[This post is long, and mostly quotes. I've attached a pdf version which is much easier to read.]
Several recent discussions on here have prompted me to wonder when the phrase "the indefectibility of the Church" became common parlance. A quick Google site search of vatican.va and papalencyclicals.net demonstrates that the earliest use of the term "indefectibility" by the Magisterium was by Pius IX in his Encyclical
Etsi Multa from 1873. ("Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.") It appears in none of the documents of any Council. The phrase is unknown to St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, Francis de Sales, and Alphonsus de Liguori.
Unde venit?
In my search for an answer to this question, I came across two interesting pieces, from opposite ends of the Catholic spectrum: One, "The Indefectibility of the Church: A Response to the Defenders of the Filial Correction (https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2017/11/04/news/the-indefectibility-of-the-church-1.34379287)," by Emmett O'Regan, published by La Stampa, a left-wing rag. The other, "Resistance and Indefectibility (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Indefect-P.pdf)" by Bp. Donald Sanborn from 1991. In exploring the topic, I feel it will be worthwhile to quote at length from both.
First, the encyclical. Pius IX in addressing the Old Catholics sounds quite a lot like John Paul II in addressing Lefebvre. With minor editorial insertions, the words of 1873 echo a hundred years later:
Quote from: Pius IX, Etsi Multa, 1873
Further Heresies
22. [...] ?these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the [Second] Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.
23. These unhappy men undermine the foundations of religion, overturn all its marks and properties, and invent so many foul errors, or rather, draw forth from the ancient store of heretics and gather them together and publish them. Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old [Traditional] Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old [traditional] or Catholic. Certainly the Church rises up with greater right against them than it once did through Augustine against the Donatists. Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world.
[...]
Pseudo-bishop
24. But these men having progressed more boldly in the ways of wickedness and destruction, as happens to heretical sects from God?s just judgment, have wished to create a hierarchy also for themselves, as we have intimated. They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens [Bernar Fellay, et al.]. [...] But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world.
[...]
Excommunication
26. We have been undeservingly placed on this supreme seat of Peter to preserve the Catholic faith and the unity of the universal Church. Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens [Bernard Fellay, et al.], performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious. Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Hubert [Bernard Fellay, et al.] himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted. (2 Jn 1.10)
Here, in the first instance of the use of the phrase "indefectibility of the Church" by the Magisterium, we have a solemn papal pronouncement against any and all who would dare to claim that the Pope, in union with all the bishops of the world, had erred in an ecumenical council, and excommunicating those who participated in the consecration of a bishop without papal approval.
History does not repeat itself; but it rhymes.***
Moving into the present day, Pope Francis' pontificate has prompted many to doubt his legitimacy (himself being an obstinate heretic), and has prompted his defenders to write at least this one piece on the relationship between papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church.
(All emphasis is mine.)
Quote from: Emmett O'Regan, "The Indefectibility of the Church: A Response to the Defenders of the Filial Correction"
In the ongoing debate surrounding the authority of Amoris laetitia, a key issue has arisen, centering around whether or not the Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit is offered towards the successors of St. Peter to protect them from erring in matters pertaining to faith and morals even in the non-definitive teachings of the ordinary Magisterium.
[...]
In the following article, I hope to be able to demonstrate that the protection from error in faith and morals offered towards the ordinary Magisterium through the Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit does not stem from the gift of infallibility, but is instead an essential corollary of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
We can see here that the doctrine of indefectibility has become intrinsically linked to concept of the papacy. How is this supported by tradition? One may argue that Pius IX's [in]famous apotheotic proclamation, "I am tradition!" may suffice, but it would be nice if there were more substantial backing to this claim.
Quote
As we shall see, the preservation of the Church from teaching error in faith and morals in the ordinary Magisterium, which is provided through the special assistance offered by the Holy Spirit, is primarily given to uphold the indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, the prevention of error in faith and morals through Divine assistance in this respect is due to the promises of the indefectibility of the Church, rather than operating through the organs of its infallibility. The definition of the indefectibility of the Church given in the Catholic Encyclopedia is extremely helpful in allowing us to grasp the full scope of this dogma:
Quote from: Joyce, G. (1908). ?The Church?. In The Catholic Encyclopaedia.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
The gift of the indefectibility of the Church is primarily related to the de fide credenda dogma perpetuity of the papal succession promised in Scripture, which finds its fullest exposition in chapters 1-2 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Pastor aeternus. It will be worthwhile quoting the relevant sections here in full, in order to give us a better understanding of the full implications of the precepts of the indefectibility of the Church:
Quote from: Pius IX, Pastor aeternus 1 (July 18th, 1870)And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the sacred council, and for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the institution, permanence and nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord?s flock.
It is here that we first find that the doctrine of the permanence of the Church promised in Matt 16:18 was solemnly proclaimed as a dogma by the First Vatican Council[.]
Perhaps we will need to be satisfied by Pius IX's assurance, after all.
Interestingly, the essay addresses the statements of Pius IX quoted above:
QuoteThe response of Pope Pius IX to the opposition of the Old Catholics [Etsi Multa, paragraph 22, above] is equally applicable today to those extreme right-wing Catholics who claim that Pope Francis has bound the entire Church to a heretical teaching in an exercise of his ordinary Magisterium. If Pope Francis has bound the entire Church to a heretical teaching through the obligation of Obsequium religiosum, then not only has the visible Head of the Church erred (and automatically excommunicated himself), thus occulting the entire visible Church, this would also mean the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church is false. And if the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church is false, then so must be the dogma of papal infallibility which enshrined it - and thus the entire edifice of contemporary orthodox Catholic theology comes crumbling down around us. The assertion that Pope Francis, acting as the head of the Mystical Body of Christ, has bound the entire Church to submit to a heretical teaching through an exercise of the authentic Magisterium, constitutes a denial of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
Emmett O'Regan, at least, gets it. Infallibility and Indefectibility, as defined by Pius IX, are the dual keystones of the structure of the Church since 1870. They are the ballasts supporting the Conciliar Church, for without those two, there would be no reason find justifications for the obvious heresy and defection of the Novus Ordo. They are the reasons that faithful Catholics today are wracked by the dilemma of adhering to the
substance of the true Faith while rejecting the
structure of the visible hierarchy. How do we cut this Gordian knot?
***
Bishop Sanborn does not answer this question, but he as well "gets it."
