Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on October 01, 2009, 12:45:11 PM

Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 01, 2009, 12:45:11 PM
Title:
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 01, 2009, 02:23:20 PM
Nothing like a "fresh" perspective, stevie!

Why not just go sort through the archived folder at FE, where I (and others) came and went, discussing all kinds of interesting things at length, before you ever showed up?
Title:
Post by: CM on October 01, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 01, 2009, 04:12:08 PM
Quote
Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, there-fore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.


I've seen you misappropriate this before and let it slide.  This condemnation was directed at those who denied that ipso facto sentences has an intrinsic value or force.  No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least.  Such calls for responsibility are futile when dealing with the bitter zeal of a propagandist bent on establishing credibility for his pet theories.      
Title:
Post by: CM on October 01, 2009, 04:20:54 PM
Caminus, if ipso facto excommunication is indeed real, then are you going to suggest that Catholic have no right to recognize it when it is publicly manifest?
Title:
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 01, 2009, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: Caminus
...No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least.


The first sentence quoted above seems to lack a certain consistency with the second, particularly the bold section.

Surely you can share the texts of these "dogmatic decrees of condemnations"?  Straw man?
Title:
Post by: Caraffa on October 01, 2009, 04:49:06 PM
I agree with Fr. Harrison, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.

Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

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).  
Title:
Post by: CM on October 01, 2009, 04:54:48 PM
Quote from: Caraffa
I agree with Fr. Harrison, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.


What nonsense is this?  This Fr. Harrison asserts that the heretical 'pope' would be VALID, yet the very document you quote indicates that such a 'Pontiff' is no Pontiff at all.

Quote from: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

      (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

      (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

      (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;


Caraffa, snap out of it.
Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 01, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
Does anyone care to substantively dispute the article?

Where exactly does the author go wrong? Where is the crux of the disagreement?

Thanks.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 01, 2009, 06:07:52 PM
I read this article a long time ago when my dad sent it to me.  Even then I had already seen how it was filled with fallacies.

Why don't you spare me the trouble of refuting it point by point, and rather present what you feel is the most compelling argument contained therein?
Title:
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 01, 2009, 07:04:37 PM
Quote from: Caraffa
Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:


Why not share the ENTIRE text?
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 01, 2009, 07:09:03 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Caminus, if ipso facto excommunication is indeed real, then are you going to suggest that Catholic have no right to recognize it when it is publicly manifest?


Not legally, no.  And especially from our vantage point with regard to the "entire Church."  In the concrete, with regard to one whom you personally know and the facts are not in reasonable dispute, a moral certainty could be attained.  But to extrapolate this into the "sedevacantist thesis" frought with all it's problems is epistemologically inadmissable.

But this is a different question than what the original text referred to.  It didn't regard the "knowability" but rather the "effectiveness" of the penalty itself.  It was a theoretical, not a practical question.    
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 01, 2009, 07:10:55 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Caminus
...No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least.


The first sentence quoted above seems to lack a certain consistency with the second, particularly the bold section.

Surely you can share the texts of these "dogmatic decrees of condemnations"?  Straw man?


Certainly the dogmatic character is revealed once a man starts to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church in relation to his new found opinion.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 01, 2009, 07:14:31 PM
But at any rate, that comment was not really in reference to an "argument" made by an opponent, so it doesn't really fit into the category of a "straw man."  It could have been a bit hyperbolic for some, but it certainly touches upon the truth of the attitude of the members of the Church of the SedeVacante.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 01, 2009, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Caminus
Certainly the dogmatic character is revealed once a man starts to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church in relation to his new found opinion.


It is NOT a new found opinion that heretics are outside the Church, and that to be in communion with a false bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 01, 2009, 08:49:55 PM
I see you still haven't quite grasped the distinction between an abstract truth and a practical, concrete application of it.  To act as if contingencies are somehow equal to speculative truth is to destroy the distinction between the practical and speculative intellect.  It is to suppress what is objective and confound it with what is subjective.  The irony is that JPII and Ratzinger did the same thing.  
Title:
Post by: Caraffa on October 01, 2009, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Caraffa
I agree with Fr. Harrison, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.


