Well, see that's what I don't understand.

How is it possible for a non Catholic to be consecrated as pope?

Can you explain it?

29. None of the Cardinals, on the pretext or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other
ecclesiastical hindrance, can be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff in any
way; indeed, we suspend such censures and excommunications only for the effect of this election, to those
who will otherwise continue in their strength....

88. This consent having been granted within the term, as far as is necessary, to be determined by the prudent
discretion of the Cardinals by a majority of votes, the true Pope is immediately elected, and actually acquires
and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if any one dares to attack the
letters concerning the affairs of any kind, which have been emanated from the Roman Pontiff before his
coronation, we are subject to the sentence of excommunication.

Thanks, DR.

Wow!  That's very strange.

So now I'm confused how that can square with what the Church Fathers unanimously declared.

Posting it again for clarity:
The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/



DR, do you think if they elected Erasmus the consecration would take place?  Would he have been valid matter for the consecration?

They could elect him but the consecration simply wouldn't work would it?

Perhaps we are not to judge if somebody is a heretic or not even when it's blatantly obvious such as if they elected and "consecrated" the Dalai Lama or Bozo the Clown?

Well, if a priest put a twinkie on the altar and told me he "consecrated" it and tried to give it to me

I would skiddadle out of there!

Wouldn't you?  Would you receive a "consecrated" twinkie?

And aren't you and the others here very, very careful to determine if your priest had a "valid consecration"?

Why are you (and others) so concerned about your priests "valid consecration"

but not concerned about whether or not the pope's consecration was valid?

Is there something I'm missing?

Also, if the pope's consecration wasn't valid then how can we be sure the bishops and priests in his lineage were validly consecrated?

Thanks for your help on this!

Why are you (and others) so concerned about your priests "valid consecration"


but not concerned about whether or not the pope's consecration was valid?

Is there something I'm missing?

Hi, Miser.

Do you dispute the distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos"? It's clear in the case of an occult heretic, and even you would accept an occult heretic as a member of the Church, right?

We're not going to get anywhere by just throwing quotes at each other, like two camps behind their walls of big snowballs throwing their little snow balls at each other. Think. Use analogy. Let's have a constructive discussion and try to make some progress. I'm going to try to forgo the snowball fights. Call it a belated New Year's resolution.

Is the case of the occult heretic (who is accepted as an external member) possible also with a public, manifest heretic? I gave the historical example of Erasmus. If you were in a parish where Erasmus was, and had no other Mass to go to, and the pope recognized Erasmus as a member of the Church in good standing, as did your bishop, and the priest gave him communion at  Mass, would you refuse to go to Mass because Erasmus was there? We are told to hold heretics anathema and not commune with them. Does that only apply to hierarchs? Does the pope's, bishop's, priest's acceptance of Erasmus get you off the hook or not if you were to go to Mass with heretic Erasmus, whose heresy was apparently brooked by the pope, bishop, priest?

I don't have all the answers, but the pat snowball throwing at each other of each camp hasn't worked and it's not going to work ever.

I'm trying to use the brain God gave me to make sense of this crisis, guided by Scripture, the teachings of the Church and its theologians, common sense, logic, reason, prayer . . . hope you're with me, as deo gratias it appears you are.

Yes, you have something missing. You have the wrong guy. I accept Novus Ordo consecrations.

As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that. Neither does the Church. When the Church allows a "twinkie" consecration, let's talk about the what then, but not until: the Church elected Francis, the Church has not removed Francis, etc. And so that is the issue we discuss.



 

Oh my.  I must not be communicating very well if you are given the impression I'm trying to wage a snowball fight. :/

I'm sorry, because that is not my intention at all.  I'm sincere in my statement that I will change my position and I truly am trying to fully understand.

The reason I provided the quote was because I had posted it several posts back and it was in light of that quote I wasn't understanding things so I posted it again for clarity.

And I appreciate the quote you provided.  I didn't know that story about Erasmus.  Very interesting!

"Think. Use analogy."

I'm sorry.  I am trying to think :)

That's why I am asking questions.

And no I don't think I understand the distinction of an occult heretic vs a manifest heretic.

And I was trying to make an analogy with the twinkie as invalid matter for consecration.  Perhaps I should explain it better.

See whether the heretic is occult or manifest, my understanding is that he would be barred for any office (according to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers as I posted above).

