Author Topic: Why I believe they Pope(s) is a heretic, but do not call myself a Sede (Read 22523 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #75 on:** June 12, 2011, 07:03:49 PM »

Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Caminus · « **Reply #76 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:07:01 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.

SJB · « **Reply #77 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:08:52 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Yes, Caminus cannot tolerate a judgment of fact before the order of law decides, if it ever does decide. He has no problem with a judgment of fact (the NO was not promulgated properly, for example) when he sees fit. This is applied selectively, to save his position, the "true" position, in own mind.

SJB · « **Reply #78 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:11:41 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.

Why? It is not the "necessary foundation" in civil law.

Cristian · « **Reply #79 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:33:48 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Caminus
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.

What does tacit mean, Matthew?

The question is, who determines the fact?

How do you explain for instance the penalties latae sententiae?

Caminus · « **Reply #80 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:36:42 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.

Why? It is not the "necessary foundation" in civil law.

It certainly is, how else are people arrested, charged and hauled into court if not based upon a legal presumption of guilt? The presumption of innocence pertains to guilt in fact. The whole reason for a trial to to ascertain whether the facts and evidence support the charge. This principle is found within canon law as well.

Caminus · « **Reply #81 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:44:20 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Yes, Caminus cannot tolerate a judgment of fact before the order of law decides, if it ever does decide. He has no problem with a judgment of fact (the NO was not promulgated properly, for example) when he sees fit. This is applied selectively, to save his position, the "true" position, in own mind.

I'm not sure what he means by an "order of fact." Determining the objective defect of a thing is an entirely different matter than determining the guilt of a man. There can also be a dispute about facts as well as how pertinent principles are applied. In the case of determing what constitutes an heretical proposition (the very matter for the charge itself, something which you simply assume) it is not always an easy task either. What you deem "fact" is oftentimes mere presumption or conclusory allegations as well. On the other hand, if you have a true fact at hand, no one can argue against it. So lets get our concepts straight before we go accusing others of intolerance or inconsitency.

Caminus · « **Reply #82 on:** June 12, 2011, 08:45:18 PM »

Quote from: Cristian

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Caminus
There must be some mechanism in place in order to determine whether the Pope has fallen into heresy and thus tacitly abdicated his office. But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made, until the conclusion of the investigation, thus your entire theory fails.

What does tacit mean, Matthew?

The question is, who determines the fact?

How do you explain for instance the penalties latae sententiae?

That still must be determined as to whether or not the censure was incurred. It can come down to a dispute about fact.

SJB · « **Reply #83 on:** June 12, 2011, 10:52:41 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Legal presumption of guilt is the necessary foundation for the determination of factual guilt. The entire process presupposes someone in an official position to deal with both the legal and factual questions.

Why? It is not the "necessary foundation" in civil law.

It certainly is, how else are people arrested, charged and hauled into court if not based upon a legal presumption of guilt? The presumption of innocence pertains to guilt in fact. The whole reason for a trial to to ascertain whether the facts and evidence support the charge. This principle is found within canon law as well.

The guilt must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt (morallly certain). Guilt is not presumed to make an arrest. The arrest occurs because of an action; the courts are not even involved at this point.

SJB · « **Reply #84 on:** June 12, 2011, 10:57:28 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Within the order of fact, or within the order of law?

Yes, Caminus cannot tolerate a judgment of fact before the order of law decides, if it ever does decide. He has no problem with a judgment of fact (the NO was not promulgated properly, for example) when he sees fit. This is applied selectively, to save his position, the "true" position, in own mind.

I'm not sure what he means by an "order of fact." Determining the objective defect of a thing is an entirely different matter than determining the guilt of a man. There can also be a dispute about facts as well as how pertinent principles are applied. In the case of determing what constitutes an heretical proposition (the very matter for the charge itself, something which you simply assume) it is not always an easy task either. What you deem "fact" is oftentimes mere presumption or conclusory allegations as well. On the other hand, if you have a true fact at hand, no one can argue against it. So lets get our concepts straight before we go accusing others of intolerance or inconsitency.

No, it's not an "easy task", yet it is possible in many cases.

Darcy · « **Reply #85 on:** June 12, 2011, 11:06:31 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

I was reading parts of another thread here which related to Sede Vecantism and was thinking about the position. Is it wrong? No. As long as it remains an opinion, which for most it seems to, it can not be wrong for it is an opinion. But two opinions don't make a right, right? My personal opinion is that I'm blind, or at least naive, to think that these men aren't heretics. But thats an opinion as well.

However, I tend to see much effort put in to the previous 3 and/or 4 popes as an attempt to show why these men could not possibly hold the Seat of Peter. From extensive St. Bellarmine quotations, to archived docuмents and interviews, etc. But here's what I'm sort of thinking:

If everyone on Cathinfo was magically made a Cardinal today, then I could understand the reason for trying to proclaim wether or not these popes were indeed popes or not, and of course to proclaim all of their heresies. We would have the duty, I believe, to make it known to the world that these men, outside of a last minute conversion from God, were not Catholic, and most definitely did not act as Catholics much of the time.

However, we are not Cardinals. And as such, our only duty is to recognize what is and isn't Catholic and live a holy life attempt to get to Heaven (simplified I know). It is not within our power to proclaim what office these men did or did not hold as I hope future Cardinals will.

So continuing to attend a Traditional Mass would be a matter of taste?

If the last 5 popes are not heretics and are fully valid Popes then the N.O. Mass and ordinations are valid and not attending Sacraments from the conciliar church is only a matter of preference.
?

SJB · « **Reply #86 on:** June 12, 2011, 11:08:47 PM »

Quote from: Mystici Corporis

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised 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."

Caminus, do you think the "unity of the Body" here refers to some sort of political unity? It must be the unity of Faith, as I see it. Pius XII even makes the distinction between those who have seperated themselves and those who are excluded by legitimate authority.

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII

(Satis Cognitum) teaches: "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, Theodore, 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)."

trad123 · « **Reply #87 on:** June 12, 2011, 11:25:19 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Caminus, do you think the "unity of the Body" here refers to some sort of political unity? It must be the unity of Faith, as I see it. Pius XII even makes the distinction between those who have seperated themselves and those who are excluded by legitimate authority.

Is anyone here going to tell us, those of the sedevacantist persuasion, that currently the faith of Rome and that of SSPX followers is the same?

Let us face facts, there is no unity of faith between the post-Vatican II establishment and traditional Catholics.

Darcy · « **Reply #88 on:** June 12, 2011, 11:34:33 PM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: SJB
Caminus, do you think the "unity of the Body" here refers to some sort of political unity? It must be the unity of Faith, as I see it. Pius XII even makes the distinction between those who have seperated themselves and those who are excluded by legitimate authority.

Is anyone here going to tell us, those of the sedevacantist persuasion, that currently the faith of Rome and that of SSPX followers is the same?

Let us face facts, there is no unity of faith between the post-Vatican II establishment and traditional Catholics.

The conciliar postvats are schismatic.
?

trad123 · « **Reply #89 on:** June 12, 2011, 11:37:55 PM »

Quote from: Darcy

The conciliar postvats are schismatic.
?

A period, then a question mark; is that a statement or a question? If the latter, I mean to say the current establishment is not Catholic.