It may have been, for many centuries, a minority opinion (like "implicit faith" in only 2 of the 4 Articles of Faith), but no opponent of sedevacatism can point to a single Magisterial docuмent which condemns the notion that a Pope who falls into heresy does not also forfeit his office. In fact, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which was published after the close of the First Vatican Council states this about Pope Honorius I:
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
Therefore, Popes can, indeed, fall into heresy, and by falling into heresy, a Pope can cease to be Catholic, and hence, Pope.
It doesn't work like that, Jehanne.
No [one] can point to a single Magisterial docuмent which condemns the notion that a Pope who falls into heresy does not also forfeit his office.
This is a good example of why laymen
shouldn't armchair quarterback the Church.
You're not informed.
And this is on the most basic level.
You have 5 negatives in one sentence:
No one ------------------ opposite of some one*
condemns --------------- opposite of approves
falls into heresy -------- denial of true doctrine
not ----------------------- opposite of "is"
forfeit -------------------- opposite of "keep"
* I could have said "7 negatives" by including "opponent" and
"of sedevacantism," because opponents are NOT in favor of
something and sedevacantism is OPPOSED to the existence of
a current occupant of the Chair of Peter; but I don't want to
make this any more challenging than it has to be................
An
even number of negatives adds up to an
overall positive. For example, if you say "I don't want to be absent from work,"
it means you do want to be present.
If you say, "I
don't want to be
absent from work
without a
note from my doctor that
prevents me from being able to work,"
that makes 4 negatives, all of which can cancel each other to
leave you with an overall positive statement: it means that you
do want to be
present at work
with a note from your doctor that
allows you to work.
An
odd number of negatives adds up to an
overall negative. "I don't want to be present at work," means you basically
don't want a job, I guess. Or, "I want to be absent from work"
means you hate your job - you do NOT like your job; it is
a negative experience to go to work, etc.
But three negatives produce an overall negative, as follows:
If you say, "I
don't want to be
absent from work
without a note," it means that you DO want to be PRESENT at work
without a note, or, you
don't want to be PRESENT at
work WITH a note, or, you DO want to be
absent from work WITH
a note.
The three negatives example is an overall negative that shows
a DESIRE to remain FREE of
trouble at work.
FINALLY,
If you say, "I
don't want to be
absent from work with an
improper excuse that
forbids my
absence," it means that you
do want to be
absent from work with a proper excuse that
allows your presence at work. (That's an undesirable situation.
It is a logical example of an odd number of negatives like your
statement has.)
Another way of saying it is, "You
don't want to be present at
work with a proper excuse that allows your presence," or,
"You do want to be present at work with an
improper excuse that allows your presence," or, "You do want to be
present at work with a proper excuse that
forbids your
presence," or, "You do want to be present at work with a proper
excuse that allows your
absence."
I would hope that none of these in the last example are
acceptable situations for anyone who wants to KEEP their job!
This is an exercise in logic that shows consistency: an
undesirable leading proposition with 5 negatives can be reduced
to 5 simplified propositions with one negative, but they will still
all be undesirable situations: reduction in logic does not render
a situation described to be desirable by way of reduction.
Likewise, when you reduce a desirable situation to one negative,
it still remains desirable. But I suspect you don't want to see
that demonstrated here.
Therefore. yours is a negative statement. By cancelling out the
negatives in pairs, it can be reduced to the following:
"
No one can produce an affirmation that a good pope keeps
his office."
Or, that "Someone can show us a
condemnation of a good
pope keeping his office."
Or, "There is a Church docuмent that approves a
heretical pope keeping his office."
Or, "Someone can show us where the Church has a good
pope
losing his office.
If you don't like that exercise, maybe this one is easier (all are 5
negatives in one proposition):
Do you say, "
Nowhere in the law can anyone find it stated that
no state governor who does
not believe that our nation was
founded on principles of freedom does
not thereby
cease to
be governor?"
Do you say, "Please show me the school by-laws that
deniesthat any Principal of the school who does
not think it's his duty to
keep the north parking lot
devoid of litter, squatters and transients
does
not thereby
forfeit his office?"
Do you say, "
No one can produce a law that says that
no one is
allowed to
deny that a standing President who does
not think that America is the land of the free and the home of the
brave is
no longer president?"