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

That is incorrect. If you renounce the Catholic doctrine and embrace Protestant heresies, you are no longer member of the Church (as Pope Pius XII teaches). Baptismal character does not keep you Catholic.

"But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice)

"Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction(...) The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external(...)" (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice)

St. Robert teaches that manifest heretic is not even a Christian. Clearly he knows nothing about supposed "once Catholic, always Catholic" rule.

Now, tell me who was Martin Luther after his excommunication and after his rejection of Catholicism and embracing Protetand doctrines - was he still a Catholic? Both Catholic and Protestant at the same time? No, as Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis Christi, he separated himself from the Church and was no longer her member. Therefore, he was not a Catholic.

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

-
Heresy, schism and apostasy are mortal sins, but different from all other ones, because they deprive one of membership in the Church:

"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy." (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

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.

St. Robert Bellarmine does not agree with you:
 
"Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church."

No serious theologian taught that heretical Pope cannot be deposed - they (St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, John of St. Thomas and others) only differed in what way does that happen and whether the Church merely announces that a heretical Pope already lost his office.

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.

You have been refuted numerous times on that - Constance speakes about sinful, not heretical Pope. Heresy is different than other mortal sins (see Mystici Corporis Christi), because it removes one from the Church. Someone who is outside the Church cannot excercise any authority in the Church.

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.

Correct. You did not bother to reply to the quote from Mystici Corporis Christi which An even Seven brought up:

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

If someone separates himself from the Body of the Church, he is no longer member of the Church - clearly Pope Pius XII knew nothing of supposed "once Catholic, always Catholic" rule.

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.

If I were to repent and return to the Catholic faith, I am back a Catholic and no longer a Protestant.

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.

Untrue - Eastern Orthodox priests can also validly absolve. Being able to validly absolve has nothing to do with whether one is a Catholic or not, but whether one is validly ordained priest (and, in case of Catholic priests, whether they have jurisdiction).

Correct, it is the baptismal character and the faith which keeps one always a Catholic. "...the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified".

No, an apostate has baptismal character, but he is not a Catholic. He loses membership in the Church, as Pope Pius XII, Pope Leo XIII, St. Robert Bellarmine and many others teach.

If he is not the pope then why hasn't his subjects, "the Church", deposed him?

Again, because there is nothing that anyone can do about it, heretic or apostate, he is still the pope. Because there is nothing anyone can do about it, we remain his subjects if we want to get to heaven.

No, it is not because nothing can be done about that, but because most of the hierarchy has apostatized or compromised. When St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas and others taught that the Church can depose a heretical Pope, they could not predict the current situation - in their times even in the Pope fell into heresy, there would still be an orthodox hierarchy to depose him. Today the hierarchy is even worse than the Conciliar Popes.

You can quote saints and doctors and theologians all day long if you want  saying a heretic cannot be pope, but until he resigns or dies, we must be subject to him as pope unless he wants us to do something sinful - period. The reason for being subject to him is because it is altogether necessary for salvation that every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. He is the Roman Pontiff until he dies, resigns or as sedevacantists think, "the Church" deposes him. It's very basic, not complicated at all.

No, if he is a formal heretic, he is not a member of the Church, as Pope Pius XII teaches. We cannot know whether he is a formal heretic, therefore all we can say is that his Papacy is in doubt - as Ladislaus calls it, sededoubtism - which is why I go to the SSPX chapel. If I was sure he is a Pope I would be compelled to attend indult Mass or FSSP.

Then there is always Pope Pius X's and XII's decreeing that "no cardinal can in any way be excluded on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever".

The key word here is ecclesiastical. The heretic being barred from any office in the Church and being outside the Church is dictated not by ecclesiastical, but by the Divine Law. No Pope can lift the prohibitions of the Divine Law - just as the Pope cannot declare that fornication is not a sin, he cannot declare that formal heretics can be inside the Church.

Do you honestly think these popes had no knowledge of St. Robert and the other theologians who said that a heretic is not Catholic so he can't be pope? And if they knew, then did they decree that heretics can participate and possibly be elected anyway? Is that what you think?

No, I think that they understood the distinction between Ecclesiastical and Divine Law.