What nonsense is this?  This Fr. Harrison asserts that the heretical 'pope' would be VALID, yet the very document you quote indicates that such a 'Pontiff' is no Pontiff at all.

Quote from: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

      (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

      (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

      (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;


Caraffa, snap out of it.


Except that CEAO is divine law, not canon law as of 1917.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 01, 2009, 09:32:36 PM
So called '1917 Code of Canon Law' was promulgated by an antipope.

Besides that, if you agree that a heretic is not able to be pope on account of Divine Law (which is correct), but IS able by ecclesiastical law, then you have contradicted Fr. Harrison, with whom you claim to agree.

He states that such a heretical 'pope' has VALIDITY (which is a result of Divine Law, not ecclesiastical), but is not licit.

If ecclesiastical law does not prohibit him from holding office, then HE IS NOT ILLICIT.  However because Divine Law prohibits it, he is invalid, and since '1917 Code' is not binding on anybody, he is illicit also.

Furthermore, if we examine your argument that CEAO had been somehow abrogated by '1917 Code' and pretend that it is a valid Code of Canon Law, we see still that you and Caminus both are distorting the facts.

The following canons (if they reflect the mind of the Church, as I believe they do) prove that anybody who is publicly and manifestly heretical, and has not proven their innocence, is to be regarded as guilty, and has lost office.

Quote from: The canons
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2:Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325: After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314:All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication ...


For folks such as myself and my friends, who believe it is not a binding Code of Canon Law still believe that there is much in it that reflects the true position of the Church.

But you folks who believe this is binding must obey it and recognize that AN OBJECTIVE PUBLIC VIOLATION of the law DEMANDS that we consider such a person guilty until they PROVE THEIR OWN INNOCENCE, otherwise you are being hypocritical.

So manifest heretics such as the heretical antipopes must be considered as guilty of being heretics, having done nothing to exonerate themselves, and only making it worse and worse.

As a result, we are to regard them as having lost office.  This all has to do with the EXTERNAL FORUM.  We do not have to prove pertinacity in these cases, we have to presume it, until the contrary is proven.

Case closed.
Title:
Post by: Raoul76 on October 01, 2009, 11:14:44 PM
Quote
"It should go without saying that divine providence would never permit him to define his heresy ex cathedra. The dogma of papal infallibility assures us this can never happen."


It did happen, "Father" Harrison.  Repeatedly.  

I know, I know.  VII was "pastoral," just ideas thrown out into the ether, suggestions we are free to take or to leave... Right?  Then I have to ask -- trying to play by the rules of this totally un-Catholic logic where suddenly Popes suggest instead of teach -- why were these so-called pastoral "suggestions" given to the laity to use at their own discretion and based on their own interpretation enforced with an iron rod?  And secondly, how can a Pope teach and not teach at the same time?  These fake Popes spouted heresy and then had the audacity to turn around and say "It's only pastoral, you don't have to listen, they're just suggestions" -- contradicting their own documents such as the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH Lumen Gentium.  

Can you imagine even an elementary school teacher trying to pull this?  Let's pretend there's a schoolteacher who spends all day every day telling stories about goblins, reading from storybooks and German and Irish fairy tales.  Every day the class ends the same way:  "Babies are all born of goblins and you have goblins for mothers.  JUST KIDDING.  You don't have to believe what I say.  See you tomorrow!"  

After yet another day of this, one kid goes home, confused, feeling like something is wrong.  He asks his mom if she's a goblin.  

"Mrs. Kringle said you were a goblin.  But I think she was kidding."  

The mom is surprised and says,  "I'm a goblin, huh?  What else do they teach you at that school?"  

"That's it -- that you are a goblin."  

"Do you believe it?"  

"Sorta."  

