. I want to know if he is right.
He said that when Francis received the dignity of the office of pope, that it left an indelible mark on his soul, and that because of this he possesses "jurisdiction".
Now he reminded me that a priest who is outside the church, or in mortal sin, can still give the sacraments, and they will be valid. He said that even if the pope is a manifest heretic and outside the church, that he still retains "jurisdiction" because of the indelible mark on his soul. Hence he is still the pope.
The other thing he said was that he can only be removed from office IF the bishops condemn him.
Is he right?
They laymen is a heretic that was "elected" by heretics. He cannot be the head of a body in which he is not a member. No indelible marks, perhaps the mark of the beast though.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
He (Ladislaus) really said that? If so I'm glad I skip over his posts when going through threads.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
St Bellarmine is a simpleton too! Wheee!
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
St Bellarmine is a simpleton too! Wheee!
Incredible. It shows you what we are dealing with though.
-
You guys are a complete joke.
You sit here swooning like Southern belles ("Oh, I dooo declare.") while wiping your brow in a feigned sanctimonious display of scandal and indignation. I'm surprised you didn't rend your garments like the Pharisees.
Yes, it is my allegation that St. Robert Bellarmine has a very simplistic ONTOLOGICAL view of the subject and fails to account for the criteriological and juridical aspects of the papacy.
On this and on every issue, you guys just believe what you want to believe and if you find a quote from someone who agrees with YOUR preconceived notions, you declare it to be of divine inspiration.
There were SEVERAL different opinions regarding the heretical pope issue, ALL of which labored with certain difficulties. And you just latch on to the simple one which your simple minds can grasp and which happens to conform to your bad wills.
You use St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion to allege that any jokers like yourselves can go around deposing popes if you have decided that they are heretical and because you don't like them. Which is why a LOT of later theologians didn't accept St. Robert's view (cf. John of St. Thomas and many others).
Manifest to whom? To Lover of Truth? Let's say that 5% of all Catholics think that Francis I is a heretic. 45% think that he's spoken error but error that's short of heresy. 50% think he's just fine. So what's the objective canonical status of Francis? Who the heck are you to decide who's a pope and who isn't? That belongs to THE CHURCH. What St. Robert Bellarmine was saying is that the Church cannot EFFECT deposition, but his notion of "manifest" heresy was very simplistic and could not solve the problem of a heretical pope in the practical order.
And it's not just I who realized this. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, an eminent theologian who helped Pius XII formulate the dogmatic definition of the Assumption and who helped write the Ottaviani intervention, made the formal / material distinction PRECISELY BECAUSE HE TOO CONSIDERED St. Robert's OPINION TO BE OVER SIMPLISTIC, i.e. because St. Robert failed to take into account the juridical (material) aspects of the papacy and the role of CHURCH AUTHORITY. I find his distinction to be quite VALID because it helps resolve the shortcomings of both the DEPONENDUS and the IPSO FACTO DEPOSITUS schools. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was RIGHT in this regard, and you know-nothing bozos are completely wrong.
I'll be very honest that it's bitter, uncharitable, haughty, know-nothing people like you who were the biggest reason I began to reconsider sedevacantism and to question why it might be mistaken.
-
Incredible. It shows you what we are dealing with though.
What's truly incredible is that you have the hypocritical audacity to denounce the Vatican II popes as heretics for holding the same heresies that your yourself actively and obstinately promote.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
St Bellarmine is a simpleton too! Wheee!
I said that his OPINION is simplistic, not that he's a simpleton. By simplistic I mean that it failed to make ADDITIONAL DISTINCTIONS which come into play, the distinctions which +Guerard des Lauriers DID see and DID make. You don't even understand basic English and yet arrogate to yourself the right to depose popes.
You've demonstrated your bad will and hubris on this issue already in declaring that you refuse to accept a state of doubt or uncertainty and have decided that your private judgment involves de fide certainty.