Quote from: Bp. Donald Sanborn, "Resistance and Indefectibility," 1991
Thus the great dividing line between the diverse camps of ?traditionalists? is the issue of the Church. And because the pope is the visible head of the Church, this controversy expresses itself naturally in the terms of John Paul II?s ?papacy?. The reason why so many ?traditionalists? see him as pope, indeed insist that he is the pope, is not because they are enamored with his theology. Rather it is because they see as a theological necessity the identification of the Novus Ordo religion and the Roman Catholic Church. They see this as a necessity because of the indefectibility of the Church, i.e., that it must endure until the end of time with a visible hierarchy. From this they conclude that, heretic or not, John Paul II and the college of Novus Ordo bishops are the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, since they have been duly elected and nominated, and have succeeded to the sees of their Catholic predecessors. Deny this, they say, and you deny the Church. Repudiate this hierarchy, they say, and you are schismatic, since you are cutting yourself off from the Catholic hierarchy.
He gives an admirable presentation of the issue at hand:
Quote
[N]o matter how you answer concerning the Novus Ordo religion, i.e., yes or no that it is the Catholic Faith, you end up in some deep problems with regard to indefectibility.
If you answer that the Novus Ordo is Catholic, then you are in the immense problem of the defection of teaching, the defection of the general legislation of the Church, and the defection of sacraments. It also reduces to absurdity ? not to mention the sin of disobedience and schism ? the systematic resistance to the Novus Ordo which has been maintained by ?traditionalists?.
If, on the other hand, you answer that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic, then you have the problem of finding the visible Church, since it would seem that the entire Catholic hierarchy has defected into this new non-Catholic sect. Thus the ?yes? answer leads to the defection of the essential spiritual qualities of the Church, whereas the ?no? answer seems to lead to the defection of the essential material qualities of the Church.
Put in another way, the ?yes? answer seems lead to the defection of the mission of the Church, whereas the ?no? answer seems to lead to a defection of the structure of the Church. Yet we know from Pope Leo XIII that both are absolutely necessary for the Church, like body and soul for the human nature, and that both must endure until the end of time in order that the Church live up to its indefectibility.
He then summarizes what he sees as the three responses to the dilemma:
Quote
A. The Ecclesia Dei Solution
Those who adhere to this solution accept the Novus Ordo hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy, and accept Vatican II and all of the official reforms made in consequence of Vatican II. They have been granted the right by the modernists to retain the John XXIII Mass, and to operate a seminary and institute according to more or less pre-Vatican II lines. Their solution, then, is to adhere to tradition under the auspices of and in obedience to the Novus Ordo hierarchy. Their adherence to tradition, therefore, is not seen as a defense of the Faith against modernists, but rather as a preference, something like the High Church in the Anglican communion. It should be of no surprise, then, that they invite well-known Novus Ordo potentates (like suit-and-tie-at-Vatican II Ratzinger) to say Mass for them.
Quote
B. The Lefebvrist Solution
They feel that they save indefectibility by recognizing the Novus Ordo hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy, and by recognizing Vatican II and its reforms as only extrinsically bad, i.e., subject to poor interpretation or in some way misleading. One of them recently said in a letter to benefactors: ?That is why we insist on recognizing the Papacy and the hierarchy despite the fact that we do not at all feel ourselves one with them?. This sentence is most descriptive of their position, which combines two things which are intrinsically incompatible, i.e., to recognize John Paul II as pope, but not to be one with him in the same church. The reader must understand that the doings and sayings of the Lefebvrists over the years have not, to say the least, followed a consistent line, and that it is, therefore, difficult to determine exactly what they think. By applying a certain hermeneutic, however, I think that it is fair to say that they regard John Paul II to be at the head of two churches, the one the Catholic Church, the other the Conciliar Church. As head of the Catholic Church, they are loyal to him; as head of the Conciliar Church they oppose him. It was ultimately Archbishop Lefebvre who decided what was Catholic in John Paul II?s decrees, and what was conciliar, and therefore what was to be accepted, and what was to be rejected. Now that he has passed away, there does not seem to be any clear figure emerging who will be able to harness the loyalties of their followers the way the Archbishop did, a loyalty which is essential to their unity.
Quote
C. The Sedevacantist Solution
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church. It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith, morals, worship and discipline of the Catholic Church. But it is impossible that the Catholic Church defect. Therefore it is impossible that these changes proceed from the Catholic Church.
[...]
The obvious objection to this position is that the mass defection of the hierarchy creates a state of universal vacancy of the sees, and thus destroys the visibility of the Church. The sedevacantist replies that the vacancy of the papal or episcopal see is not incompatible with the visibility of the Church, as the Church remains visible during the vacancies which have occurred at the death of every incumbent. While the length of the vacancy certainly puts the Church in turmoil, there is nothing intrinsically contrary to the nature of the Church in the vacancy of the see. [...] For the Faith, they would argue, is much more important than the visibility of the structure of the Church, i.e., there is a dependence of the visibility of the Church on the Faith of the Church, and therefore it is not sufficient for the Church?s visibility that merely any structure be visible, but rather a structure which professes the Catholic Faith. To have some visible organization which does not profess the Catholic Faith may be a visible organization, but it is not the Catholic Church.
He follows this with what he believes are the guiding principles in this situation, and goes on to critique the various responses (with varying levels of invective):
Quote
A. Fundamental Principles.
1. The Novus Ordo is either Catholic or it is non-Catholic, but it cannot be both.
[...]
2. If the Novus Ordo is Catholic, it must be accepted; but if it is not Catholic, it must be rejected; there is no middle ground.
[...]
3. It is impossible to recognize the authority of the pope without at the same time recognizing the prerogatives of his authority.
Quote
B. Application of Principles to the Systems
1. The Ecclesia Dei Solution.
From the forgoing principles, the reader will easily determine that this is not a solution at all. Since they have accepted the Novus Ordo as Catholic, they have reduced their adherence to tradition to a ?nostalgia trip?. They have become a High Church within an extremely Broad Church, one that even admits of the worship of snakes, of Shiva, of the Great Thumb and Buddha, the praise of heresiarchs such as Martin Luther, not to mention topless female lectors. Indeed the name which ought to be given to this idea is the Ecclesia Diaboli solution. But one thing must be said in favor of those who follow this, and that is that they are at least consistent and logical in their thinking, inasmuch as they see that one cannot accept John Paul II as pope and at the same time ignore his doctrine and disciplinary authority. But it is absolutely deplorable that these people could permit themselves to be so blind so as to be in communion, i.e., in the same church, as the likes of these modernists, whom Saint Pius X said ?ought to be beaten with fists?.
Quote
2. The Lefebvrist Solution.
If we accept as basically accurate the description given above of their position, namely that they see John Paul II as the head of two churches, the one Catholic, the other Conciliar, then it is immediately evident that their position involves labyrinthic contradictions from the point of view of Catholic ecclesiology.
[...]
