Quote from: Bellarmine

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

I believe this is critical, understanding the very nature of heresy.

I only have a minute to respond.  Regarding your point about the nature of heresy, what you seem unable to grasp is that it still requires a judgment from the proper authorities, especially when the person in question has remained in the Church and claims to be a Catholic.  If he openly left the Church and joined another religion or a heretical sect, the situation would be different.  But when he remains visibly in the Church, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, yet saying things that on their face seem heretical, it requires a judgment of guilt from the proper authorities.  The following quote form John of St. Thomas addresses this point:

John of St. Thomas: "St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".

There's really not much to add to that quote.  Even if one holds that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office, it still requires a judgment of the Church to declare that he is a manifest heretic, especially when the person in question had remained visibly in the Church and claims to be a Catholic.  Like John of St. Thomas said, being a manifest heretic "according to private opinion" does not suffice.  A judgment is requried by the Church.

One final point: If you believe John XXIII was not a true pope, please show what dogma he clearly and publicly denied.

   

Refusing to acknowledge the Minister and Authority of the seat of "Moses" until God himself, the Head of that "Tree of life", cuts the "branch" when His time is right, "I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman." (John 15:1), is against the "Unity" of the Holiness of the Church itself.  

In other words, "Unity" is one of the 4-marks of a Catholic.  No one, including sedevacantists, can make that "cut" and exclaim it, without being "cut" himself.  It is God's Authority that becomes the main and final question here; and for us, to be patient for His providence on this matter.  

It is His Pope; It is His Church...

The conciliar church does not have the Four Marks of the Catholic Church.

The true schismatics, the ones really cut from God and His Church, are the conciliarists, including Bendict.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Bellarmine

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

I believe this is critical, understanding the very nature of heresy.

I only have a minute to respond.  Regarding your point about the nature of heresy, what you seem unable to grasp is that it still requires a judgment from the proper authorities, especially when the person in question has remained in the Church and claims to be a Catholic.  If he openly left the Church and joined another religion or a heretical sect, the situation would be different.  But when he remains visibly in the Church, all the while claiming to be a Catholic, yet saying things that on their face seem heretical, it requires a judgment of guilt from the proper authorities.  The following quote form John of St. Thomas addresses this point:

Quote

John of St. Thomas: "St. Jerome - in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ - does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it - yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church... So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".

There's really not much to add to that quote.  Even if one holds that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office, it still requires a judgment of the Church to declare that he is a manifest heretic, especially when the person in question had remained visibly in the Church and claims to be a Catholic.  Like John of St. Thomas said, being a manifest heretic "according to private opinion" does not suffice.  A judgment is requried by the Church.

One final point: If you believe John XXIII was not a true pope, please show what dogma he clearly and publicly denied.

Finally, out comes John of St. Thomas in opposition to Bellarmine.

St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church and foremost authority on the papacy, states the following:

Quote from: Bellarmine

"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 ...

So not only is he opposed to Bellarmine, but he is opposed to all the ancient Fathers of the Church!

The quote from John of St. Thomas is no more in oposition to Bellarmine than is the quote I provided from Canon Smith, which stated that both of the common opinions (I realize Bellarmine listed five opinions, but only two of the five are common opinions today) require a declaration from the Church: One requires a declaration to remove the pope, while the other requires a declaration stating that he has lost his office.  Here's the quote one more time:

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

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.  [b[The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.[/b]

For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities.  The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical.  On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law).  And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter.  I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.  

The problem is that your "private interpretation" of what Bellarmine said leads you (and most other Sedevacantists) to a false conlcusion, which is at variance with what the real canonist all accept - namely, that a judgment from the Church is required.  This is one more piece of evidence showing why judgments are left to the proper authorities, rather individual laymen who think they know way more than they do (which, by the way, has been my experience with just about all the sedevacantits I have "dialogued" with).  They almost always think they know much more than they actually do.  After all, they have read sedevacantists website (which all provide the same quotes over and over again) which makes them all experts in canon law.  Therefore, based on their deep knowledge gained by reading sedevacantist websites, they feel at liberty to disagree with the teachings of the real canonists when they disagree with them; such as, for example, the real canonist Sabastian B. Smith, who says "both opinions agree" (notice that he is making a general statement, not merely providing his opinion) "that he must at least be decared guilty of heresy by the Church".

I'm sorry you disagree with the real canonists on this point, but it doesn't change the reality that this is what they teach.

If you disagree, please provde a quote from a real canonist (not  half bakes sedevacantist laymen) who agrees with you that an individual laymen can decide for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that he is no longer the pope.  I'm not looking for a quote explaining how a person can detect heresy.  I'm looking for a quote saying that an individual layment can decide for himself that a pope quaifies as a manifest heretic and then proclaim publicly that the pope has lost his office.

And notice that I have provided many quotes to support my position and you have rejected them.  You have provided one quote from Bellarmine, and I did not reject it.  I only reject your false application of that quote since it is at variance with what the real canonists teach.

I'll say it now: I will be absolutely SHOCKED if you can provide a quote from a real canonist (remember, not a half-baked laymen who thinks he knows way more than he does) saying that an individual laymen can decide for himself that one who was elected pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then declare publicly that the man is not a real pope.  

I have provided quotes to back up everything I said. We'll see if you can do so as well.  I won't be holding my breath.

Quote from: RJS

For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities.  The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical.  On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law).  And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter.  I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.

Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.

The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.

The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.

The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.

