Quote from: RJS

SJB,

Being guilty of the sin of heresy and losing the faith is not equivalent to being a manifest heretic.  If you don't understand that, the citations I provided from Garrigou-Lagrange, Suarez, and Bioux will not make sense.  If you do understand that point, the quotes may begin to make sense.

Quote from: SJB

Of course, a man can be guilty of the sin heresy and lose the Faith and without being a manifest heretic. The man is an occult heretic.

The crime of heresy is always necessarily external. It is the crime of heresy that affects one's membership in the Church. When is heresy a crime? When it is public. Here is Bouscaren:

Bouscaren Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.

"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:

"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;

"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;

"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.

But the question is, who gets to determine that the person qualifies as a manifest heretic (who determines criminal guilt)?  If the person hasn't openly left the Church, it requires a judgment of guilt.  Just because you or I can read canon law, does not mean we have the authority to apply it to individual circuмstances by passing judgment on individuals - especially when such a judgment results in the loss of office for a member of the hierarchy.  Such judgments belong to the proper authorities alone. We can certainly have an opinion on whether or not a person is a heretic, but our personal opinion is nothing more than that.  If we proclaim our opinion as a fact by a public declaration, we are guilty of what St. Thomas calls "judgment by usurpation" (.T. Pt. II-II, Q 60, A. 2), which is a sin against justice.  And one who attempts to compel others to submit to his judgment in such a matter, is guilty of an additional sin (Ibid, article 6).  It is usurping an authority that does not belong to us.  

Before the Church authorities make a judgment and declaration on these pope, they retain in office.  Maybe they will eventually judge that they were heretics and render their papal Acts null?  It wouldn't surprise me if that happens in the future, but such actions belong to the proper authorities alone.

In ths crisis, it is our job to keep the faith, do our daily duties, and try to sanctify our soul.  Judging whether or not these seemingly heretical popes lost their office is simply not within our scope of our authority.    

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction ...

On the practical level it still requires a judgment by the proper authorities.

A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council.  The difference is the condition, not the being itself.

Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II.  The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath.  It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.

If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.

On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.

How does your assertion that the pope is a heretic and therefore not a true pope rectify the situation?

It doesn't.  

God has allowed this crisis for reasons known to Himself.  Once the crisis ends, I have no doubt that the proper authorities will judge the post Vatican II popes - and I expect that Paul VI to Benedict XVI will be declared heretics.  And if I live to see that wonderful day, drinks will be on me.  

A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council.  The difference is the condition, not the being itself.

Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II.=

 The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath.  It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.

If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.

On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.

Sedevacantism is not only a dead end and no solution to the problem;

it is probably one of the main traps of the devil to lead those with the Faith out of the Church.

It is one thing to avoid the corrupt elements within the Church during this unprecedented crisis (which is the prudent thing to do), and another to declare that the Church itself has ceased to be the Church and then separate yourself from it.  The former is prudent, the latter is true schism.  There are many victims in the current crisis, and more dangers to sedevacantism than people realize.

Why did you say I can't square my statement with the quotation from Bellarmine? I certainly can do so.

Bellarmine's statement is a hypothetical statement of the speculative order. There are two opinions on this point. One opinion is that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope. The other opinion is that he does not cease to be pope automatically, but can be deposed. These are both hypothetical questions pertaining to the speculative order.

"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

However, when it comes to the practical order, a judgment of the Church is necessary. The propery authorities must judge whether or not the pope is a manifest heretic who has lost his office, or is a manifest heretic who is deposable. The judgment is not left up to each individual. On the practical level, the only difference is that the Church will declare him to have lost his office, or it would declare him deposed. Canon smith explains:

“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

Quote

Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.

Like I said, the question is hypothetical rather than practical. On the practical level it still requires a judgment by the proper authorities. That is how the seeming difficulty is reconciled.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Quote from: RJS

A sedevacantist who detests John Paul II and Benedict XVi, may well end up in hell along side of them if he separates himself from the Church, since outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church exists today just as it did prior to the council.  The difference is the condition, not the being itself.

Just as a man dying of Aids is the same man that existed prior to being infected, so too the Church today is the same Church that existed prior to Vatican II.  The difference is that today the Church is in the condition of an Aids victim on his last breath.  It is just about dead, but like our Lord, it will rise again.

If you leave the Church, or declare it to have become a false Church, you separate yourself from the mystical body of Christ and will get to spend eternity in hell.

On the other hand, if you realize the sick situation of the Church, avoid the heretics within, and leave it to the proper authorities to sort everything out in God's times, you will not risk eternal damnation for separating yourself from the Church.

Refusing to acknowledge someone who clearly does not hold the Catholic Faith as a Pope should not mean that person has "separated themselves from the Church". On the contrary, the real schismatics, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, are those in the conciliar church.

I do not believe that we will be judged for our position on whether or not Benedict is Pope. Keeping the Faith is what matters.