1. You're the one making the determination that he's a non-catholic. Your opinion is meaningless.
2. There's a difference between a heretic and a non-catholic.
3. Any non-cleric and non-church official, who's not part of the Church governance has no say in how the Church operates (i.e. you, me and 90% of catholics).
4. The Church is a MONARCHY. The pope is pope by "Divine Right" and remains so until he 1) abdicates, 2) dies or 3) is deposed.
5. If you want to argue that Pope Francis was not ELIGIBLE to be elected, fine. That's a totally different argument than 1) he was validly elected and shouldn't be pope anymore because of x, y or z.
6. Most sedes "mix and match" lack of eligibility to be pope vs post-election loss of office because it suits their view.
7. At the end of the day, whether he is or isn't pope doesn't affect our salvation. Our job is to love God, not worry about who is or isn't pope.
1. Neither of us have named any names. We're arguing over whether a Pope loses his Papacy when he embraces formal heresy or not, with myself arguing he does and you arguing that he does not. Whether or not Pope Francis is a heretic or not is a completely different discussion, and one not even worth having until/unless we can agree on what that would actually mean for his Papacy.
2. Irrelevant, a formal heretic IS a non-Catholic even if non-Catholic has a broader meaning. I did not misspeak or imply anything incorrect.
3. Agreed. But Church governance does not deal with deposing Popes. It has no authority to do that. All it can do is declare a Papacy invalid after the fact.
4. Divine right is not extended to heretics.
5. That is my belief, but it is irrelevant to this argument. We're not arguing about whether Francis is a valid Pope or not, but rather whether a Pope who embraces a heresy loses his Papacy or not.
6. Ok.
7. I can sort of agree with that, but it doesn't settle the debate.
So a few questions for you then, so I can understand your point of view. Do you believe it is possible for a Pope to become a formal heretic, and then for him to keep it if he does? If so, does he retain his full papal authority or lose part of it? The issue being, said heretic Pope could then excommunicate Catholics for obstinately teaching actual dogma and rejecting his heresies. Would these excommunications then be valid? If so, then a Catholic has been barred from the Sacraments for defending the true faith. And if one dies excommunicated they are damned to Hell, why would God let a man be sent to Hell for defending Him against a heretic? If the excommunications are not valid, well then said heretic Pope clearly does not have all his papal authority. So how much does he have? Where is it defined that a heretic Pope loses some, but not all, of his authority? Where is it even speculated in Catholic literature?
Topic: Why arent sedevacantists loud and proud about their position? (Read 7523 times)