....In order to present this totally new image to it's people and to the world, the conciliarists have been willing to discard everything
From my understanding, Vatican I was not finished. Vatican I was able to see Papal Infallibility passed and then war broke out. Thank You Cardinal Manning and those who had writings to offer proof.
My grandmother, born about 1900, was known for saying, "There goes the Church", when so-called vat. II was announced. She was well informed thanks to her husbands Uncle, Fr. Rudolph Stoltz of the Confraternity of the Precious Blood.
....In order to present this totally new image to it's people and to the world, the conciliarists have been willing to discard everything - and that is not a careless statement. There is absolutely nothing they will not concede to fulfill this image, to carry it out. There is absolutely nothing, not a single doctrine will they not compromise, they will discard not only the Mass, they will discard any appearance, any external, and any morality in order not to be inconsistent with this self imposed obligation of being a true ecuмenical. Of being all things to all men, there is nothing that they will not discard, there is no damage they will not do, there is no fixture they will not destroy, there is nothing holy they will not trample, even the Body of Christ, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that they will not do in order to fulfill this self imposed image.
And they have said in order to give weight to their resolve that the Holy Spirit has guided them to it, this is false. The Holy Spirit has guided them to nothing of it, we have every reason to know what spirit it is that has guided them to this.........
People need to understand that anything that this council pronounced that is a part of Catholic tradition and belief, is no less true and no less binding. They also need to understand that in calling itself a "Pastoral Council", the Council was telling the Catholic faithful that; "our deliberations will not be mainly on the subject of what is Catholic doctrines, our deliberations will be mainly regarding how the Church will approach the people", and the council said that "we are going to begin to approach the people in a different style".
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.
:ready-to-eat:
Quote from: Albert KopshoThere 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.
:ready-to-eat:
1) Vatican II didn't actually change the Mass form Latin to vernacular.
2) Which language is used has nothing to do with "response time".
Are you just trolling here?
I have been to a Latin Mass a couple of times and the response time the laity had was not even half of what the response time is for the laity in the vernacular Mass.
Is that so that Vatican II did not actually change the Mass from Latin to vernacular? Well that is funny because 50 years ago all Catholic Churches changed from Latin to the vernacular for Mass.
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Quote from: songbirdAn even seven: I'll let you talk to yourself.
It's fine, but your lack of a proper response just shows me that you cannot refute what I said.
Quote from: songbirdSure Vat. II was different! Only suggestions. Ratzinger, one of the 5, of the minority. Very well planned to have a minority take over a "meeting".
If by suggestions you mean exercising papal infallibility.
Quote from: Closing Statement of Each Vatican II Docuмent“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Quote from: sonbirdI don't have the definition of a "Council" in front of me. BUT Councils came together to "fix" and to bring on new dogmas and with it they had to have definitions to prove. I say definition(s) because more than one, of course, would all have in writing their thoughts to prove and to define, of course using scripture and etc.
The Councils actually define and put into a definition something that is of Divine revelation and has always been believed by the Church. They don't "bring on new Dogmas".Quote from: songbirdBesides, why was Vatican I overlooked? It was not finished. Why did they not just pick up where they left off? My thoughts are, Mary is co-redemptorix.
First, it seems Paul VI thought it was a continuation in a way.QuotePaul VI, Ecclesiam Suam: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
It also seems that he believed Vatican II was defining things.
Second, Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" could not be defined at Vatican I as it is, because Trent taught that Jesus ALONE is the Redeemer.
Bottom line is, if the New World Church were still the Catholic Church AND their "popes" legitimate, Vatican II would be infallible. All the requirements are met for infallibility.
An even seven, you're incorrect. The Immaculate Virgin Mother of God is true Co-redemptrix with Christ and true Mediatrix of all graces, as several Popes teach. Pope Benedict XV says, "it can be said that together with Christ She redeemed the whole human race". And Pope St Pius X clearly explains, "She merited congruously for us, as they say, everything that Christ merited for us condignly". Fr. Garrigou Lagrange explains these terms - Christ alone offered to God in His own Person a sacrifice that atoned for sin in strict justice, while our Immaculate Mother offered Her own self together with Him as a most becoming offering which He in His mercy deigned to accept. The Blessed Mother, at the foot of the Cross, suffered more than all martyrs and underwent a true white martyrdom sharing mystically in His pain. This is the reason She is true Mother of us all, full of every grace, and Mediatrix. It is in this way also that, as the Pope said, She redeemed us together with Christ. He who denies this Papal teaching should never cite a Papal text again.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuoteQuote from: Closing Statement of Each Vatican II Docuмent“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
If you think that means infallible then you don't know what you're talking about.
Tell me then, what makes all the other Councils infallible?
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote
Second, Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" could not be defined at Vatican I as it is, because Trent taught that Jesus ALONE is the Redeemer.
So you're a Protestant, correct? Because that's what Protestants say about priests. They don't want any intermediary between God and man but for Jesus ALONE.
First, my quote comes from Trent:QuoteCouncil of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images: “… the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior… And they must also teach that images of Christ, the virgin mother of God and the other saints should be set up and kept… But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”
Second, according to you Trent is protestant. The Holy Mother definitely had a unique role in the Redemption but to say it was "co" means that it was the same or on equal ground with Jesus. That is anathema.Quote from: Neil ObstatBTW: Catholics usually don't call him "Jesus alone." That's Protestant lingo. So you must be a Protestant.
You are so deceptive. "Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer", Trent said that.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuoteBottom line is, if the New World Church were still the Catholic Church AND their "popes" legitimate, Vatican II would be infallible. All the requirements are met for infallibility.
Wrong. All the requirements were not met for infallibility. Nothing in Vat.II is infallible. Nothing whatsoever. (Some previously defined things were mentioned but there was no new dogmatic definition at Vat.II.)
Prove it was not infallible (if those were legitimate popes of course).
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even Seven
A catechism is not part of the OUM. Although it does contain a lot of things taught by the Magisterium.
There is no Justification for disregarding a council of the Church (were it real).
Regardless even all the necessary requirements are fulfilled for solemn Magisterial pronouncements. There is another thread going on right now about come and join the discussion.
It was a real council, it was a Pastoral Council.
It wasn't a "real" council of the Catholic Church. It was a real council of your false "church" so in a way you are right.
Quote from: Stubborn.Quote from: An even Seven
Show me where Vat. I taught that the Magisterium can be in error in any form.
V1 did not itemize those times when the magisterium can be in error, it decreed those times when the magisterium is infallible. V1. by decreeing those occasions when and in what respect the pope / magisterium cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of their vast prerogatives, the pope / magisterium is completely fallible
It's true that the pope is fallible in his private capacity but that Teaching Authority AKA Magisterium is always infallible.QuoteVatican Council Session 3, Chapter 3, #8: Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Anything that is taught to us from any source that either contains error or is not contained in Divine Revelation is not part of the Magisterium.
Quote from: StubbornI understand this one is difficult for a lot of folks to swallow, but it is actually pretty basic when you read V1 and accept what it teaches - the problem seems to be in the unlearning of the errors you've learned. Stick with V1 alone - I am not inventing anything, I am merely reiterating V1's teaching.
I understand that it's hard for someone to believe that the Church's Magisterium is Infallible, it's pretty basic when you believe that Christ would not have given us a Teaching Authority that could teach errors. It would also be easy to believe this error if you thought that just about everything written by a Catholic is part of the Magisterium.............
There is hardly a teaching of the Catholic Church that has been so grievously misrepresented by those who profess to be enlightened ministers of the Gospel, and so strangely misapprehended by [Catholics and] our separated brethren, as the infallibility of the Pope. [Catholics and] non-Catholics have been taught and many of them labor under the impression that Papal Infallibility is a new doctrine of the Church, that it imparts to the Pope the extraordinary gift of inspiration, makes him impeccable, confers the right to trespass on civil authority, and, even to play fast and loose with the Commandments of God. These and other equally ridiculous conceptions are presented in the most plausible and spicy manner to a gullible public, ever ready to swallow without a qualm any statement, no matter how preposterous, provided it reviles and injures the Church of the living God. The promoters of the campaign of misrepresentation are jealous of the Pope's authority, and, like the father of Protestantism, resort to every means, no matter how unfair, to throw obstacles in the way to keep people from entering the one sheepfold of the One great Shepherd of Souls. If, however, such a thing as Church unity could be effected among themselves and their hundred and more warring religious organizations, we imagine it would be no time before Protestantism would attempt to have a Pope of its own.
All who are anxious to know what Papal Infallibility *really* means are advised to consult the decrees of the Vatican Council held on July 18, 1870, over which Pius IX. presided, surrounded by nearly 700 bishops gathered together from, all over the world, representing more than 30 nations and more than 250,000,000 Christians. In that general Council, the twentieth held by the Church, it was solemnly and officially defined that Catholics are bound to believe that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of Peter, 1) in discharge of his office as supreme teacher of the Universal Church; 2) by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority; 3) defining a doctrine, giving an absolutely final decision regarding faith or morals ; 4) addressing the Universal Church; 5) binding her to hold the doctrine he so defines.
When this doctrine is rightly understood, it means, to put it briefly, that God will keep the Pope from teaching error and falsehood, in faith or morals, when he acts as head of the Universal Church. The power of the Pope then is far from being, as so many suppose, arbitrary, absolute, and despotic.