Still waiting for the quote you will never be able to produce from a real canonists stating that an individual laymen can determine for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope.  Still waiting and still not holding my breath.

Regarding your example, how would you know the person is actually dead unless he was examined?  It might be blatantly obvious that he is dead, or it might not.  It depends on the circuмstances. Let's apply this to the pope question...

If we were talking about a pope who openly left the Church and formally joined another religion, it would be one thing.  If a pope publicy defected from the Church and openly admitted the he was no longer a Catholic, he himself would have made the declaration.  But in the current circuмtances, we have a man duly elected by the Cardinals who claims to be a Catholic in good standing (and is recognized as such by almost everyone).  Therefore, a judgment and declaration is necessary, and only the Church itself is competent to do so.

I do not deny that Benedeict XVI has said heretical things, but since he has remained in office and claims to be the pope, it would require a judgment from the proper authorities for him to be deposed (or to declared that he has lost his office ipso facto).  Again, if you disagree, provide the quote I asked for.  And remember, I have provided authoritative quotes to back up my position.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: RJS

For some reason you are incapable of comprehending that both opinions require a judgment from the proper authorities.  The question of whether or not a heretical pope loses his office ipso facto, or is deposable, is only hypothetical.  On the practical level, both require a judgment by the Church, since only the proper authorities are competent to make such a judgment (which is also why, during the time of Christendom, the Church would judge the guilt of the heretic, even though heresy was contrary to the civil law).  And, by the way, I don't reject Bellarmine's opinion in this matter.  I just realize it requires a judgment from the Church, just as Canon Smith and John of St. Thomas teach.

Again, on the practical level, a false pope or pope-heretic must be removed because a true pope must reign. Nobody disagrees with that.

The principle behind removing a pope is very clearly that he simply isnt the pope, he's a false claimant. A true pope is judged by no one.

The "judgment of the Church" does not and cannot remove a true pope. The judgment removes a false pope.

The fact that a Coroner has the sole authority to pronounce a man dead does not mean we cannot know when someone is dead. What you can't seem to understand is that we aren't claiming to officially pronounce a man dead when we see he is dead. That fact doesn't make him any less dead.

Still waiting for the quote you will never be able to produce from a real canonists stating that an individual laymen can determine for himself that a pope qualifies as a manifest heretic, and then proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope.  Still waiting and still not holding my breath.

What you are claiming is an error. That would be that the pope can be removed by a general council or college of Cardinals. That simply can't happen. What you are really saying, I think, is that absent a pope, the hierarchy has the power to rectify the situation. Nobody disagrees with this, myself included.

Quote from: RJS

Regarding your example, how would you know the person is actually dead unless he was examined?  It might be blatantly obvious that he is dead, or it might not.  It depends on the circuмstances.

The methods of examination are distinct from the fact it is possible to know someone is dead without possessing the authority to declare it. Do you deny the latter? If so, explain why.

Quote from: RJS

Let's apply this to the pope question...

If we were talking about a pope who openly left the Church and formally joined another religion, it would be one thing.  If a pope publicy defected from the Church and openly admitted the he was no longer a Catholic, he himself would have made the declaration.  But in the current circuмtances, we have a man duly elected by the Cardinals who claims to be a Catholic in good standing (and is recognized as such by almost everyone).  Therefore, a judgment and declaration is necessary, and only the Church itself is competent to do so.

Again, you are speaking of different ways of knowing and not the fact that it can be known. You seem unwilling to admit this can be known without possessing the authority to declare it.

What you're saying is that only a Coroner can know when a man is dead and we laymen must treat a dead man as alive until we hear from the Coroner. The fact that we can make a mistake and think a man dead who is actually alive does not change the fact that we can know a man is actually dead.

As a aside, all of this makes "ipso facto" meaningless as well as making "public" really meaning only "notorious in law" as all other definitions become subject to the a juridicial sentence or a public confession.

Quote from: RJS

I do not deny that Benedeict XVI has said heretical things, but since he has remained in office and claims to be the pope, it would require a judgment from the proper authorities for him to be deposed (or to declared that he has lost his office ipso facto).  Again, if you disagree, provide the quote I asked for.  And remember, I have provided authoritative quotes to back up my position.

If he lost his office "ipso facto" then he lost his office prior to any declaration. This doesn't mean the declaration isn't required to rectify the situation (the practical order).

Still waiting for the quote from a real canonist who agrees with your personal opinion, namely, that an individual laymen can judge for himself that a man who elected as pope by the Cardinals (and who is currently recognized as pope by just about everyone in the world) is in fact a manifest heretic, and then can proclaim publicly that the man is not a real pope.  I've provided authoritative citations to support my position.  All you have done is give me your "reasoning", which is at variance with the teaching of the canonist.  

To be clear, I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, what you are saying is simply wrong, which is why you will never find a real canonist (as opposed to a half-baked sedevacantist laymen) who agrees with you.  The ball is in your court.  If you can't provide an authoritative quotes that supports your position and contradicts the quote I provided from Canon Smith, admit it, and then explain why anyone should believe you over the real canonist that I quoted.

It is patently absurd to argue that someone must publicly accept a false Pope as a true Pope or be cut off from the Church.

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.

This is what disturbs me the most about those like RJS. In his zeal to "defeat sedevacantism" he makes a leap that is most unjust.

17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material.  Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff.  Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism." (Ibid. p. 223-4)

Well, in a few days there will be no doubt that the siege is vacant!