Nazianzen: Ballerini Quote (the end of your credibility here)

[Nazianzen]

I have been meaning to get back to this little nugget.  I did not write that this passage is not in the book.  I said that Siscoe and Salza chopped bits off Ballerini's quote when they presented it on page 241 so as to make it support their view, which when presented complete, it doesn't.

Yes, part of that last passage - the one they didn't permit the reader to see when they were "proving" that a pope can teach heresy (which Ballerini does not accept), and that only somebody with authority can issue warnings to test pertinacity (directly contrary to Ballerini's doctrine) - is given on page 262.  But it's too late then, as they are onto a new subject.

They are so perverse it's astonishing.  What is the new subject?  That "sedes" say a pope cannot be warned at all, and then, voila! here's a little slice of Ballerini flatly contradicting those pesky sedes.  All good, right?

You are an amazing person. 

What you stated, verbatim, was "They also chopped off the end," regarding a passage from Ballerini.  You did not mention that this same passage IS in the book, in another section (page 262). 

That same passage is not anywhere in the book.  A PART of it appears later, when they use it as yet another bat to beat sedes with, out of context, and quite mistakenly.

And now you claim to have been wronged, and you further claim that it is "perverse" for them to put that quote in another part of the book.

What is perverse is their cutting of Ballerini in such a way as to eliminate any hope the reader has of understanding Ballerini's doctrine, and to compound it, adding an inserted comment which reverses his doctrine on a key point, then using a sliver of one of the parts that they cut off later, in an obviously inaccurate attack.  It's all perverse.

I hate to descend into the subjective, because nothing subjective is highly relevant, and because we can't judge internals, but everything about your vendetta against Salza & Siscoe here is subjective. 

You do something a very great deal that you purport to "hate"...

Is TOFP a "vendetta" against sedes?  (Yes)  Is it a vendetta to reply, point by point, to those attacks?  Obviously not.  They flip-flop from attacking us for not answering them, to whining like girls when we do.  Which do you want? 

They quoted this passage to demonstrate the fact that papal warnings are matters of fraternal charity, not juridical correction.

In what context?  In the artificially created context of their false claim that the sedes say that nobody can warn a pope at all.  So, only when answering a straw man does this idea appear, and not when it would have clarified Ballerini's meaning.

Your version of Catholicism is insanity. 

This is really what's going on with Siscoe, Salza, and you.  You have an idea of how the Church is and should be, and you go looking for proof texts to support it.  But you cannot find them, because you're mistaken about the Church herself. 

Sebastian Smith is a vital authority in TOFP.  They refer to his work as "his classic book, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law" and go on to ram the idea into their readers' heads that they must accept Smith's opinions as reflecting "the mind of the Church."

"It should also be noted that Fr. Smith's book was carefully examined by two canonists in Rome following its initial publication. The Preface of the Third Edition explains that Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, "appointed two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the 'Elements' and report to him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months, made each a lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect."68 Their detailed reports noted five inaccuracies  or errors that required revision. The above quotation was not cited as an error, or even a slight inaccuracy. Therefore, it remained in the  Third Revised Edition from which the above quotation was taken. If  the statement of Fr. Smith were incorrect, it would have been noted during the detailed examination by the canonists and revised; yet it wasn't. That means the statement is correct and thus reflects the mind of the Church on this matter.  (TOFP p. 360)"

Then they abuse sedes for not agreeing with Smith (which is not factual anyway, we do agree with Smith, when his proper meaning is understood):

"The Sedevacantist rejection of the unanimous opinion is clearly not the fruit of sound, scholarly research of the question, but rather a rash and superficial judgment based, in many cases, on snippets read on the internet, or even despair over the crisis."

Like you, they really "hate" to descend to the subjective...

Now, let's see what Smith really says, before we get to how TOFP quotes him:

466. Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate ?

A. i. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree [footnote: cfr. Craiss. n. 682] that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church i.e. by an oecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.