Catholics who stay with Vatican II believe that this perverse and psychologically abusive teacher is what the great, all-merciful God has given us for a series of Popes.  They believe the Vicar of Christ can teach heresy, then turn around and say it's non-binding, even though heresy is all they ever hear.  So they end up as sorta-Catholics, sorta-heretics, but mostly confused.

Another example -- take a prosecuting lawyer who is trying to tarnish the reputation of the defendant.  He says, "Is it not true that you were once a stripper?"  The defense attorney says "Objection!  Irrelevant."  Then the other lawyer says, "Sorry, your honor.  Strike that from the record."  BUT IT STILL REMAINS IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY THAT SHE WAS A STRIPPER.  Just as heresy remains in the minds of most VII Catholics even though they ignore the "pastoral councils" and pretty much everything the "Pope" says.  

So what are you not understanding here, stevusmagnus, Elizabeth, Caminus?  I know you don't agree with these Popes.  You think that obedience is to call someone Pope and then just ignore him?  That is not Catholic obedience but proves you are more Gallican than the sedevacantists who you accuse of Gallicanism.  WE would obey the Pope IF we thought we had one.  We do NOT obey a Pope who CANNOT BE a Pope, nor even a Catholic, because he is a manifest and pertinacious heretic.  It is our very love of obedience that makes it impossible for us to say these men are Popes.

It is so sad that as many people have gone along with this childish farce for as long as they have, but remember that in Leo XIII's vision, the devil was given 100 years to destroy the Church -- this has been going on since before 1958.  The rules that were always so firm began to erode; people began to make up their own and they were given lots of wiggle room to do so.  Eventually they ended up just believing pretty much whatever they wanted to believe and no authority ever stops them or teaches them any differently.  

Pius X warned about this when in Pascendi Dominici Gregis he talks about  the flood of questionable books and that you can't even trust them if they have an Imprimatur!  That shows he knew what was about to happen.

Quote
Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the  Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.


I have become a home-aloner sedevacantist like CM.  To the right of the sedevacantist clergy -- at least the American sedevacantist clergy -- but to the left of the Feeneyites.  I feel all of a sudden that I am a true Catholic, at the magical age of 33, the age at which many saints and Jesus Christ Himself died, but also the age at which myself and St. Augustine were born.  The best thing I have ever done was to walk away from the CMRI, and to stop accepting compromise IN ANY WAY -- God seems to be pleased with my decision, because over the last week I have been flooded with revelation and truth.  It is like yet another rebirth.

My view of what has happened in the Church has recently become sharper and clearer.  I now believe the devil had a two-pronged entry point into the Church:  ( a ) False interpretations of "invincible ignorance" leading to the theory of universal salvation and ( b ) The rhythm method and NFP, imparting a grotesquely sexual tone to the holy sacrament of marriage and leading to marriages based on lust instead of the qualities necessary for parenthood.  I have seen examples of this in my own brief experience with Catholicism, a man of that generation who has told me he married for the wrong reasons, of nuns happily chirping about "rhythm," etc.  

The sedevacantists will be riddled with errors for as long as they keep pretending that the 40's and 50's were a Golden Age.  They were a worldly, comfortable, fleshly and delusional age and those who pick up where these errors left off are doomed to repeat them.  Until they wake up, the Church is dead.  

I should also say that Pius XII will ALMOST SURELY go down as an anti-Pope.  Read a little speech called the "Allocution to Midwives."  Elizabeth, I know you don't often agree with what I say, but you are against NFP, as I am now -- put your money where your mouth is.  Don't just knock Father Cekada without seeing the source from which he got his error, who was Pius XII himself.  If you are going to refuse to listen to Father Cekada, then REFUSE TO LISTEN TO PACELLI AND HIS SUCCESSORS.

I may have more to say about this in the coming weeks but I want to do more research.  I have become as obsessed with NFP as Catholic Martyr is with BoD.  Still believe in BoD though!
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 01, 2009, 11:19:26 PM
I see that Satan has been illuminating you with his marvelous light as of late.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 02, 2009, 12:05:55 AM
That was a pretty good post Raoul76.  You're getting close.