The Lefebvrist position is a completely inconsistent position, and it makes mincemeat of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church, since it identifies with the Catholic Church the doctrinal and disciplinary defection of Vatican II and its subsequent reforms. For if these are not a defection, then why are they resisting them? If these are not a defection, then what would possibly justify the consecration of four bishops in defiance of the order of that person whom they say is the representative of Christ on earth?
Quote
3. The Sedevacantist Solution.
[T]he sedevacantist position asserts all of the proper principles, but remains obscure because we cannot see the ultimate reconciliation of them. In other words, while sedevacantism maintains all of the essential elements of the Church?s indefectibility, it is nonetheless at a loss as to how to explain the mystery of the iniquity of the Novus Ordo, that is, how the prolonged vacancy of the Apostolic See will ultimately serve the glory of God, and how the Church will one day overcome this terrible problem. But in asserting that the Apostolic See is vacant, sedevacantism will not attempt to assert contradictory things: either (1) that the Novus Ordo religion and the Catholic faith are the same thing, (the contradiction of the Ecclesia Dei adherents), or (2) that the Catholic Church has promulgated teachings, rites and disciplines which are contrary to faith and harmful to souls.
[...]
But then where is the visible Church? It is realized in those who publicly adhere to the Catholic Faith, and who at the same time look forward to the election of a Roman Pontiff. What about the bishops? This system does not necessarily strip every bishop of authority, but only those who publicly adhere to the new religion. But even if it did strip every one of them of their authority, sedevacantism does not intrinsically alter the nature of the Catholic Church, but leaves to the Providence of God the restoration of order. Those systems, on the other hand, which are fearful of cutting themselves off from the modernist hierarchy for their inability to see a solution without it, actually combine the Catholic Church with the defection of modernism, which are two things absolutely incompatible, as incompatible as God and the devil. Those systems cannot possibly be correct which recognize the papacy of conciliar ?popes?. Sedevacantism may lead you to mystery, but it does not lead you to contradiction.
His conclusion is bleak:
Quote
If the Novus Ordo is Catholic, then there is no problem of defection, and it makes no sense to carry on the traditional movement. If the Novus Ordo is not Catholic, then it does involve defection, and it would be blasphemous to in any way combine the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo. There is no possible third way, just as there is no possible substantial alteration, augmentation or diminution of the deposit of revelation. The Novus Ordo is either Catholic or it is not. I firmly hold that it is not Catholic, and therefore hold that any system which claims that the Novus Ordo has been given to us by the authority of Christ is objectively blasphemous and ruinous of the Church?s indefectibility.
Bp. Sanborn is content in his conclusion, even if he is able to offer little but hand-waving in his resolution of the logical fallacies and denial of reality that fatally flaw the sedevacantist position. He deserves credit for at least engaging with the difficult concepts of indefectibility and the visibility of the Church, and for recognizing that admitting one necessarily involves the denial of the other.
In the end, I can't help but be reminded of the Woody Allen quote:
More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.Let us pray, indeed. :pray2:
My guess is that a re-evaluation of infallibility is in order.
Is it possible that Catholicism must go back to the Augustinian times? I think this is the way to remove the Eastern Orthodox schism.
So many points to comment on, but in short, it is always profitable to remember that it is only with faith that we have complete confidence in the absoluteness of Christ's promise being true.
On His word alone, all by itself, with faith we know that the gates of hell shall not prevail, which is to say the Catholic Church will last unblemished in her doctrines until the end of time. That is faith - "we believe it because He said it." As such, faithful Catholics, including priests, really have no reason to ever concern themselves with the Church's Indefectibility no matter how many abominable and heretical popes and hierarchy pass through her ranks.
The ones who does not believe this are the devils, which explains why they keep trying to destroy the Church.
"...Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have his victory, when he emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And he proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church.
It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it's terrible embarrassments, it's setbacks.
Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.
If it were not so He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place.
We have it in our power to participate or we have it in our choice to be turned away, it is strictly within our choice and whatever grace is necessary is within our grasp." - Father Wathen
I have a problem with this definition of "indefectibility" which as your have shown only dates from 1873. Basically it appears that "infectibility" collapses into this: The Church is Infallible in everything that she does.
If you try to make exceptions, then you must state what the dividing line is, in determining where there are exceptions. Good luck.
I support the SSPX position. The visible Church continues on and is preserved in the SSPX. Those claiming to be Pope since 1958 have made catastrophic errors. Whether they were Pope or not history will sort out. For me, I also hold that Bergoglio is an heretic and likely Benedict is still the Pope.
Quote from: Stubborn on June 22, 2022, 04:04:36 AM
On His word alone, all by itself, with faith we know that the gates of hell shall not prevail, which is to say the Catholic Church will last unblemished in her doctrines until the end of time. That is faith - "we believe it because He said it." As such, faithful Catholics, including priests, really have no reason to ever concern themselves with the Church's Indefectibility no matter how many abominable and heretical popes and hierarchy pass through her ranks.
I fully agree and believe this is an important point that has been lost sight of in recent times.
We are Christians because Christ is our founder. We have a Church because Christ gave it to us. We have our Faith because Christ revealed it to us. Every gift and every perfect gift has come from above, from Christ. Anything not from Christ is not worthy of inclusion in our Faith.
Now, we
still have a Church, and a Faith, and Revelation, because the human institution on Earth has preserved these things for us since the time of Christ. But in the 2000 years since its founding, we have come to associate the visible structure with the thing itself. It's not. The Church is the
Mystical Body of Christ, and as such is perfect. The human institution, however, and the humans who make it up, can and have been wrong, not least of all its popes.
We know with faith, because Christ promised us, that the Church would last until the end of time. How, and what that would look like, however, was not revealed explicitly. In 1870, Pius IX said it looked like an infallible, indefectible Papacy. History was not kind to him in that regard.
Quote from: james03 on June 22, 2022, 12:57:21 PM
I have a problem with this definition of "indefectibility" which as your have shown only dates from 1873. Basically it appears that "in[de]fectibility" collapses into this: The Church is Infallible in everything that she does.
Right. I have a problem with this definition as well. I think it's actually the reason for the loss of faith we see today. By this definition we were led to believe that there was no discretion or discernment necessary in our own spiritual lives; that we could just hitch our wagon to the pope and get carried to heaven. When this approach failed, I think it caused a deep sense of betrayal among the faithful, many of whom threw in the towel, because apparently the whole thing had been a farce.
Without this definition, however, the gate is still open for the Church to have simply been wrong about something. She can retract it and correct it. It makes the error "reversible," whereas in our current understanding it has become permanent and irreparable.
Quote
I support the SSPX position. The visible Church continues on and is preserved in the SSPX. Those claiming to be Pope since 1958 have made catastrophic errors. Whether they were Pope or not history will sort out. For me, I also hold that Bergoglio is an heretic and likely Benedict is still the Pope.
