Cristian,

I am not saying there is a reason to doubt that BXVI is Pope. I don't believe there is.

What I am saying is that if there were a hypothetical situation where the Pope publicly stated something questionably heretical, we should wait for the Church to make a declaration, after investigation, that the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy. Just like Vennarri said. Each individual Catholic would not be authorized to make a private judgment as to whether the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy.

Ahh ok. I think though this contradicts the teaching of theologians and the Code of Canon Law.

The question is not here, as Billot points out, about material/formal heresy but rather about Public heresy  vs. Internal heresy.

If a Pope tells you to worship false idols you refuse to obey because it is against the 10 commandments...

Why is it a sin? Don´t you have the right to profess any other religion? If you are using a right you cannot sin.

The New Mass is optional. Ecuмenical acts are optional. One could decide not to participate in any VCII novelty, attend one's TLM, do one's Traditional devotions and still be Catholic. What does VCII require me to believe or do that I wasn't required of me pre-VCII?

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: "“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 for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice without people. 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…"

You are using the term "law" ambiguously. Assisi is not a "law". The promulgation of the NO Mass is not a law I must assist at it to fulfill my Sunday obligation when other Masses are available. Pope's musings in Wednesday audiences are not "laws". These things and other novel programs and practices can have bad fruits

The NO was promulgated as a law. If you would just have the NO option, what would you do and why?

What "universal law" have I said is evil?

Let´s see... do you think Catholics may lawfully receive the sacraments from non Catholic ministers and vice versa? Or to take active participation in non Catholic rites?

You are not free to ignore a Universal Council, the new code, the new Mass etc. How can you say so?

Sure I am. Because this Council obligated me to believe nothing different than Catholics believed pre-VCII, the new mass is not mandatory on me, the New Code mandates me to do nothing uncatholic, etc.

So the fact that Vat. II tells you you have the right to worship any god, the fact that tells you that the Catholic Church is not identified with the Mystical Body, that Bishops have the power of jurisdiction from the sacrament of order and not from the Papal mandate, etc. etc is not a change? According to canon law you can assist right now to a Mass said by a schismatic priest and receive the sacraments of communion, and confession... you really think nothing changed in the last 50 years?

What about those who say that B16 could not have been elected but do not refer to themselves as a sedevacantist.

I´m not sure what you mean... something like G. des Lauriers´ theory?

Why is it a sin? Don´t you have the right to profess any other religion? If you are using a right you cannot sin.

Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion. No one has the right to reject God and His Church, only the free will to do so.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Christian, you said:

"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it."

That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?

And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.  

Well a distinction has to be made here. One thing is to have a subjective doubt and other different thing is if it is objective.

My point is if you have a (subjective) positive and prudent doubt whether or not BXVI is the Pope, you can´t accept him, in the same way as you can´t say "well, maybe this is a sin but I do it anyway".

The fact that someone says "X is not Pope" is not enough for everybody to have that doubt. I may disagree (in fact I do disagree) with those who accuse Pius XII of heresy. I don´t even have the least doubt about his Papacy.

You see the difference?

One person here originally thought Pius XII was an anti-pope because of his decision to promote Bugnini or something like that. I don't think that qualifies as a heresy, though. I see the difference, but what I'm saying is that just because you have a doubt about a Pope's Papacy does not mean you must say "The Pope isn't Pope, I have doubts about his Papacy so he must be an anti-pope!".

Let me apply your logic in this sense. If someone has doubts that the Traditional Latin Mass is the True Rite of the Catholic Church, should they assume that because of those doubts the Novus Ordo must be the Rite of the Church? That does not apply as logical reasoning.

Actually, no one has the right to profess any other religion.

Dignitatis Humanae (authored by Wojtyla) and the V2 anti-religion teach otherwise...

s2srea,

Why do you believe the current pope is a heretic?

Do you also believe previous popes were heretics?

If so, why?

Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the papacy?

Thanks!