2. The question is hypothetical rather than practical." For although, according to the more probable opinion, the Pope may fall into heresy and err in matters of faith, as a private person," yet it is also universally admitted that no Pope ever did fall into heresy," even as a private doctor".

https://archive.org/stream/elementsofeccles01smituoft#page/240/mode/2up

Here's Smith's source, Craisson (translated by John Daly):

Question 6. Whether a Pope who falls into heresy ipso iure forfeits the Pontificate. I answer, with R. de M. (in his Institutiones Juris Canonici, t.1, p.265): "There are two opinions, says, Azor. (...) one of which holds that he is indeed deprived of the Pontificate by divine law but is to be declared afterwards by sentence of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity – this opinion is held by Paludanus, etc. (...) A heretic is outside the Church and therefore cannot be considered to be a member of the Church, so how can someone be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church? It seems that this can also be deduced from the chapters Quod autem; Acacius;and Audivimus, caus.24, q.1, etc.".

"The second opinion denies in general that a pope who becomes a heretic is removed by divine law from his authority, holding rather that he is to be removed. This is the opinion of Cajetan, etc. (...). For the other bishops are not considered to be ipso jure deprived...as soon as they become heretics. Until (...) at least their crime has been declared, meanwhile (...) their acts are valid... The Pope would have to be deprived by a General Council if he were to fall into heresy." See also what is said below (§6123)

Here's how Smith appears in TOFP (pp. 359,360):

"Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the  other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals."67

Fr. Smith expressly states that "both opinions agree" that he must  at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church. If he is not found guilty, he remains a true and valid Pope. 

Why would they cut that quote off to eliminate a clear statement that no pope has ever fallen into heresy, and that this is the universal judgment of theologians?  Because it contradicts their own opinion, for which they have no authorities, but which they formed based upon their own reading of history.  Here TOFP contradicting EVERYBODY (according to Smith).

"The case of Pope Honorius (625-638) is another historical example of a Pope who not only fell into heresy, but was officially condemned by the Church as a heretic." (TOFP p. 213)

And why, when Craisson's text was supplied to Robert Siscoe years ago, before he wrote his book, would be persist in his misunderstanding of what Smith is saying?  For Smith is not saying that both opinions require a PRIOR judgment of heresy, but rather that both opinions require "some" judgment by authority - the first opinion (i.e. Bellarmine et al.) after the fact, and the second (Cajetan et al.) before the fact.

Why didn't Craisson's text get used in TOFP?  Robert Siscoe asked in his November 2014 article quoting Smith on this point if anybody could supply him with Craisson.  Obviously there is no way to edit Craisson to make him say what they think Smith is saying.  Better to stick with Smith...

So you see, ACT, why I say they are perverse.  They chop texts up all through the book, eliminating from them anything that proves their own views wrong, and then accuse sedes (repeatedly, to the point of tedium) of selective quotation!

They argue that several popes have been heretics, against the explicit testimony of their own source that this is universally denied by Catholic authorities.

[A Catholic Thinker]

I don't know why you're bothering with all of that stuff that's irrelevant to the point, when all you need to do is show that the theologians universally teach that heretics, no matter how notorious, only lose office after a declaration.  That is the point that you need to prove, for that is the key point that is at issue.  Siscoe and Salza, as you're now discovering, didn't prove it at all.  They wrote countless words asserting it, and their only authorities for it are either misunderstood (e.g. Roland Bandinelli, whom they re-name "Pope Alexander III" or partisans of the thesis that the heretical pope must be deposed (e.g. John of St. Thomas).

The only authorities they cite are Bandinelli and some riff-raff? 

Would you care to go on the record regarding how many pages of "True Or False Pope" you have actually read?  (Remember, every thought, word, and deed will be revealed on the Last Day.)  What you have uttered above is so blatantly false I cannot take it as any kind of serious statement.  I am being charitable. 

And I'm going to say this once, for now: Quit your nearly-constant, ridiculous, arrogant posturing with statements like "...as you're now discovering..." above.  I have read the book; for you to constantly intimate otherwise is bizarre.  But, it's not, really, as we can all see you have a singular agenda here.