Not a single one of you is remotely capable of engaging in substantive intellectual discussion of any subject. And yet despite being thus intellectually challenged and having no education in philosophy or theology decide that you are competent to depose popes and declare your own personal dogmas.
-
The character of a moral act which makes it attributable to a certain person is called imputability. The imputability of a crime depends on the malice (dolus) of the culprit or on his culpability (culpa) in being ignorant of the law or in failing to use due diligence; hence all causes which increase, diminish, or excuse from malice or culpability, automatically increase, diminish, or excuse from the imputability of a crime (c. 2199).
Malice here means the deliberate will to violate the law; opposed to it on the part of the mind is want of knowledge, on the part of the will, want of freedom (c. 2200, §1). When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200, §2).
Persons who conspire to commit a crime and physically concur in it are all held equally guilty, unless circuмstances increase or diminish the guilt of some or one of them (c. 2209, §1). In a crime which by its nature requires an accomplice, each party has the same guilt unless the contrary is clear from the circuмstances (c. 2209, §2). Not only the one who commands a crime and who is thus the principal culprit, but also those who induce the commission of the crime or concur in it in any way, incur no less guilt, other things being equal, than the one who perpetrated it, if without their help the crime would not have been committed (c. 2209, §3). But if their co-operation only made easier a crime which would have been committed even without their concurrence, it is less guilty (c. 2209, §4). One who by timely retraction completely withdrew his influence toward the commission of the crime is freed from all imputability, even though the perpetrator neverless completed the crime for reasons of his own; if he did not completely withdraw his influence, the retraction diminishes but does not entirely remove culpability (c. 2209, §5). One who concurs in a crime only by neglecting his duty incurs imputability proportionate to the obligation which he had to prevent the crime by doing his duty (c. 2209, §6). Praise of the crime after its commission, sharing in its fruits, concealing and harboring the culprit, or other acts subsequent to the completion of the crime, may constitute new crimes, namely, if they are punished by a penalty in the law; but, unless before the crime there was an agreement with the criminal to perform those acts, they do not entail imputability for the crime (c. 2209, §7).
Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the following canons, and which cannot be separated (c. 2257, §1). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical (c. 2257, §2).
Some excommunicated persons are vitandi, others tolerati (c. 2258, §1). No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and the excommunication has been publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he is to be avoided, without prejudice to canon 2343, §1, 1° (c. 2258, §2). The canon cited declares anyone who lays violent hands on the Supreme Pontiff ipso facto vitandus.
An excommunicated person is forbidden licitly to consecrate or administer sacraments and sacramentals, except as follows (c. 2261, §1). Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c. 2261, §2). But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, §3).
An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264).
A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284).
All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a reception of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4°, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded (c. 2314, §1). The abjuration [from crimes] is regarded as legally made when it is made before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and at least two witnesses (c. 2314, §2).
One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis; if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (c. 2315).
One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected of heresy (c. 2316).
Those who obstinately teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned, though not as formally heretical, by the Holy See or by a General Council, are to be excluded from the ministry of preaching the word of God or of hearing sacramental confessions, and from teaching in any capacity, in addition to any other penalties which the condemnatory sentence may inflict or which the Ordinary, after due warning, may deem necessary to repair the scandal (c. 2317).
Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).
- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary
I do not believe that Canon Law or its censures and penalties, apply to the Pope. He is above Canon Law.
-
Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).
- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary
I do not believe that Canon Law or its censures and penalties, apply to the Pope. He is above Canon Law.
Are you saying the pope can become a freemason?
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/image/p6-george.jpg)
-
The character of a moral act which makes it attributable to a certain person is called imputability. The imputability of a crime depends on the malice (dolus) of the culprit or on his culpability (culpa) in being ignorant of the law or in failing to use due diligence; hence all causes which increase, diminish, or excuse from malice or culpability, automatically increase, diminish, or excuse from the imputability of a crime (c. 2199).
Malice here means the deliberate will to violate the law; opposed to it on the part of the mind is want of knowledge, on the part of the will, want of freedom (c. 2200, §1). When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200, §2).