It is rightly limited in many respects and there is nothing in it to disturb or make any one think that the Pontiff is at liberty to change the Scriptures, to alter the Divine law or impose doctrines not contained in the original revelation completed by Christ in the beginning of the Church. Acting in his private capacity, as a temporal sovereign or as Bishop of the diocese of Rome, the Pope, having free-will and being human, can err in morals or in judgment. He is not impeccable and it is false to allege that he claims to be. He cannot make right wrong or wrong right. His authority like the Kingdom of Christ, is "not of this world." His jurisdiction belongs to spiritual matters, and is always for good, for truth, for the cause of Christ, for the welfare of souls, for the promotion of religion.
It is silly, then, in the highest degree of silliness, to be alarmed at the teaching of the Catholic Church on Papal Infallibility, and allege that this doctrine puts one's intellect and conscience in a state of thraldom and servitude. The privilege enjoyed by the Pope cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is used only after study and prayer and regard for the welfare of the Universal Church, and then it must fulfill all the five conditions already enumerated and demanded by the dogma, as defined by the Vatican Council. Then Papal decisions in faith and morals are so guided by Divine Providence, according to Christ's own promise, as ever to be infallibly true; and, to the farthest extremities of the world every faithful Christian admits in his heart what every loyal son of the Church obeys in his act. It is not the man, remember, that is infallible, it is Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ determines what that man, who holds the keys, shall teach when "he feeds the lambs and sheep" of his Master. Far then from arousing opposition, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which is the keystone in the arch of Catholic faith, and which has preserved her marvelous unity of belief throughout the world from the beginning, ought to command the unqualified admiration of every reflecting mind.
If you are fully NO, and you went along, you don't understand the indefectibility of the Church and that heretics are not inside the Church (or don't care about this stuff). If you are SSPX, you don't understand that you can't disobey a legit pope and operate outside the Jurisdiction of the Church and laughably still claim allegiance to that pope .
Quote from: StubbornIt was, as the OP explains, a real Council of the Catholic Church. It was not, contrary to what you were taught, infallible.
If that were true the gates of hell have prevailed.
Quote from: StubbornSo while you can accuse me of any number of things, please refrain from accusing me of belonging to the false church or of the false church being my Church.
Your “pope” is francis is it not? Your “popes” and “church” have taught heresy practically daily for the last fifty years have they not? I guess I don’t know your stance on heresy and heretics but that’s a topic for another discussion.
Quote from: StubbornConsider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
We have a duty as Catholics to know our Faith and be able to distinguish between Truth and error. This includes knowing that a heretic is not inside the Church. In no circuмstances should a Catholic be obeying the teachings of a heretic in matters of faith or morals.
Quote from: StubbornWe know which teachings are infallible because V1 teaches that it is those teachings "which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed..." - nothing that came out of V2 meets these requirements from V1 that I've italicized for your benefit.
I showed you proof that what V II taught (were it the Church), would have been considered part of the Extraordinary and Solemn Magisterium. It’s “pope” promulgated each decree as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his apostolic authority, and defined doctrines concerning faith or morals; just one example of V II teaching being that Jews are NOT to be considered rejected.
If you consider this ex cathedra:QuoteCouncil of Florence: Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.
Then you must consider this ex cathedra:QuoteVatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”
Remember that Paul VI acted as shepherd and teacher, using his supposed apostolic authority, while defining something pertaining to faith and morals. These requirements are what’s needed for an ex cathedra statement. The example I provided is a new teaching, which happens to explicitly contradict Catholic Teaching. The only logical conclusion is that, this teaching cannot be of the Catholic Church and must be heresy.
Quote from: StubbornThat the magisterium can, did and do teach error is proved by the magisterium itself after V2. Trying to claim otherwise is adding your own personal requirements to the doctrine of infallibility as decreed by V1.
As I have shown multiple times, if the V II were the Church, it excercised it’s solemn magisterium at V II, whether Paul VI wanted you to know it or not. All the antipopes and antibishops whom you consider Catholic, since have put V II teaching into practice and expect all “catholics” to believe and do the same.
What does it matter if the council was infallible or not?
Quote from: StubbornI will again refer you to study V1 in order to learn what infallibility is while un-learning what you think it is. A daunting task, but doable. Briefly, the gates of hell will never prevail, not even the conciliar errant popes, hell bent on destroying the Church could accomplish that.
That's just it. The gates of hell have been taught multiple times to be the "death dealing tongues of heretics". If a real ecuмenical council, approved by the church, were to teach heresy, that would mean the gates of hell prevailed. This is precisely why sedes believe the V II church is not the Catholic one.Quote from: StubbornYes, among most trads, it is common knowledge that "The" conciliar popes have been heretics,
A heretic is not in the church.
Quote from: Stubbornbut the thing you do not understand is that this knowledge in no way qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.
A heretic is excommunicated ipso facto. No declaration needed. That's simple.
Quote from: StubornEven if the sedevacantists are correct that he lost his office, as his subjects, we are not permitted to do anything about it. This is another point the sedevacantists refuse to accept but that's a subject for another time.
First, he doesn't lose just his office. Second, V II council marked a line of strict departure from the CC so they are not Popes of the CC anyway. Third, no Catholic is ever subject to a heretic. That's like saying we are subject to Billy Graham.
Quote from: Stubborndue to the previous decades of false teachings which you yourself have accepted as truth, namely, that the pope and magisterium are always infallible.
I have stated many times that I don't believe the Pope is always infallible. Let's not start the falsities. As far as the Magisterium, I learned that some taught that the Bishops have some sort of role in the magisterium. If that's true then I believe they can err. I personally don't believe they are part of the official teaching authority of the Church.
In the case of the Magisterium of the Councils united with the Pope and the Pope himself, when the V I definition applies, it cannot err.
So do you believe that canonizations are fallible? You would have to since the V II "pope" have "canonized" unholy people. If you don't believe that, then you can call a heretic, any saint, in history, who disagrees with you.
The Jews hold opposing views in regards the Trinity. Even if they didn't, the quote doesn't say "those who hold opposing views about the Trinity".
Also, I started replying because I don't agree with the OP.
Quote from: StubbornI will repeat again that you need to un-learn the errors, as +ABL so clearly stated, that you were taught. The "multiple times" you've attempted to show V2 being infallible are all based on the false understanding of infallibility you were taught - I will continue to stress that you must stick to studying V1 carefully - and best as you possibly can, forget the lies you were taught.
Okay, I have mentioned many times now that V II defined things solemnly according to the definition of V I (were it the CC). You haven't addressed this. I laid out where V II specifically met all the requirements of V I and you won't respond to that. I know it's hard to believe that God would allow something like this to happen; His Church to be without a Pope.
Quote from: Neil ObstatThe topic of this thread is Vat.II.
What was Our Lord telling us when He said that in the last days there would be signs and wonders so as to deceive (if possible) even the elect? He was giving us words to be carried down through the ages, so as to console us in this time of trial.
Vat.II can be recognized as a fulfillment of this prophesy. And Our Lord's words should be a remedy for our distress.
We should judge a tree by its fruits, and the tree of Vat.II has bad fruit, therefore Vat.II is bad.
To see an ecuмenical council of the Church that has bad fruit and say, either
"It's not a real council of the Church!"
or else
"The fruit may appear bad but since it's a true council the fruit must be good!"
are equivalent errors in judgment.
The fruit is bad, therefore the council should be cut down and cast into the fire, as Our Lord prescribed. Saying this does not deny the authenticity of the pope and bishops who conducted the council. But it takes the authority of another council to abrogate Vat.II and its bad fruit. Perhaps a good pope could do it, but it would seem to be asking for trouble. A good pope needs the cooperation of bishops to rule well, or else they'll accuse him of being a tyrant.
What happens when a billion people follow that council and all the hierarchy of that "church", including its "pope", teach it and condemn anyone who denies it's authority and authenticity?
I would say that then it is not a real council of the Church. I would say it is a false council meant to start a new religion with its own "pope" and anti-hierarchy, which it has done, and lead people to hell. Not by the fact that they are part of that church, but because they also believe the heresies of the anti council and defend them.
I believe JXIII and JP2 canonizations were legit.
Quote from: StubbornI believe JXIII and JP2 canonizations were legit.
Do you pray to them? I personally don't accept their canonizations. I think both John XXIII and Pope John Paul II and also Paul VI who they are going to canonize are all burning in hell forever. (Of course I do not know for certain). I do not think they are saints and I would never pray to them. Some have said that if you believe they are not saints then you have to be a sedevacantist. I don't know if that is true, but I would rather become a sedevacantist than believe John XXIII, John Paul II and Paul VI are in heaven. They spent their lives destroying the Church and even if they may have felt bad as they were dying, they did nothing to repair all the damage they had done.
P.S. I also believe Martin Luther is burning in hell forever even though the conciliar Church is going to canonize him also as an act of ecuмenism. Would you believe he is also in heaven? And don't say that will never happen because that is exactly what trads said about John Paul II that God would never allow his canonization and he did.
That heretics are not in the Church is not dogma and that the Church teaches that the censure of excommunication is first and foremost medicinal, and that it's primary purpose is to prompt the sinner to repentance, not kick them out of the Church and condemn them to hell forever, is something most sedevacantists do not accept. Though I understand nothing I say will make you accept this, it is a point that needs to be said. Please read the Council of Trent's Session XIV, CHAPTER VII, the pertinent passage is quoted below, see if it is possible for you to apply it to your current belief:Quote from: StubbornYes, I believe canonizations are infallible. I believe JXIII and JP2 canonizations were legit. I believe they were legit because they both received the Last Sacraments (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41188&min=44&num=1) before they died. What do you believe?
My answerQuotePope Eugene IV: ...unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation
Since they were heretics and outside the Church, this sacrament didn’t contribute towards their salvation.Quote from: StubbornSee, knowing they had the Last Sacraments before they died, you are now forced to choose between your faith in the sacrament of Extreme Unction, Great Indeed are it's Effects (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Extreme-Unction-The-Anointing-of-the-Dying) (note that even if JP2 received the NO sacrament, JXIII received the pre-V2 sacrament by certainly validly ordained priest) and the false teachings which helped lead you to sedevacantism.