Before I begin, I will mention that I actually do not need to prove that theologians universally taught what you state above, though I can do that.  Rather, the burden of proof is on the sede side, given the obvious praxis of the Church, for 2,000 years, to demonstrate that a bishop (much less the pope) can magically lose his office if & when some guy on the Internet decides he's a heretic.

Secondly, I'm going to offer this link to the audience again, just to demonstrate how desperate you appear to be to label it irrelevant:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html

In this piece, Salza & Siscoe demonstrate that St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, did definitely teach that a heretical pope can possibly lose his office (by being deposed by Christ) only after warnings by the Church.  This is highly relevant, since St. Bellarmine has long been the sedes' go-to theologian, given that he's the only one that ever even appeared to be on their side (that only because they either had not read him thoroughly or hid what they did not like).

(For some odd reason, never offered on their website his commentary on what he called the Second and Third opinions regarding a heretical pope.  In these, he demonstrates that he believes that a heretical pope can be judged by the Church.)

To demonstrate how baseless Nazianzen's accusation is above, I'm going to use only this single article above to answer this post.  From just that article (all the material in it is in the book as well), we can glean that every major theologian who spoke on the topic taught just what he is requesting: That the deposition of a pope (that is, after all, the subject of sedevacantism) does not occur, cannot occur without some judgement by the Church.

In the quotes below, we have Cajetan and the renowned Thomist John of St. Thomas of the Dominican school, who believed that a pope could not be deposed even after formal warnings unless and until an imperfect council indicted him.  On the other side, we have St. Bellarmine and Suarez, the prominent Jesuits who believed that a heretic pope would be subject to deposition (by Christ) by the fact of formal warnings alone (if he did not recant, of course). 

Here we are, with my emphasis:

"Cajetan's opinion, which was defended by John of St. Thomas, is that a Pope, who has been judged and declared a heretic by the Church, is then deposed by a separate act of the Church. This separate act is a vitandus declaration which commands that the faithful avoid the Pope who has been declared a heretic by the Church. Cajetan bases his teaching on Divine law, which commands that a heretic, after the first and second warning, must be avoided. Therefore, if the Church warns the Pope twice that he is holding a heretical doctrine, and if he does not recant his heresy, the Church can declare him a heretic and then, according to Divine law, legally command the faithful that he must be avoided. Now, because a Pope who must be avoided can no longer function as the head of the Church, this vitandus declaration renders his authority impotent. It is at this point, according to Cajetan (and John of St. Thomas), that God Himself authoritatively deposes the Pope by severing the bond that units the man to the office."

John of St. Thomas: "It cannot be held that the Pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently to a declaration of the Church... What is truly a matter of debate is whether the Pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the Pope."

John of St. Thomas explaining Bellarmine: "Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church."

John of St. Thomas: "So long as he [the Pope] has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned."

Suarez: "Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by election, rather [the Church] merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself; Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would THEN ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ..."

Suarez (who was a contemporary of Bellarmine): "In no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today."

Bellarmine's refutation of the "Second Opinion," which is the sede opinion (which Fr. Cekada & Derkson do not translate/discuss!): "The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1."

Bellarmine's refutation of the "Third Opinion," that a pope can never be judged: "The Third opinion is on another extreme [just like the second], that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors [the Church] to judge superiors [the pope]. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic... we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd."

...

And here are a couple more tidbits, also in the book:

Bellarmine, De Membris Ecclesiae: "We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they 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 thatheretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff."

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice: "No bishop can be shown to have either been deposed or excommunicated by the people, although many are found who were deposed and excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiffs and general Councils. Certainly, Nestorius was deposed from the episcopacy of Constantinople by the Council of Ephesus [A.D. 431], from the mandate of Pope Celestine, as Evagrius witnessed."

...

Because I'm getting a bit tired of your game (your word there), and I've just put my quarters in the juke box, I'm turning the tables on you: What notable theologian do YOU claim taught what you do, that bishops could lose their office without any declaration by the Church? 

Provide your quotes, and then I'll demonstrate how you're wrong, because I know all of them.  I know every argument you and every other notable sedevacantist have made.