Persons who conspire to commit a crime and physically concur in it are all held equally guilty, unless circuмstances increase or diminish the guilt of some or one of them (c. 2209, §1). In a crime which by its nature requires an accomplice, each party has the same guilt unless the contrary is clear from the circuмstances (c. 2209, §2). Not only the one who commands a crime and who is thus the principal culprit, but also those who induce the commission of the crime or concur in it in any way, incur no less guilt, other things being equal, than the one who perpetrated it, if without their help the crime would not have been committed (c. 2209, §3). But if their co-operation only made easier a crime which would have been committed even without their concurrence, it is less guilty (c. 2209, §4). One who by timely retraction completely withdrew his influence toward the commission of the crime is freed from all imputability, even though the perpetrator neverless completed the crime for reasons of his own; if he did not completely withdraw his influence, the retraction diminishes but does not entirely remove culpability (c. 2209, §5). One who concurs in a crime only by neglecting his duty incurs imputability proportionate to the obligation which he had to prevent the crime by doing his duty (c. 2209, §6). Praise of the crime after its commission, sharing in its fruits, concealing and harboring the culprit, or other acts subsequent to the completion of the crime, may constitute new crimes, namely, if they are punished by a penalty in the law; but, unless before the crime there was an agreement with the criminal to perform those acts, they do not entail imputability for the crime (c. 2209, §7).
Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the following canons, and which cannot be separated (c. 2257, §1). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical (c. 2257, §2).
Some excommunicated persons are vitandi, others tolerati (c. 2258, §1). No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and the excommunication has been publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he is to be avoided, without prejudice to canon 2343, §1, 1° (c. 2258, §2). The canon cited declares anyone who lays violent hands on the Supreme Pontiff ipso facto vitandus.
An excommunicated person is forbidden licitly to consecrate or administer sacraments and sacramentals, except as follows (c. 2261, §1). Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c. 2261, §2). But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, §3).
An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264).
A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284).
All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a reception of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4°, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded (c. 2314, §1). The abjuration [from crimes] is regarded as legally made when it is made before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and at least two witnesses (c. 2314, §2).
One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis; if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (c. 2315).
One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected of heresy (c. 2316).
Those who obstinately teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned, though not as formally heretical, by the Holy See or by a General Council, are to be excluded from the ministry of preaching the word of God or of hearing sacramental confessions, and from teaching in any capacity, in addition to any other penalties which the condemnatory sentence may inflict or which the Ordinary, after due warning, may deem necessary to repair the scandal (c. 2317).
Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).
- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary
I do not believe that Canon Law or its censures and penalties, apply to the Pope. He is above Canon Law.
The Divine Law that no public heretic can legitimately hold ecclesiastical office applies to him. Besides it is not the "Pope" we are talking about. We are not even talking about a member of the Church.
His actions show that he is a heretic (or if you like that the Holy Ghost did not keep His promise). The Holy Ghost protects valid Popes from erring. If the Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church then the gates of Hell have prevailed against it.
A valid Pope is the unifying head of the one true Church, not a meaningless figurehead like Queen Elizabeth.
-
or that, perhaps, if a freemason should be elected pope, canon law would then not apply?
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
St Bellarmine is a simpleton too! Wheee!
I said that his OPINION is simplistic, not that he's a simpleton. By simplistic I mean that it failed to make ADDITIONAL DISTINCTIONS which come into play, the distinctions which +Guerard des Lauriers DID see and DID make. You don't even understand basic English and yet arrogate to yourself the right to depose popes.
You've demonstrated your bad will and hubris on this issue already in declaring that you refuse to accept a state of doubt or uncertainty and have decided that your private judgment involves de fide certainty.
Not a single one of you is remotely capable of engaging in substantive intellectual discussion of any subject. And yet despite being thus intellectually challenged and having no education in philosophy or theology decide that you are competent to depose popes and declare your own personal dogmas.
