Quote from: Stubborn

You are saying the pope is not Catholic, which is what Constance condemned.

I am saying the man you call Pope is not a Catholic and was not elected as Pope of the Catholic Church.

Yes, you've made your opinion loud and clear multiple times now, so please know that there is no misunderstanding your opinion. It is obvious that you do not believe the pope is the pope since he is not even Catholic. The thing that is equally obvious, is that you do not accept the Church infallibly telling you that your opinion is condemned as error.

Quote from: Stubborn

FYI, "any excommunication whatsoever" includes excommunication for the sin of heresy. You seem to place heresy on some pedestal or want it to mean something it does not mean, same with excommunication. You do not understand what either means or when they apply. You certainly do not understand what Pope Pius XII was teaching - it is certain he did not have sedevacantism in mind. But either way, rest assured that "any excommunication whatsoever", includes cardinals that are heretical being included in the election of the pope.

What you should be wondering about is, why would they do this? But don't say they did not mean what they said.

I get it sir. You are saying that non-Catholics are Catholics. That we can vow  allegiance to a non-Catholic and call him Pope, and then refuse to obey him. I understand your position, it's just false.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I simply repeat the dogma that it is altogether necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be *subject* to the pope. You keep inventing requirements the Church does not have - the Church never made "vowing allegiance" to the pope a requirement for salvation.

The problem you have is that I quoted for you two popes who made it a law that heretical cardinals cannot be excluded from the conclave that elects the next pope. These quotes testify against your ideas about the pope and heresy and serve to prove your ideas are wrong. It is obvious you do not accept the teaching of the Church through these two popes, you only disagree with me because you act as though I invented the teaching.

Quote from: Stubborn

I am a loyal subject, to paraphrase St. Thomas More's last words: I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. You say that you are loyal to the office - and this regardless of what pope Pius XII said, he said that the Sedevacantists, the ones who are loyal to the office only, are the ones who "walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth."

You are neither loyal to a Pope nor God by vowing allegiance to a non-Catholic. You are not even LOYAL to the man you call Pope.

Quote from: Stubborn

Can't you see that? He is telling you that you cannot be loyal to the office alone, you must be loyal to the both the office and the pope, otherwise,  though you "are seeking the haven of eternal salvation [you] can neither see it nor find it."

When your 'pope" dies and before another is elected, who are you loyal to? Are you supposedly condemned because there is no "pope" to be loyal to?

Sedevacantists like to portray the pope as God Himself, thereby imagining that blind obedience equals loyalty. But being Catholics we understand that being loyal to the pope does not mean we are to worship him, nor does it mean we are to blindly follow him. St. Thomas More's last words should be all any Catholic needs for an example of true Catholic loyalty.    

And no, when the pope dies, there is no teaching from the Church dictating that we are condemned to hell during the interregnum for believing there is no pope at that time. What the Catholic Church through the Council of Constance condemns, is that after his election and acceptance of the office, the Church condemns as error the belief that the pope not the pope since he is not even Catholic.

The actual issue lies with sedevacantists who've convinced themselves that their opinion is dogma, or nearly dogma. So for them, there is an obvious  contradiction between their dogma and the Council's condemnation. On the one hand they see what the Council said, and on the other they have their dogma which clearly contradicts the Church's condemnation.

For them, the only way to get out of this dilemma, is to insist by whatever means they can conjure that the condemnation does not apply in these times or in this particular case. So in the effort to maintain their opinion as the only true position, they necessarily argue against the Church's clear condemnation. Same o same o.

Perhaps Stubborn you are not familiar with the Church's teaching that a Heretic cannot be elected Cardinal or Supreme Pontiff. So even though I've already posted this I will again. You probably won't read it, again, but in case there are people who want to read it here it is. (I will highlight and bold the portions that refute you).

Quote from: cuм ex Apostolatus Officio – Pope Paul IV

6. In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or 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...
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

One can read the whole Bull at many sites.
Unlike your previous quotes and your new quote from the CE, this mentions heresy and deals with it specifically. This is because Heresy is not merely a sin as you maintain, it separates one from the Church as Pius XII and other Popes say.