Wrong. Extreme Unction only helps Catholics. Catholic Dogma led me to Sedevacantism. The Dogma that Heretics are not IN the Church.
On the Reservation of Cases.
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even Seven
The Jews hold opposing views in regards the Trinity. Even if they didn't, the quote doesn't say "those who hold opposing views about the Trinity".
Also, I started replying because I don't agree with the OP.
I'd be interested to know which points the OP brings up that you disagree with.
Still nothing about the proof that V II used solemn language while defining heresy. Okay.
The second scentence in the OP.
[quote="Fr."Wathem]The Second Vatican Council was unique in that, from the very onset, Pope John XXIII said that this would be a different kind of council. He coined an altogether new expression, he said "this is a Pastoral Council" (Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said the same thing).
“The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”
Quote from: StubbornBut V2 did not make even one solemn decree, no condemnations, no anathemas, nothing dogmatic and absolutely zero as far as binding teachings are concerned. IOW, V2 did not even attempt to even be infallible - both PJXIII and PPVI are even quoted as saying as much.
You keep saying this but I have already proved that it defined new teachings solemnly and in accordance to the V I standards. How about instead of repeating over and over that it didn’t make a solemn decree, you PROVE that what I said happened did not happen.
Quote from: StubbornBut the thing you are doing, the thing all sedevacantists do, is blame the pope / magisterium because of the false teachings they believe about infallibility, just as you yourself consistently demonstrate, though you'll insist you are doing no such thing –
I am not blaming a pope. I am blaming false popes, false hierarchy, a counter church, individual sloth in the matters of faith and the devil.Quote from: StubbornBelieving it was a false council with a false pope and a false magisterium either leads too or actually is, pure anarchism - while demonstrating no faith whatsoever in the doctrine of infallibility.
Just because it is not normal or comfortable does not mean it’s not true. The horrible evil that is done and was done, leading up to V II deserved punishment on a large scale. It is precisely because of no faith in infallibility that the sedevacantist knows that this new church is not the CC. This new church speaks totally contradictory to the defined Dogmas of the Church.
Quote from: Stubborn
Always remember that people can never, never, never be led where they do not already want to go. Remember that. The demise of the faith today is because people accepted the lie that they no longer need to be part of "the few", now they can be part of "the many", take the wide road and still make it to heaven.
Blame the non-pope and non-council all you want, but each individual who chose the wide road did so of their own choosing - we pray they wake up before they find themselves in hell wondering how they got there.
I agree with your first paragraph but the second.... Are you suggesting that the antipopes and anticouncil have no blame in it?
Then you must consider this ex cathedra:QuoteVatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”
Remember that Paul VI acted as shepherd and teacher, using his supposed apostolic authority, while defining something pertaining to faith and morals. These requirements are what’s needed for an ex cathedra statement. The example I provided is a new teaching, which happens to explicitly contradict Catholic Teaching. The only logical conclusion is that, this teaching cannot be of the Catholic Church and must be heresy.
I misread how you stated it. When you said "The Dogma that Heretics are not IN the Church." I mistakenly thought you meant there was a dogmatic decree worded along the lines of, "If anyone saith heretics are in the Church, let them be anathema". Mea culpa, my mistake. It was a long day.Quote from: StubbornThat heretics are not in the Church is not dogmaQuote from: Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence:The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives
Making a statement like this would make anyone wonder how you could defend the necessity of Baptism or EENS. What do you actually have faith in? How could you ever know if something can be debated or not, or heretical or not? If you deny this quote as being Ex Cathedra then I don't know what to say.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even Seven
Then you must consider this ex cathedra:QuoteVatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”
Remember that Paul VI acted as shepherd and teacher, using his supposed apostolic authority, while defining something pertaining to faith and morals. These requirements are what’s needed for an ex cathedra statement. The example I provided is a new teaching, which happens to explicitly contradict Catholic Teaching. The only logical conclusion is that, this teaching cannot be of the Catholic Church and must be heresy.
If Nostra Aetate example you quoted were infallible, per V1, this teaching would be found somewhere in Scripture and tradition, but it is certainly not. It would be decreed as a matter to be believed as divinely revealed, again, certainly not, and it would be something the Church has always taught - giant epic fail on that point as well.
Finally, some sort of a response. Although you did miss the point entirely.
First, Vatcan I defines an ex cathedra statement as being when 1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.
Paul VI, in the docuмent called Nostra Aetate, in the beginning statement and the ending statement, satisfied number 1 and 2. The docuмent itself, which he approved in solemn fashion, declared the teaching. You are not getting this. The docuмent is stating a doctrine of faith or morals. That jews are not rejected. The manner and fashion and content of this statement would be infallible were it true. The whole point is that a Real Council cannot do and say something like this and is therefore heretical and not Catholic.
Understand now?
Consider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
Quote from: StubbornI did not miss the point, your "First", should be replaced with....."First, both popes said the council was not infallible." Had you started with that *fact*, there would be no need to proceed further, regardless of the manner and fashion you think the +Cushing inspired Nostra Aetate was promulgated.
For the sake of argument (because I don't think they're popes, nor would such statement be part of the Magisterium anyway), since you believe the Magisterium is fallible, why do you think those statements, from men you consider popes, is true? Is it just because that's what you believe? You can't know with certainty it's true. Why do you choose to cling to these statements rather than the statement from the actual "council" that says it MUST be religiously observed if you are to remain part of that "church"?
Which BTW, you actually do observe, at least implicitly, by remaining in communion with them. Every apostate and heretical thing they have done or said, you have, at least implicitly, condoned by remaining with them.
Quote from: StubbornI do understand where you are trying to go with your argument, I also understand why - because you were taught the false teaching that1) all councils are automatically infallible and that whenever the bishops gather together with the pope, whatever comes out is guaranteed automatically infallible and 2)that the teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful. These are, as +ABL says, "all liberal ideas that have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church".
(I added numbers to organize my response.)
1. Whatever meets the requirements for infallibility from V I AND whenever the Council reiterates something already defined or unanimously believed would be infallible, in other words, whenever the Magisterium is exercised.
2. This is where you are wrong. Anything that is not infallible is potentially harmful to the faithful , precisely because there is no certainty it is true. If it is not infallible is not part of the Magisterium. It is taught that the Magisterium cannot err.
Do you believe that all the Papal statements about the inerrancy of the Magisterium are wrong?
Quote from: StubbornConsider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
That is how it has always been; it's at the very core of Catholicism to obey authority. You know this yourself.
Except now they have done the unthinkable and impossible by teaching heresy and error, because they are hirelings, which is why many adopt SV.
The chaos, changes, bad fruits and the similarities with Protestantism of the new mass lead many to question what went on and they discover that it was all a sham and nothing like it had ever happened before.
You're dead wrong in calling obedience to authority an "erroneous idea" and you totally misrepresent Catholicism and what's going on because of it.
You shouldn't write anything about the current Crisis because what you say is not Catholic.
Quote from: StubbornConsider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
That is how it has always been; it's at the very core of Catholicism to obey authority. You know this yourself.
Except now they have done the unthinkable and impossible by teaching heresy and error, because they are hirelings, which is why many adopt SV.
The chaos, changes, bad fruits and the similarities with Protestantism of the new mass lead many to question what went on and they discover that it was all a sham and nothing like it had ever happened before.
You're dead wrong in calling obedience to authority an "erroneous idea" and you totally misrepresent Catholicism and what's going on because of it.
You shouldn't write anything about the current Crisis because what you say is not Catholic.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible. And since this papal fallibility is as certain a fact as the holy doctrine which we are here discussing, Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.
Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith. The obligation to do that which is good and avoid that which is evil and to believe the truths of Catholicism does not arise from the hierarchy of the Church, nor from the Papacy, but from the intrinsic nature of things and the commands of Christ, Who is Lord of all.........
Quote from: StubbornI believe what both of the popes said, because it is obviously true that none of the new teachings of V2 were infallible, we know this with certainty, not only because they said so, and not only because they preached a different Gospel
No, you believe them because you don't accept the teaching that heresy removes one from the Church and that Heretics cannot be Popes.
I have already proven that if this was a council of the Church all the V I requirements were fulfilled in certain areas to constitute ex cathedra statements, but you ignore that. Vatican II taught a gospel that is different from the Church, hence it's not the Church.
Quote from: StubbornThe dogma says it is altogether necessary for the salvation of every human creature to subject to the pope. I take that to mean exactly what it says.
It doesn't say that the Church can't be without a Pope at any given time nor does it say that one can accept a heretic as a pope.
Quote from: StubbornYou say that the requirements for V1 were met, yet the council obviously preached errors. All this is proof of is that the council was not infallible. The reality is, this is all the proof anyone needs to know that council was not infallible. It is proof positive. I am not making this up because it is an indisputable fact.
Yes, but it was pronounced in solemn magisterial fashion. So either they are real popes who taught heresy, or they are false popes (heretics before supposed election) and it doesn't matter anyway because it's not the Church.
Quote from: StubbornBut, in order for you to keep your sedevacantism whole, you must add theory into the mix. Sedevacantists must theorize that the reason it was not infallible is because the pope is not the pope and the bishops of the council all lost their offices - something impossible to prove even if such a thing were true.
I guess you can never say that someone is outside the church who has been baptized unless a formal declaration has been passed. Like pro-abortion "catholics" or any protestant who has been baptized and openly mocks Catholic teaching for example. Heresy is manifested in multiple ways, and we have to condemn it.