Quote from: Caminus
I see that Satan has been illuminating you with his marvelous light as of late.


No, you've been here defending heresy.

Quote from: Raoul76
I may have more to say about this in the coming weeks but I want to do more research.  I have become as obsessed with NFP as Catholic Martyr is with BoD.  Still believe in BoD though!


God is not pleased with you yet, then.  But you are on your way.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 02, 2009, 12:48:44 AM
Quote
God is not pleased with you yet, then.


You literally make me ill.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 02, 2009, 01:12:17 AM
It's a heresy Caminus.  I am not presuming to speak for God, but I know He is not pleased with someone who knowingly holds to a heresy that is in contradiction to formal dogmas.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 02, 2009, 01:15:32 AM
And neither did I say I believe He is pleased with me.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 02, 2009, 01:21:57 AM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
It's a heresy Caminus.  I am not presuming to speak for God, but I know He is not pleased with someone who knowingly holds to a heresy that is in contradiction to formal dogmas.


No it's not, CM.  Was God pleased with the Saints who also held this doctrine?  Before or after Trent it matters not since the the necessity of baptism was very well known at all times.  How could they be Saints when they objectively sinned against the Faith and as such objectively had no Faith at all?  Are not the canonizations of the Church infallible?  Or are they simply useless since She canonizes people that objectively lead others to hell?  Or at very least aren't all that holy and thus are really just bad or mediocre examples.  Same goes for the Doctors of the Church.

Think man, THINK.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 02, 2009, 01:49:49 AM
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
It's a heresy Caminus.  I am not presuming to speak for God, but I know He is not pleased with someone who knowingly holds to a heresy that is in contradiction to formal dogmas.


No it's not, CM.  Was God pleased with the Saints who also held this doctrine?  Before or after Trent it matters not since the the necessity of baptism was very well known at all times.  How could they be Saints when they objectively sinned against the Faith and as such objectively had no Faith at all?  Are not the canonizations of the Church infallible?


No they are not (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-dimonds-assertion-that.html).

Quote from: Caminus
Or are they simply useless since She canonizes people that objectively lead others to hell?


They are not useless either.  The Church marks out lifestyles for imitation, however anybody who takes a saints doctrine over the decrees of Holy Mother Church, if these decrees do not admit it, is perverting the rule of faith.

Quote from: Caminus
Or at very least aren't all that holy and thus are really just bad or mediocre examples.  Same goes for the Doctors of the Church.


Non sequitur.  They may have had subjective excuses for their objective offense (those who taught it after Vienne, Florence or Trent).  And they have been exonerated in the external forum by their canonization.

Quote from: Caminus
Think man, THINK.


I have Caminus, I have.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:01 AM
LOL.  Why do you keep referring to yourself as if you are some kind of authority?

Quote
Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.


Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 02, 2009, 02:41:59 AM
Caminus, simply quote yourself as authority as well. ;)
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 02, 2009, 02:45:30 AM
Yeah, I could do that.  I love how he just quotes himself as a matter of fact.  What a strange little man.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 02, 2009, 03:09:55 AM
Quote from: Caminus
LOL.  Why do you keep referring to yourself as if you are some kind of authority?


I'm not doing anything of the sort.  I am placing a link to the information I have already gathered on the matter.  The information is Magisterial Catholic teaching, and your quotes from theologians do not carry the same weight.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 02, 2009, 10:02:49 AM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: Caminus
LOL.  Why do you keep referring to yourself as if you are some kind of authority?


I'm not doing anything of the sort.  I am placing a link to the information I have already gathered on the matter.  The information is Magisterial Catholic teaching, and your quotes from theologians do not carry the same weight.