I actually am very familiar with cuм ex - at least three times it has been abrogated by three different popes: Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, which is why I said earlier that you were behind the times when you posted quotes from it. cuм ex was strictly a disciplinary docuмent, not dogmatic, were it otherwise, it could not have been modified as it was - unless of course you want to claim popes Pius X, XII and Benedict XV were not true popes, if you make that declaration, then you would declare their modifications are null and void. OTOH, if you believe they're true popes, then per their own decrees, you must accept that there is nothing to stop a heretic cardinal from being elected pope.

“None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

It states clearly that a cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy by reason of ANY excommunication…whatsoever”. "Any" excommunication whatsoever” necessarily includes an excommunication for heresy, which demonstrates that st. Pius X and st Pius XII did abrogate Paul IV's cuм Ex.

Now you can argue the point all you like, but the fact remains -  that the popes either abrogated cuм ex, or they willfully contradicted it, or they purposely disobeyed it. But you need to argue this in order for you to maintain your opinion as dogma because if you admit that you are wrong on this, your dogma falls apart.

You will need to come to the understanding that the sedevacantist's idea of what heresy is and what excommunication is, is altogether wrong.  

Quote from: Stubborn

I actually am very familiar with cuм ex - at least three times it has been abrogated by three different popes: Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, which is why I said earlier that you were behind the times when you posted quotes from it. cuм ex was strictly a disciplinary docuмent, not dogmatic

Please state where the Popes specifically abrogated this Teaching and also specifically where the Church teaches that HERETICS can be Pope.

I know of no official abrogation, suffice to say that regardless of cuм ex, regardless of whatever pope Paul IV said, it is an indisputable fact that as of 1904, as if without any regard whatsoever to cuм ex, pope Pius X made it a law that heretic cardinals could indeed participate in the election of the next pope, therefore a heretic could indeed be elected pope because there is nothing to stop such a thing from happening. Unless you can reply with the means guaranteed to prevent a heretic cardinal from being elected and universally accepted as pope, you are forced to concede.

Sedevacantists can fight this all they want, but no amount of arguing can change the above fact. It seems you want an official abrogation presumably because you are somehow convinced that without one, a heretic cannot be elected pope, but per pope Pius X's /XII's law, this argument is futile.

Quote from: Stubborn

Not surprising that the CE, like catechisms, has an obvious contradiction.

Although I agree this is not necessarily infallible, there is no Contradiction. There are different kinds of excommunication. Moreover, the quote from the CE that you cited isn't relevant because it is only talking about the excommunicated person who is not aheretic as can be seen from the portion you bolded. That is they are still Christian. The Church Dogmatically defines that Heretics are not part of the Church and go to hell if they remain that way.

Excommunication is excommunication, there are not different kinds of excommunications. One is either excommunicated or he is not - period. The CE explains: "(b) Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force."

As I already explained, excommunication does not make a person no longer a member of the Catholic Church. Heresy is a mortal sin, it is arguably the most pernicious mortal sin there is - particularly for sedevacantists, but that's what heresy is. It is through the Church's code of canon law that the Church decrees this particular sin brings with it the censure of excommunication. In the case of a bishop or other cleric, the censure is ipso facto. In the specific case of an heretical pope, there is no law at all.

The reason why I'm not a sedevecantist is that I recognize that I can't prove on the basis of my private judgment that V2 claimants were indeed formal heretics. Yes, it is very probable that the Chair of Peter is vacant, but we can't prove it.

Ditto that.  Also, when it comes to the Papcy, legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith and private judgment simply doesn't cut it there.  Otherwise, there's really nothing stopping anyone at any time from simply declaring a Pope illegitimate in order to refuse a given doctrinal definition.

Stubborn, you're slavishly glued to Father Wathen's opinion on the subject.  We do not follow men but the truth.  While I believe Father Wathen was right on most things, here he was mistaken.