[Nazianzen]

ACT,

You asserted that ALL theologians teach that no heretic loses his office until after a declaration by authority.  There are two elements to this assertion:  1.  Even public heretics don't lose their offices until after a declaration, and 2.  ALL theologians teach this.

I demanded that you prove these claims.

Instead of proving them, you repeat what Siscoe and Salza have said, which consists of quoting theologians who hold proposition no. 1 above (i.e. John of St. Thomas, Cajetan) and misinterpreting Bellarmine.  On proposition no. 2 you entirely dodge the demand for proof.  It would be impossible to prove directly, of course, as you haven't read any theologians at all, let alone all of them, but I would accept some quotes from theologians saying that all hold this view.  You can't find such a quote, because it's not true.  The question is disputed between the different schools, as all (except you) know.

You think we've been hiding Bellarmine.  That's hilarious.  We don't do what your team does, we very famously publish ENTIRE theology manuals, lengthy excerpts, and books and articles by men who do not agree with us (e.g. Da Silveira).  We don't edit them, we don't suppress them, we publish them.  We want the data in front of all who are interested, so they can make up their own minds.  And we don't care whether the readers agrees with us, unlike Siscoe and Salza, who are personally offended that everybody doesn't fall at their feet and worship their infallible glory.  The only reason we never translated and published Bellarmine on the other questions is because we didn't think he meant what you and Siscoe and Salza think he meant, and I have now given you sufficient evidence of why we don't agree with your unique interpretation - he was explaining why a secret heretic cannot be judged by men.  I think this is obvious, of course, but even if you disagree (as if you have any background at which would give you the confidence to have an opinion, let alone the arrogant superiority you display towards people who know immeasurably more than you do) you cannot rationally accuse us of hiding a text which obviously proves you right.  The most you could claim is that we misunderstood Bellarmine.  And if that's all you had said, you'd not have to put up with me putting you back in your place.

If Bellarmine meant what you think, then how come Ballerini, Billot, and all of the rest of the Jesuit school who follow him don't say that?  If Bellarmine meant what you think he said, how come you cannot meet my challenge to prove your childish assertion that EVERYBODY agrees with you?  Why are you not able to start pasting in text after text clarifying that of course when Bellarmine says "without a declaration" he really means, "after a declaration" or whatever it is you are saying? 

You try and shift the burden of proof to me, for the obvious reason that you realize now that you cannot prove what you rashly asserted.  This is not legitimate, but in any case I have already proved, with quotes from multiple authorities (provided by Da Silveira), that warnings are not necessary for public heresy in every case, and that heretics ipso facto lose their offices without any declaration (exactly what canon 188:4 says). 

I'm not going to post here during Lent, so I don't care how long you take to answer.  Instead of digging further into the hole you have found yourself in the bottom of, why not ask yourself if TOFP is a reliable source at all (it isn't), and go off and do some real research with an open mind?

[A Catholic Thinker]

This is clearly all nothing but bluster.

Your use of language is very interesting indeed.  I must "prove" that ALL theologians said X?  Prove a negative, essentially?   This is very silly, my friend - a "game," as you keep calling it.

I've quite easily demonstrated, thanks to Messrs. Siscoe & Salza, that all the major theologians who wrote on the matter taught what I said: That a heretical pope is never deposed without some action by the Church (formal warning, at the least).

You cannot meet the challenge of finding one who did teach the sede thesis that individuals can decide pertinacity in heresy and who is really a member of the Church.  You cannot, because this is a preposterous teaching that no one of note ever taught.

And, yes, there is really no doubt that sedevacantists have for many years hidden the Second and Third Opinions of St. Bellarmine (even though they are very short), which make it clear he did not share their position.

Lent is still more than a day away.

[Nazianzen]

Quote your texts, proving your claim that all theologians teach that heretics only lose their offices after a declaration.

You asserted a universal positive.  If you now realize what stupidity that is, good.  Don't try and turn the problem to our account.