I think this is a fair conclusion. While I was reading the Sanborn article, it felt to me that he made valid criticisms of the SSPX, but failed to address the important question of what the truth of the current situation actually is.
He says the SSPX is illogical and inconsistent. Fine, but so what? Are they correct? This isn't a exercise in rhetoric, and you're not going to reason your way to the truth of the matter. He says he will never accept "that the Catholic Church has promulgated teachings, rites and disciplines which are contrary to faith and harmful to souls," but the fact is the Novus Ordo
did come straight out of the highest authority in the Catholic Church, and not one single person at the time had any doubt as to the reality of Paul VI's papacy. The contradiction that he claims sedevecantism avoids, is actually just reality. I think the SSPX does a pretty good job of balancing the contradictions of our current crisis.
Bla, bla, bla. Keep it simple. Thousands of words only obfuscate.
If the Pope and the magisterium are not in conformity with Tradition and Scripture, they are not indefectible.
Pope Joe proclaims that Christ was just a man while he was here on earth. Heresy.
Pope Dan proclaims that Christ was fully man and fully God while he was here on earth. Orthodox.
"Tradition and Scripture" is the bedrock which the Chair of Peter sits on; not the other way around.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on June 23, 2022, 12:58:31 PM
If the Pope and the magisterium are not in conformity with Tradition and Scripture, they are not indefectible.
I agree. This is the entire argument, though, because MOST Catholics don't. Pius IX didn't agree.
The thousands of words are there so that everyone understands the foundation and history of the "standard" answer to indefectibility.
Someone, kindly refer the specific "doctrine" applicable on this discussion please.
Quote from: Padraig on June 21, 2022, 01:51:04 PM
As we shall see, the preservation of the Church from teaching error in faith and morals in the ordinary Magisterium, which is provided through the special assistance offered by the Holy Spirit, is primarily given to uphold the indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, the prevention of error in faith and morals through Divine assistance in this respect is due to the promises of the indefectibility of the Church, rather than operating through the organs of its infallibility. The definition of the indefectibility of the Church given in the Catholic Encyclopedia is extremely helpful in allowing us to grasp the full scope of this dogma:
Quote from: Joyce, G. (1908). "The Church". In The Catholic Encyclopaedia.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
The gift of the indefectibility of the Church is primarily related to the de fide credenda dogma perpetuity of the papal succession promised in Scripture, which finds its fullest exposition in chapters 1-2 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Pastor aeternus. It will be worthwhile quoting the relevant sections here in full, in order to give us a better understanding of the full implications of the precepts of the indefectibility of the Church:
Quote from: Pius IX, Pastor aeternus 1 (July 18th, 1870)And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the sacred council, and for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the institution, permanence and nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.
It is here that we first find that the doctrine of the permanence of the Church promised in Matt 16:18 was solemnly proclaimed as a dogma by the First Vatican Council.
sub
Quote from: Julio on June 23, 2022, 05:39:40 PM
Someone, kindly refer the specific "doctrine" applicable on this discussion please.
This doctrine:
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
[Matthew 16:18]
A very insightful post, even if I was already largely familiar with the material. Having a clear idea of the dogma of indefectibility (by which is meant the perpetual existence of the four marks of the Church both formally and materially) is essential to grasping what the crisis is really about. While I believe the "Ecclesia Dei" solution (though, if the SSPX still holds to what Bp. Sanborn described their position to be, I really hold to a mix of the two solutions) is the only option the formal teaching of the Church really leaves open, I don't attribute any fault to those who adopt other solutions in good faith. The boat is capsizing and Our Lord is sound asleep; even great saints will err in such a context. What we all know with certainty is that Our Lord will awake before the end and cause the storm to cease, for he has promised that boat can never sink.
The issue about Indefectibility that Sedes, those who agree with Old Catholics, extreme R&R "Resistance" types etc need to answer is: if the whole Teaching Church can defect into heresy, then how do we know that didn't happen at Nicaea or Trent?
Quote from: Xavier on June 24, 2022, 12:08:09 PM
The issue about Indefectibility that Sedes, those who agree with Old Catholics, extreme R&R "Resistance" types etc need to answer is: if the whole Teaching Church can defect into heresy, then how do we know that didn't happen at Nicaea or Trent?
Yes, that is a valid question. However, the question is raised by the facts of reality, not by any individual's personal opinion. In fact, the list you provide highlights those people who are aware of the reality, aware of the questions reality raises, and then trying to provide answers. They may not all be correct, and since they often disagree with each other, logic indicates that some must be in error. But they are all making their best efforts to grasp the situation and to understand the root causes.
If a group of people were watching the Titanic, they might have varied opinions on the cause of the disaster. One might think it was an iceberg, another engine malfunction, another terrorist bombing. While they disagree about the cause, they all can see that the ship sunk. Meanwhile, there might be another group who deny that there is anything wrong.
"It's just a scratch."
"The captain is going to get this minor incident under control any minute now."
"Those who claim there's a problem with the Titanic are in the pay of Russian propaganda."
These are the people who are truly deluded.
Here is a contradiction for the definition given for indefectibility in 1873:
Quote(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
So a Papal Bull asserts that the whole Church can accept a Pope to be Pope, but in reality it is null and void if he is an heretic. That can't be possible if the definition of indefectibility stands.
Which means a Papal Bull would be in error. But that also violates the definition.
Pick your poison.
Quote from: james03 on June 24, 2022, 05:30:04 PM
Here is a contradiction for the definition given for indefectibility in 1873:
Quote(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
So a Papal Bull asserts that the whole Church can accept a Pope to be Pope, but in reality it is null and void if he is an heretic. That can't be possible if the definition of indefectibility stands.
Which means a Papal Bull would be in error. But that also violates the definition.
Pick your poison.
This is the same argument and bull that Old Catholics like Dollinger brought up back then, and the objection was refuted to death back then too. Ignoring all the other issues, the "all" here is all the cardinals, as the context is the Papal Enthronement and formal oath of acceptance the cardinals make. Not the entire Church.
You should read how Cardinal Manning responded to this same objection in his work against Dollinger, it was quite thorough.
QuoteIgnoring all the other issues, the "all" here is all the cardinals, as the context is the Papal Enthronement and formal oath of acceptance the cardinals make. Not the entire Church.
You are supporting the SSPX position then. And I agree.
Quote from: Maximilian"Those who claim there's a problem with the Titanic are in the pay of Russian propaganda."