Quote from: StubbornHowever, you believe that such a thing is an impossibility because that's what you were taught. The truth of the matter is that you learned so much wrong and you believe those lies so strongly, that you not only do not believe your own eyes, you are fighting even common sense in the matter.
So common sense says you should stay in communion with a pope (whom you admit teaches error) and then refuse obedience to him in almost everything?
Quote from: StubbornIt also doesn't say that anyone can still get to heaven if they mistakenly believe the Chair is empty.
But it says you can still get to heaven following a man, claiming to occupy that chair, who denies the papacy?
Quote from: StubbornLet's look at your quote from NA: “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”
1) This statement is not pronounced in solemn magisterial fashion. If it were an infallible pronouncement, it would need to be worded something along the lines of; "Whoever says that according to the Scriptures, the Jews are cursed by God, let him be anathema." - and this aside from the fact that it really is not even error because......
So you're changing the story now. So when faced with the proof that it meets the V I requirements, you now add something else that you require. Nowhere does it say the language must be like this.
Quote from: Stubborn2) God never did curse the Jews, the Jews did what they could to curse themselves - when they said: "...his blood be upon us and upon our children", so if you want to get technical and dissect the issue, all you can say is that NA, like the whole of V2, is worded in such a fashion or uses a new language so that while what it says may be true, the propensity is for it to be interpreted the wrong way - further proof of non-infallibility. It is worded like this in the effort, as said in the OP, "to make a totally different approach to the non-Catholics, the non-believers."
That was a very V IIish thing to do there. Can something be rejected by God and not by the Church or vice versa? If the Church rejects anyone who holds opposing or contrary views, then so does God. The reason is He has revealed through his Magisterium whom He rejects.
Also, as Pope Pius VI declares that: "WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED."
Quote from: StubbornWhether the pope loses his office because of his public heresy, and obviously I agree that there is no doubt that the pope has committed the sin of public heresy, we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status.
We don't have to do anything, such a heretic removes himself from the Church. If we have to do anything at all, it is not communicate with or follow him and consider him to be a non-Catholic.Quote from: StubbornWe are not his judges. 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.
But you would still consider yourself in communion with such a person.Quote from: StubbornBut the sedevacantists go a few steps further. They not only depose the pope in their judgement, they also try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore, we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
But the alternative positions are ridiculous.Quote from: StubbornThe dogma states it is altogether necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Please cease from accusing the dogma of meaning we are bound to be in communion with him when he wants us to do something sinful. It quite specifically says "subject" for a reason. See my earlier reply to Disputaciones about this.
There's a big difference between wanting you to do something sinful and something heretical, apostate or schismatic.
Quote from: StubbornIn the mean time, we, his subjects, can recognize his heresy and keep clear of it, we can even expose his heresy to others for their sake. But this knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. It's nothing complicated, it's just basic Catholicism.
So a heretic can be a Pope? According to you, a man who has automatically become outside the Church through heresy can be elected Pope?
St. Pius X in 1904 said:
“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”
Pius XII in 1945 said:
“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”.
Also, an elected Pope, who has been deprived of his Catholicity through heresy, can still command a Church which he is not a part of?
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned
Quote from: DisputacionesQuote from: StubbornConsider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
That is how it has always been; it's at the very core of Catholicism to obey authority. You know this yourself.
Except now they have done the unthinkable and impossible by teaching heresy and error, because they are hirelings, which is why many adopt SV.
The chaos, changes, bad fruits and the similarities with Protestantism of the new mass lead many to question what went on and they discover that it was all a sham and nothing like it had ever happened before.
You're dead wrong in calling obedience to authority an "erroneous idea" and you totally misrepresent Catholicism and what's going on because of it.
You shouldn't write anything about the current Crisis because what you say is not Catholic.
This is the shining example of my previous post.
This means that if anything contradicts a Solemn definition it is not part of the Magisterium because then it would not be in union with the Pope.
...what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
And here is where BOD/BOB come in.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: DisputacionesQuote from: StubbornConsider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
That is how it has always been; it's at the very core of Catholicism to obey authority. You know this yourself.
Except now they have done the unthinkable and impossible by teaching heresy and error, because they are hirelings, which is why many adopt SV.
The chaos, changes, bad fruits and the similarities with Protestantism of the new mass lead many to question what went on and they discover that it was all a sham and nothing like it had ever happened before.
You're dead wrong in calling obedience to authority an "erroneous idea" and you totally misrepresent Catholicism and what's going on because of it.
You shouldn't write anything about the current Crisis because what you say is not Catholic.
This is the shining example of my previous post.
The Magisterium cant teach error or heresy, ever. That idea is heretical.
If it could, why would anyone ever take it seriously? How would one know what is true?
What's going on here is that you dont seem to understand what the Magisterium is, thinking that only "infallible" things are part of the Magisterium, or that you dont realize the implications of the things you say.
The Magisterium is not restricted to infallible, dogmatic things only, get that through your head.
Let me responed to your first error and then to your erroneous reading of the quotes below. Please read my whole quote from Pope Paul IV.Quote from: StubbornWell of course a heretic can be elected pope, but not according to me, that is according to Popes Pius X and XII.Quote from: cuм ex Apostolatus Officio – Pope Paul IV6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] 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; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power...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.
You are destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God.
Furthermore, your quoting of Pius X and XII does not prove your case.QuoteSt. Pius X in 1904 said:
“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”
The fact is that he is speaking of a Cardinal and not a heretic as we all believe that heretics are not Catholics. To prove this you'll notice that he is speaking of merely ecclesiastical impediments and not heresy.QuotePius XII in 1945 said:
“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”.
The exact same can be said for this as the quote above.Quote from: StubbornSo hopefully you accept this rule established by the two popes and accept that the election of a heretic pope is entirely possible.
I do not because I would be destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God as Pope Paul IV says.Quote from: the Council of Constance20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned
Being wicked is not the same as being a heretic. This is confirming that a wicked Pope can still be Pope and member of the Church. He does not say that a heretic is a member of the Church and can be Pope. Also, to totally refute you and back up this quote above, let me quote Pope Pius XII.Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23)“For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Quote from: StubbornYou say the decree of the infallible Council of Constance and the teachings of two popes are nothing at all. I pretty much knew that already.
I believe exactly what they taught. You are reading into them what is not there.
Quote from: Stubborn
I quoted them word for word because I believe they mean what they say - that is: that heretic cardinals cannot be excluded from the conclave, and to say the pope cannot be head of the Church because he is not Catholic is infallibly condemned.
I wonder if you even know what you're saying. Neither Pius X or XII say the word heretic nor is it their intention to include it as evidenced by the phrase "other ecclesiastical impediment”, which appears in both quotes. These popes are talking about minor excommunications etc..., as someone who defends Fr. Feeney so often (which I'm glad you do), you should be well aware there is a difference.
The Constance quote also does not say the word heretic or heresy. The quote is condemning anyone who says the Pope is not a Catholic because he is wicked. You must read into it your interpretation that this also means heresy. If we did that then it would contradict the Church's Teaching on heretics.
Conversely, the quotes I cited mention very specifically the words heretic and heresy and are explicit as to their meaning.
“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”
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Pope Pius X
“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”
No, he means what he says, "any excommunication, suspension...", which does not mean "minor excommunication, suspension..." it means "any excommunication, suspension....". Please supply the name of whoever it was who thought you that "any" means "minor".
Umm.... Pope Pius X supplied it when he said he was talking about ecclesiastical impediments. Is heresy merely an ecclesiastical impediment? Where does he say heresy?
Quote from: StubbornThe first part of the decree from Constance is merely descriptive, it is purposely not all inclusive because the purpose of the decree is not to itemize all the different sins and crimes, the purpose of the decree is to condemn as error the belief that the pope is not the pope because he is not a Catholic.
The quote is condemning anyone who says the Pope is not a Catholic because he is wicked. You must read into it your interpretation that this also means heresy. If we did that then it would contradict the Church's Teaching on heretics.
Quote from: StubbornThis is not even a good try. And you did not answer me - who was it who taught you that "any" means "minor"?
What does this even mean? I never said that "any" means "minor". I am saying that that quote obviously is referring to minor offenses. An ecclesiastical impediment is not the same thing as Heresy. A Cardinal is a Catholic, a Heretic is neither Cardinal nor Catholic.Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23): “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Telling me I didn't answer your question means nothing because you haven't responded to 90% of the Church teachings I have quoted in our correspondence so far. I have chose not to call you out on it so far to keep the conversation flowing and towards new points. You haven't responded to most of my points either, and instead either draw the attention away from them or compose straw man arguments, like, me not answering your question of who taught me that any means minor.
Quote from: StubbornNo, it does not contradict any teaching on heretics.
I didn't say it did. If your interpretation were right, it would. It would say that a man can lead the Church when he is not part of it because:Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23): “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”Quote from: StubbornIt condemns saying the pope is not the pope
Correct. A Pope is the Pope. A heretic is not a POPE.
Quote from: StubbornTHAT is what the Church, through the Council of Constance, is condemning. THAT is error, the error that is being condemned.
Correct, calling a man who is the Pope, not the pope, is condemned. You are right. It is NOT saying a heretic can be Pope.Quote from: StubbornWere it not for that error, there would be no reason for the decree at all. Were it not for that error, they could just keep on going and going, itemizing different crimes and different sins
Correct. Saying: "A man, who is a sinner, is not the Pope, because he is not a member of the Church", is an error. This is different from saying: "a man, who is a heretic, is not the Pope, because he is not a member of the Church". There is no point in itemizing, you are right, because there's a lot of different sins but as you should know:Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23): “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
What goes through your head when you read this quote? You must read this and say: "Hmm... this definitely means that heresy is no different than any other offense. Also, I determine that this means a heretic must be INSIDE the Church and able to be Pope".