Plus

For consecration you have to have

(a) the correct formula of words
 (b) the correct matter
(c) the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it.

If somebody is a heretic, occult or manifest, they are not valid matter and even if you say the prayers

no consecration takes place.

This is my analogy.

It's the same as placing a twinkie on the altar and saying prayers over it.

The consecration simply doesn't happen.

Now with an occult heretic you might not know the consecration didn't happen.

Yet we aren't dealing with occult heretics.

We are dealing with blatant, public, in you face heretics

(ABL calls them antichrists)

before

the attempted consecration.

So just like the twinkie

we can see very plainly with our own eyes

these men were not Catholic before they were "consecrated".


"As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that."

Okay.  Neither would I.  :)

In the same way if they put a blatant in your face heretic antichrist

in the robes and in the chair and say the prayers

no consecration can take place.

They can tell us it took place

but we can see with our eyes

that's a blatant lie.

Isn't it?

It's gaslighting.

Just as they could say, this twinkie is fine. I consecrated it.  Take it.

The pope and all the bishops could say that to me and I would say

nope

that's a lie.

Wouldn't you?

Our Lord told us not to be deceived.

I don't disagree that sometimes the line into manifest heresy can be a bit blurry.  There has to be pertinacity.

Pope:  I think [some heretical proposition].
Cardinal:  Hey, that's heresy.
Pope:  Oh, sorry.  I retract that.
...or
Pope:  Oh, sorry.  I just misspoke.

Mere utterance of a heretical proposition doesn't constitute manifest heresy.  So there has to be pertinacity.

Here's where it gets blurry.

Pope:  I think [some heretical? proposition].
Cardinal:  That's heresy.
Pope:  No it's not.
Cardinal:  Yes it is.
Pope:  No it's not, because [this distinction] and [that distinction].
Cardinal:  Those distinctions are wrong.
Pope:  I stand by it.

Now what happens?  At that point, the other Cardinals would get together and if many/most agree, they would approach said Pope and confront him about it.  If he remains pertinacious, they might issue a declaration that they consider him a heretic.  But what then if half the Cardinals think he is and half don't?  What if many of the same Cardinals are themselves infected with the same heresy?  What if 90% of the Cardinals think he's a heretic, and 10% think he's not?

While I don't believe in the S&S nonsense that heresy must be declared to be knowable by us, i.e. quoad nos, I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious:  Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio.  I think these are obvious cases that don't even require any kind of process to determine.

There's a bit of a "phenomenological" aspect to quoad nos thinking.  I see a giraffe.  But I don't know it's a giraffe until someone in authority declare it to me?  If someone is a flaming, foaming-at-the-mouth, heretic, like Joe Biden or Nancy Peℓσѕι, there's no need for any kind of "declaration".  I don't PRETEND that I don't know they're heretics until there's some official legal pronouncement to that effect.  So I reject this in principle.

Where it becomes blurry, however, is when a Pope denies that he's a heretic, and both sides are making arguments.  If a Pope argues that his doctrine is consistent with Tradition, then that's prima facie evidence that it matters to him that his doctrine is reconcilable with Tradition, which suggests that he's not a pertinacious or formal heretic.  Of course, Bergoglio has made statements to the effect that, "This might be heretical." while chuckling about it.

While S&S are clearly wrong IN PRINCIPLE, where heretics CAN (often) be known without any kind of legal/formal declaration, IN PRACTICE, most cases are these borderline ones that make it very sticky in practice to sort out who's a heretic and who isn't, and would require some kind of declaration or determination or finding by the Church to make it obvious.

That's why I don't spend a ton of time on it.  At the end of the day, only the Church can decide, except for in obvious cases.  And the real issue is the indefectibility of the Church, and the integrity of the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship of God.  If these can become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls, then it undermines the Catholic Church completely.  If these men, these papal claimants, did these things of their free will, then they are not popes.  As to why they're not popes, whether it's because they're heretics, or their elections were illegitimate (my position, the Siri theory), at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.

But if you assert these men are certainly legitimate popes and that they freely did these things and that these things are displeasing to God and harmful to souls, that's where there's a problem, where you become more an Old Catholic than an actual Catholic.  People could try to argue that these were not THAT bad, mostly consisting of ambiguities, etc., that were then abused in practice.  People could argue that Montini et al. were blackmailed.  People could argue the Siri theory, as I do.  People could argue that these men are heretics.  Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter to us in the practical order, and the Church will sort it out, and God will sort it out.  But we can't throw nearly 2,000 years of Catholic ecclesiology under the bus to maintain our assertion that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope.