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Maximilian on June 24, 2022, 05:09:58 PM
Quote from: Xavier on June 24, 2022, 12:08:09 PM
The issue about Indefectibility that Sedes, those who agree with Old Catholics, extreme R&R "Resistance" types etc need to answer is: if the whole Teaching Church can defect into heresy, then how do we know that didn't happen at Nicaea or Trent?
Yes, that is a valid question. However, the question is raised by the facts of reality, not by any individual's personal opinion.
Hi Max. There can be no doubt that one of the Gravest Crisis in Church History, perhaps the greatest of all, followed the Second Vatican Council. The question is, what explanation do we resort to in order to make sense of that fact? Now, if we were liberal secularists, studying this purely from an academic or historical point of view, we would be at liberty to postulate any kind of explanation, including one that contradicts the Faith. Since we are Catholics, we cannot. We must make the Truths of Faith themselves part of the explanation. That's where imo Indefectibility comes in. And Pope Bl. Pius IX was perfectly correct, in the OP Encyclical cited by Padraig, to point that if the OCs were correct, the Church defected into heresy when She formally defined the dogma of PI at Vatican I, which is impossible.
I take the position of a Pro-SSPX Indult Traditionalist to explain the Post-Vatican II Crisis. Today, many influential Catholics in the public sphere, Dr. Kwasniewski, Dr. Marshall, perhaps even Dr. Hahn (who has said he believes the TLM to be "objectively superior" to the NOM, the classical Indult Traditionalist position held and proven by Indult Trad Priest Fr. Ripperger here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf) are arguably Indult Traditionalists or hold something close to it. So does Bishop Schneider and many others in the Church.
So, what makes Vatican II substantially different from Vatican I, then, you may ask? The fact that it explicitly disavowed using infallibility. As Msgr. Fenton writes here: "It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical." http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm This applies to Non-Infallible Magisterial Acts.
See also: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority.
The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility." -Pope Paul VI, Weekly General Audience, 12 January 1966
"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.
The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." -Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), address to the Chilean Bishops, 13 July 1988, Santiago Chile
Taken from: https://catholicismhastheanswer.com/vatican-ii-must-be-clarified/
God Bless.
This thread is a perfect example of what happens when one tries to accept the Conciliar "Popes" as Popes, yet at the same time reject their errors and heresies; one ends up overturning the traditional doctrine of Ecclesiology, in the name of keeping "Tradition".
This is exactly what is going on at "One Peter 5" where the there is an ongoing effort to "Rethink the Papacy" i.e. Reject the Church teaching on the Papacy. As one sede put it: "Don't rethink the Papacy, rethink the Conciliar Popes".
Arguably, it is SVism, and the belief that Post-Conciliar Popes have all been heretics (a belief Max shares, for e.g. I recall him saying something like, "They have been both Popes AND heretics") that leads to more errors, to possible loss of Faith later on etc. We see some SVists deny the Catholic Doctrine of Universal Acceptance, which teaches the OUM is Infallible in recognizing the Pope, which means a Universally Accepted Pope cannot be a manifest heretic, as Cardinal Billot admirably explains. We see others fall into Ecclesia-Vacantism, which teaches the Church has lost formal Apostolicity and defected. The Dimonds have always been Ecclesia-Vacantists, even before the Pope Pius XII Bishops died. Fr. Cekada became one on Ignis Ardens, shortly before the last Papally Appointed Bishops did: https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantists-church-without-pope/ Finally, we also see SVs, having given up on Rome, finally lapse into Orthodoxy, Protestantism or just plain liberalism (apart from the Old Catholic phenomenon we see here). The solution cannot come from there imo. The solution will come from Catholics faithful to Tradition remaining in the Roman Church and fighting for the Church. God Bless.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 25, 2022, 08:53:32 AM
This thread is a perfect example of what happens when one tries to accept the Conciliar "Popes" as Popes, yet at the same time reject their errors and heresies; one ends up overturning the traditional doctrine of Ecclesiology, in the name of keeping "Tradition".
This is exactly what is going on at "One Peter 5" where the there is an ongoing effort to "Rethink the Papacy" i.e. Reject the Church teaching on the Papacy. As one sede put it: "Don't rethink the Papacy, rethink the Conciliar Popes".
While I'm not aware of any ecclesiological errors I'm guilty of (always open to correction), I agree with the thrust of this point. If one's opinion of the post-conciliar Popes contradicts traditional catholic ecclesiology, it is one's opinion that must be questioned. Not the ecclesiology. One Peter Five is often very lacking in proper ecclesiology (though not always; they have a handful of really stellar contributors who know their stuff).
I saw this Great Quote from St. Augustine recently. Quite appropriate for our time imo. Let's dedicate our lives, to pray and sacrifice, and consecrate ourselves, so that Our Lady and Lord Triumph, in the Church and the World. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
"You say, the times are troublesome, the times are burdensome, the times are miserable. Live rightly and you will change the times." St. Augustine, Sermon 311, 8
J.M. I'm referring to those posters who posit a change in Catholic teaching on ecclessiology, such as re-evaluating infallibility; correcting our understanding of indefectibility; that the Church can promulgate doctrines and discipline which is harmful to souls; Tradition and Scripture are the bedrock of the faith and not the Papacy.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 25, 2022, 04:44:47 PM
J.M. I'm referring to those posters who posit a change in Catholic teaching on ecclessiology, such as re-evaluating infallibility; correcting our understanding of indefectibility; that the Church can promulgate doctrines and discipline which is harmful to souls; Tradition and Scripture are the bedrock of the faith and not the Papacy.
There has been a surprising and worrying uptick in people questioning papal infallibility recently, which is strange because for a Catholic to do so requires contesting conciliar infallibility as well. Even the Jansenists and the staunchest Gallicans never went so far as to doubt the infallibility of general councils. Such a position would be entirely novel, and very much reminiscent of Luther's famous line "...for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves..."
J.M.
Thanks for your response; after a second reading of the thread and thinking it over; its actually a pretty good discussion.
The questioning of the doctrine of Papal infallibility is a direct result of the obvious defection of the Conciliar Popes from their duty to "confirm their brethren" in the faith.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 25, 2022, 05:28:30 PM
J.M.
Thanks for your response; after a second reading of the thread and thinking it over; its actually a pretty good discussion.
The questioning of the doctrine of Papal infallibility is a direct result of the obvious defection of the Conciliar Popes from their duty to "confirm their brethren" in the faith.
Undoubtedly that is what the whole crisis has been about from day one. Atleast as far as being the most pressing, proximate, and practically important issue in the lives of most Catholics, alongside the liturgy. If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then faithful Catholics would have had no cause for concern or turmoil. Instead the contrary has taken place, and in many ways the Holy See has acted and spoken in ways that would have been unthinkable in the centuries prior. Every solution concocted for the crisis is the result of faithful, serious, and intelligent minds struggling to deal with this reality. Indeed, recognition of this reality is one of the defining borderlines that separates the traditionalist from the average conservative/neo-catholic (the other being adherence to the Latin mass as a superior rite). Regardless of the solution one holds to, the fact solutions are searched for at all speaks volumes.