41. They, therefore, 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. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
Quote from: StubbornHeresy is a mortal sin. Attached to this particular mortal sin is the censure of excommunication. When pope Pius X and pope Pius XII decreed that no cardinal can in any way be excluded on the pretext or by reason of "any excommunication, suspension.....whatsoever", they meant "any excommunication" whatsoever. That is what they said, that is what they meant. In the event anyone thought they did not mean exactly what they said, they even said: "We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances."
So non-Catholics can be Popes and vote for a Pope according to you? This is not what the Popes are saying in these quotes.Quote from: StubbornThe thing that you are doing is making them say something that quite literally, they are not saying. For the sake of your opinion, you are claiming that they meant to say "minor excommunications whatsoever", which makes the whole thing nonsensical.
A non-Catholic can be Pope? THAT is nonsensical.
Quote from: Stubborn
It is necessary to understand that when reading encyclicals, sedevacantism never entered into the minds of the popes who wrote them. When the popes speak of heretics or heresy, they did not intend to apply what they are saying to popes, regardless of the heretical conciliar popes you consider not popes because they are not Catholic - which is condemned btw.
Do you know what never entered their mind? That someone would believe that a non-Catholic could be Pope.
Quote from: StubbornWhen I read your quotes, I see another sedevacantist doing the same thing that pretty much all BODers do with Trent's "or without the desire thereof". I see yet another sedevacantist who wholly believes that his opinion is dogma, or nearly dogma and, under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, inserts words and conditions which change the meaning of the teaching every time.
You have read the word heresy into all of your quotes when it's not there.
Quote from: StubbornTo answer your question, this is what goes through my head when I read your quote - from the same encyclical you quoted.......Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis41. They, therefore, 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. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
That's what I thought. What goes through your head is "I need to change the subject". You're telling me that Pius XII had sedevacantism in mind when he wrote this? LOL! I agree with this quote. When there is a visible head I will be loyal, in the meantime I am loyal to the office.
BTW, it is you who are condemned by this quote because you do NOT adhere LOYALLY to the man you call Pope. You must embrace false ecuмenism and all the others if you are going to be LOYAL.
Quote from: StubbornYou 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.
Quote from: StubbornFYI, "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.
Quote from: StubbornI 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: StubbornCan'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?
Quote from: StubbornYes, 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.
I guess I have to say it again because you keep misrepresenting me. I am NOT saying the Pope is not a Pope because he is not Catholic (which is condemned I agree, as long as he is just a mortal sinner and not a heretic). I am saying these men YOU CALL Popes, are not Popes, because they are not Catholic, nor were they Catholic before their supposed election. If you are going to say I’ve made my opinion clear and that you understand my opinion, then you cannot state what I do not believe and claim that is my opinion. That is a lie.
Quote from: StubbornThe thing that is equally obvious, is that you do not accept the Church infallibly telling you that your opinion is condemned as error.
My stance that heretics cannot be elected Pope is a teaching of the Church.
Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.
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 IV6. 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.
“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).
BTW Stubborn, the CE also says this in its section on Heresy.Quote from: The Catholic Encyclopedia on HeresyThe pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.
It's in the subsection called "Church Legislation on Heresy"
Quote from: StubbornI 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.
Quote from: StubbornNot 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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornHeresy 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.
A formal heretic is most certainly outside the Church, Pope or not:
"In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others." (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
"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." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)
No exception is made for the Pope. Therefore, if the Pope falls into formal heresy, he places himself outside the Church and thus cannot be her head. 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.
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: LadislausStubborn, 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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornIf understood at all, it absolutely does not matter who the pope is or how terribly heretical or apostate or incestuous or criminal the man is - we can still be subject to him as the pope - and still please God. When properly understood, God is offended when no matter what our reason is, we boast that we are not subject to him because it directly contradicts that explicit dogmatic teaching.
What is the concept of bull form Pope Paul IV? Isn't it to avoid exactly what you are saying here? So the faithful would never be subject to an antichrist?
Quote from: StubbornI 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.
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.Quote from: Stubbornsuffice 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.
"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: StubbornSeparating 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.
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 conciliar popes could not have been popes because they were not Catholic - which idea Constance condemned as error.
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.
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.
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.
Once a Catholic, always a Catholic just as surely as once a priest always a priest, even for all eternity.
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.
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.
Quote from: Stubborn
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.
Quote from: StubbornThis 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)
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".
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.
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.
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".
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it IS because nothing can be done about it.Quote from: StubbornIf 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.
Quote from: StubbornFirst, 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.
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.
cuм ex, the teaching that sedevacantists declare to be infallible, infallibly states that "the pope can be judged by none in this world", which is to say the Church cannot even judge him to be a heretic in order to depose him - unless you want to say Pope Paul IV did not mean to say that the Church is "in this world", other than that, it is not possible for a pope to be deposed no matter what the saints and theologians said.
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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornThe 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?
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?
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.
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.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".
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.
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: StubbornQuote from: Fr. WathenMoreover, 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: Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23)“Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”Quote from: Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 9)“For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire Eighth Ecuмenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’”
"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".
Quote from: StubbornQuote 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.
Quote from: StubbornWhat 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.
It says we must commemorate the Pope not a heretic.
Here's what one of your "popes" has to say about the NOM in his admonition of Lefebvre.Quote from: Paul VI...The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…
He also says that it was issued with the same authority that Pius V used. Now if you would remain consistent, you couldn't choose to accept Paul VI's statement, after he promulgated V II, that it was not infallible, and not accept this statement above.
Quote from: StubbornIt 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.
Quote from: Stubborn
It says "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". Your reason is that he is a heretic.
He is not the Pope, therefore his name CAN NOT be commemorated at Mass.
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: StubbornAs 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.
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.Quote from: StubbornI 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.
Quote from: StubbornDo 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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even SevenIf that's the case, then who was elected and accepted by the whole world (minus perhaps a few thousand sedevacantists) as pope?Quote from: StubbornAs 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.
Nobody. Which is why we are in an Interregnum.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even SevenIt 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.Quote from: Pope Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] 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
You are refuted. It can't be an historical fact if you are Catholic.
Pope Pius XII is talking about a Catholic. Pope Pius IV is talking about a heretic. I know you have bought in to this Fr. Wathen "teaching" of "once a Catholic, always a Catholic", but it goes against Revealed Dogma that a Heretic loses membership in the Church and is not a Catholic and has never been taught before. As long as you claim that these men you call Popes, are heretics you have no leg to stand on.
It's exhausting to see you come back with the same denial of Dogma in every post just so you can get the last word, but as long as you are denying it, I'm going to correct you.
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even Seven
Pope Pius XII is talking about a Catholic. Pope Pius IV is talking about a heretic. I know you have bought in to this Fr. Wathen "teaching" of "once a Catholic, always a Catholic", but it goes against Revealed Dogma that a Heretic loses membership in the Church and is not a Catholic and has never been taught before. As long as you claim that these men you call Popes, are heretics you have no leg to stand on.
It's exhausting to see you come back with the same denial of Dogma in every post just so you can get the last word, but as long as you are denying it, I'm going to correct you.
Your argument is against the Church, not me. I agree with the Church that once a Catholic always a Catholic and I agree with both pope Paul IV and pope Pius XII, your problem is that your doctrine disagrees with both popes and the Church.Quote from: Pope Pius XIITherefore, 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.
Now let's get back to you answering the question: what do pope Pius XII's words; "if anyone presumes to attempt this" mean to you?
Let's use it a few times in a sentence, see if this helps you any:
if anyone presumes to attempt to say that "Nobody" was elected when it is an historical fact that a pope was elected....
if anyone presumes to attempt to declare the pope is not the pope.....
if anyone presumes to attempt to say that "for whatever reason" the pope lost his office.....
......he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Do you suppose pope Pius XII did not mean what he said or do you believe that pope Pius XII was a false pope too?
I believe the Pope Pius XII was a validly elected Pope. Yes I do believe what he said. I believe that if a Catholic is elected Pope then I cannot say he is not Pope unless he loses his dignity as Pope through heresy, schism, or apostasy, which sever a man from the Church and makes him lose membership, unlike other sins.
Stubborn,
Do you also believe that the conciliar church and the Catholic Church are separate but one is within the other?
For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.
And that your "pope" is the head of the Catholic Church and the conciliar church at the same time?The pope is the pope, whatever else he is, he is the pope until or unless he abdicates or dies. It is not complicated.
Quote from: StubbornYou cannot dictate your own conditions for accepting the pope as pope - that is the very thing Pope Pius XII condemns. You are making the dictates of pope Pius XII conditional based on your criteria, which he condemns.
I am not making my own criteria. I believe Pope Paul IV when he says a heretic cannot be elected Pope. I also believe Pius XII when he says that a Cardinal cannot be excluded from electing or possibly being elected Pope.
You cannot justify the contradiction these two teachings make if interpreted by your criteria, because you believe a heretic can still be Catholic.
You can't say there isn't a contradiction because one says that if a Cardinal becomes a heretic, his election would be null and void. The other says that an excommunicated(or other ecclesiastical impediment) Cardinal can still become Pope. So either these two Popes contradicted each other, which is your only recourse, or they are talking about two different things.
Actually, it is a travesty.Quote from: StubbornThe conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, but because the Catholic Church has been infiltrated, the conciliar church most certainly is hiding within it - just as Pope St. Pius X warned in his encyclical:
So your "pope" is the head of the Catholic Church AND the head of the evil conciliar "church". How novel!