Quote me where the magisterium asserts that canonizations are liable to error.
Title:
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 02, 2009, 10:46:08 AM
If canonizations ARE liable to error, there really ought to be some fine print that states such at the bottom of the last page of the paperwork involved for each one.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 06:51:49 AM
Quote from: Caminus
Quote me where the magisterium asserts that canonizations are liable to error.


Can't click on one little link?  It's the very first quote.

Quote from: Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4, #6:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


Not contained in the deposit of faith?  Not protected by God the Holy Ghost.

Gladius, many popes likely believed they were infallible when they decreed a canonization, but post Vatican, this belief is heretical, as it contradicts the Council on infallibility.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 03, 2009, 12:19:19 PM
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 03:51:15 PM
Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 03, 2009, 03:59:13 PM
CM,

Now you are saying canonizations are fallible? So we cannot be sure canonized Saints are in Heaven?

So St. Peter may be in Hell right now in your world?

Title:
Post by: Caraffa on October 03, 2009, 04:09:08 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
So called '1917 Code of Canon Law' was promulgated by an antipope.

Besides that, if you agree that a heretic is not able to be pope on account of Divine Law (which is correct), but IS able by ecclesiastical law, then you have contradicted Fr. Harrison, with whom you claim to agree.

He states that such a heretical 'pope' has VALIDITY (which is a result of Divine Law, not ecclesiastical), but is not licit.

If ecclesiastical law does not prohibit him from holding office, then HE IS NOT ILLICIT.  However because Divine Law prohibits it, he is invalid, and since '1917 Code' is not binding on anybody, he is illicit also.

Furthermore, if we examine your argument that CEAO had been somehow abrogated by '1917 Code' and pretend that it is a valid Code of Canon Law, we see still that you and Caminus both are distorting the facts.

The following canons (if they reflect the mind of the Church, as I believe they do) prove that anybody who is publicly and manifestly heretical, and has not proven their innocence, is to be regarded as guilty, and has lost office.

Quote from: The canons
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2:Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325: After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314:All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication ...


For folks such as myself and my friends, who believe it is not a binding Code of Canon Law still believe that there is much in it that reflects the true position of the Church.

But you folks who believe this is binding must obey it and recognize that AN OBJECTIVE PUBLIC VIOLATION of the law DEMANDS that we consider such a person guilty until they PROVE THEIR OWN INNOCENCE, otherwise you are being hypocritical.

So manifest heretics such as the heretical antipopes must be considered as guilty of being heretics, having done nothing to exonerate themselves, and only making it worse and worse.

As a result, we are to regard them as having lost office.  This all has to do with the EXTERNAL FORUM.  We do not have to prove pertinacity in these cases, we have to presume it, until the contrary is proven.

Case closed.


Even if you don't except the 1917 code of canon law, bear this in mind in regards to CEAO: There are actually two separate questions that must be taken into consideration. One is the validity of Orders received, and the other is having jurisdiction to exercise the powers of an office in the Church.

In other words, it is one thing to say that a man is validly ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, and it is another to say that he may hold a legitimate office in the Church. A man could be validly ordained or consecrated, but be barred from holding office.

It is like a doctor, or lawyer, or engineer. A man could be a "valid" doctor, but not have a license to practice medicine; a man could be a "valid" lawyer, but not have a license to practice law; a man could be a "valid" engineer, but not have a license to practice engineering.

The same thing is true of a priest or bishop.

What Pope Paul IV is talking about in this Bull is the ability of a man to hold an office in the Church, and not the validity of his ordinations.

The key phrase of the document is:

"enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office]... none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid"

Power and administration refers to the Power of Jurisdiction, which a man receives when he takes office. A man who deviates from the Catholic Faith could not receive the Power of Jurisdiction to administer an office in the Church, like running a diocese. Hence no one is required to obey.

But being a heretic or a schismatic does not stop your sacraments from being valid, either sacraments received or given. The Greek Orthodox are schismatics, but they are also heretics, since they deny the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc which are infallibly defined as dogmas. And yet, their ordinations are still valid, and their bishops are still validly consecrated. The same also applies to the Copts.

