Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Cum Ex, inasmuch as it is merely ecclesiastical legislation, is no longer in effect.  The 1917 CIC replaced it, as it replaced any and all laws which came before it (unless and except it says otherwise, or somehow incorporates them into it).  So there's not a law governing the Church right now, nor has there been one since 1917, called Cum Ex Apostolotus Officio.

But inasmuch as Cum ex reflects the divine law, it's still in effect, just as the ten commandments are, despite the fact that the Old Covenant is done.  The specific penalties that Cum Ex prescribes, then, are not in force (except when they're carried over by the 1917 CIC).  But the divine law aspect of it-- mainly, the reiteration that heretics cannot be popes-- is absolutely "in effect," and it would be "in effect" even if there had never been a Cum Ex at all.

Those (like Hesse) who argue "it's not in effect" as though this fact has some effect on the sedevacantist thesis, are simply wrong.  And sedes who try to argue that it is in effect don't know what they're talking about either, though they're certainly closer to the truth than those who argue as Hesse does.

ETA: Just because it seems to often be mentioned in the same breath, the fact that excommunicated cardinals are allowed to participate in conclaves (and even be elected, yes, that's true) doesn't bear on the issue at all either. 
That heretics and schismatics cannot possess valid elections nor Ecclesiastical offices is of divine law (not human law).

I also said exactly this on my first post on this thread. I referred to the administrative procedure which was even if a cardinal was previously at some point a heretic, his election would be banned. It's an election process, just like how cardinals weren't always the electors in a conclave. It can change and it has changed and popes have changed this since Cum Ex Apostolatus.

You should really read entirely or check out all material before posting. Otherwise, you're just talking (typing) for your own personal enjoyment.
Bernard Janzen at Triumph Communications sells HE's lectures.


They are very interesting to listen to and a good catechism for those new to Catholic tradition.
Good to hear Mr. Janzen is still offering these gems. I assume he and his family are still connected to OLMC in New Hamburg ON Canada. Met the Janzen clan there when they moved from the Prairies.

Also, Cum Ex Apostolatus concerns faith and morals (not just Ecclesiastical Law). It can never be abrogated where it defines doctrine concerning faith and morals.

If you would have listened to the whole video, Fr. Hesse says exactly that. I've never heard anyone or any priests say anything different.
1. Must abstain from good libations until after special endoscopy later this week. By the Christmas will be close enough that I will await the beginning of the holy season, when I witness the first star on Wigilia, that being Christmas Eve. Ditto on the fine cigars I am expecting.

Satan wishes to obfuscate the Truth. Ergo to make it crystal clear sans doute that the NOM is invalid ultimately defeats the plans of the Evil One. By keeping the masses confused and doubting - and here can also insert the validity or not of orders received according to the new rites - far far more souls are being lost to Hell and its minions. Mass confusion, literally, with no pun intended.

The four necessary elements: always present at NO consecration? I agree with Incredulous. Caution and skepticism in massive doses.
The Mass is the expression of the Faith, of Doctrine. If the post Vatican II is in substance and essence a new religion, then the liturgy is the expression of that. Have we not heard that it is better to have the Faith without the Mass, than the Mass without the Faith? And this is referring to the false traditionalists versus the True believers, let alone a fabricated rite!

It is my theological opinion that we are very likely dealing with a fabrication of the Devil when it comes to NOM Eucharistic or other miracles. If it keeps people from continuing to attend the NO - which we are told ad nauseam we should avoid like the Plague - for such attendance serves the Devil's purpose.

To reiterate, the four necessary elements are the condition for the possibility of validity. Thus I agree with His Excellency's postulation on that reality. Whether that possibility is positively actualized is where my motherlode of doubt rests.

