What I think that I mean is that neither has perhaps been very effective in confronting the perpetrators. But, the sede position at least has the  honesty and courage to draw conclusions by which it stands.
The other position is at least partially based on avoiding drawing logical conclusions and thus inaction is inherent in it.

There is no question as to the importance of receiving the true sacraments as well as ongoing Christian instructions from Catholic clergy. But, I think that is not the end of it.

Determining causes is also important, but again is there not something that can be done to act upon those findings and mount some kind of a resistance or activity to counter this ongoing disaster?

Could not our smartest and most skilled clerics delve into the Church's history, law's an doctrine to fashion a new approach or response?  I think that is a possibility but, that is only my opinion.

And even more, could all or most of our valid Bishops of Tradition join together for such an effort for the good of the Church as a whole and work to shame and drive back the heretics and modernists?
I have been pondering this for a long while.

Great questions.

No. Canon 188 cannot be considered as a final proof that a heretical pope loses his office, simply because the Roman Pontiff is always above the dispositions of the Ecclesiastical  law.

You really don't know what you're talking about.  There are about a hundred and one ways one can go about arguing this issue.  Quite often it is the support from dozens of different angles and evidence from a preponderance of sources which leads to the conclusion, rather than one particular proof.  And please do keep in mind, it's Canon 188/4 (or 188.4, 188, 4, 188-4 etc. if you prefer; for those of us who can't manage the paragraph symbol).  The other parts of canon 188 really have nothing to do with this, and other parts of it are very much part of the Church's positive law.

But you silly woman, canon 188/4 is not a penalty of the Church's law.  You've been told this over and over again, yet you continue to treat it as if it were-- and worse, misconstrue our argument as if it depended on a canonical penalty when it doesn't.  It is merely stating an effect of the Divine law (loss of office due to loss of membership) and incorporating it into the government of the Church.  It's no different than any part of the Code which requires a priest with orders for a particular sacramental task; the Code could not make laws governing ordinations without a valid bishop and this has nothing to do with her own positive laws insisting that only ordained men perform such tasks, but everything to do with the Divine Law, that is the very nature of things as ordained by God.  Ditto canon 188/4.

Nobody is able to prove that the canonical dispositions of Canon 188 belong to the Divine Law of the Church.

That's the second time you've used that word, "dispositions."  It has no place, you just can't think of the right word to use because you don't know what you're even arguing.  The footnote in the code appeal to cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio which is standard teaching, put forward most clearly and famously by St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church and the most impressive and erudite authority on the papacy to ever have lived.  In treating the idea of a "heretic pope" he says quite clearly and confidently that the non-Christian cannot in any way be pope, because he cannot be head of that which he is not a member.  He further more answers your very objection (that the loss of office proceeds from human law) and points out that the Church fathers, in declaring a heretic without office, cite no human law but argue from the very nature of heresy.

Not only that, nobody is able to prove that cited Canon (even if it was of Divine Law) applies properly to the specific case of the conciliar popes.  Theologians have always been on disagreement on this matter. There is simply not consensus about the case of a heretic pope. But hey, perhaps someone from Bellarmine Forums would like to volunteer with a solid input based on facts and not sentiment?  

First of all, and I think I pointed this out in my last pope, the idea of losing the office is really only possibly germane in the case of Paul VI.  From JPII onward, the argument is that they never possessed it to begin with.  If they did, you're still wrong-- you can't cite an authority after Vatican I which teaches that the "heretic pope" keeps his office.  And the reason you can't, because I'm sure it's lost on you as you're out lost at sea, is that the pope has no human judge-- something you love to point out until it serves your argument.  He judges himself, as it were, with his own actions.  There very much is a consensus, certainly after Vatican I, and the only reason there was ever the minority view of a heretic pope needing to be judged is that Vatican I had not yet defined that the pope has no human judge (though most believed this anyways, which is why the contrary view is a small minority).

The reason cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio (as well as Canon188) are Ecclesiastical (Church) Laws and not Divine Laws, is that they both pertain to Church procedures of an election process; and loss of office due to tacit resignations, respectively.  

1) That doesn't even make sense.  There is no connection between your "the reason X... is because Y."  

2) Is English your first language?  You are merely stating known facts (as you understand them, cuм Ex is about much more than an election "process") and using them as "proof" for your allegation.  There is no logic.  This isn't an argument.

Is the Papal mandate in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio granted infallibility?  No.

It's not a mandate, it's a bull.  And yes, it is.

