You are stuck on "pope is a heretic therefore not the pope without out regard to the fat that it is not our right as subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. You believe it is our duty to pronounce him deposed. You are wrong here.

Whether the pope is knowingly a heretic, very simply, we are unable to say.  Judging the pope a heretic, is a judgement upon the pope, yet the pope can be judged by "none in this world". Here, the sedevacantists depose him for heresy then say they are judging a man, not a pope - as if they can judge even a man, which they can't, but apparently, none of this matters. This particular conundrum might be the worst defense the sedevacantists have in their attempt to vindicate their opinion.

Whether the pope loses his office because of his public heresy, we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status. While the sedevacantists do not actually 'do' anything, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, they also try to bind us to their judgement.

"They teach heresy in the OUM and the Solemn Magisterium through VII." - This is not true but it is this wrong thinking which is based on the false premise of infallibility, that helps fuel sedevacantism.

you write
"Whether the pope is knowingly a heretic, very simply, we are unable to say."

wrong,  by his ludicrous non catholic statements we know he is a heretic, and he knows it, for to say he doesn't know it would mean as pope he doesn't know the basic teachings of the church...impossible

the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for
ipso facto

Quote from: Stubborn

You are stuck on "pope is a heretic therefore not the pope without out regard to the fat that it is not our right as subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. You believe it is our duty to pronounce him deposed. You are wrong here.

Whether the pope is knowingly a heretic, very simply, we are unable to say.  Judging the pope a heretic, is a judgement upon the pope, yet the pope can be judged by "none in this world". Here, the sedevacantists depose him for heresy then say they are judging a man, not a pope - as if they can judge even a man, which they can't, but apparently, none of this matters. This particular conundrum might be the worst defense the sedevacantists have in their attempt to vindicate their opinion.

Whether the pope loses his office because of his public heresy, we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status. While the sedevacantists do not actually 'do' anything, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, they also try to bind us to their judgement.

"They teach heresy in the OUM and the Solemn Magisterium through VII." - This is not true but it is this wrong thinking which is based on the false premise of infallibility, that helps fuel sedevacantism.

you write
"Whether the pope is knowingly a heretic, very simply, we are unable to say."

wrong,  by his ludicrous non catholic statements we know he is a heretic, and he knows it, for to say he doesn't know it would mean as pope he doesn't know the basic teachings of the church...impossible

the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for
ipso facto

If you say so. But for me, it is altogether necessary for my salvation that I be subject to the pope.

Quote from: Stubborn

Not sure why it is so impossible to accept that we are bound to be subject to the pope in whatever is not sinful, this should require no further explanation. You seem to believe that we are bound to be his puppets, to be "in communion" with him in his sins - again, he is not a God.

Again, if he is a Pope, we should contradict him if he tells us to do something sinful.
If he is a heretic, we do not accept him as Pope and recognize the Chair is vacant. A heretic is not in the Church.

Well, when another pope decrees that they were not valid popes, then we will know, that is the only way we will know while we live in this world. But I would not place any bets of that ever happening. I would in fact, bet the farm against that ever happening for sedevacantists - unless they were to elect their own pope that is.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

If you say so. But for me, it is altogether necessary for my salvation that I be subject to the pope.

So I guess Pope Boniface VIII never took into account that there is not a Pope every single day in the life of the Church.
Either the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff means that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff when one is in office, or every person who dies during a papal interregnum goes to hell.
Also, you are not being subject to any of the Roman Pontiffs in history that declared that a heretic is not part of the Church.

Good heavens. Honestly. Please don't confuse a vacant chair due to the death of the pope, to an occupied chair.

I'm not. a VACANT chair is one that is not occupied. Your "popes" definitely do not occupy the Chair. You are deliberately misrepresenting the position to try to make yourself look right. It's not working, LOL.
You know that after the death of a Pope, there is not a new one until one is validly elected. This period is called an interregnum.

There is a very good reason that anyone deciding the validity or invalidity of popes is condemned by the Church. Can you think of some reasons why that would be condemned?

I will start you off with only one reason, possibly the best reason we could hope for - Richard Ibranyi.  

Now here's a sedevacantist who has docuмented proof that there have been no popes and no cardinals at all since 1130 due to their heresies, crimes and apostasies. Read all about it in the link - (it opens a PDF file). I don't understand why all sedevacantists don't agree with him - I mean he has docuмentation and everything. When it comes right down to it, his reasons are often better than yours for saying a certain of the popes are not popes.

For sedevacantists who believe as he believes, Pope Paul IV's cuм ex is null and utterly void because he was not a "true" pope. So here we have one sedevacantist who preaches cuм ex as Gospel to prove heretics can't be popes, while we have another sedevacantist who says the man who promulgated that Bull was not the pope. Perhaps there are a few dozen other varieties of sedevacantists whose opinions on the matter also conflict.

Remember, he has his reasons docuмented - just read the link.

Then ask yourself if you were a pope, would you teach, permit or encourage anyone to make the judgement that popes are not popes, knowing that doing so you risk yourself being deposed by whatever group decides you are not worthy, in the process causing a mentality of total lawlessness, which is anarchy, among the entire Catholic world? Would you teach or would you condemn that everyone has the right, responsibility and duty to scrutinize you and then decide whether you are valid or not? - then depose you if popular opinion decided you were invalid.

