RR do not refuse subjection to the Pope.

I think you meant sedes.

Sean, do you even logic?  SVs refuse subjection to a man they don't believe is the Pope.  To claim that they refuse subjection to the Pope is to beg the question that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope.  As per the quotations cited, if Jorge is the pope, they would be materially schismatic, but not formally.  SVs base their refusal of subjection to Jorge on the well-founded questioning of his legitimacy.  Even Bishop Williamson and Avrille have stated that their position is "understandable".

(Non-Chazalist) R&R on the other hand assert that Jorge is certainly and categorically / unequivocally the pope.  In which way are you subject to Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope Francis"?  By saying "He's the Pope." or by putting up a picture of Jorge at the local Trad chapel?

This difference is in line with my analogy about taking the $100 bill.  If you see a $100 bill on a table and pick it up, thinking it's yours, but it turns out to belong to someone else, you have committed theft materially but not formally.  If you see a $100 bill on the table and pick it up, thinking it belongs to someone else, but it turns out to belong to you (say you left it there earlier but forgot), then you have committed theft formally but not materially.  SVs are potentially in material schism (if Jorge is the pope), but not formal schism.  R&R on the other hand are in danger of formal schism.

If rejecting a Pope's Magisterium, refusing to accept the Mass he promulgated and to recognized the saints he's canonized, etc. if that isn't refusal of subjection, then there's no such thing.  As I said, merely paying lip service, "Yep.  He's the Pope." and putting his picture up in the vestibule while rejecting everything the man stands for, that doesn't constitute "subjection" by any reasonable standard.  Now, where it gets blurry is that classic R&R holds that in principle you must obey the Pope except when he teaches something erroneous or commands something evil.  But when is the last time anyone accepted anything that Jorge taught or commanded?  Do you respectfully read through each Encyclical (Recyclical) of his and learn from the Holy Father, while respectfully disagreeing with the particular sentences that you find fault with?  No, you simply throw them in the trash bin before even reading them.  I called you out on another thread for deriding and mocking Jorge.  Is that the proper attitude of a Catholic who believes the man is the Pope?  Your attitude should be, "Holy Father, I must respectfully disagee with [this, that, or the other point]."  To hold the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, in contempt the way your clearly do, that's crossing over into a formally schismatic attitude.  Probably the only thing absolving you of formal schism would be the confusion of this crisis.

That depends on the requirements of the censure or the requirements given at the time the censure was issued. According to Canon Law, no abjuration of heresy is required for absolution - unless  the bishop makes it a requirement.  I posted the canon law once but cannot find it now.

At any rate, Fr. Wathen explains it......
"It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is"under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal.....

One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication,
(suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."

I would think that one separated from the Church because of his public heresy would go through the same process unless he publicly joined, for example, a Protestant sect.  In that case, he would also be a schismatic.  Being a heretic and schismatic may require a different process to come back to the Church.

I would think that one separated from the Church because of his public heresy would go through the same process unless he publicly joined, for example, a Protestant sect.  In that case, he would also be a schismatic.  Being a heretic and schismatic may require a different process to come back to the Church.

My initial intent was to demonstrate how easily you or anyone (including me) can preach heresy (or error), all the while believing the whole time that they are preaching de fide teachings of the Church. Your quotes that I posted is just one example.

It is only my opinion, but those teachings you refer to, they must be talking about those heretics who've never been Catholic and who've always been outside of the Church.

Okay.  Is the papal office inextricably linked with ordinary jurisdiction?

You cannot have a pope who does not have jurisdiction.

I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?


From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:




To answer this, and to oppose St. Bellarmine teaching that we should judge a heretic by his external acts, another theologian was needed, Fr. Charles-Rene Billuart. Here we have the most astounding opinion:

“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”

The footnote at the above sentence is directing us to Billuart, De Fide (Diss.V, A.III,No.3,obj.2).

Although this sentence is given without quotation marks, in later publications it will have such. It would be significant, if the quotation was true. Let’s open “De Fide”, to check the source of the quotation carefully:

Dissertatio V (De Vittis Fidei Oppositis), Articulus III (De Apostasia):

Qui ab Ordine Sacro fine legitima dispensatione retrocedit ad statum Seacularem, est apostata & peccat mortaliter; quia deserit statum cui per Ecclesiam erat solemniter mancipatus, quem deserere vetant plures Canones, poenis impositis contra transgressores.(1)

In English translation it is:

One who leaves Holy Orders without a legitimate dispensation [in order] to return to a secular state, is an apostate and sins mortally; because to quit the religious state, in which one was solemnly enrolled by the Church, is forbidden by several Canons, which impose penalties against transgressors.

The relevance of the sentence from “A little Catechism…” to the source given in the footnote is null. As it was already said, this “quotation” of Billuart, which is  false and fabricated, has been spread wide and far.  We might even suppose that every SSPX district printed it in its own bulletin and since 2001 nobody dared to check the comparability of the “quoted” sentence with the given source! We can assume that this infamous  sentence is just a summary (a precise one, at that) of the SSPX attitude regarding post Vatican II Council heretical popes.  Let’s look at it again: “[C]hrist, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to even manifestly heretical pontiff” – this is utterly unheard and opposite to the Church teaching. How astonishing that it was “cited” as Billuart’s work! SSPX theologians must have been desperate to have the “quotation” to support themselves and to give us confirmation of their own philosophy.

I realize the conversation has progressed beyond this quote, but since I mentioned I would post Avrille's response once I received it, here it is:


"Dear Sir,
Indeed the reference is incorrect, it should read Diss. IV, A.III, No.3, obj.2
The sentence is at the bottom of page 128:

Assuring you of my religious devotion,
Fr. Pierre Marie +
Convent of La Haye-aux-Bonshommes"

Fr. Pierre Marie's email included an attachment of the relevant section, which I have attached to this post.

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous, Sean.  It's this exact opposite, and this post shows your bad will.

How does sedes reject the authority of the Pope "in principle"?

It's actually the neo-SSPX that accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff "in principle" rather than the Resistance.

I can't understand how you can have everything so exactly backwards short of extreme bad will and malice.

Of the 3 groups mentioned, the Resistance lead admits Papal Authority "in principle".  Neo-SSPX holds that they have to try as hard and as much as they can to submit to "the Pope" while the Resistance thinks it's OK to carry on as if he didn't exist and ignore him entirely.

Yes, I realize you are quick to attribute malice and ill will to all who disagree with you.

I, on the other hand, am not.

Pax tecuм.

.

Francis is the Roman Pontiff, and by definition, if you say Francis isn't pope, you reject his authority in principle.

How do sedevacantists reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle if, in their opinion, the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff is not, and does not have authority to submit to?

"In their opinion" subjectivises the matter.

I'm speaking objectively.