I'm not a sedevacantist like Christian is, but I think you can figure out why some people believe the Vatican II Popes are anti-popes. Let's start with JPII.

Ah, JPII. The man of warm, fuzzy love and ecuмenism. Or perhaps the man of modernist viewpoints? Absolutely. One cannot overlook what JPII did at Assisi I and II. He covered up all the Crosses, and did not offer Mass on Sunday "so as not to offend anyone". Now, don't you think the Vicar of Christ should be more worried about offending God than man? And to cover up the Cross is a sacreligious act of apostasy, because basically he implied that it was of little importance. Let's not forget his comment that "the Holy Spirit guides all religions". Huh? Didn't the First Vatican Council say that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? And they want to make this man a Saint? What did he do for the Church other than modernize it?

Next, let's take a look at Paul VI's "Papacy". There is sufficient evidence that Paul VI was a Freemason. Now, surely being a Catholic Santo, you should know that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is devil worship and has been condemned by the Church. Right? I hope you know that. Paul VI went to the United Nations (the leader of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr) and gave up his Papal tierra and Cross. That should wave a red flag. Paul VI also specifically stated that the Traditional Latin Mass was "too Catholic". How could a Pope say such a horrible thing?

Bottom line is that even though I am not a sede, I greatly respect the sede position. You cannot say that such Popes deserve Canonization. Paul VI is the only one I believe to be an anti-pope due to being a mason which would have excommunicated him from the Church. You cannot deny that there is no Crisis in the Church. Our Lady of Fatima warned there would be one. Oh, but JPII tried to tell us the Third Secret was about him getting shot. Please. That Secret is false. The Secret released by the Vatican stated a Pope would be shot and killed with an arrow. JPII was not killed, and it was a bullet not an arrow. It's so clearly obvious.

s2srea,

Why do you believe the current pope is a heretic?

Do you also believe previous popes were heretics?

If so, why?

Would God allow a pope to become a heretic?

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the papacy?

Thanks!

Honorius was declared a Heretic and anethama(Excommunicated and condemned to hell) by the Third Council of Constantinople. God gave everyone Pope's included free-will. We are free to make our own choices and decisions one does not lose this right when they become Pope. But anyone who obeys an illegal command will go to hell with the one who gave the command. Be forewarned before you commit blasphemy such as touching the body of christ with your hand, wearing jeans before God, or commit heresy such as preaching that all religions are good when in fact there is only the Church of God(Catholic Church, under the universal magisterium, what was and has always been believed and no more) and the churches of Satan(plural, 'the god's of the gentiles are devils')

It did not and does not defeat the purpose of the papacy, your problem is you do not understand the catholic definition of obedience.
A Father is owed obedience from his wife and children, but if he tells them to do something that is a sin or heretical, then he forfeits that right to obedience and it now becomes a sin for them to obey him. Same with the Priests, Bishops and the Pope. The Father in turn must obey his priest unless he is told to commit a sin, or told to believe something heretical, the priest loses his authority, same with the Bishops and the Pope.

When all else fails, the magisterium that which has always and everywhere been believed is correct. Follow it and you will get to heaven, it is the job of the clergy to pass on the magisterium not change it. Any attempt to change it makes one anethama.

I was told by a Priest this line.
"In many of the lines of people heading to hell, at the end of many of them are priests because the people in front at judgement were saying 'but father said...' "

You are not guarenteed to get to heaven by following a Pope, at the Third Council of Constantinople Mennas defended himself by saying that Pope Honorius has ok'd what he was preaching, he then provided proof of this, this did not vindicate Mennas, as he was condemned and so too was Honorius based on the evidence Mennas gave them.

So when you get to final judgement and you say "But Pope JPII and V2 said..." You will not win the argument, you will be condemned and so will those who gave you your heretical beliefs.

Lord Phan,

I don't believe Honorius was declared a heretic. I believe he was condemned for his silence/ negligence in the face of heresy.