"Separating himself from the Church" means exactly that. He was still a Catholic priest, excommunicated for heresy, separated from the flock for his own good and the good of the flock.

Priest - certainly, Catholic, not anymore. No, separating oneself from the Church means loss of membership in the Church:

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." (Mystici Corporis Christi)

Pope Pius XII teaches that those who separate themselves from the Body of the Church are not members of the Church. No exception is made for the Pope - thus, if the Pope separates himself from the Body of the Church (which happens when he fall into heresy), he ceases to be member of the Church.

This shows that your claim that separation from the Church (as taught by Leo XIII and Pius XII) does not result in loss of membership is completely false.

He could have illicitly though validly consecrated the bread and wine and administered all the sacraments - because though separated, he remained a Catholic priest and still is where ever he is now.

Sure, but that is irrelevant to his membership in the Church. The fact that he can work out the miracle of transsubstantiation is a result of indelible mark on his soul received at the Ordination, not of his membership in the Church.

But schism, heresy and apostasy are sins, mortal sins. As are abortion, sodomy, murder and adultery, which also sever one from the Church, but PPXII is saying that though grave in nature, other mortal sins are not as grave as schism, heresy and apostasy. Which is why the Church's code of canon law says that these particular sins are so grave that they bring with them the censure of excommunication.

He says much more than that. Read again:

"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

It is not merely gravity, but different nature of these sins that make them different from other mortal sins. They are of different nature, because they separate one from the Church, unlike other mortal sins.

To say they put one outside the Church and are no longer Catholic is not what PPXII is saying and is not what canon law says.  

That is exactly what Pope Pius XII says.

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

He explicitly says that those who separate themselves from the Body of the Church are not members of the Church

Do you claim that Pope Pius XII teaches error here?

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

You do lie when you say that those Popes mention heretics. Neither the word nor the idea is in the quote.

You are willfully blind.

Quote from: Stubborn

Even if true, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about a heretic pope. That is just simple reality and common sense that the pope, being the supreme authority on earth, cannot be deposed by his subjects regardless that the hierarchy apostatized with him or not - because "the Church" *is* his subjects.

When he separates himself from the Church through formal heresy he is no longer supreme authority on earth and no one is subject to him anymore - he ceases to be Pope, but we need Church declaration to know that. A formal heretic is outside the Church, as Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII and Doctors of the Church teach - that includes a Pope. That is why almost no one ever hold position that heretical Pope cannot be deposed - that is your novel idea.

Wrong. You have no ability to claim he separated himself from the Church - none, zero, nadda nado. You cannot even claim that about a priest except with zero authority, much less a pope. You do not possess that right, it is not your responsibility, you are not qualified - or by what authority do you say his heresy separates him from the Church and is thereby pope no more?

You may contradict him - period. That is the only thing we are permitted to do, that is the only direction we were given and it came directly from, of all people - a pope! - Pope Paul IV like it or not. And please note that Pope Paul IV infallibly decreed that we may contradict "the pope" when he is a heretic, ("if he be found to have deviated from the Faith."), he did not say we may contradict the "pretended pope" or the "dethroned pope" - he said we may contradict the "Roman Pontiff".

So that is our direction from the pope on what we can do about a heretic pope. Why they disobey his directive and why that is not good enough for sedevacantists and those like yourself - God only knows for sure.

As it is, when I see Fr. Cakada et al preaching that he lost his office, the chair is vacant and etc. ad nausem, it reminds me of the 6 O'Clock news reporting on the protesters carrying signs and yelling in bull horns marching down the Detroit side streets protesting against all the shootings and criminals. IOW, a total waste of time.

Quote from: Stubborn

The saints and theologians may as well have said nothing at all, their teachings should not be referenced at all because they simply do not apply to the current situation - because they could not predict the current situation.

Perhaps - they should not be referenced because they undermine your novel position?

No, by all means keep beating the wind with your head spinning in confusion as you disobey Pope Paul IV.

Of course, for the fourth time you conveniently avoid the quote from Pope Pius XII teaching that those who separate themselves from the Body of the Church are not members of the Church, which destroys your novel "once Catholic, always Catholic position" (just like Leo XIII's teaching in Satis Cognitum). Much like Cushingites refuse to deal with the Athanasian Creed.