Nobody is deposing a pope. You are just an angry little man.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.
You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?
All I can say is, wow!
St Bellarmine is a simpleton too! Wheee!
I said that his OPINION is simplistic, not that he's a simpleton. By simplistic I mean that it failed to make ADDITIONAL DISTINCTIONS which come into play, the distinctions which +Guerard des Lauriers DID see and DID make. You don't even understand basic English and yet arrogate to yourself the right to depose popes.
You've demonstrated your bad will and hubris on this issue already in declaring that you refuse to accept a state of doubt or uncertainty and have decided that your private judgment involves de fide certainty.
Not a single one of you is remotely capable of engaging in substantive intellectual discussion of any subject. And yet despite being thus intellectually challenged and having no education in philosophy or theology decide that you are competent to depose popes and declare your own personal dogmas.
As to the bolded, really? Where? I never said that my opinion was the only possible opinion. I didn't say it was certain I was correct and that all must believe as I do. What I did say was that I have trouble accepting what I consider a wishy washy response to the crisis. I personally need to come to a decision. I chose the SV side.
And accusing me of "bad will"? Who are you? The Sede-doubtist version of the Dimond Brothers?
-
You guys are a complete joke.
You sit here swooning like Southern belles ("Oh, I dooo declare.") while wiping your brow in a feigned sanctimonious display of scandal and indignation. I'm surprised you didn't rend your garments like the Pharisees.
Yes, it is my allegation that St. Robert Bellarmine has a very simplistic ONTOLOGICAL view of the subject and fails to account for the criteriological and juridical aspects of the papacy.
On this and on every issue, you guys just believe what you want to believe and if you find a quote from someone who agrees with YOUR preconceived notions, you declare it to be of divine inspiration.
There were SEVERAL different opinions regarding the heretical pope issue, ALL of which labored with certain difficulties. And you just latch on to the simple one which your simple minds can grasp and which happens to conform to your bad wills.
You use St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion to allege that any jokers like yourselves can go around deposing popes if you have decided that they are heretical and because you don't like them. Which is why a LOT of later theologians didn't accept St. Robert's view (cf. John of St. Thomas and many others).
Manifest to whom? To Lover of Truth? Let's say that 5% of all Catholics think that Francis I is a heretic. 45% think that he's spoken error but error that's short of heresy. 50% think he's just fine. So what's the objective canonical status of Francis? Who the heck are you to decide who's a pope and who isn't? That belongs to THE CHURCH. What St. Robert Bellarmine was saying is that the Church cannot EFFECT deposition, but his notion of "manifest" heresy was very simplistic and could not solve the problem of a heretical pope in the practical order.
And it's not just I who realized this. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, an eminent theologian who helped Pius XII formulate the dogmatic definition of the Assumption and who helped write the Ottaviani intervention, made the formal / material distinction PRECISELY BECAUSE HE TOO CONSIDERED St. Robert's OPINION TO BE OVER SIMPLISTIC, i.e. because St. Robert failed to take into account the juridical (material) aspects of the papacy and the role of CHURCH AUTHORITY. I find his distinction to be quite VALID because it helps resolve the shortcomings of both the DEPONENDUS and the IPSO FACTO DEPOSITUS schools. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was RIGHT in this regard, and you know-nothing bozos are completely wrong.
I'll be very honest that it's bitter, uncharitable, haughty, know-nothing people like you who were the biggest reason I began to reconsider sedevacantism and to question why it might be mistaken.
And you're just the epitome of humility declaring that BOTH SV and Sedeplenism are WRONG! Or shall I say, the only Catholic view is your view: sede-doubtist.
I have certainly followed both sides since joining this forum. I have taken the time to follow both sides and I have come to a decision that makes the most sense to me. For you to say to me the things you've said here and in the other post is just plain horseshit.
-
or that, perhaps, if a freemason should be elected pope, canon law would then not apply?
DIVINE LAW trumps everything. Canon Law can and does corroborate however.
-
You guys are a complete joke.