Some also point to the phrase "one cannot accept him as legitimate". Being legitimate is not the same as being valid.
Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 03, 2009, 04:13:17 PM
Good stuff Caraffa.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 05:42:07 PM
Caraffa, thank you for the correction.  You are right.  A pope is a bishop, and even though he loses his office through heresy, he does not lose his validity as bishop.

Very true.

While the "Bishop of Rome" is an office that can be lawfully held by any Catholic Bishop duly elected to it, it is still lost through heresy.  Thus any exercise of 'authority' by such a bishop would be illicit.

Catholics would be sinning mortally to view this person as holding the office of "Bishop of Rome"; the man would be a bishop without an office in the Catholic Church.

Essentially, to say he "governs validly" is still false, because he governs nothing, but is become a usurper.

It would be correct, however, to say he consecrates and confects sacraments validly, albeit sacrilegiously, due to their illegal nature, the bishop having lost the right to confect them.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
CM,

Now you are saying canonizations are fallible? So we cannot be sure canonized Saints are in Heaven?

So St. Peter may be in Hell right now in your world?



St. Peter is not a canonized saint.  What planet are you from?
Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 03, 2009, 06:25:02 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
It would be correct, however, to say he consecrates and confects sacraments validly, albeit sacrilegiously, due to their illegal nature, the bishop having lost the right to confect them.


Just like Sede bishops..
Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 03, 2009, 06:31:42 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: stevusmagnus
CM,

Now you are saying canonizations are fallible? So we cannot be sure canonized Saints are in Heaven?

So St. Peter may be in Hell right now in your world?



St. Peter is not a canonized saint.  What planet are you from?


Ok, you are technically right, but you know what is coming.

So St. Thomas Aquinas may be in Hell right now in your world?
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 06:32:40 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
It would be correct, however, to say he consecrates and confects sacraments validly, albeit sacrilegiously, due to their illegal nature, the bishop having lost the right to confect them.


Just like Sede bishops..


The heretical and schismatic ones, of course!

But separating from fallen Rome does not constitute schism.
Title:
Post by: stevusmagnus on October 03, 2009, 06:39:01 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
It would be correct, however, to say he consecrates and confects sacraments validly, albeit sacrilegiously, due to their illegal nature, the bishop having lost the right to confect them.


Just like Sede bishops..


The heretical and schismatic ones, of course!

But separating from fallen Rome does not constitute schism.


Sedes are heretics as they deny the current Pope as valid and believe in private judgment. In addition they are in schism as they also deny the Pope's rightful authority over them.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
So St. Thomas Aquinas may be in Hell right now in your world?


It is only possible, in so far as it was not God who revealed St. Thomas' sanctity, but an authoritative, albeit human, act of the Roman Pontiff.  The fact is that the pope did not know the subjective conscience of St. Thomas.  

Otherwise you have to say that it was revealed by the Holy Ghost.  If it was revealed by the Holy Ghost privately to the pope, then it is not public revelation and is not to be believed as dogma or binding on the Church.

But the pope makes his canonization binding by virtue of his authority, so it cannot be said to be a private revelation, but PUBLIC DIVINE REVELATION, if it is infallible.

Or it is an act of the pope in his fallible capacity, and while binding on the Church, is NOT infallible, is NOT Divine revelation, nor is it part of the Deposit of Faith (like St. Peter's sanctity).
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Sedes are heretics as they deny the current Pope as valid and believe in private judgment. In addition they are in schism as they also deny the Pope's rightful authority over them.


You don't even know what you're talking about.  Private judgment?  Do you ever make any private judgments of your own?  Of course you do.

There are certain judgments that we can make you know stevusmagnus, without violating the law.  Do you happen to know what judgments are forbidden?

It is judging the sense of Scripture and Tradition privately and in contradiction to the MAGISTERIUM of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.  However, when there are passages of Scripture that have not been defined by Holy Mother Church, so long as a person's judgment does not contradict the Faith, it is perfectly lawful to form judgments on these passages.

