Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 101

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 59285 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #240 on: January 25, 2023, 06:46:56 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 25, 2023, 12:28:10 PM
I can’t find a definition for schism which includes Lad’s minutiae.

What I do find is that one who rejects the authority of the pope to govern the universal Church is schismatic.

This would seem to include by definition all those who deny the legitimacy of Francis, does it not?

PS: And since the Church has not determined his pertinacity, by definition he is not a “formal manifest” heretic (as has been repeatedly discussed).
I might be talking nonsense here (again!) but I would say materially schismatic, perhaps, but not formally, at least for most of them. I think the depth of the crisis in the Church excuse most of us from errors in these matters, since all of us here want to adhere to the Roman See with all our heart and soul. The Church is in 'new territory'!
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #241 on: January 25, 2023, 06:50:48 PM »
Titular bishops have office, but no ordinary jurisdiction:

"According to the present ecclesiastical discipline no bishop can be consecrated without title to a certain and distinct diocese which he governs either actually or potentially. Actual government requires residence, potential does not. Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops, the residential, or diocesan or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction, in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope. Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction, in and over their titular sees."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #242 on: January 25, 2023, 07:06:22 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 25, 2023, 12:28:10 PM
I can’t find a definition for schism which includes Lad’s minutiae.

What I do find is that one who rejects the authority of the pope to govern the universal Church is schismatic.

This would seem to include by definition all those who deny the legitimacy of Francis, does it not?

PS: And since the Church has not determined his pertinacity, by definition he is not a “formal manifest” heretic (as has been repeatedly discussed).

I have posted this several times in the past:


Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #243 on: January 25, 2023, 07:11:21 PM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on January 25, 2023, 06:46:56 PM
I might be talking nonsense here (again!) but I would say materially schismatic, perhaps, but not formally, at least for most of them.

IF they're wrong that Bergoglio is not the pope, then they would be in material schism.  You're begging the question that Bergoglio is the Pope.  Again, multiple Canon Lawyers state that refusal of submission to the Holy See is not schismatic if done on account of well-founded doubts about a pope's legitimacy ... or even pride, stubbornness, simple laziness, etc.  Sedevacantists are sedevacantists precisely because they uphold the requirement for Catholics to be in submission to the Holy See.  If anything, certain R&R positions carry the risk of becoming formally shismatic.  There's a bit of a fine line between simple disobedience and schism, but the line is in great danger of being crossed when people refuse to accept the papal Magisterium and refuse to attend the same Mass that the "Pope" offers.  Paying lip service by saying "Bergoglio is pope" and putting his picture up in the vestibule does not constitute submission to the Pope ... when people reject pretty much every decision and teaching emanating from the putative "Pope".
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #244 on: January 25, 2023, 07:15:05 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 25, 2023, 07:06:22 PM
I have posted this several times in the past:


Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

Yes, these have been posted here by you and by man others (myself included) many times here on CI.  You'll notice that the reason that R&R refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not listed among the exceptions, namely, because the Pope's Magisterium has become corrupt.  That's precisely the claim made by the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 101
« previous next »