I meant to say that accepting a heretic pope is a rejection of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Those who have done this and were formally with either the resistance or the SSPX (Siscoe and Salza, Carlos Nogué et al) eventuay rejected R&R positions and went with the Conciliar Church. For those who don’t know Carlos Nogué, he is a self-styled Brazilian professor who for a time was teaching at Bishop Thomas Aquinas seminary. He authored a gigantic book entitled “The Heretic Pope” where he took most of Siscoe and Salza’s arguments and delivered them in Portuguese. Other like Jeff Cassman openly support the diocesan structure and disagree with +Lefebvre while attending SSPX chapels.
None of the anti-sedevacantists will respond to the 1917 Code of Canon Law argument in 188.4. They pretend it does not exist because it is an unfortunate fact for them. “No declaration necessary” and “notoriety of fact” (found in the 1917) are huge problems for R&R, especially when applied to Francis. If we could all just get past this and be honest with ourselves, unity among the Traditionalists groups could become a reality. Francis and his cardinals are not getting closer to the Faith. They are going further away from it.
I have Fr. Chazal’s booklet response to Fr. Cekada. I have yet to hear any priests make an argument against Canon 188.4 or the booklet “Answering Objections to Sedevacantism” by Bishop Pivarunas. If any argument does exist, I would love to read it. Cassman attempted to debate sedevacantism with Peter Dimond and failed so miserably against the 1917 CoCL argument that his own groups through a fit and wanted for Pints with Aquinas to remove the debate, to which they refused. Before any serious debate or discussion could continue, one, just one serious anti-sedevacantist would have to address the issue of the 1917 CoCl. Again, all that have tried failed and accepted heretic popes eventually abandoning R&R all together rather than laying pride aside and adopting the sede vacante position, they defected to the Conciliar religion.
Choc a block full of false claims.
If only we would all lay pride aside, like you, evidently, then we would all be sedevacantists. What is that if not the summit of pride?
If you have Fr Chazal's book, how can you be 'yet to hear any priests make an argument against Canon 188.4'?
Salza and Nogue are no more part of the SSPX than Centroamerica is... they come and they go, all trying to teach the Archbishop. They go to the left, you go to the right. Apparently that discredits the position of the Archbishop in your eyes?
Have you even searched Cathinfo? It would not take too much effort for you to discover that all these issues have been covered, but you know that, you just don't accept the arguments, you hold that you are infallibly entitled to take down the Pope according to Canon Law, there is no doubt for you at all, it is an absolute certainty, you can now agitate for the reconstitution of the hierarchy. Incredible!
Here is a little reading that at the very least should remove some of your certainty and convince you to put your sword back in its scabbard:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/does-canon-law-support-sedevacantism/https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/contra-cekadam/ Read from p40 in your book.
Here is an excerpt from Bishop Williamson's preface:
Sedevacantists also love Canon 188.4 which states that public defection from the faith on the part of a cleric means automatic loss of his office. But many other Canons and the other sections of Canon 188 clearly show that this “public defection” must include the cleric's intent to resign by such acts as, for instance, attempting marriage or joining a sect, and also there must be a warning and official monitions before the cleric loses his office. Common justice calls it the right of self-defence.
Here is some of Fr Chazal's text:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/contra-cekadam-by-fr-chazal-more-chapters/But for starters, sedevacantists do not know how to use this famed canon 188.4 in the first place, its extension and its interpretation:
* VERMEERSCH is spot on: “One defects from the Faith who denies its foundation pertinaciously, or who by some
precise fact (“facto factove”)
destroys all bound with the Catholic religion, for instance, by adhering to a heretical or schismatic sect. The delict is public , when it is notorious to the greater part of the community or can soon be known” Epitome Iuris Canonici, I, p.190. Here in the Philippines, the delict is far from public, and for all our efforts, Francis is in good standing as the “Santo Padre”. We do not know how soon he will be known as such, in spite of our efforts.
* Fr BRIAN hαɾɾιsON says, “188.4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defecting publicly from the faith”. However, to 'defect publicly' from the faith, in this context, clearly means something a lot more drastic than making heretical (or allegedly heretical) statements in the course of public speeches and docuмents. This particular cause of losing office is found in that section of the Code dealing with the resignation of such an office (cc. 184-191), and is part of a canon which lists eight sorts of actions which the law treats as 'tacit resignations'. In other words, they are the sort of actions which can safely be taken as evidence that
the cleric does not even want to continue in the office he held up till that time, even though he may never have bothered to put his resignation or abdication in writing.” Living Tradition, May 2000.
* Fr ALVARO CALDERON says that “In effect there are acts which voluntary realization implies in the holder of office who executes them the intent to resign and which of the opportunity, by the same right, to accept the resignation.” A tacit resignation is an intent to resign. It implies a
will to resign. (…) “one must have recourse to understand 188.4 to
a) similar parts in the Code if there are any, (and you are very careful to avoid that)
b) the goal and circuмstance of the law and c) the intent of the legislator (can. 18).” What would be a tacit resignation in the case of a Pope? “The papal office would be vacant if the Pope was negligent in assuming his charge and did not present himself to his congregation; or, once enthroned, abandoned his residence without giving a reasonable motive and no one knew where he was; or if he presented himself in front of a civil tribunal to enter into marriage and fixed his residence in a determined place; or the chronicles of the newspapers announced that he had enlisted in the secular army and was on the front; in the same way, without declaration
, ipso facto, by tacit renunciation, the see of the Roman Pontiff would become vacant if
a fide catholica publice defecerit by adhering publicly to a non-catholic or schismatic sect, breaking all links with the catholic religion or completely abandoning the Christian faith.”
Canonists integrate
2314 and other canons to
184.4, like
Fr Ayrinhac: “If they have been formally affiliated with a non-Catholic sect, or publicly adhere to it, they incur ipso facto the note of infamy. Clerics lose all ecclesiastical office they might hold (Canon 188.4),
and after a fruitless warning they should be deposed.” (Penal legislation, p.193, 1920). A cleric,
should he even join the Adventists publicly, which is the correct meaning of ‘defecting publicly from the Faith’, is entitled to be warned before being deposed. So far Francis has not done so, but only multiplied heretical statements.
How many more references would you like to have? We could go on forever on what all say about 188.4.
Sedevacantists totally miss the meaning of 188 as a whole, for if one analyses the other dots, .1, .2, .3, .5, .6, .7, the Church requires
canonical monitions as well
Hence, in the other instances of loss of office:
=> Canon
2388 mentions the loss of office of priests attempting marriage
after warnings are made. It is just to underline that the office is lost in this special way, but never without warnings. And naturally, what follows an unheeded warning is a declaration that 188 has taken effect.
=> Same for
188.7: Clerics who do not wear the ecclesiastical habit, get warning first, by virtue of Canon 2379, then lose their office. How many more references and examples do you want?
=> In
2314, the expression “with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188” occurs, meaning the loss of office for heresy is not impeded by monitions, but part of the process.
To conclude, 188.4 is not like some canons that are derived directly from Divine Law, like the canons that stat the properties of Marriage. It bears all the marks of a human positive law, unfolding the different ways of what is called a tacit resignation.
But no, Centro, you cannot even admit of a doubt. You have the right. Out with the sword and off with his head! Sounds Catholic to me, yeah, sure.
Topic: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides (Read 24129 times)