In prior ages when events transpired which seemed contradictory to the promises of Christ to preserve the Church in all ages (such as at the time of the Great Western Schism), a rejection of Papal Infallibility was often a tempting solution. That much is almost expected. What is strange is that it should happen after the dogma of Papal Infallibility has been defined by an Ecumenical Council. Perhaps the supporters of this solution can explain how they get around this hurdle which even the Jansenists found insurmountable.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
In prior ages when events transpired which seemed contradictory to the promises of Christ to preserve the Church in all ages (such as at the time of the Great Western Schism), a rejection of Papal Infallibility was often a tempting solution. That much is almost expected. What is strange is that it should happen after the dogma of Papal Infallibility has been defined by an Ecumenical Council. Perhaps the supporters of this solution can explain how they get around this hurdle which even the Jansenists found insurmountable.
By considering an example which shows that papal teaching has been overturned.
Quote from: AlNg on June 25, 2022, 08:13:52 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
In prior ages when events transpired which seemed contradictory to the promises of Christ to preserve the Church in all ages (such as at the time of the Great Western Schism), a rejection of Papal Infallibility was often a tempting solution. That much is almost expected. What is strange is that it should happen after the dogma of Papal Infallibility has been defined by an Ecumenical Council. Perhaps the supporters of this solution can explain how they get around this hurdle which even the Jansenists found insurmountable.
By considering an example which shows that papal teaching has been overturned.
Theology is not an exercise in empiricism, nor can dogmas formally defined at an Ecumenical Council be placed into doubt by the faithful. Ironically, Vatican I defined that too:
Quote from: The First Vatican Council, Canons on Faith
VI. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.
Here is the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on the Holy Spirit's Gift of Indefectibility to the Church, guaranteed by Christ's Promise:
QuoteIndefectibility of the Church
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" (Epistle 54). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ's promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet "errors of addition" may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ's words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an "error of addition".
It was said above that one part of the Church's gift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from any substantial corruption in the sphere of morals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard of morality bequeathed to her by her Founder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime model. Only a supernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about. Man's natural tendency is downwards. The force of every religious movement gradually spends itself; and the followers of great religious reformers tend in time to the level of their environment. According to the laws of unassisted human nature, it should have been thus with the society established by Christ. Yet history shows us that the Catholic Church possesses a power of reform from within, which has no parallel in any other religious organization. Again and again she produces saints, men imitating the virtues of Christ in an extraordinary degree, whose influence, spreading far and wide, gives fresh ardour even to those who reach a less heroic standard. Thus, to cite one or two well-known instances out of many that might be given: St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi rekindled the love of virtue in the men of the thirteenth century; St. Philip Neri and St. Ignatius Loyola accomplished a like work in the sixteenth century; St. Paul of the Cross and St. Alphonsus Liguori, in the eighteenth. No explanation suffices to account for this phenomenon save the Catholic doctrine that the Church is not a natural but a supernatural society, that the preservation of her moral life depends, not on any laws of human nature, but on the life-giving presence of the Holy Ghost. The Catholic and the Protestant principles of reform stand in sharp contrast the one to the other. Catholic reformers have one and all fallen back on the model set before them in the person of Christ and on the power of the Holy Ghost to breathe fresh life into the souls which He has regenerated. Protestant reformers have commenced their work by separation, and by this act have severed themselves from the very principle of life. No one of course would wish to deny that within the Protestant bodies there have been many men of great virtues. Yet it is not too much to assert that in every case their virtue has been nourished on what yet remained to them of Catholic belief and practice, and not on anything which they have received from Protestantism as such.
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then...
...they would've been actual saints.
Fr. Albert Drexel was a Catholic Priest who received locutions about Archbishop Lefebvre. They have been published in the Angelus with approvals from SSPX Priests as having every mark of credibility. Bishop Williamson also in particular approves of Fr. Drexel's locutions.
From: https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/02/15/faith-is-greater-than-obedience-2/
(https://catholictruthblogdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-i-have-never-changed.jpg?w=241&h=312)
One of our young, teenage readers asked me to post the following article from The Angelus, August 1988 – he reads the blog and is keen to discover what we all think of the claims of Professor Albert Drexel. What follows is taken from The Angelus website:
Fr. Albert Drexel wrote Faith Is Greater than Obedience, a collection of words Our Lord spoken to him a few years before he died. These locutions have every mark of credibility, for Fr. Drexel was an experienced priest, a professor—certainly not one to give into flights of imagination, nor one easily deceived by the devil...
"Faith Is Greater Than Obedience" words of Our Savior to Professor Albert Drexel on March 5, 1976
Professor Albert Drexel was born in Hohenems in the province of Voralberg in Austria. He was the third of five brothers, who were also priests, and he was ordained in 1914.
Professor Drexel held three doctor degrees as an Austrian scientist of philology and ethnology. In 1932, he had a private audience with Pope Pius XI; he taught as professor in the Vatican University for Missions and was later used as an expert in racial questions at the Vatican. He wrote many books on Philology and Theology. He died on March 9, 1977.
July 4, 1975 ...My Church lives in the midst of apostasy and destruction. She lives also among numerous faithful and loyal people. In the history of My Church, there have been times of decline, of desertion and devastation, in consequence of wicked priests and tepid shepherds. But the spirit of God is most powerful, and has raised up the Church and caused it to blossom again, but smaller, upon the ruins and graves of unfaithfulness and desertion. The work of Ecône, of My servant Marcel, does not perish!
March 5, 1976 ...My faithful son Marcel, who suffers a great deal for the faith, is going on the right path. He is like a light and pillar of truth, which many ordained priests of Mine are betraying. Faith is greater than obedience. Therefore, it is My will that the work of the theological education for priests continues in the spirit and will of My son Marcel, for the salvation and great help of My one and true Church.
May 7, 1976 ...My one and true Church shall be renewed by priests. Know then: There shall grow up a new generation of young priests. And these priests, repulsed by apostate ecclesiastics, are drawn to the spiritual life of the saints, and they will openly profess themselves as servants of Christ; they shall wear the habit of their vocation and order, and will not have human respect or worldly love. These priests are trained already in a few places, and they are distinguished by three characteristics: by the life of prayer, by the flame of their Eucharistic love and profoundness, by the devotion and honoring of the Mother of redemption, the eternal Virgin Mother Mary. These three reasons will bring the success of saints to this young generation of priests, and will raise My one and true Church to new splendor, and with great vigor.