There is only a contradiction in your mind for at least a few different reasons. 1) Pope Pius XII is exemplifying Once a Catholic always a Catholic - which is why I said earlier "In plain English, what he is doing is Catholic." You do not accept this, therefore for you, there will always be a contradiction.
Hope this helps!No it doesn't help. Only an orthodox Pope would help, and it seems to me that neither the sedevacantists nor the R&R supporters have any realistic way of getting an orthodox Pope (other than by a miracle or the end of the world).
So what's your solution? Just go to the NOM and believe all the those guys tell you?
Quote from: MattoQuote from: An even SevenSo what's your solution? Just go to the NOM and believe all the those guys tell you?
I don't have a solution either. I was just pointing out that neither side has a solution except for divine intervention. Actually the Siriites have a solution but I am not in that camp.
P.S. Oh wait, the Siriites are waiting on divine intervention also. They are all hoping for the the three days of darkness to come.
Ok. Fine.
So neither side has a solution. So what? What is the point you are trying to make by pointing this out.
I already said that just because it hasn't happened before, it can't happen ever. Just because there isn't a solution doesn't mean it won't end. Another question is; why are "God fixing it" or a "miracle", not acceptable solutions to you?
Quote from: An even SevenSo what's your solution? Just go to the NOM and believe all the those guys tell you?
I don't have a solution either. I was just pointing out that neither side has a solution except for divine intervention. Actually the Siriites have a solution but I am not in that camp.
P.S. Oh wait, the Siriites are waiting on divine intervention also. They are all hoping for the the three days of darkness to come.
You want proof aside from the reality that a pope was actually elected, so you have Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which proves it and condemns your belief, but it does no good because you don't accept it, but you won't admit that you don't accept it.Quote from: StubbornYour belief that "Nobody" was elected because a heretic cannot be elected pope, is explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XII.
PROVE IT! Cite the EXPLICIT quote that condemns that "nobody" was elected because a heretic cannot be elected pope.
Quote from: Stubborn
There is only a contradiction in your mind for at least a few different reasons. 1) Pope Pius XII is exemplifying Once a Catholic always a Catholic - which is why I said earlier "In plain English, what he is doing is Catholic." You do not accept this, therefore for you, there will always be a contradiction.
Rather you make Pope Pius XII self-contradictory, since he explicitly taught that those who separare themselves from the Church lose membership in the Church, thus denying "once Catholic always Catholic":
"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)
Supposed "once Catholic, alway Catholic" is also refuted by Pope Leo XIII:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)." (Satis Cognitum)
"Once Catholic, always Catholic" is false - you simply refuse to accept Church's teaching that formal heretics lose membership in the Church.
A question for the sedevacantists. What hapens if a heretic is elected by heretical cardinals and he is not really Pope, but he sits on the throne and wears the tiara and everyone thinks he is the true Pope. What happens next? What is the point of the heretic losing office if he still sits on the throne, acts as Pope, and nobody notices he is not really the Pope?
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even SevenYou want proof aside from the reality that a pope was actually elected, so you have Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which proves it and condemns your belief, but it does no good because you don't accept it, but you won't admit that you don't accept it.Quote from: StubbornYour belief that "Nobody" was elected because a heretic cannot be elected pope, is explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XII.
PROVE IT! Cite the EXPLICIT quote that condemns that "nobody" was elected because a heretic cannot be elected pope.
You are exactly right, you can't prove it.
Nor could you prove any of the other comments you made.
Quote from: Arvinger
Rather you make Pope Pius XII self-contradictory, since he explicitly taught that those who separare themselves from the Church lose membership in the Church, thus denying "once Catholic always Catholic":
"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)
"Separated" and "excluded" is not "permanently expelled". Apparently you do not accept that excommunication is primarily medicinal and is meant to cure those convicted of committing "grave faults" - so that they may be separated and excluded no more.
Quote from: Arvinger
Supposed "once Catholic, alway Catholic" is also refuted by Pope Leo XIII:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)." (Satis Cognitum)
"Once Catholic, always Catholic" is false - you simply refuse to accept Church's teaching that formal heretics lose membership in the Church.
It is not false and you have yet to reply correctly to the question I posed. Formal heretics are excommunicated. Excommunication means that the heretic who has received this censure is, by reason of the sin of heresy, rendered incapable of participating in the communal life of the Church and forbidden to try to do so.
This is what the pope means when he says; "as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church." You must understand the pope is a Catholic, not a sedevacantist. He is speaking as a Catholic to Catholics, not sedevacantists.
If you do not accept this truth, then feel free to emulate the sedevacantists and keep looking for quotes proving that heretics are given the almighty boot out of the Church, directly into the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But if you sincerely strive to understand it, then you will need to read what the popes taught while remembering that excommunication is medicinal - and that the popes are speaking to Catholics - so have the understanding of a Catholic and it should become clear to you.
The sedevacantists say this in reference to cuм ex as a matter of fact. They offer no such remedy, no hope whatsoever that a heretic pope, past or present, can ever hold his office in the Church, not ever - "he is a heretic, he is therefore excommunicated, therefore he is out of the Church, therefore he cannot be pope. Nobody is the pope. Heresy removes the pope from his office - period." Meanwhile the pope still occupies his office as pope and is recognized by the entire world (minus perhaps a few thousand sedevacantists) as pope.Quote from: Stubborn"Separated" and "excluded" is not "permanently expelled". Apparently you do not accept that excommunication is primarily medicinal and is meant to cure those convicted of committing "grave faults" - so that they may be separated and excluded no more.
No one ever said that one cannot be reunited to the Church after committing heresy. They must first make an abjuration of heresy and confession etc...
It is only evidence that the popes included heresy when they said "any excommunication whatsoever".
Your quotes do not mention heresy as it is different form a merely medicinal excommunication by the Church. Heresy is an offense against faith and removes one from communion unlike a merely non-obstinate act of disobedience. This is further evidence that your quotes from Pius XII/X are not talking about heresy because they would have had to mention the steps necessary for these heretics to come back to the Church in order to elect the Pope.
Is that all it is? Just a name for a particular situation - like a title that needs it's own bishops?Quote from: StubbornYou must understand the pope is a Catholic, not a sedevacantist.
You act as if SV is a religion, which also lowers even further, your credibility to talk about the subject. It is a name for a particular situation, a papal interregnum, in which the Seat is Vacant. Like so many times before.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Arvinger
Rather you make Pope Pius XII self-contradictory, since he explicitly taught that those who separare themselves from the Church lose membership in the Church, thus denying "once Catholic always Catholic":
"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)
"Separated" and "excluded" is not "permanently expelled". Apparently you do not accept that excommunication is primarily medicinal and is meant to cure those convicted of committing "grave faults" - so that they may be separated and excluded no more.
Of course not permanently - if a formal heretic repents he can regain membership in the Church. However, as long as he remains separated from the Church, he is not member of the Church. Pope Pius XII teaches, that those who separate themselves from the Body of the Church are not members of the Church, thus refuting "once Catholic, alway Catholic" error.Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Arvinger
Supposed "once Catholic, alway Catholic" is also refuted by Pope Leo XIII:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)." (Satis Cognitum)
"Once Catholic, always Catholic" is false - you simply refuse to accept Church's teaching that formal heretics lose membership in the Church.
It is not false and you have yet to reply correctly to the question I posed. Formal heretics are excommunicated. Excommunication means that the heretic who has received this censure is, by reason of the sin of heresy, rendered incapable of participating in the communal life of the Church and forbidden to try to do so.
This is what the pope means when he says; "as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church." You must understand the pope is a Catholic, not a sedevacantist. He is speaking as a Catholic to Catholics, not sedevacantists.
If you do not accept this truth, then feel free to emulate the sedevacantists and keep looking for quotes proving that heretics are given the almighty boot out of the Church, directly into the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But if you sincerely strive to understand it, then you will need to read what the popes taught while remembering that excommunication is medicinal - and that the popes are speaking to Catholics - so have the understanding of a Catholic and it should become clear to you.
Pope Leo XIII teaches that if anyone holds to a single heresy he is not a Catholic (you conveniently ignored this part of Leo XIII's quotation). A formal heretic loses membership in the Church as is not to be counted among members of the Church, as Pope Pius XII teaches. "Once Catholic, always Catholic" is false.
Formal heretics lose membership in the Church and cease to be Catholics, period.
I thought the law was, to be nominated, he must be "catholic" in action. By their fruits.... Those that nominated are they not excommunicating themselves for saying the New Order Mess? They are all saying the New Order Mess, yes. They have excommunicated themselves, and we can do that too, without a "Come Jesus Meeting".
IF this so-called pope was to confess/penance for ..this issue..where would he go? To whom? I don't see it happening.how would we know that the pope even went to confession in the first place? you cant break the seal
Quote from: StubbornWhile I accept what popes Leo XIII and Pius XII are saying as indisputable, there is still a cloudy area that for me, remains - but regardless, the fact remains that the conciliar popes have all been elected according to the law and accepted as popes by the entire world, this fact in and of itself testifies that the pope is the pope, this is indisputable.
FALSE!
They have not been elected according to the Law. The Law states that a heretic is not in the Church and therefore cannot be elected Pope.
Quote from: StubbornThey say the law says: "...any excommunication (except heresy)...", but it does not say that.
You are saying "...any excommunication (including heresy)...", but it does not say that.
They would have to give up their heresies and become a CATHOLIC again to partake.
The problem for you is that it doesn't make sense for them to include heresy because it would deny Dogma. OTOH, it would make sense if the meaning was "except heresy", because a heretic is not Catholic. The Popes probably didn't even think it was possible that a Catholic would think to interpret their words to include heresy because it is so opposed to Dogma.