I am no longer even going to argue that point as it is meaningless to this issue - as I already repeatedly said, even if he is not pope due to his heresy, there - is - nothing - anyone - can - do - about - it. And because of that indisputable fact, until someone actually does something about it, he is the pope.


 

Quote from: Stubborn

Wrong. You have no ability to claim he separated himself from the Church - none, zero, nadda nado. You cannot even claim that about a priest except with zero authority, much less a pope. You do not possess that right, it is not your responsibility, you are not qualified - or by what authority do you say his heresy separates him from the Church and is thereby pope no more?

You are correct and I don't say anything of that sort, because I have no authority to determine any of that. I say about the principle that the formal heretic loses membership in the Church - so if Francis is a formal heretic, he is not the member of the Church and not a Pope. Whether that is the case, I can't determine, because I have no authority to do so. Nevertheless, it is possible and considering the evidence very probable - thus, "sededoubtism".

We either are, or should be forbidden to even presume to make such a determination, except perhaps for the sake of private conversation/argument - but sedevacantists do not believe this way. To them it may as well be divine revelation that the pope is not the pope, for them there is simply no other possibility whatsoever - which is why I say such talk should be forbidden.

When the revolution started, as just a kid, if I heard it once I heard 500 times from my parents, from priests, relatives and who knows who else - they all said the same thing - "he who eats the pope dies". That was the mentality of Catholics in the mid - late 60s. Anyone who started to say "What the hell is the pope doing, has he lost his mind? gone insane? been taken prisoner? etc. were cut off mid sentence and the initial reply was always the same - "he who eats the pope dies".

Which is to say that whatever his problem is, we must keep the faith - period. End of discussion. Nothing else needs to be said. THAT was and still is and always will be our primary responsibility - and we have to do that whether the pope lost his office or not - that is ALL we must absolutely do. As such, it does not matter if he lost his office due to his heresies or not - and if he did, there is not one dmn thing anyone in the world can do about it - and until someone does something about it, he remains the Roman Pontiff.

It is not complicated.
 

Quote from: Stubborn

No, by all means keep beating the wind with your head spinning in confusion as you disobey Pope Paul IV.

I'd be interested to learn where I do so and how John of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine and all other theologians who taught that heretical Pope might be deposed after cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio disobeyed Pope Paul IV. Was St. Robert ignorant of cuм Ex? Was John of St. Thomas ignorant of it? No, it is rather you who misunderstand what deposition of heretical Pope means.

Would you like to know what contradicting a heretical pope means? Below is the best definition of contradicting a heretical pope is that I know of. In my opinion, THIS is what Pope Paul IV meant. This is the Catholic reaction to the situation.

Also, although it might have changed nothing, consider what the situation could be today if this would have actually happened at/after V2, or even today - from Who Shall Ascend?.........

However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Pope Benedict XIV Ex Quo

"Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world"..........

Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: "I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time".

Good quote. I love it. Doesn't have anything to do with people who are separated from the Church as public heretics but good quote nonetheless.

What do you mean it doesn't have anything to do with people who are separated from the Church as public heretics? The pope plainly teaches that  whoever does not mention the name of the pope "for whatever reason" in the canon of the Mass, they are the ones separated from the Church. You should perhaps read the above quote again.

See, the problem is, sedevacantists have made their private judgement of the matter a doctrine that must be believed, they have made their judgement something that must be accepted and something that we cannot oppose. They have decided that they are going to impose their judgement upon us, and there is something wrong with our faith if we do not see it their way.

To explain their taking out the name of the pope from the canon of the Mass, very simply, this is how they implement their view of the problem. Once having declared that the pope is not the pope, they do not include his name when they say Mass.

Not to include the name of the pope in the Mass is, as Pope Benedict XIV teaches, an act of schism. No priest has the right to alter the rite of the Mass. This is why we condemn the new "mass" and we condemn as sinful any priest saying the new "mass" because it is a departure from the Mass that he's supposed to say.

In the case of the sedevacantist priests, they also make a departure from what they are supposed to say. They, on their own, omit the name of the pope which the rubrics require that they include. The rubrics require that they pray for the pope. The sedevacantists declare that they must do this in order not to participate in the pope's heresies - which is ridiculous, as +ABL is recorded as saying: "This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer."