June 4, 1976 ...Therefore you should know: Whoever lays hands on and destroys that place where young men are educated to be priests after the heart and will of God, shall draw down the curse of Heaven and Mine in this time, and for all eternity. A blessing to those, and My blessing, to whoever protects and promotes such a place. A threefold curse to those who seize such a place wrongly and who block thus the road to the future priesthood!
August 6, 1976 ...Your other worries are concerning a doubt about the painful situation in which My son Marcel finds himself. He suffers injustice, because of his fight for the faith and because it was an unjust verdict given to him. But there shall come a time in which this injustice will be repaired in time here on earth: this son of Mine is a worthy servant of My one and true Church.
October 1, 1976 ...Therefore I am very pleased with My son Marcel, because he has stood up against all misunderstandings and persecutions, for the salvation of the faith, and because the Eucharistic sacrifice means for him the most Holy.
December 3, 1976 ...But priests like My worthy servant Marcel are persecuted, condemned and outlawed, because they see the sacramental sacrifice as the truest and holiest, and celebrate the mystery of My body and blood with holy reverence.
February 4, 1977 ...For the peace of your soul, and for your work you do for the Church, you should know: My servant Marcel is within My love, because of his strong faith, his true humility, and his great reverence.
These prophecies, given by Our Lord to Father/Professor Albert Drexel 50 years ago, are coming to pass now, with a generation of new young Priests who love Tradition and the TLM. And also appreciate Archbishop Lefebvre and the Good Work His Grace did for the Church.
Quote from: james03 on June 24, 2022, 05:30:04 PM
Here is a contradiction for the definition given for indefectibility in 1873:
Quote(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
So a Papal Bull asserts that the whole Church can accept a Pope to be Pope, but in reality it is null and void if he is an heretic. That can't be possible if the definition of indefectibility stands.
Which means a Papal Bull would be in error. But that also violates the definition.
Pick your poison.
Not sure where you get the year as 1873, your above quote is from Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559, not 1873.
Since then, Pope St. Pius X abrogated it in his Apostolic Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, on the twenty-fifth of December of the year 1904.
The below is the Apostolic Constitution from Pope Pius XII, which is almost identical to Pope St. Pius X's.
"
"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the
Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or
other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the
effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circumstances.[...]
We desire also that this document of Ours be read in the presence of all in the first Congregations
usually held after the death of the Pontiff, as above (no. 12 a); again after entry into the
Conclave, as above (no. 51); likewise when anyone is raised to the dignity of the purple,
after
having pledged a solemn oath to scrupulously preserve the things that have been decreed in the
present Constitution.Notwithstanding
any whatsoever Apostolic Constitutions and Orders to the contrary issued by
Our Predecessor Roman Pontiffs, which, to the extent it is necessary, We declare each and every
one to be abrogated, as above, and even other matters worthy of individual and special mention
and derogation.
Therefore, let it be permitted to no man to weaken this page of Our constitution, ordinance,
abrogation, commandment, binding order, warning, prohibition, precept, and will, or to go
against it by a rash undertaking. Moreover, if any one presumes to attempt this, let him know that
he will incur for it the anger of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.Given in Rome, at St. Peter's, A.D. 1945, on the eighth day of December, on the feast of the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the seventh year of Our Pontificate." - Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, the eighth day of December, 1945
So if one were to think Pope Paul IV's decree put at risk the Church's indefectibility, Pope St. Pius X abrogated what Pope Pius IV decreed, and allowed for heretic cardinals to vote in the conclave - which therefore admits that a heretic could indeed be elected pope - without putting the Church's indefectibiity at risk.
Quote from: Xavier on June 26, 2022, 10:38:30 AM
Fr. Albert Drexel was a Catholic Priest who received locutions about Archbishop Lefebvre. They have been published in the Angelus with approvals from SSPX Priests as having every mark of credibility. Bishop Williamson also in particular approves of Fr. Drexel's locutions.
From: https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/02/15/faith-is-greater-than-obedience-2/
(https://catholictruthblogdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-i-have-never-changed.jpg?w=241&h=312)
One of our young, teenage readers asked me to post the following article from The Angelus, August 1988 – he reads the blog and is keen to discover what we all think of the claims of Professor Albert Drexel. What follows is taken from The Angelus website:
Fr. Albert Drexel wrote Faith Is Greater than Obedience, a collection of words Our Lord spoken to him a few years before he died. These locutions have every mark of credibility, for Fr. Drexel was an experienced priest, a professor—certainly not one to give into flights of imagination, nor one easily deceived by the devil...
"Faith Is Greater Than Obedience" words of Our Savior to Professor Albert Drexel on March 5, 1976
Professor Albert Drexel was born in Hohenems in the province of Voralberg in Austria. He was the third of five brothers, who were also priests, and he was ordained in 1914.
Professor Drexel held three doctor degrees as an Austrian scientist of philology and ethnology. In 1932, he had a private audience with Pope Pius XI; he taught as professor in the Vatican University for Missions and was later used as an expert in racial questions at the Vatican. He wrote many books on Philology and Theology. He died on March 9, 1977.
July 4, 1975 ...My Church lives in the midst of apostasy and destruction. She lives also among numerous faithful and loyal people. In the history of My Church, there have been times of decline, of desertion and devastation, in consequence of wicked priests and tepid shepherds. But the spirit of God is most powerful, and has raised up the Church and caused it to blossom again, but smaller, upon the ruins and graves of unfaithfulness and desertion. The work of Ecône, of My servant Marcel, does not perish!
March 5, 1976 ...My faithful son Marcel, who suffers a great deal for the faith, is going on the right path. He is like a light and pillar of truth, which many ordained priests of Mine are betraying. Faith is greater than obedience. Therefore, it is My will that the work of the theological education for priests continues in the spirit and will of My son Marcel, for the salvation and great help of My one and true Church.
May 7, 1976 ...My one and true Church shall be renewed by priests. Know then: There shall grow up a new generation of young priests. And these priests, repulsed by apostate ecclesiastics, are drawn to the spiritual life of the saints, and they will openly profess themselves as servants of Christ; they shall wear the habit of their vocation and order, and will not have human respect or worldly love. These priests are trained already in a few places, and they are distinguished by three characteristics: by the life of prayer, by the flame of their Eucharistic love and profoundness, by the devotion and honoring of the Mother of redemption, the eternal Virgin Mother Mary. These three reasons will bring the success of saints to this young generation of priests, and will raise My one and true Church to new splendor, and with great vigor.