Baptismal character alone does not suffice to make someone eligible to hold office in the Church.  While theologians disagree about how, when, and under what conditions heresy would cause deposition from office, they ALL agree that non-members of the Church cannot hold office in the Church.  And they all agree that formal heresy precludes membership in the Church.  Baptismal character alone does not suffice, but MEMBERSHIP in the Church is required.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Stubborn, you're slavishly glued to Father Wathen's opinion on the subject.  We do not follow men but the truth.  While I believe Father Wathen was right on most things, here he was mistaken.

Baptismal character alone does not suffice to make someone eligible to hold office in the Church.  While theologians disagree about how, when, and under what conditions heresy would cause deposition from office, they ALL agree that non-members of the Church cannot hold office in the Church.  And they all agree that formal heresy precludes membership in the Church.  Baptismal character alone does not suffice, but MEMBERSHIP in the Church is required.

100 % true.  And there is no question Fr. Wathen determined that JP2 was a heretic, destroyer, atheist.... etc, using Catholic principles to make that conclusion, not his own private judgment. But for some reason considered them Catholics. Once a Catholic always a Catholic is not true according to the Church.

I would challenge you to prove that according to the Church it is not true, but that is not possible because there is no Church teaching like that.

If "once a Catholic always a Catholic" is not true, then explain Trent's teaching below that "it has always been piously observed" and "that there be no reservation at the point of death" and that any priest may "absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever".

Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.

If you lost the faith and turned into a Billy Grahm or a Father Martin Luther (who is still a priest even in hell - if that's where he is spending his eternity) and for decades you preached Protestantism, you would be a heretic and  excommunicant. If in your last hour you had a change of heart, per Trent, you could do what no prot could hope to do, you could walk into the confessional, confess your sins and be absolved of all your sins, including those sins of heresy, apostasy and schism - "from every kind of sins and censures whatever". The reason is because once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Quote from: Stubborn

I know of no official abrogation,

Of course you don’t because you can’t abrogate something that is infallible. This teaching is at the very least part of the Ordinary Magisterium, if not ex Cathedra. This is a matter of Divine Law. Heretics are not members of AND are separated from the Church.

Which Divine Law is "it a matter of"? Heresy is a mortal sin against the Divine Law called, the First Commandment.  

Quote from: Stubborn

suffice to say that regardless of cuм ex, regardless of whatever pope Paul IV said, it is an indisputable fact that as of 1904, as if without any regard whatsoever to cuм ex, pope Pius X made it a law that heretic cardinals could indeed participate in the election of the next pope,

You are a LIAR. There is no mention of heretic from either Pope, or any of the Popes that said the same thing.
 Also, you must not be able to understand words whoever does not comprehend that these are talking about ecclesiastical impediments. The quotes list off a number of adverse actions and end them in summary by saying “or other ecclesiastical impediments”. These impediments are anything that hinders someone from normally carrying out their function, like electing the Pope. These hindrances are disciplinary and canonical. Heresy is first and foremost of Divine Law. The only way to get past Heresy is to make an abjuration of said heresy and go through the steps to become a member of the Church again.

First, I do not lie, nor do I tell half truths. I am reading with the understanding of a Catholic, to whom it was written, not the understanding of a sedevacantist. Whether you know it or not, this is the root of the argument.

I will offer you another example..........
The priest, Martin Luther was excommunicated for heresy, the pope, Leo X, in his condemning the errors of Martin Luther, said he incurred "...the penalty of an *automatic major* excommunication".
Pope st. Pius X and XII said that no cardinal can be excluded from the conclave  "under pretext or by reason of *any* excommunication..." FYI, excommunication *is* an ecclesiastical impediment - so is suspension and interdict. So as I said, your argument against popes Pius X and XII not meaning what they said is futile.

Per the words of popes Pius X and XII, Martin Luther himself could not have been excluded from the papal conclave (if he were a cardinal) because they said "any excommunication whatsoever". You do not accept this but that is something you will need to work on.