I don't disagree that sometimes the line into manifest heresy can be a bit blurry.  There has to be pertinacity.

Pope:  I think [some heretical proposition].
Cardinal:  Hey, that's heresy.
Pope:  Oh, sorry.  I retract that.
...or
Pope:  Oh, sorry.  I just misspoke.

Mere utterance of a heretical proposition doesn't constitute manifest heresy.  So there has to be pertinacity.

Here's where it gets blurry.

Pope:  I think [some heretical? proposition].
Cardinal:  That's heresy.
Pope:  No it's not.
Cardinal:  Yes it is.
Pope:  No it's not, because [this distinction] and [that distinction].
Cardinal:  Those distinctions are wrong.
Pope:  I stand by it.

Now what happens?  At that point, the other Cardinals would get together and if many/most agree, they would approach said Pope and confront him about it.  If he remains pertinacious, they might issue a declaration that they consider him a heretic.  But what then if half the Cardinals think he is and half don't?  What if many of the same Cardinals are themselves infected with the same heresy?  What if 90% of the Cardinals think he's a heretic, and 10% think he's not?

While I don't believe in the S&S nonsense that heresy must be declared to be knowable by us, i.e. quoad nos, I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious:  Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio.  I think these are obvious cases that don't even require any kind of process to determine.

There's a bit of a "phenomenological" aspect to quoad nos thinking.  I see a giraffe.  But I don't know it's a giraffe until someone in authority declare it to me?  If someone is a flaming, foaming-at-the-mouth, heretic, like Joe Biden or Nancy Peℓσѕι, there's no need for any kind of "declaration".  I don't PRETEND that I don't know they're heretics until there's some official legal pronouncement to that effect.  So I reject this in principle.

Where it becomes blurry, however, is when a Pope denies that he's a heretic, and both sides are making arguments.  If a Pope argues that his doctrine is consistent with Tradition, then that's prima facie evidence that it matters to him that his doctrine is reconcilable with Tradition, which suggests that he's not a pertinacious or formal heretic.  Of course, Bergoglio has made statements to the effect that, "This might be heretical." while chuckling about it.

While S&S are clearly wrong IN PRINCIPLE, where heretics CAN (often) be known without any kind of legal/formal declaration, IN PRACTICE, most cases are these borderline ones that make it very sticky in practice to sort out who's a heretic and who isn't, and would require some kind of declaration or determination or finding by the Church to make it obvious.

That's why I don't spend a ton of time on it.  At the end of the day, only the Church can decide, except for in obvious cases.  And the real issue is the indefectibility of the Church, and the integrity of the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship of God.  If these can become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls, then it undermines the Catholic Church completely.  If these men, these papal claimants, did these things of their free will, then they are not popes.  As to why they're not popes, whether it's because they're heretics, or their elections were illegitimate (my position, the Siri theory), at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.

But if you assert these men are certainly legitimate popes and that they freely did these things and that these things are displeasing to God and harmful to souls, that's where there's a problem, where you become more an Old Catholic than an actual Catholic.  People could try to argue that these were not THAT bad, mostly consisting of ambiguities, etc., that were then abused in practice.  People could argue that Montini et al. were blackmailed.  People could argue the Siri theory, as I do.  People could argue that these men are heretics.  Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter to us in the practical order, and the Church will sort it out, and God will sort it out.  But we can't throw nearly 2,000 years of Catholic ecclesiology under the bus to maintain our assertion that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope.

I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious:  Joe Biden, 

I've already explained your dilemma here. I understand that you cannot accept this answer and why, so if you want to dispute my explanation then feel free.

V2 is full of heresies, i.e. preaches a different Gospel. That's why, per Our Lord who told us to "Beware..." and St. Paul and etc. said the same. We Catholics do not listen to what V2 teaches, it is enough to know what it preaches is full of heresies - which is why we do not listen. Very simple.

I have quoted Fr. Wathen saying: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."

See, I know it does not matter who says it, but sedes insist it does matter, to the point that they feel some over powering need to insist all the way up to popes, that popes are not popes when they preach heresy. But his status really does not matter, all that really matters is what he says and when it's heresy we do not listen, and ell others to not listen.