To say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the liturgy, which is an official act of the Church, should not be something that needs to be said. Who doesn't agree that their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy? As Fr. Wathen puts it, this Sedevacantism is their opinion, but the Mass not theirs, and they do not have the right to change a word of it. We have heard them say the same thing about those who brought in the New Mass and now this is what they are doing.

Quote from: Stubborn

It is obvious that you can tell the pope is wrong here so I don't get your point.

My point is that if he were Pope, the NOM is not up to the faithful to disregard it. Who's the one using the private judgment. LOL so hypocritical.

Sedevacantism is your opinion, it is not a doctrine. As such, it is easy to see that your opinion is dead wrong because if the pope lost his office, then he needs to move out or be moved out, until that happens, he is the pope. As I said, it's not complicated. Perhaps one day the sedevacantists will come to understand this.

And no, even the pope saying the NOM is good, is replacing the TLM, we must participate and everything else heretical that he has said/says/did/does - YOU already know is wrong, so why would you do wrong just because the pope said to? Well, perhaps you did but don't any more - sorry you were fooled as I surely would have been if it weren't for the faith of my parents.

The reason that we have the Catholic faith today, is because there were enough Catholics in the world who persevered in the faith in those days and handed the faith down to the next generations -  that is what Catholics are supposed to do if they want to save their souls - we are not to follow anyone that could cause us to lose our faith - not even the pope.

I can't help but wonder if all the wasted effort of the sedevacantists trying to convince everyone that the pope is not the pope - if they would put forth the same effort doing something productive - as in "contradicting" the pope as Paul IV directed us to do, if this crisis might have ended decades ago.

Quote from: Stubborn

As such, it is easy to see that your opinion is dead wrong because if the pope lost his office, then he needs to move out or be moved out, until that happens, he is the pope.

He was never elected, which is what cuм Ex proves.

If that's the case, then who was elected and accepted by the whole world (minus perhaps a few thousand sedevacantists) as pope?  

Quote from: Stubborn

I can't help but wonder if all the wasted effort of the sedevacantists trying to convince everyone that the pope is not the pope - if they would put forth the same effort doing something productive - as in "contradicting" the pope as Paul IV directed us to do, if this crisis might have ended decades ago.

The crisis is that the Catholic Church is without a Pope right now and heresy is flourishing, thereby reducing the number of Catholics. Also, that a Counter "church", which you belong to, is purporting to be Catholic, while teaching heresy and sending many to hell.

No that's not the crisis, that is the foundation of sedevacantism, this foundation is the dilemma the sedevacantists have created for themselves alone, but it is not the crisis.

This crisis is due to the loss of faith wherein those who've lost the faith and end up hell, do so of their own free will just as they always have. That's the way it's been since the Original Sin was committed. Those who die in mortal sin, God Himself sends to hell at their particular judgement, not the pope - the pope is not God. Always remember that people will never be led anywhere they do not want to go. Always remember that it is of their own free will that people jump into the pit.

Quote from: Stubborn

Do you see how you proclaim this, your opinion, as though it is a Divinely Revealed truth and absolutely binding?

It IS a Divinely Revealed Truth that a heretic cannot be elected Pope and that they are not members of the Church.

I understand you believe this to be dogma, but the indisputable fact remains that a *presumed heretic* really was elected as pope, I'm not making this up because it is an historical fact.

Further, per Pope Pius XII, if anyone *presumes to attempt* to say otherwise, "incurs the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (Note the words "presumes to attempt", which is to say that there is absolutely no hope that anyone can do anything about the pope, newly elected.)

Concerning the Acceptance and the Proclamation of Election and also Concerning the Consecration and Coronation of the New Pontiff

After the election has been canonically carried out and after the Secretary of the Sacred College, the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies, and two Masters of Ceremonies have been summoned into the hall of the Conclave by the least senior Cardinal Deacon, let the consent of the man elected be asked by the Cardinal Dean in the name of the entire Sacred College with these words: Do you accept the canonically carried-out election of yourself as Supreme Pontiff?

After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope[/b], and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world.
Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whosoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto....

...Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this page of Our Constitution, ordinance, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept and will, or to go against it by rash undertaking. Moreover, if anyone presumes to attempt this, let him know that he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.