You never cease to amaze, now going so far as to distort / warp cuм ex into an endorsement of R&R. Entire point of the docuмent is that a Pope who has deviated from the faith ceases to be pope. This reference to judging has to do with the individual, having fallen from the papacy, and not with the Pope as pope. It's along the lines of what Pope Innocent III wrote before him:
Quote
He [the Roman Pontiff] can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.
As Fr. Kramer points out, since Vatican I, the theological maxim papa a nemine judicandus has been elevated to near dogmatic status, and is the entire rationale for the papa haereticus ipso facto depositus position, namely, that the only way a Pope can be judged as guilty of heresy is if he's already ceased to be Pope first.
ONLY to sedes is the
"Entire point of the docuмent is that a Pope who has deviated from the faith ceases to be pope," only to sedes. And what, pray tell, does he mean when he says the pope may be judged by none in this world, BUT may be contradicted if he is a heretic? If that sounds too much like R&R to you, that's because it is.
By the words in cuм ex, not only does Pope Paul IV tell us what our obligation is in that situation (contradict him), but also
those words, the pope admits in an official Apostolic Constitution that a pope can indeed be a heretic. Again, if that sounds too much like R&R to you, that's because that's what it is.
Not sure where you got that quote, but your quote is not in cuм ex, which is only obvious because no pope says the pope can be judged by none in this world, then say he can be judged by men.
The dilemma is a conundrum, one that belongs to the sedes, not the SSPX.
Topic: Pivarunas on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Read 8554 times)