According to you a person who denies that a heretic can be pope is a heretic himself.  Wow!  Maybe you should elect him to be your new pope!
Title:
Post by: gladius_veritatis on October 03, 2009, 06:50:22 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Sedes are heretics as they deny the current Pope as valid and believe in private judgment. In addition they are in schism as they also deny the Pope's rightful authority over them.


Considering there are countless ecclesiastics, in Traddieland and Novus-ville, who do not go so far, you might want to rethink your presumptions (i.e., PRIVATE judgments about this situation).

Your comments quoted above are really rather uninformed and third-rate, stevus, even if we presume you are correct about the present situation.
Title:
Post by: CM on October 03, 2009, 07:09:32 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Your comments quoted above are really rather uninformed and third-rate, stevus, even if we presume you are correct about the present situation.


Pretend, rather.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 04, 2009, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Caminus, your examples that do not add one tittle to Public Revelation are in fact perfect examples of the Church invoking Her infallibility on matters of faith and morals.

When a proposition is condemned as heretical, it is condemned as contrary to revealed dogma, which is only Faith and morals.


You've just conceded the point.  Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation.  That was the foundation of your most ridiculous argument denying infallibility to dogmatic facts and truths of philosophy.  Now you want to assert that the negation of revelation is somehow actually a part of revelation.  

Quote
The Church generally refrains, however from condemning the intended meaning of the authors of such propositions, and with good cause.  It can be very difficult to know the subjective state of the persons soul and disposition, not to mention mitigating factors, the potential unreliability of the human testimony, etc.


The Church ALWAYS condemned a proposition in the sense that the author intended, at least according to the propositions context.  

Quote
For example, it has happened before that enemies a particular person stitch together quotes from his or her works in a disingenuous and unrepresentative manner, present them to the Holy See, and demand condemnation.


And in such cases, the Holy Office conducted a thorough investigation into the matter.  What you imply is that it is practially impossible to extract the intended meaning, which is exactly what the Jansenists alleged.

Quote
How could the same not apply to canonizations, which also rely on fallible human testimony?


Witness testimony is considered to constitute morally certain evidence.  But ultimately, there can be no error because of the exercise of supreme authority, upon which our certitude rests.  The Church is infallible because it possesses supreme authority, not the other way around.

Quote
All instances named in the second paragraph quoted are instances that touch specifically on how various objects stand in relation to the dogmas of faith and morals.


To assert that something "stands in relation" is to imply a non-identity.  

Quote
So you have yet to prove what you assert, that is that the Holy Ghost was promised for any other purpose than to religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


I don't need to prove it because you've already conceded the point.  Unless you wish to assert that heresy or a falsehood has more of a "relation" to the faith than the Saints whose relics adorn our altars and who stand as perfect witnesses and models of Christian learning and sanctity?  Are you prepared to assert such diabolical nonsense?

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the exercise of supreme authority somehow affects the content of revelation when in reality the two notions are entirely distinct.  It is this fallacy which vitiates your mind.  If you persist, your infamy will be noted yet again and will bring nothing but scorn and contempt upon your person.  
Title:
Post by: CM on October 04, 2009, 02:59:14 PM
There is a difference between exercising supreme authority and infallibility.

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Caminus, your examples that do not add one tittle to Public Revelation are in fact perfect examples of the Church invoking Her infallibility on matters of faith and morals.

When a proposition is condemned as heretical, it is condemned as contrary to revealed dogma, which is only Faith and morals.



You've just conceded the point.  Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation.


You weirdo the dogmas of faith and morals ARE Divine revelation!