You sit here swooning like Southern belles ("Oh, I dooo declare.") while wiping your brow in a feigned sanctimonious display of scandal and indignation. I'm surprised you didn't rend your garments like the Pharisees.
Yes, it is my allegation that St. Robert Bellarmine has a very simplistic ONTOLOGICAL view of the subject and fails to account for the criteriological and juridical aspects of the papacy.
On this and on every issue, you guys just believe what you want to believe and if you find a quote from someone who agrees with YOUR preconceived notions, you declare it to be of divine inspiration.
There were SEVERAL different opinions regarding the heretical pope issue, ALL of which labored with certain difficulties. And you just latch on to the simple one which your simple minds can grasp and which happens to conform to your bad wills.
You use St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion to allege that any jokers like yourselves can go around deposing popes if you have decided that they are heretical and because you don't like them. Which is why a LOT of later theologians didn't accept St. Robert's view (cf. John of St. Thomas and many others).
Manifest to whom? To Lover of Truth? Let's say that 5% of all Catholics think that Francis I is a heretic. 45% think that he's spoken error but error that's short of heresy. 50% think he's just fine. So what's the objective canonical status of Francis? Who the heck are you to decide who's a pope and who isn't? That belongs to THE CHURCH. What St. Robert Bellarmine was saying is that the Church cannot EFFECT deposition, but his notion of "manifest" heresy was very simplistic and could not solve the problem of a heretical pope in the practical order.
And it's not just I who realized this. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, an eminent theologian who helped Pius XII formulate the dogmatic definition of the Assumption and who helped write the Ottaviani intervention, made the formal / material distinction PRECISELY BECAUSE HE TOO CONSIDERED St. Robert's OPINION TO BE OVER SIMPLISTIC, i.e. because St. Robert failed to take into account the juridical (material) aspects of the papacy and the role of CHURCH AUTHORITY. I find his distinction to be quite VALID because it helps resolve the shortcomings of both the DEPONENDUS and the IPSO FACTO DEPOSITUS schools. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was RIGHT in this regard, and you know-nothing bozos are completely wrong.
I'll be very honest that it's bitter, uncharitable, haughty, know-nothing people like you who were the biggest reason I began to reconsider sedevacantism and to question why it might be mistaken.
And you're just the epitome of humility declaring that BOTH SV and Sedeplenism are WRONG! Or shall I say, the only Catholic view is your view: sede-doubtist.
I have certainly followed both sides since joining this forum. I have taken the time to follow both sides and I have come to a decision that makes the most sense to me. For you to say to me the things you've said here and in the other post is just plain horseshit.
I wonder why someone would thumb that down. I also studied both sides of the issue thoroughly. As a conservative NO when trying to get root causes of the crisis SV was the last possible thing I thought of. I just "knew" JP2 didn't have anything to do with it. The excuses I kept making for him got so tired, worn and erroneous that needed a barf-bag after reading my own excuses for him.
When I realized the root cause lay at the very top everything else fell into place. Oh, that's why this, this, this, and this happened. The Holy Ghost did not take a holiday, He just didn't have anyone to prevent from erring.
-
When Pope Benedict resigned all the cardinals gathered and went into the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Soon white smoke came out of the chimney. A cardinal came to the window and said "Habemus papam..." Then Jorge Bergoglio came to the window and it was revealed thathis new name is "Francis." All of the world recognizes Pope Francis as the pope. Even people who are not Catholic and have major disagreements with the Catholic Church recognize that Francis is Pope.
-
When Pope Benedict resigned all the cardinals gathered and went into the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Soon white smoke came out of the chimney. A cardinal came to the window and said "Habemus papam..." Then Jorge Bergoglio came to the window and it was revealed thathis new name is "Francis." All of the world recognizes Pope Francis as the pope. Even people who are not Catholic and have major disagreements with the Catholic Church recognize that Francis is Pope.
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
-
The fact that those who are not in the Catholic Church recognize him as pope really isn't such a great argument either.
