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.  

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: 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.

Quote from: Stubborn

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.  

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: Stubborn

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.

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.

While 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.

Therefore, short of the pope dying or resigning, he is the pope. *IF* due to his heresies he has lost his office, it is impossible to prove and even if true, there is nothing anyone can do about it, because it is by Divine design that the Church has no court or tribunal, or any means whatsoever able to pass judgement against him. This is also indisputable.

We as lay people - and even priests and bishops, are not in a position to pass judgement on all the heretical cardinals in the conclave who elected these popes, nor are we in a position to declare that the pope is not the pope. These facts are also indisputable. The whole reason there even is any question about the situation at all, is because these facts are not accepted by sedevacantists.

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".

The law of Pope Pius X and XII says: “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 sedevacantists and their sympathizers make their own condition part of the law, they put their own condition in parentheses. They say the law says: "...any excommunication (except heresy)...", but it does not say that.

And in my opinion, they probably are excommunicating themselves for saying the NOM.

 

 

 

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: Stubborn

Pure 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.

It is obvious that by saying "any excommunication" that they meant any excommunication - obviously this includes being excommunicated for heresy.
There is no need for me to continue repeating the obvious here.

Quote from: Stubborn

Do 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?

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.

The popes were heretics, the cardinals were heretics, the bishops were heretics, therefore, all Councils, episcopal consecrations and ordinations & etc., were null from the third century on - which means for the last 1500 years there has been no magisterium whatsoever - by your own understanding, even pope Paul IV was "Nobody".

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.

And remember, according to you, that teaching, being "Divine Revelation" is always the law since the time of the Apostles till the end of time, as such it was in force during the Arian. cuм ex eliminates all possibility of any remedy whatsoever for the situation. If Divine intervention is the only remedy, there is no mention of that whatsoever, as such,  I'm not sure where that part of the "Divine Revelation" is taught, please post the remedy.

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

Which 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?

Who can possibly elect a pope when all the cardinals are heretics? When bishops are heretics, who can consecrate bishops? Who appoints bishops when there is no pope? Heretic bishops cannot ordain priests - the entire magisterium disappears.  

Quote from: Stubborn

First, 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.

Yup

Quote from: Stubborn

Second, 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.

How? With no cardinals to elect a pope and no bishops to ordain priests, how do you propose those offices get filled with non-heretical hierarchy?  

Quote from: Stubborn

All 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?

I am asking how? What is the remedy for replacing all the vacant offices with non-heretical clergy and hierarchy?  

You say that all the heretic clergy, or at least "almost all the hierarchy lost office due to their heresy" - that alone dictates that there is no way to replace them. When the possible few good ones died, that was it. *There is no replacing their offices.*  

So how exactly did the offices get filled with true hierarchy?
 

Quote from: Stubborn

So 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.

But 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?

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?

No, the magisterium was not restored by Divine intervention. Where did you learn that? Where is that taught or written? You can't just cop out with such a vague answer as that. You need to provide at least some type of proof. First you need to prove that their offices were vacant, then were filled with new, non-heretical clergy. Good luck with that!

First you say that it is by Divine Revelation that the heretics remove themselves from office permanently, now you say it is by Divine Intervention their offices were filled. Sounds like God is moving people around like pawns who have no free will.

Are you the only one who noticed that none of the previous heretic clergy remained in office through the whole Arian Crisis?

Did you fail to notice that during the crisis that there were who knows how many new heretic bishops consecrated and appointed by the heretic popes, and many new heretic priests ordained, same as today? Their offices kept getting filled with "Nobodys" per your understanding - now you say it was restored? - through Divine intervention?  Bzzzzzzzt, wrong.

As I said earlier, sedevacantists create their own dilemma, one that is an unsolvable dead end from the word go, they make this dilemma a doctrine that must be believed at all costs. They have decided that they are going to impose their judgement upon us, and there is something wrong with our faith if we do not see it their way.  

     

Quote

Quote 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.

Good heavens you are a laugh.
Then as now, the good (St. Athanasius) were persecuted while the heretics in office ruled.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

there 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.

Quote

Pope 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.

I know that is your whole point, but you are completely wrong.

Ok, let's agree that per Pope Pius IX, pope Liberius did not excommunicate St. Athanasius, but pope Liberius - nor any of the popes for the 200 or so years of the Arian crisis, also did *not* excommunicate anyone of the rest of the heretical hierarchy - they all kept their offices, how is that possible?

You need to figure out how "true popes" remain "true popes" while letting their entire hierarchy run around un-penalized as Arian heretics for 200 years. You say they all lost their offices, but that's your own opinion, it is not an opinion shared with the popes - if it was, then they said nothing about it and neglected to do their duty - and ipso facto, lost their office and didn't even know it. Even if the popes themselves weren't heretics, they allowed their heretical hierarchy to remain in office.

The jist of all of this is that, now as then, we have nothing to say about it. We 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.