BTW, you say that it's "same o same o" that I don't answer any of you questions, yet you have no response to the many teachings of the Church that say that heretics are not in the Church.

Funny how when you see RI take your dogma to it's logical conclusion, somehow it's my fault.

RI serves as a representative as to why we are not allowed to decide the validity or invalidity of the pope - you even gave one of the reasons when you said: "He also takes quotes out of context and fails to understand what statements mean according to the precise wording". While you accuse me of doing that out of pride, it is you and the sedevacantists who fail to accept that that is precisely what you are doing. You reject the whole idea that when the popes taught heretics are outside the Church, that they were not leaving it up to you to make that judgement against any body - certainly not a pope.

What you and the sedevacantists are doing, is saying that the popes meant your knowledge of the popes' sins authorize you to declare popes are not popes and were never elected. Pure bolderdash.

Besides, remember, RI has his reasons docuмented - just read the link.

Then ask yourself if you were a pope, would you teach, permit or encourage anyone to make the judgement that popes are not popes, knowing that doing so you risk yourself being deposed by whatever group decides you are not worthy, in the process causing a mentality of total lawlessness, which is anarchy, among the entire Catholic world? Would you teach or would you condemn that everyone has the right, responsibility and duty to scrutinize you and then decide whether you are valid or not? - then depose you if popular opinion decided you were invalid.
 

Quote

Funny how when you see RI take your dogma to it's logical conclusion, somehow it's my fault.

How is that the logical conclusion. A heretic cannot be pope. An evil man can be Pope. Therefore, any evil thing a Pope has done makes him not the Pope and all the people claiming to be Popes and Cardinals for the last 1000 years were not. You ignored my last response. He attributes heresy to where it is not. I don't expect you to understand since you believe heretics are Catholic and that heresy is just another sin, ignoring Catholic Teaching.

Heresy is a sin. The fact is that you believe it is up to you to take matters into your own hands and decide the status of the pope.

Quote

RI serves as a representative as to why we are not allowed to decide the validity or invalidity of the pope - you even gave one of the reasons when you said: "He also takes quotes out of context and fails to understand what statements mean according to the precise wording". While you accuse me of doing that out of pride, it is you and the sedevacantists who fail to accept that that is precisely what you are doing. You reject the whole idea that when the popes taught heretics are outside the Church, that they were not leaving it up to you to make that judgement against any body - certainly not a pope.

This whole private judgment thing you are stuck on is ridiculous. How could we ever protect our souls if we weren't meant to decide what is detrimental to it. We judge everything against the Dogmas of the Church. If anyone pertinaciously and obstinately denies a Dogma we are to judge them as such.

You reject the dogma that we are not the popes' judges - see cuм ex.

We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy.

Quote from: Stubborn

Then ask yourself if you were a pope, would you teach, permit or encourage anyone to make the judgement that popes are not popes, knowing that doing so you risk yourself being deposed by whatever group decides you are not worthy, in the process causing a mentality of total lawlessness, which is anarchy, among the entire Catholic world?
Would you teach or would you condemn that everyone has the right, responsibility and duty to scrutinize you and then decide whether you are valid or not? - then depose you if popular opinion decided you were invalid.

We are talking about a person who was never elected. If I were NOT a true Pope but a false pope, I would not want people using their Catholic faith to determine that I was not elected, because I was a heretic.

So if you were pope, you would teach that anyone must decide the validity not only of the pope, but also of the election of the pope. Is that what you are trying to say?

There was nothing wrong with Vatican II changing the Mass from Latin to the vernacular. Mass in the vernacular is more laity friendly because it allows the laity to have more response time.

You opinion is absolutely incorrect.  

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circuмstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates;

Quote

So please be clear -  are you saying that if you were pope, you would mandate that it is everyone's duty to scrutinize and decide your validity and the validity of your election? Would you also include scrutinizing and deciding the validity of all the cardinals', bishops' and priests'?

I would teach that it is every Catholics duty to know their faith so that they would be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. If someone proclaims heresy, I would teach the faithful to label those as heretics. I would also teach that we are to have no communion with any of those heretics, no matter who they are or what position they hold. Of course all of this is backed up by Catholic teaching.
So yes, it is necessary for us to individually determine if what we are being taught is heresy.

You are avoiding answering the questions again. I have already posted all of this throughout this thread, I agree with all of this because the Church has always taught all of this - so we completely agree on all your points - but none of this answers the two "yes or no" questions I asked you.

Ill try yet again -  

Taken from my above quote:
1) Are you saying that if you were pope, you would mandate that it is everyone's duty to scrutinize and decide your validity and the validity of your election?

2) Would you also include scrutinizing and deciding the validity of all the cardinals, bishops and priests?

I am getting very bored with your bad will. I can see that there is some obstacle to you seeing the Truth. I would also like to ask that you please stop commenting on the necessity of Baptism. When people see you posting, then see your other viewpoints, it might make some think ill of those who defend the necessity of the Church and Baptism, since every Catholic knows that the faith of the Church cannot fail.

Bad will eh? But because I completely agree with what you posted, you must agree that you are also of bad will.

As such, for heaven's sake, stop posting about the necessity of the sacraments please, people will get the whole wrong idea!