-
When Pope Benedict resigned all the cardinals gathered and went into the Sistine Chapel. They closed the doors. Soon white smoke came out of the chimney. A cardinal came to the window and said "Habemus papam..." Then Jorge Bergoglio came to the window and it was revealed thathis new name is "Francis." All of the world recognizes Pope Francis as the pope. Even people who are not Catholic and have major disagreements with the Catholic Church recognize that Francis is Pope.
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
-
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
Catholic Church version 2.0
New and improved theology,
more entertaining services,
live bands, and clown masses!
-
Catholic Church version 2.0
New and improved theology,
more entertaining services,
live bands, and clown masses!
It's the Miller Lite of Catholicism:
"Tastes great, less filling"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPeO0MbBgc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPeO0MbBgc)
-
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
Catholic Church version 2.0
New and improved theology,
more entertaining services,
live bands, and clown masses!
And if you stick around for the evening show, hellfire!
-
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
Catholic Church version 2.0
New and improved theology,
more entertaining services,
live bands, and clown masses!
And if you stick around for the evening show, hellfire!
Hellfire for those who disrespect the Catholic Church
-
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
Catholic Church version 2.0
New and improved theology,
more entertaining services,
live bands, and clown masses!
There is only one Catholci Church. The Pope is the Pope of all the Catholic Church.
-
The fact that those who are not in the Catholic Church recognize him as pope really isn't such a great argument either.
The Catholics recognize him as pope and listen to him when he speaks. The non-Catnolics recognize him and talk about how they disagree with him all the time. But they still recognize him as the pope.
-
"1. In necessary things, such as the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, there is no room for discussion. Mary is the Mother of God. Jesus Christ is God. The Blessed Sacrament is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. There are Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ to give grace. Christ founded a visible Church with a priesthood, with a hierarchy and Pope at the head." - Matthew
-
The fact that those who are not in the Catholic Church recognize him as pope really isn't such a great argument either.
Some Protestants such as Pastor Manning suggest he is not a real Pope because he does things no previous Pope has done. Same with Alex Jones. Some are horrified at them worshiping the devil with heretics, apostates and infidels. Some non-Catholics have more of a Catholic sense than those under the false Pope.
-
He's not the pope dont make me laugh poche wake up and smell the heroin.
-
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
He leads a church in 100% apostasy and seeks only to deepen that apostasy.
He cannot be the pope.
If people think bergoglio is the pope then they have lost all meaning of the sacred office of the papacy. A non Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic church. You know I dont really waste time on "pope francis" lovers because the anti-Sedevacantism arguments are just so ridiculous that there is no point in entertaining them. Pope francis'ists just live on a different planet. I am convinced that if you think francis is the pope without a good reason to, then you do not have logical detachment and objective judgement, and if you dont have that then you dont have the Catholic faith, but are only an imitator just as he is, a different colour wolf but still a pretender.
Even this stupid term "dogmatic sedevacantist" is a sign of the self delusions of those who think francis is pope. You need labels to describe your enemy, you need to put reason into a category so that you can trample upon it and dont have to meditate on it. The papacy means nothing to you if you support this man and belong to his church, you are a liar and a pretender, and you dont know you are a liar or pretend catholic because of this self delusion. Most people on this forum are delusional idiots. You cannot face facts.
-
"pope" of WHAT?
o_O
Pope of the Catholic Church
Catholic Church version 2.0
New and improved theology,
more entertaining services,
live bands, and clown masses!
And if you stick around for the evening show, hellfire!
Hellfire for those who disrespect the Catholic Church
Are you sure Francis agrees with you on that?
-
Some Protestants such as Pastor Manning suggest he is not a real Pope because he does things no previous Pope has done. Same with Alex Jones. Some are horrified at them worshiping the devil with heretics, apostates and infidels. Some non-Catholics have more of a Catholic sense than those under the false Pope.
This is true. I have seen it firsthand. They are wrong on other doctrinal matters but they can see that something's awry with Francis.