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

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 54976 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #645 on: June 29, 2023, 05:46:02 PM »
As I demonstrated in my last post, you have the wrong model in your head. You think that the Apostolic See is ONLY made up of the Roman Pontiff. You are incorrect in that assumption, according to 1983 Canon law:

Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.

The Apostolic See is not "lawfully vacant" until the death of the Roman Pontiff as UDG 14 states:

14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office.

Here is Pastor Bonus, 6:

Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.

Search Pastor Bonus all you want. You will not find that upon "resignation" of the Pontiff that the Curial officials cease from their office. Only upon the death of the Pontiff do the curial officials lose their offices. Therefore, until the death of the Pontiff, the Apostolic See (which includes the Curia according to Canon 361) cannot possibly be lawfully vacant.

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html

Angelus,

I'm not weighing in on this, but as a casual observer, it doesn't appear to me that you're dealing with the language of:

Quote
JP2's Universi Dominici Gregis77.

I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

If the pope must be dead, how can a vacancy occur if the pope merely resigns? Your position makes the "if" in "if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff" an absurdity and worse, since you say it's the case that the See couldn't become "vacant" upon a papal resignation, does it not?


Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #646 on: June 29, 2023, 05:55:43 PM »
I can't believe that you persist in clinging to this nonsense.  Why don't you just argue that Ratzinger didn't properly resign like the other Bennyvacantists do?  Even they would repudiate this stuff.  It's just an absurd denial of common sense, common sense being that you only need funeral rites if a pope has died, not if he's resigned.

I persist in the truth because Bergoglio is the non-canonically-elected destroyer that St. Francis of Assisi is referring to. I am hoping the everyone starts paying closer attention to him and his deceptions.

Yes, I agree with you that the problems did not start with Bergoglio. But he is the end point, the culmination of all of the errors that traditional Catholics recognize. And the methodology of the Synodal Church is purely Antichristian.

Why spend so much time talking about people and events that took place 60+ years ago? The prophesied Antichrist is here and in the news everyday. He's the guy who "looks like a lamb and speaks like a dragon" (Apoc. 13:11). He's "the bishop dressed in white."


Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #647 on: June 29, 2023, 06:01:52 PM »
Angelus,

I'm not weighing in on this, but as a casual observer, it doesn't appear to me that you're dealing with the language of:

If the pope must be dead, how can a vacancy occur if the pope merely resigns? Your position makes the "if" in "if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff" an absurdity and worse, since you say it's the case that the See couldn't become "vacant" upon a papal resignation, does it not?


Because a papal resignation creates a PARTIAL, but incomplete vacancy. The Roman Pontiff is the main part of the Apostolic See, and, so, when he resigns, it creates a partial vacancy. But, as the rest of the quote, says, that type of partial vacancy (one resulting from a resignation) does not annul the need to follow all of the procedures in the papal election law. In that case, the curial officials still act in the place of the Roman Pontiff (in a limited way) until the Pontiff dies. At that point, upon the retired Pontiff's death, the Curial officials lose their offices (except for Camerlengo) and an election is held to elect a new Roman Pontiff.

Offline Meg

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #648 on: June 29, 2023, 06:40:41 PM »
I persist in the truth because Bergoglio is the non-canonically-elected destroyer that St. Francis of Assisi is referring to. I am hoping the everyone starts paying closer attention to him and his deceptions.

Yes, I agree with you that the problems did not start with Bergoglio. But he is the end point, the culmination of all of the errors that traditional Catholics recognize. And the methodology of the Synodal Church is purely Antichristian.

Why spend so much time talking about people and events that took place 60+ years ago? The prophesied Antichrist is here and in the news everyday. He's the guy who "looks like a lamb and speaks like a dragon" (Apoc. 13:11). He's "the bishop dressed in white."

Our Catholic Faith, or rather The Deposit of Faith, is based on Scripture and Tradition. It is not based on the private revelation of a saint, such as St. Francis.

Regarding the issue of talking about things that took place 60+ years ago, well, it helps to know how the Modernists took over the Church, and what happened back then. If you want to focus solely on the supposed prophesied Antichrist, that's fine, but some of us do not see the problem in that light, even though it may be true. There isn't anything in Scripture or Tradition that points to this time as being the time of the antichrist.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #649 on: June 29, 2023, 07:52:20 PM »
I persist in the truth because Bergoglio is the non-canonically-elected destroyer that St. Francis of Assisi is referring to. I am hoping the everyone starts paying closer attention to him and his deceptions.

OK, fine, but you can come up with several more convincing reasons why Jorge was not canonically elected, such as the St. Gallen mafia problem (collusion) ... which Wojtyla declared would annul an election ... or making the case that Ratzinger was forced out of office or that he didn't properly resign.  Any one of those is more convincing that this notion that Jorge's election was invalid because they didn't have a funeral for Ratzinger.