Seriously?!

From the article (which I have been trying to explain to Mr. LaRosa since p.2 of this thread):

"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.

This is not rocket science.  Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.

You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.

Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.

This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical.  Period.  End of Story.  Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.

You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion".  Unbelievable.

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.



Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

Dear Suarez, Lagrange, Billuart (and Avrille)-

Ladislaus says you're wrong, so please consult him and get back to us.

"The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force (even sedevacantist priests recognize it: “We cannot use the bull of Paul IV to prove that the Holy See is currently vacant, but only to prove the possibility that it can happen…” (Fr. F. Ricossa, Solalitium 36, May-June 1994, p. 57-58, note 1). That which remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.

Yet the Code in the Gasparri edition refers in a note to the cuм ex apostolatus constitution.
[Editor:  The “Gasparri edition” refers to a special edition of Canon Law compiled and annotated with footnotes by the Italian cardinal, Pietro Gasparri.  In those notes to the 1917 Code, he provides many links to the sources of that very code.]

Counter-Argument 1:  These notes of the code in the Gasparri edition mention the sources of the Code. But this does not mean that all of its sources are still in force!

Counter-Argument 2:  The 1917 Code says in Canon 6 (5°) that the punishments that are not mentioned in the code are abrogated. Now, the cuм ex apostolatus constitution was a penal law, because it inflicted the revocation of an ecclesiastical office, and the punishments that it prescribed were not picked up again in the code.

Counter-Argument 3:  There is more: even before the new Code, St. Pius X had already abrogated Paul IV’s constitution by his consitition Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§ 29), which declares null any censure able to remove the active or passive voice from the cardinals of the conclave. And Canon 160 of the Code declares that the election of the pope is regulated only by this constitution of St. Pius X.

Counter-Argument 4:  The constitution of Pius XII of December 8, 1945, Vacantis Apostolicæ Sedis, which replaced that of St. Pius X, takes the same position on this subject: “No cardinal may be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the sovereign pontiff, under no pretext nor for cause of excommunication, suspension, interdiction or other ecclesiastical impediment. We lift the effect of these censures for this type of election only, keeping them in force for everything else” (n. 34)."

https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/

So you concede cuм ex does not apply?

Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:

Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.

ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Refuting the eight conditions proposed by the Lutherans for celebrating a Council):
The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.

The sixth condition is unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.

ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Answering doubts on Councils):
The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves.

ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Moreover, it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic (my insertion - one who is guilty of the SIN of heresy), if he might be a bishop or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will.

ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church...

ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On the Marks of the Church - Apostolic Succession):
...we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many canturies peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better...

ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On deposition of bishops):
...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff...

Add to these quotes those previously furnished by Sean that indicate clearly that St Robert requires monitions to demonstrate pertinacity (formal heresy) of the heretic Pope and some kind of judgement/declaration of the public facts by the Church.