Quote from: Roman Catholic

Pope Pax has declared.

It is not my declaration.

I think this is a pretty good article on schism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Maybe it is a good article, although I would be surprised if pax read it through.

Perhaps he could post the excerpts that he thinks support his declaration.

Pax declared: If you tell me that the man sitting in the Chair of Blessed Peter is not the Successor of Blessed Peter, then, yes, you are a schismatic.

(BTW, being that Pax used to attend CMRI but has since returned to the Novus Church; I wonder if he is a Duddy follower?)

It does not say what you want it to say.

Quote the part you think is relevant.

Quote from: Roman Catholic

It does not say what you want it to say.

Quote the part you think is relevant.

I do not have time ot play silly games with you. You ask. You receive. It is never good enough.

You can't even quote the part you think is relevant. Pathetic.

Nevertheless I agree with your last sentence.

What you provide never is good enough to convince us join you in Bogus-ordo-land.

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: pax

Quote from: Roman Catholic

It does not say what you want it to say.

Quote the part you think is relevant.

I do not have time ot play silly games with you. You ask. You receive. It is never good enough.

You can't even quote the part you think is relevant. Pathetic.

Nevertheless I agree with your last sentence.

What you provide never is good enough to convince us join you in Bogus-ordo-land.

Formerly a man was rightly considered a schismatic when he disregarded the authority of his own bishop; hence the words of St. Jerome quoted above. Before him St. Cyprian had said: "It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: "Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrnæans 8.2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant rôle of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of the diocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to the Holy See. In the material sense of the word there is schism, that is rupture of the social body, if there exist two or more claimants of the papacy, each of whom has on his side certain appearances of right and consequently more or less numerous partisans. But under these circuмstances good faith may, at least for a time, prevent a formal schism; this begins when the legitimacy of one of the pontiffs becomes so evident as to render adhesion to a rival inexcusable. Schism is regarded by the Church as a most serious fault, and is punished with the penalties inflicted on heresy, because heresy usually accompanies it. These are: excommunication incurred ipso facto and reserved to the sovereign pontiff (cf. "Apostolicæ Sedis", I, 3); this is followed by the loss of all ordinary jurisdiction and incapacity to receive any ecclesiastical benefices or dignities whatsoever. To communicate in sacris with schismatics, e.g., to receive the sacraments at the hands of their ministers, to assist at Divine Offices in their temples, is strictly forbidden to the faithful.

See? No rival claimant to the Chair of Blessed Peter = no justification for schism.

You keep reading into tihings.

It does not apply.

Sedes ae not in schism now due to sedevacantism.

Sedes do not want a justification for a schism.

Quote from: pax

See? No rival claimant to the Chair of Blessed Peter = no justification for schism.

Schism is never justifiable.

You must have seen these quotes, Pax.

Quote

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

Nothing in those about a rival claimant.

All of those quotes, and more besides, can be found at this site here:

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm

First Vatican Council, Sess. 4, ch. 2, no. 5 : Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord Himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema.

And yet, you tell me, that for an entire generation, and well into the next generation, there has been no Successor of Blessed Peter?