You can only find theologians who follow the Cajetan opinion who say that heretics retain their offices until after a declaration.  The other theologians (who follow Bellarmine) say the opposite. 

Siscoe and Salza selectively quote nearly everybody they present, hiding from the reader that their own authorities such as Smith, Journet, and even Don John Chapman, disagree with them.  THAT is why they think sedes do the same thing, when we very famously do the opposite.

[Michael]

You can only find theologians who follow the Cajetan opinion who say that heretics retain their offices until after a declaration.  The other theologians (who follow Bellarmine) say the opposite. 

Given the two opinions, why choose the one that leads to sedevacantism, especially if sedevacantism leads one to deny the indefectibility of the Church (no valid hierarchy left) and/or to stay at home at Sunday like Gerry Matatics?

[A Catholic Thinker]

Quote your texts, proving your claim that all theologians teach that heretics only lose their offices after a declaration.

You asserted a universal positive.  If you now realize what stupidity that is, good.  Don't try and turn the problem to our account.

You can only find theologians who follow the Cajetan opinion who say that heretics retain their offices until after a declaration.  The other theologians (who follow Bellarmine) say the opposite. 

Siscoe and Salza selectively quote nearly everybody they present, hiding from the reader that their own authorities such as Smith, Journet, and even Don John Chapman, disagree with them.  THAT is why they think sedes do the same thing, when we very famously do the opposite.

I asserted a positive with sensible qualifications and backed it up, above.  Now, anyone who had actually read True Or False Pope would have already been aware of these things.

St. Bellarmine, as was entirely demonstrated above, taught that a heretical pope can be be deposed after he has ignored ecclesiastical warnings.  Where he & Suarez part company with the Dominicans is on the question of whether a subsequent step (an imperfect council) is necessary.

This has been clearly explained multiple times now.  You can do nothing to refute it.  You can quote St. Bellarmine, selectively, not understanding that when he says "no declaration" he means no declaration from a council, with the assumption that warnings have been given.

What, you actually believed that St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, taught that any man can decide for himself that a pope has lost his office?!

Honestly, it's all pretty much right here:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html

You should do a point-by-point rebuttal of this article.  What errors does it make?  Please tell us.

[Nazianzen]

Quote your texts, proving your claim that all theologians teach that heretics only lose their offices after a declaration.

You asserted a universal positive.  If you now realize what stupidity that is, good.  Don't try and turn the problem to our account.

You can only find theologians who follow the Cajetan opinion who say that heretics retain their offices until after a declaration.  The other theologians (who follow Bellarmine) say the opposite. 

Siscoe and Salza selectively quote nearly everybody they present, hiding from the reader that their own authorities such as Smith, Journet, and even Don John Chapman, disagree with them.  THAT is why they think sedes do the same thing, when we very famously do the opposite.

I asserted a positive with sensible qualifications and backed it up, above.

You asserted it without any qualifications whatsoever, numerous times.

I am encouraged by this piece of bull, however.  It means that you are looking for an escape from the hole you dug yourself.  Don't worry, I won't whack you with a shovel as you try and climb out. 

St. Bellarmine, as was entirely demonstrated above, taught that a heretical pope can be be deposed after he has ignored ecclesiastical warnings. 
...

This has been clearly explained multiple times now.  You can do nothing to refute it.

Obviously I could refute it.  I could quote St. Celestine, Gratian, St. Thomas, St. Robert, Pope Paul IV, the Code, Wernz-Vidal, and Billot, as well as numerous lesser lights.  All of them signally failed to mention those "canonical-yet-only-charitable" warnings that your teachers have invented out of whole cloth.  The very notion is absurd.  A warning is either an act of jurisdiction, in which case it BINDS inferiors, or it is an act of charity, in which case it BINDS nobody and does not have to come from one with jurisdiction.  Siscoe and Salza's new category is unheard of, and they quote nothing to support its existence.  It's nonsense.

What, you actually believed that St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, taught that any man can decide for himself that a pope has lost his office?!

