The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.

Point is:

1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?

2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?

3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?

In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.

By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.

The argument is not my argument. I got it from Bishop Pivarunas and supplemented by Peter Dimond. These R&R folks all went their bookshelves and pulled out their 1917 Code of Canon Law like the bishop did and yeah well, I doubt it. Plenus Venters Code doesn’t have the footnote either. Probably because he doesn’t have a Code and used google search like everyone else here. (The online version contains 1983 footnotes by the way. check for yourselves the JP2 references). So by acting like you own a Code here you claim Bishop Pivarunas is a liar (the youtube video I posted is where the claim was made). But let’s not talk about pride.

Point is:

1.) Does Francis hold the integral Catholic Faith?

2.) If one does not hold the Catholic Faith, are they members of the Catholic Church?

3.) If one is a non-member of the Catholic Church (heretic, schismatic or apostate), can they be the Church’s head?

In order to claim Francis as the leader of your religion, one of the above questions must be marked yes. However, everything in the pre-Vatican 2 religion indicates that the answer to all these questions are a resounding “no”.

By answering yes to one of the above questions, the Catholic Faith turns into a masonic religious indifferentism. It also helps bring about the one world religion as time will soon tell.

Stubborn says…”produce the quote [that references cuм EX Apostolatus in the 1917 Code] or it is a lie”. A lie declared as such by His Excellency Stubborn. Hitherto as forth and such to be denied by none.

Get real. That’s not how things work. I produced the youtube video of Bishop Pivarunas making the claim of the footnote. If you want to publicly call him a liar because Centroamerica can’t provide a notarized official Vatican state photocopy of the 1917 Code of Canon law with the footnote on Cath Info, that is your own problem.

You’re only deflecting because you want Francis to be your pope but again and again Cath Info members have proved your position untenable using common sense and pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. In the process, you’ve wanted to be right more than ever and resorted to lashing out and calling people liars for unfounded reasons.

Stubborn says…”produce the quote [that references cuм EX Apostolatus in the 1917 Code] or it is a lie”. A lie declared as such by His Excellency Stubborn. Hitherto as forth and such to be denied by none.

If I was Stubborn, I would issue an apology and seek confession, in light of the proof that Ladislaus just commented. Then I would adopt a sede vacante position as well.

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
188.8.° Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears nor answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary.

Yes, I admit I was wrong, cuм ex is in fact mentioned - but per Lad's post, cuм ex is clearly referenced for canon 188.8, not for canon 188.4.
Which, yet again does not say what the sedes want it to say.

He has to desert his office illegitimately, he has to ignore and not appear before his superior. IOW, he has to physically abandon ship without telling anybody.

That's the canon law that is referencing cuм ex.....which gives cuм ex a whole new meaning - to sedes.

So while I was wrong, it's still a lie that it references canon 188.4.