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.

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.

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.

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. hαɾɾιson, 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 docuмent 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.

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.

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..

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.

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).