According to your thinking, the popes are not excluding non-Catholics to vote in the election. This is not only altogether wrong, it is ridiculous because excommunication does not mean expulsion. This should be your clue that you are misunderstanding the whole thing, not that they actually mean something that they are not saying.

Another clue that you are misunderstanding is that the popes made this law without any regard whatsoever or any mention of cuм ex, St. Robert, St. Francis De Sales, St. Antoninus, Pope Leo XIII or Pope Innocent III. Do you suppose the popes did not know of your quotes or that they simply did not know what they were saying? - assuming of course you finally agree that they actually meant what they said.

You cannot conceive that you are using all those quotes completely of context because you absolutely must maintain your opinion dogma that the conciliar popes could not have been popes because they were not Catholic - which idea Constance condemned as error. When arguing this subject, I am constantly reminded of the below truth....

"If we must argue away all the other doctrines of the Faith, and deny the reality of the very cosmos, we will hold to this one dogma."[that the pope is not the pope]

Quote from: Stubborn

Separating is separating, separating is not removing membership.

This doesn’t make sense. All the Protestants out there who are validly Baptized, but hate the Catholic Church, are not members.

You've said the answer to your dilemma but it is apparent that you do not realize it. I will attempt to explain.......

 The Church holds jurisdiction of anyone who has entered through Baptism until they sever themselves through heresy and schism. You truly have no business defending EENS if you believe this.

The Church has jurisdiction over all who are baptized until they die. Baptized prots are those who have severed themselves because they never had the faith and because of that, they are the ones who are not members. They are the ones who though baptized, never had the faith, ignored the promptings of the Church of the necessity to become a member, never corresponded to the graces offered and etc., hence, though baptized, they never had the faith so were never a member of the Church.

Those are the heretics you keep referencing in your posts and quotes, they are the ones who are outside the Church because they never had the Catholic faith. It's not about only baptism, it's about baptism and the faith, the two are together, as Trent puts it, "...the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified".
 
 

Now Stubborn invents the difference between being separated from the Church and losing membership in the Church... suspiciously similar to Cushingites who insist that there is a difference between being in the Church and being member of the Church. According to your argument it is impossible to lose membership in the Church.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic just as surely as once a priest always a priest, even for all eternity.    

A formal heretic loses membership in the Church and is outside the Church, as Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII teach. Thus, if a Pope falls into formal heresy he places himself outside the Church and cannot be her head. It is simple as that, Baptismal character has nothing to do with that.

This is the understanding that sedevacantists harbor, they also believe that heresy is something other than mortal sin as well - what that something is no  one knows - but the fact remains that in the case of the pope, even if he incurs the censure, there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is precisely because there is nothing anyone can do about it, that he is still the pope and because of that, we must still be subject to him unless he wants us to do something sinful, otherwise, we will never see heaven - that is the dogma.

As for the rest of your post, I've already explained to deaf ears what is being condemned by the council of Constance, no sense in explaining it another time.

Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavor, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.

I posted this already, but am interested to hear your reply........If you totally lost the faith tomorrow and turned into another heretic like Billy Grahm or Father Martin Luther, and for decades you preached only Protestantism, you would be a heretic and  excommunicant. According to you, you would have been outside the Church and no longer a Catholic for decades.

However, suppose that in your last hour or if you believed that your own death was imminent, you finally (Deo Gratias!) had a change of heart and sought repentance.

As quoted above per Trent, in danger of death, you could do what no prots can do, you could do that which ONLY Catholics are permitted to do and which Catholics actually practice since it is essential - namely, you could walk into the confessional, confess your sins to the priest and be absolved of all your sins, including those sins of heresy, apostasy and schism - as Trent says: "from every kind of sins and censures whatever".

Please explain how a non-Catholic is able to be absolved from his sins in the sacrament of penance.

The other side is that if you were a priest who lost the faith and became a heretic and excommunicant, you could still absolve penitents, something non-Catholics are incapable of, something only a Catholic priest can do, even if a heretic and excommunicant.