Quote from: StubbornPure speculation on your part because I have no problem. You're the one with a problem because we must believe that they knew exactly what they were saying, not that they probably didn't think of this or that. But you cannot accept this, hence, you have the problem.
It's obvious that they were not including heresy, or else they would have mentioned it.
They did not mention it because there is already a Standard Operating Procedure for the supposed election of heretics. The SOP is cuм ex and the result is the election is null and void.
Quote from: StubbornDo you realize that per your thinking re cuм ex, all of today's sedevacantist bishops, most (if not all) sedevacantist priests, as well as most trad priests - and in fact the entire hierarchy including the pope, are all out of the Church? At some point during, or prior to their ordination or elevation, they've all "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy". Only a minuscule few have never been NO, but that's not to say that among those minuscule few there are those who were born and raised a Prot or a Muslim or whatever. Every one of their seats is vacant, not a one hold their offices legitimately. Do you realize that?
YES!
During the Arian crisis, almost all the hierarchy lost office due to their heresy. Why is it not possible for there to be a time where it might be worse?
Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.....
......that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated.....
Quote from: Stubborn
Because per cuм ex, there is no possible way for any of those clergy, including the popes of those days, to ever repent in order to regain their offices, which means the entire Church died out not more than two or three generations after the Arian crisis began.
Remember, you're the one spouting it to be "Divine Revelation" that heretics cannot hold any office - and it is cuм ex that prohibits *anyone* who was ever even suspect of heresy from holding any office whatsoever at any time, now or in the future.
This shows your dishonesty or you lack of good will to find the Truth.
What you failed to mention later in that same last paragraph you cited is this:Quote from: cuм Ex...but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;
This quote also shows how seriously the Church takes heresy on the part of the hierarchy, on top of the fact that it proves that these individuals can reconcile to the Church and cuм ex is not saying they can't; specifically refuting your claim.
They would not be allowed to hold office in the future even if they were to reconcile with the Church because the Church cares so deeply for the souls of the faithful so as not to allow a former heretic to regain office and possibly teach error again to the faithful.
Quote from: StubbornWhich is why I said "per cuм ex, there is no possible way for any of those clergy, including the popes of those days, to ever repent in order to regain their offices, which means the entire Church died out not more than two or three generations after the Arian crisis began."
So....since they can't regain their office, no one can be elected to that see to take over?
Quote from: StubbornFirst, for those who *do not* show "in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance", they are abandoned to the secular authority.
YupQuote from: StubbornSecond, those heretic hierarchy and clergy who *do* show "in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance", they are sentenced "to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction" - they are sentenced to a life of "perpetual penance", they are not received back into their offices.
Correct, those offices will need to be filled with non-heretical hierarchy.
Quote from: StubbornAll those offices are vacant. All the heretic popes, cardinals, bishops - "anysoever" clerics are done, gone, "Nobodys" - so by the year 400 or so with no bishops or cardinals or popes, there is no Magisterium for the last 1600 years according to your reasoning.
Are you claiming that those offices were not then filled with true hierarchy?
Quote from: StubbornSo I ask again, if, as per the sedevacantists that Divine intervention is the only remedy, there is no mention of that remedy in cuм ex whatsoever, as such, I'm not sure where that part of the "Divine Revelation" is taught, please post the remedy.
You don't think that Divine Intervention was used during the Arian crisis or the GWS? You think we got ourselves out of those jambs without God intervening? You must have a lot of faith in man.
Divine Intervention is a perfectly reasonable opinion for a remedy of this Crisis. This is a punishment, a chastisement for all of the heresy and sin in the world. How God chooses to intervene, if He does, is up to Him. Wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable for Him to just destroy the world for all of the abominations that take place now days? In fact, it would be a huge favor, which we don't deserve, to conclude this mess and allow life on Earth to continue.
cuм ex provides for us the baseline for what to believe, no matter how bad the situation is. A heretic cannot be elected Pope, and if a heretic purports to be pope we cannot follow him, nor consider him pope. If that means that that presently there are no or few valid clergy, then we deal with that. We definitely do not forego the Dogmas and make up crazy opinions like the Pope can be head of the Catholic Church AND an evil Church at the same time.
Quote from: StubbornBut by your own reasoning, cuм ex was decreed by a false claimant to the throne, because all the true cardinals died out some 1100 years before Paul IV, which means he was elected by false cardinals - which needless to say makes his election null, his encyclicals null and all his appointments null - the same must be said for the +50 false popes before him.
You cannot deny this, after all, you say that it is by Divine Revelation that heretics are not in the Church and if they be clerics, it is Divine Law that they loose their offices and are outside the Church, being outside the Church, every episcopal consecration, priestly ordination and all their appointments since the Arian heresy "are null, void and worthless and it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity" - according to your thinking, there has been no pope or hierarchy since about the year 400.
So I'll ask again, if it is by Divine Revelation that you know heretic popes and clergy lose their offices and are outside the Church for the last 1600 years, then what does Divine Revelation say about a remedy that the offices which have been vacant for 1600 years will be filled with non-heretics?
So you are telling me that, during the Arian crisis, 100% of the hierarchy became heretics? Form what I've read it was not 100%. None of your points make sense unless you believe this.
Quote from: Stubborn
So how was the magisterium restored with only one bishop (St. Athanasius), who died during the crisis?
Divine intervention.
What is your remedy for Today's situation?
Any new heretic clergy elected then were not valid and had no authority in the Catholic Church, regardless of how many followed them. Heretics are not in the Church. They cannot hold office whatsoever in the Church. You keep denying the fact that someone who is outside the Church is not in the Church. Your whole system of belief is based on error. If you want I can post the many teachings that prove you wrong...again.
QuotePope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16) On False Accusations:
“And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”
The Pope (a Catholic) refused to condemn a Catholic as per the request of a non-Catholic Arian.
Many of those same heretics remained in their offices during and through the last years of the crisis, teaching (heresy?), preaching (heresy?), administering the sacraments, ordaining heretical priests and consecrating heretical bishops etc., same as today. These exact same hierarchy continued on in their offices after the crisis was over - because, no matter how often you say otherwise, their offices were never vacated even though they preached heresy and were therefore heretics.
While the heretics sat in the places of the Church, they did not retain the Faith of the Church, and therefore were not the true Hierarchy.
The Difference between today and the Arian Crisis and what makes today worse is this; back then the Pope remained faithful and he was a legit Pope. Today, we have almost no hierarchy since those who claim to be are heretics, and we are in the middle of a very LONG interregnum.
Good heavens you are a laugh.QuoteQuote from: An even Seven
Any new heretic clergy elected then were not valid and had no authority in the Catholic Church, regardless of how many followed them. Heretics are not in the Church. They cannot hold office whatsoever in the Church. You keep denying the fact that someone who is outside the Church is not in the Church. Your whole system of belief is based on error. If you want I can post the many teachings that prove you wrong...again.
The heretics did hold offices, they did not leave nor were any of them deposed, removed or excommunicated for the heresy of Arianism - except for St. Athanasius. You constantly saying otherwise does not change this fact.
You are so blind that you actually think that all of the heretics kept their office as Pastor in the Church and the one man who remained Catholic actually lost his. This is a new low.
Quote from: Stubbornthere is nothing that St. Athanasius ever wrote or taught condemning Pope Liberius as a non-pope or losing his office because he was a heretic - even though the pope excommunicated him. Nor was there ever any question, accusation or speculation that the pope lost his office - until about 40 years ago.
This show that you don't even comprehend what you read. Let me quote it again.QuotePope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16) On False Accusations:
“And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”
Pope Pius IX is stating that Pope Liberius REFUSED to condemn St. Athanasius.
I know that the Pope remained Pope. That's why I pointed out how it's different and, although it was bad, it is not as bad as it is today. Today we have people who pretend to be Catholic Hierarchy, who are heretics, and no Pope reigning in the Papal Office at this point to guide us.
The whole point is that heretics lose their office, even though you reject the Catholic Teaching on this, and even your opinion of Church History won't make sense when you try to explain it because of your denial.
Quote from: StubbornWe are not the popes' judges. We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, but we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status. We certainly are not authorized to go around trying to convince other Catholics that the man in office is not in office as if it is a teaching of the Church and as if it is our duty to do so.
No one on earth can Judge the Pope. When a man is a heretic he cannot be elected pope. If he is in office he loses his office if he becomes a heretic. He in effect judges himself.
Are we authorized to tell people that the Pope is a heretic but still pope? Are we authorized to say that the Pope is head of the Catholic Church and an evil, counter-church at the same time?
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even SevenQuote from: StubbornWe are not the popes' judges. We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, but we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status. We certainly are not authorized to go around trying to convince other Catholics that the man in office is not in office as if it is a teaching of the Church and as if it is our duty to do so.
No one on earth can Judge the Pope. When a man is a heretic he cannot be elected pope. If he is in office he loses his office if he becomes a heretic. He in effect judges himself.
Are we authorized to tell people that the Pope is a heretic but still pope? Are we authorized to say that the Pope is head of the Catholic Church and an evil, counter-church at the same time?
That's right, you got it - we have nothing to say about his status. We are not his judges. We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, but we are not allowed to do anything about his status, not one single solitary thing. We certainly are not authorized to go around trying to convince other Catholics that the man in office is not in office as if it is a teaching of the Church and as if it is our duty to do so.
You will never find any magisterial teaching that gives anyone in the world the right to do what sedevacantists do, even though they do so as if what they do is a teaching of the Church.
