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.

But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made

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.
?

Quote

Any proof? Do you think the Church made a trial on any single Catholic who, for instance, became protestant and followed Luther? The whole supposition is absurd. If you wish to leave the Catholic Church you can easily do it.

In a situation where the subject commits a crime and they do not seek recourse to legal authority, or contest the penalty, then obviously no trial or determination of fact is needed.  They obviously reject the entire organization in a circuмstance such as you describe.  That doesn't negate the fact that there are other circuмstances where a penalty is contested or the facts are in dispute, such as with one who ostensibly desires to retain his position or membership within the Church.  You are, in fact, dealing with men who still claim legal authority, who manifest their obvious intention to remain within the Church and their positions of authority.

The question then becomes whether they in fact have incurred an automatic penalty.  You can assert that they have, and I'm sure many have indeed for various reasons, but that remains your opinion nevertheless.  

But the supposition is that he would remain a legal claimant until such a determination has been made

You can`t base your adherence to a Pope merely upon a supposition...

You're really straining here.  That is obviously not what I meant by the word "supposition."  I used it in the sense that it is a basic presupposition or assumption that his legal status would remain unaffected until some time in the future.  But in order to make it clear, let me say that the legal presumption of validity is the controlling principle.  

Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move. So IF a Pope is deemed to be a formal heretic he will be deemed to have lost his office retroactive to the point he became a heretic. That is not contrary to our opinion it supports it and defies your opinion because you deny a council or trial is needed.

Your last point is quite confusing in one instance you call them heretics but you qoute about apostates? Are you not aware there is a significant difference between a heretic and apostate? An Apostate is one who has lost all faith in Christ. A Heretic is someone who has faith in Christ but who contradicts a tenet of the faith which is dogmatic.

Nestorius confirms his position not yours, Nestorius still held office up until he was proved to be a heretic by a council. His being subsequently deemed to have lost his office was a retroactive move...

MANY acted, from the start, as if Nestorius had, in fact, already lost his office.  Yes, it took three years for this to be reflected within the order of law, but that is the way these things work.  The order of law ALWAYS lags behind the order of fact.