I may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for. :P

Praying always for clarity in discernment, and humility, and forgiveness when I err. :pray:

PS. Returning to point 1: the wine served shall be a French red, Cabernet Sauvignon. Single malt scotch Auchtoshan (sp)
with Grand Marnier and Amaretto for liquers. For cigars, Toscano, Toscanello, Padron and La Flor Dominicana. ;D
Yes, isn't that so true, but for a Vicar of Christ to lead the faithful into a practice of interfaith with pagans is going a little too far, it isn't personal sin anymore.  
You have some good points about Meg breaking forum rules here, but  Sunday is her day off, so maybe she will see your replies on Monday.  Even the shills get a day or two off.
It looks like my post to Matthew has been ignored.  I guess dogmatic anti-sedevacantists on CI can call sedes non Catholic after all.
In all fairness, people can and do change their views on the crisis over time. I know I have and from a rabid anti - sedevacantist position I used to have, now I consider Des Laurier's Thesis of Cassiacum (sedeprivationism) the most proximate to the truth.

Although after much discernment, I consider the SSPX position the most erroneous of them all, I do not consider these R & R Catholics (or Absolute Sedevacantists) schismatics at all. Everyone is just doing the best they can in this sinking boat. I think that approach of red lighting everyone among us traditionalists is divisive and ultimately not conductive to resolution, because a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Yes, you did hold a rabid anti-sede position, and you and I have communicated about your change of heart.  Cantarella, thank you for your post.  It shows that there is hope that the other rabid anti-sedevacantist posters will change too.
Crisis in the Church / Re: Communion with the accursed
« Last post by Lastdays on Today at 05:33:36 PM »
No, you do not comprehend what is written, if you did, you would understand that Cum ex was not "defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church", if you can understand that fact and accept that fact, you might then understand and accept that not only is it not a dogma, but that "true" pope Pius X could and did abrogate it - and then replaced it with his own dogma law. If you understand all of that, you will be glad that it is abrogated because if it wasn't abrogated, you would then be guilty of non-submission to the explicit instructions of a "true" pope, Paul IV.

Do you now see that you do not comprehend what is clearly written and some of the serious implications of no comprende?

As I said, you are a heretic for believing what you have been repeating. Heretics are not members of the Church. This is dogma. No office. Comprende? Cum Ex reaffirmed this matter of the faith. It cannot be abrogated by any future Pope. Pius X and Pius XII referred to ecclesiastical impediments not divine ones. They could not abrogate divine law. I responded to this already. Try reading it this time. I said...

The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical impediment and not a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."  

Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

And the following was written during the Pontificate of Pope Pius X to dispel any doubts (as if there should be any in the first place!)...

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

And why, someone, do you post a Williamson interview in French?  Most of us don't understand French. I'm beginning to think that the brains of some of you have died.  But they certainly have not gone to heaven.
I copied and pasted the whole EC comments from my email.  In the email it referenced youtube but when I pasted it here.....up it came in french which I too don't understand and I couldn't modify it out.
I am not good with computers and apologize for pissing anyone off.
My brain is old but I don't think it's dead yet.
Gentlemen.  It is the 2nd Sunday of Advent.

Let's have a taste of Port, a smoke and debate HE's points like civilized Catholics.

1. Valid Minister:  Heavy debate here.
2. Form: The Novus ordo missae Canon?
3. Matter: Acceptable in most cases.
4. Sacramental intention: Very possible.

Will you agree that for over 50 years, the modernist have been trying to sell the world on the Novus ordo missae's legitimacy?

They have driven out all the traditional Catholics, taken Rome, and all our Church properties.  
They have the pope and the world media and still they're constantly trying to prove their legitimacy... ?

Then, they have their Saints... and their miracles... hoping we will buy them.

But to be honest, how easy would it be to gin-up a miracle from a Novus ordo missae, which would add to their legitimacy?

The miracles cited for John XXIII, JPII and Cardinal Newman needed for the Canonization process were far from convincing.

So, after 50 years of lies, theft and deceit, it's healthy for the remnant to be skeptical of any story from the Conciliar church, which helps to legitimize them.
All BW said was that these four criteria of a valid Mass are not per se lacking (i.e., It is not impossible that all of these elements could be present).

JPaul is taking exception to that.

But in doing so, he is on his own: I am not aware of any non-sedes who will maintain that all four criteria are certainly per se invalid (and even most of them don't).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10