Since as stated in Vatican I, for it to infallible, it has to pertain to faith and morals, which papal election procedures are not.

Who the pope is is absolutely a question of faith and morals, since he is the proximate rule of faith.  That means Catholics learn the faith from him.  His identity is integral to the religious life of the Church, and learning from a false pope (a fortiori a "heretic pope") is a serious danger to one's soul.

But even besides that, universal disciplines are secondary/indirect objects of infallibility.  It is infallible for that reason as well.  I know you deny the existence of such an infallibility, but it suffices to say that you are an ignorant woman who is pitting her detestable opinion against the brilliant minds of the Church's theologians in doing so; in other words no one should pay attention to you until you can provide a theologian who teaches that there is no such thing as indirect infallibility.

Ecclesiastical laws are man-made; and Divine Laws are laid down by God Himself. So:

Is cuм Ex Apostolatus laid down by God himself? No

Is Canon 188 laid down by God himself? No

Then, they must be Ecclesiastical, man-made Laws.

Simple.

This is terrible.  The Divine Law is made known to us by the Church, so far as it concerns the spiritual and supernatural order of things.  That is the entire point of infallibility, it is a safeguard whereby the Church cannot err when imparting to us that which is true, and that which is conducive to our salvation.  You see any involvement of man and you immediately say "not infallible."  If you had lived during Moses' time I wonder if you would have spit on the ten Commandments if you hadn't seen God etch them in the tablets himself.  This is a uniquely protestant way of looking at things.

Revisit my last post.  You have not dealt with it at all.  You're merely re-stating your position.  

Mithrandylan, do you think that people like myself who believe that the Pope is definitely Pope, and argue the fact, am I still Catholic or am I a heretic for believing in a false Pope?

Definitely is a big word.  

If you have not concluded that the seat is vacant, you at least have doubt. All "traditional" Catholics have doubt (save the ignorant).  The question you have to ask yourself... is your doubt positive or negative?

Evasive, rude, ad hominem responses may be convincing for the uneducated, less informed, and vulnerable audience out there, but are a definitive proof of ignorance for whoever has taken real time to study the Catholic religion.

One may wonder what is really the state of the soul of the person who writes in such an uncharitable and angry way, which sadly seems to be appealing for the many confused and hurt souls who read these threads, but it is despicable for those who seek the objective Truth, without malicious feelings. Credibility in these posters is all lost since their obvious purpose is not to engage in fruitful discussion but to feed an immature ego who is not in God's grace.  

"Buy their fruit you shall know them!"  Well, considering the uncharitableness, rudeness, and hatred of the vast majority of sedes here for whoever does not agree with them, I can judge by that.

It is easy to detect they have not the spirit of God in them.
 

I have nothing but contempt for your cavalier approach to these issues and the vain and deceitful confidence with which you carry your ignorant opinions, nearly all of which are not only not shared by the theologians, but which usually and typically contradict what they teach.  And you have the temerity to speak of ego?

No. The traditional Catholic position is to recognize the legitimacy and validity of the Pope but not to follow him in his modern errors. This means, to resist him since we are in no position to dethrone him. Tradition holds that when it comes to the Pope we should hold off judgment and resist, as Bellarmine says, but we cannot depose and look for the worst, that is uncharitable. Catholics (and in particular our treatment of the Pope) calls for charity and to take the best possible light. In that situation, it is possible to see their actions as, at most, material heresy.  

Presumption lacks charity, charity is patient, kind, and looks for the best in others. That is why we must pray for the Pope. THAT is the traditional Catholic position because at the end is God Himself who is in control and there is a reason why we have deserved these conciliar popes. It is just not up to the laity to judge heresy in the Roman Pontiff.

"Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man"

Simon and Peter do coexist in the same person, and Simon can interfere,resist, and even reject the duties proper to Peter's Office and even go so far as to act in contradiction with his pontifical functions.  This can be proved by referring to St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (2:14):  it was at Antioch that St. Paul publicly rebuked the Chief of the Apostles (St. Peter) because the first Pope was, by his behavior, actually repudiating that Doctrine of Faith which he had personally and solemnly defined regarding the end or cessation of the Mosaic Law.  It is for this reason that Cajetan points out that the famous axiom "Where the Pope is, there is also the Church"holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church" (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6).  

Matthew,

If this were my venue, I would in conscience dump the Feenyite trolls.  Their mauvais esprit could prove infectious to the neophite.

-Ferdinand

Whom are you referring to when you talk about Feenyite trolls?