Quote from: Caminus
That was the foundation of your most ridiculous argument denying infallibility to dogmatic facts


A dogmatic fact is a convergence between a dogma and a historical certainty.  History, however does not contain ABSOLUTELY certain truths, as historical revisionists will happily tell you, but morally certain at best.  This is far from infallible.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 04, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: Catholic Martyr
There is a difference between exercising supreme authority and infallibility.
Quote


No, there is no difference.  The reason why God doesn't allow error in certain circumstances is precisely because men use His authority in a supreme degree.  As such, God has promised not to allow error to creep in where His authority is used in such a manner because it would be equivalent to binding men's consciences to error for all eternity.  Our certitude thus rests upon authority.  Again, the subject matter and the authority exercised upon it are two different things.

Quote
You've just conceded the point.  Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation.


Quote
You weirdo the dogmas of faith and morals ARE Divine revelation!


Heresy doesn't constitute dogma.  I can't believe I have to tell you that.

Quote
A dogmatic fact is a convergence between a dogma and a historical certainty.  History, however does not contain ABSOLUTELY certain truths, as historical revisionists will happily tell you, but morally certain at best.  This is far from infallible.


That's a bad description, where did you get that?  At any rate, our certitude rests not upon history, but authority.  The supreme irony here is that you appear to be bedfellows with liberal catholics who cast doubt upon the Saints of the Church and the doctrinal traditions of the Church, claimng that the only thing we're required to believe is that which has been dogmatically defined.  
Title:
Post by: CM on October 04, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
No difference between supreme authority and infallibility?  Come now, that is pretty bizarre to say the least.  Infallibility is what protects the pope from erring on doctrine and only when he meets the criteria in the Vatican Council.

Supreme authority is the fact that no authority is higher than the pope.  If even acts of the pope in his fallible capacity demand assent, then you have to say that these are infallible, since they came from his supreme authority given by God.  But we all know that the pope can err under certain circumstances.  How do you reconcile this, unless you say that he does not exercise supreme authority when speaking in his fallible capacity?

And then, how do you escape the problem of your position, which is that it allows us to judge the Holy See any time it does not speak ex cathedra?

Heresy is a proposition in contradiction to Divine revelation.  Therefore, a pope condemning heresy is speaking on a doctrine concerning faith or morals which has been handed down in the Deposit of Faith and is binding on all Christians, and therefore infallible.

You're distorting the matter.  I say we ARE bound to believe in canonizations just as we believe in any act of the pope in his fallible capacity.  But just like an encyclical, for example, in which he does not specifically bind all the faithful, we are not bound to believe that he is necessarily free from all error.
Title:
Post by: Caminus on October 04, 2009, 10:32:41 PM
Quote
No difference between supreme authority and infallibility?  Come now, that is pretty bizarre to say the least.  Infallibility is what protects the pope from erring on doctrine and only when he meets the criteria in the Vatican Council.


Correct, there is no difference.  When the Pope exercises his supreme authority, the matter is judged with infallibility.  

Quote
Supreme authority is the fact that no authority is higher than the pope.  If even acts of the pope in his fallible capacity demand assent, then you have to say that these are infallible, since they came from his supreme authority given by God.  But we all know that the pope can err under certain circumstances.  How do you reconcile this, unless you say that he does not exercise supreme authority when speaking in his fallible capacity?


You're confusing the man who possesses the authority and the exercise thereof.  There are varying degrees of assent and certitude with regard to magisterial teaching.  

Quote
And then, how do you escape the problem of your position, which is that it allows us to judge the Holy See any time it does not speak ex cathedra?


No, that doesn't follow at all.  Where do you come up with these wild inferences?  Now here's your problem, according to your logic, every exercise of the papal magisterium is ipso fact infallible because it is exercised by one who possesses supreme authority.  

Quote
Heresy is a proposition in contradiction to Divine revelation.  Therefore, a pope condemning heresy is speaking on a doctrine concerning faith or morals which has been handed down in the Deposit of Faith and is binding on all Christians, and therefore infallible.


There is no way around your previous assertion.  You need to retract it now.

Title:
Post by: CM on October 04, 2009, 11:13:09 PM
Retract what specifically?
Title:
Post by: CM on October 04, 2009, 11:44:22 PM