He will be judged alone, naked and accused before God the same as everyone of us by his only superior in this world or the next. He will receive his eternal reward or his eternal punishment same us the rest of us. Like us, he will be able to blame no one for what he did. Our responsibility lies in persevering in the Catholic faith right up until our dying breath whether the pope does or not.
Exactly and when someone is a heretic we condemn them as such and refuse communion with that person. We should never tell someone that this person can be in and head the Catholic Church and an evil false Church at the same time because that would mean the Gates of Hell have prevailed. The Church is ONE in faith. We MUST have the same faith as the POPE.
To StubbornQuote from: Satis CognitumAnother head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. "See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? No. As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
ALL of these statements by you show without a doubt, that you don't have ANY idea what One Faith and the Unity of Church is. It also shows you have no idea why it is that people are sedevacantist.
Once a Catholic always a Catholic is just as certain as once a priest always a priest because even an "excommunicated heretic ex-Catholic non-member" is encouraged to be absolved for his sins in the sacrament of penance, which is the only means for forgiveness - and is only open to Catholics. First, he is absolved from every bond of excommunication, then he is absolved from his sins.
This quote form Satis Cognitum explicitly refutes your erroneous idea that "once a Catholic, always a Catholic". Then to further prove your misunderstanding of the quote, you inserted and highlighted the word "no" as if that proved your point. The soul of the Church does not follow the former member out of the Church when the member is in heresy. So you are right that the answer to this rhetorical question is no, but it only proves that the unity of faith remains intact no matter how many people leave the Church through heresy.
It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal. (Not surprisingly, all mention of censures has been dropped in the Conciliar "Rite of Reconciliation.") Thus:
"May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)
(a) Interdiction: the removal of all faculties of the clergy of a place, or group of people (such as the priests of a religious community), so that the Mass and Sacraments are denied to them, except under certain specified conditions. Interdiction is imposed either because all (or apparently all) who suffer it are involved to some degree in a grave sin, or it is imposed as a desperate measure on the faithful of a place because of the persistent, scandalous, and obstructive sins of those in authority over them, either civil or religious. In the latter case, the interdiction deprives the people of the Mass and the Sacraments, in order to provoke them to exert moral pressure on their superiors.
(b) Suspension: the prohibition of the right to exercise one's priestly (or episcopal) orders.
(c) Excommunication: exclusion from the communal life of the Church.
It proves that if the Catholic becomes a Heretic he is no longer a Catholic because he no longer lives in the Body.
This proves that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church and cannot hold office in it.
I do think that this issue is critical because if one wants to go to heaven, one must believe in ALL the Teachings of the Church. This issue involves the Unity of Faith of all Christians (One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism). We can never be subject to a heretic because they do not have the same faith. They cannot lead us. Your opinion that we can be subject to and in communion with someone who does not share the Unity of Faith is evil.
We must adhere to all Dogmas to be saved and you deny the Unity of Faith which is what is meant by being subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Read the entire encyclical "Satis Cognitum" if you want to have an understanding of this issue.
The sedevacantists have separated themselves from other trads.Quote from: StatementsAll of those statements show is that my salvation is not dependent upon whether the pope is a heretic or a non pope or not.
I fully understand why people are sedevacantist, it is the sedevacantists who do not understand that, aside from praying for him, there is nothing anyone can do about a heretic pope - the proof for this is that we've had heretic popes for the last 50 years and no one, certainly not the sedevacantists, have done a thing about it. They certainly don't understand that they are risking their eternity on their private opinion no matter how often it is argued.
See, this is what's crazy - you speak of unity, but there can be no unity if you separate yourself from everyone else by believing we've been without a pope for +50 years - the sedevacantists have proved this fact by separating themselves from other trads. These days, the sedevacantists have their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses, their own bishops, their own teachings and their own beliefs. That's unity?
More proof you don't know why Sedes hold that position or what Unity means.
Quote from: StubbornMy salvation is not dependent upon whether the pope is the pope or not. Since it is certain that I can still make it to heaven regardless of papal validity or invalidity,
Your salvation is dependent on whether you have communion with heretics whom you know are heretics. To hold that heretics are in the Church denies the unity of Faith.
Either they are Popes and the conciliar "church" is the Catholic Church or they are not Popes and the conciliar "church" is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church cannot have some sort of other evil church living inside of it which the Pope is also the head of.
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted
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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornYou are stuck on "pope is a heretic
This! You either don't know what the SV opinion is or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.QuoteWhether the pope is knowingly a heretic, very simply, we are unable to say.
You've said many times in this thread that these VII "popes" are heretics.
you needlessly put your salvation at risk believing a non catholic is leader of the Church of Christ
Quote from: StubbornBecause they are heretics, whether knowingly or unknowingly, we are unable to say.
This is the one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. It's not just you though. I've heard it many times.
The man on this planet whom one would think would know the most about the Faith, should be the Pope.
This excuse is a copout. These VII claimants know the Faith as evidenced by their statements, but still contradict it boldly.
I am not arguing with you because I enjoy arguing. I truly want you to see that heretics, no matter who they are, are not in the Church. They cannot hold office. There are many quotes to support this.
Quote from: StubbornWhether 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.
I like to read your posts Stubbon, but I believe you are not recognizing something. Fr. Wathen that you have high regard for, EXPLICITLY called JP2 the Antichrist, a heretic, atheist, destroyer of the faith. Notice not a material heretic, material atheist, material destroyer.....So he made a clear judgment, matter of fact he said NO ONE could be saved that belonged to the Conciliar church because it was NOT Catholic. His mistake, which has been pointed out to you several times, is he unifies a non- Catholic sect with the Catholic Church and claimed heretics are IN the Church.
Do those who view the chair vacant really depose a Pope, if they hold the position that a heretic never possesses the see in the first place??
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.
Quote from: Stubborn...Fr. Wathen only put forth comparatively very little effort speaking out against sedevacantism because he considered it something that people should avoid like the plague, should avoid like the NO.
...like Fr. Wathen and the others, never went along with NO.
You and Fr. Wathen are/were in the NO. You are not avoiding anything. Who is your "pope"? Who is the NO "pope"? One and the same. You are definitely in the conciliar, NO "church".Quote from: StubbornAs far as no one can be saved within the conciliar church goes, I agree with him, but I don't go around condemning anyone for it, nor does my faith revolve around it - unlike many (not all) sede's whose faith revolves around an empty chair.
Yes. Our faith revolves around accepting ALL Church Dogmas. One of which is that a heretic is not part of the Church.
Quote from: Stubborn"The legitimacy (or lack of it) of the pope does not bear on our religious obligations, our religious obligations are no different whether the pope is legal or illegal." - For me, that little blurb says all that needs to be said as regards sedevacantism.
Yet you just spent 20 pages trying to refute it.
We are religiously obliged to not be in communion with heretics.
Quote from: StubbornYou 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: StubbornBetween the two of us, I am not the one who is in communion with a heretic, never have been, with the grace of God never will be.
Are you saying that you are not in communion with a heretic, but yet you say your "pope" is a heretic? If their is one person we need to be in communion with, it's the Pope.
Quote from: StubbornIf 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.
Quote from: StubbornNot 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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even SevenQuote from: StubbornIf 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.
Quote from: StubbornI will start you off with only one reason, possibly the best reason we could hope for - Richard Ibranyi...his reasons are often better than yours for saying a certain of the popes are not popes.
Again, the reasons seem more plausible to you because neither of you truly believe in Dogma.
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.
QuoteFunny 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.
QuoteRI 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.
Quote from: StubbornThen 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.
Quote from: sedevacantist3how could anyone believe a non catholic is head of the Church of Christ..I don't get it
It's amazing. According to people like this, anyone who claims they are Catholic can become Pope, no matter what they believe.
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.
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;
Right, while you acknowledge there is no pope right now, there is a pope occupying the Chair. It's pretty basic, you take into your own hands the status of the pope.Quote from: StubbornHeresy 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.
Heresy is a sin that separates one from the Church.
What matters am I taking into my own hands? I am simply acknowledging that we have no Pope right now.
Quote from: StubbornYou reject the dogma that we are not the popes' judges - see cuм ex.
cuм Ex says that a heretic's election to the Papacy would be null and void. Do you think they were heretics before their election?
Quote from: StubbornWe are not his judges. 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.
Exactly. We judge that Protestant minister to be a heretic. Assuming they were validly baptized. Same thing with a guy who says he's Catholic but publically proclaims heresy, thus making him a non-Catholic, through word or deed, and then supposedly gets elected to the Papacy.
Quote from: StubbornSo 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?
Again, if a man was a heretic, and people recognized that, then his election would be invalid. It doesn't matter when that information was made available. Like marriages without consenting parties, they are null. Like an election of a non-Catholic to the Papacy is null.
If there was a validly elected Pope, who started teaching heresy, that's a different story. This is not the situation. Even so, many theologians have stated they would ipso facto lose their office in the Church and cease to be a member without a declaration. I think the faithful would then refuse to obey or believe what he taught, but this is a man who was already the Pope. Not the case with the VII guys.
QuoteSo 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.
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.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even SevenQuoteSo 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?Quote from: An even Seven
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!
:facepalm:
1. yes
2. yes
especially in an age when heresy is universally accepted, like now.
BTW, you don't agree with all I posted, because you are in communion with heretics, by you own admission, and call them your pope
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: An even Seven
BTW, you don't agree with all I posted, because you are in communion with heretics, by you own admission, and call them your pope
You need to look up the definition for "in communion". I assure you that believing the pope to be the pope and being subject to him is not in that definition.
:confused1: :facepalm:
Link - pdf file (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf)
"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 " ..............."We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."