You really need to stop trying to make Catholic doctrine agree with your (un)common sense.  I could show you, for example, that a priest who is aware that somebody at the Communion rail is in mortal sin, and the priest would be obliged to give him the Sacrament.  I can imagine the objection already:  "What, you actually believed that St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, taught that any man can decide for himself that he is worthy to approach Our Lord in His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and commit SACRILEGE, and further, that the priest who knows that this is happening is permitted to cooperate, and even obliged to do so!" 

Common sense doesn't decide these things, the Church does, based upon the light she receives from the deposit of revelation and the Holy Ghost acting as her soul, who guides her in all truth. 

You should do a point-by-point rebuttal of this article.  What errors does it make?  Please tell us.

Errors?  It errs in its main points, and it doesn't produce any proofs.  Tell them to send it to Fr. Gleize for his assessment.  Now that would be funny.  (Siscoe and Salza wince as they read this.)

You're not worth arguing with.  If the readers disagree, let them come in and say what they want proved.  I've had enough of your dancing around.

[Michael]

You can only find theologians who follow the Cajetan opinion who say that heretics retain their offices until after a declaration.  The other theologians (who follow Bellarmine) say the opposite. 

Given the two opinions, why choose the one that leads to sedevacantism, especially if sedevacantism leads one to deny the indefectibility of the Church (no valid hierarchy left) and/or to stay at home at Sunday like Gerry Matatics?

bump

[Nazianzen]

Michael,

Nobody has all the answers to explain the current state of the Church.  The notion that the See is vacant doesn't lead to the conclusions that Siscoe and Salza say.  If it did, I'd not be a sede.

Why does anybody believe anything those two say, now that it has been shown how many errors they make, and how bad their method is? 

[A Catholic Thinker]

Michael,

Nobody has all the answers to explain the current state of the Church.  The notion that the See is vacant doesn't lead to the conclusions that Siscoe and Salza say.  If it did, I'd not be a sede.

Why does anybody believe anything those two say, now that it has been shown how many errors they make, and how bad their method is?

The notion that the see is vacant as decided by you, not the Church leads to these things:

- Denial of the prohibition of usurpation of judgement outlined by St. Thomas Aquinas
- Contradiction of what every notable theologian has ever stated on the matter
- Violation of the direct condemnation of the Fourth Council of Constantinople of formally separating from *any* bishop without a judgement from the Church
- Denial of the implicit dogma of the Church's perpetual visibility
- Denial of the explicit dogma that Peter will have perpetual successor

As for believing Salza & Siscoe, people believe them because they've made an excellent case against sedevacantism, and one endorsed by the Society of St. Pius Xth.  People don't believe you, on the other hand, because it's obvious that you're on a personal vendetta blind to reason or charity.

Here is the challenge to your worldview you've made no response to.  There is no response.

1) A pope who commits the sin of heresy, and/or is a manifest heretic according to the judgement of individuals loses his office (or never had it).  (I include both hypothesis since various sedes propose or suggest both.)

2) No one can possibly know the sins of every dead pope for the past 2,000 years.  In the second case, which does involve the external forum, no one can possibly know the public statements and actions, and the various judgements of the Catholics alive at the time, involving all the popes of the past 2,000 years.

3) All dogma of the Catholic Church are promulgated by a supreme pontiff, directly or indirectly (via ratification of an ecumenical council that defines dogma).

4) Due to (1) and (2), no Catholic has moral certainty that any pope of antiquity was a true pope.

5) Due to (4), no Catholic has moral certainty that any dogma of the Catholic Church is actually the revealed truth of God.  This includes, of course, the most basic things such as the Canon of Scripture!

[Nazianzen]

When ACT admits that the things he asserted, which have been shown to be totally insupportable, were wrong, he will have the credibility to posit new challenges.

[Michael]

If one can be a sedevacantist and still attend an SSPX Mass*, then what's the point of advocating for sedevacantism?

*I don't accept the premise. I believe that Matatics-sedevacantism is the most consistent. See here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=17095.0

[Stonewall]

The standards for attending mass is if it is Catholic or not.  There is no such thing as an SSPX mass.