June 4, 1976 ...Therefore you should know: Whoever lays hands on and destroys that place where young men are educated to be priests after the heart and will of God, shall draw down the curse of Heaven and Mine in this time, and for all eternity. A blessing to those, and My blessing, to whoever protects and promotes such a place. A threefold curse to those who seize such a place wrongly and who block thus the road to the future priesthood!
August 6, 1976 ...Your other worries are concerning a doubt about the painful situation in which My son Marcel finds himself. He suffers injustice, because of his fight for the faith and because it was an unjust verdict given to him. But there shall come a time in which this injustice will be repaired in time here on earth: this son of Mine is a worthy servant of My one and true Church.
October 1, 1976 ...Therefore I am very pleased with My son Marcel, because he has stood up against all misunderstandings and persecutions, for the salvation of the faith, and because the Eucharistic sacrifice means for him the most Holy.
December 3, 1976 ...But priests like My worthy servant Marcel are persecuted, condemned and outlawed, because they see the sacramental sacrifice as the truest and holiest, and celebrate the mystery of My body and blood with holy reverence.
February 4, 1977 ...For the peace of your soul, and for your work you do for the Church, you should know: My servant Marcel is within My love, because of his strong faith, his true humility, and his great reverence.
These prophecies, given by Our Lord to Father/Professor Albert Drexel 50 years ago, are coming to pass now, with a generation of new young Priests who love Tradition and the TLM. And also appreciate Archbishop Lefebvre and the Good Work His Grace did for the Church.
Very interesting, I hadn't seen this before.
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then...
...they would've been actual saints.
They would have been actual popes. Simply doing your job doesn't make you a saint. But it does at least make you a person who is not guilty of dereliction of duty.
Quote from: Stubborn on June 26, 2022, 11:05:33 AM
Pope St. Pius X abrogated what Pope Pius IV decreed, and allowed for heretic cardinals to vote in the conclave
Interesting. Thanks for posting this.
Quote from: Stubborn on June 26, 2022, 11:05:33 AM
- which therefore admits that a heretic could indeed be elected pope -
Yes, that does seem to be the conclusion.
Quote from: Stubborn on June 26, 2022, 11:05:33 AM
without putting the Church's indefectibiity at risk.
No, the danger to the Church's indefectibility is not the documents but the reality. If a heretic were to be elected pope, and if he were then to:
- destroy the Catholic Mass
- destroy all the sacraments
- destroy Catholic moral teaching
- destroy all the doctrinal Tradition
that is what would pose a danger to the Church's indefectibility, not whatever had been predicted one way or another in past documents.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 26, 2022, 11:56:08 AM
Quote from: Xavier on June 26, 2022, 10:38:30 AM
Fr. Albert Drexel was a Catholic Priest who received locutions about Archbishop Lefebvre. They have been published in the Angelus with approvals from SSPX Priests as having every mark of credibility. Bishop Williamson also in particular approves of Fr. Drexel's locutions.
From: https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/02/15/faith-is-greater-than-obedience-2/
(https://catholictruthblogdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-i-have-never-changed.jpg?w=241&h=312)
One of our young, teenage readers asked me to post the following article from The Angelus, August 1988 – he reads the blog and is keen to discover what we all think of the claims of Professor Albert Drexel. What follows is taken from The Angelus website:
Fr. Albert Drexel wrote Faith Is Greater than Obedience, a collection of words Our Lord spoken to him a few years before he died. These locutions have every mark of credibility, for Fr. Drexel was an experienced priest, a professor—certainly not one to give into flights of imagination, nor one easily deceived by the devil...
"Faith Is Greater Than Obedience" words of Our Savior to Professor Albert Drexel on March 5, 1976
Professor Albert Drexel was born in Hohenems in the province of Voralberg in Austria. He was the third of five brothers, who were also priests, and he was ordained in 1914.
Professor Drexel held three doctor degrees as an Austrian scientist of philology and ethnology. In 1932, he had a private audience with Pope Pius XI; he taught as professor in the Vatican University for Missions and was later used as an expert in racial questions at the Vatican. He wrote many books on Philology and Theology. He died on March 9, 1977.
July 4, 1975 ...My Church lives in the midst of apostasy and destruction. She lives also among numerous faithful and loyal people. In the history of My Church, there have been times of decline, of desertion and devastation, in consequence of wicked priests and tepid shepherds. But the spirit of God is most powerful, and has raised up the Church and caused it to blossom again, but smaller, upon the ruins and graves of unfaithfulness and desertion. The work of Ecône, of My servant Marcel, does not perish!
March 5, 1976 ...My faithful son Marcel, who suffers a great deal for the faith, is going on the right path. He is like a light and pillar of truth, which many ordained priests of Mine are betraying. Faith is greater than obedience. Therefore, it is My will that the work of the theological education for priests continues in the spirit and will of My son Marcel, for the salvation and great help of My one and true Church.
May 7, 1976 ...My one and true Church shall be renewed by priests. Know then: There shall grow up a new generation of young priests. And these priests, repulsed by apostate ecclesiastics, are drawn to the spiritual life of the saints, and they will openly profess themselves as servants of Christ; they shall wear the habit of their vocation and order, and will not have human respect or worldly love. These priests are trained already in a few places, and they are distinguished by three characteristics: by the life of prayer, by the flame of their Eucharistic love and profoundness, by the devotion and honoring of the Mother of redemption, the eternal Virgin Mother Mary. These three reasons will bring the success of saints to this young generation of priests, and will raise My one and true Church to new splendor, and with great vigor.
June 4, 1976 ...Therefore you should know: Whoever lays hands on and destroys that place where young men are educated to be priests after the heart and will of God, shall draw down the curse of Heaven and Mine in this time, and for all eternity. A blessing to those, and My blessing, to whoever protects and promotes such a place. A threefold curse to those who seize such a place wrongly and who block thus the road to the future priesthood!
August 6, 1976 ...Your other worries are concerning a doubt about the painful situation in which My son Marcel finds himself. He suffers injustice, because of his fight for the faith and because it was an unjust verdict given to him. But there shall come a time in which this injustice will be repaired in time here on earth: this son of Mine is a worthy servant of My one and true Church.
October 1, 1976 ...Therefore I am very pleased with My son Marcel, because he has stood up against all misunderstandings and persecutions, for the salvation of the faith, and because the Eucharistic sacrifice means for him the most Holy.
December 3, 1976 ...But priests like My worthy servant Marcel are persecuted, condemned and outlawed, because they see the sacramental sacrifice as the truest and holiest, and celebrate the mystery of My body and blood with holy reverence.
February 4, 1977 ...For the peace of your soul, and for your work you do for the Church, you should know: My servant Marcel is within My love, because of his strong faith, his true humility, and his great reverence.
These prophecies, given by Our Lord to Father/Professor Albert Drexel 50 years ago, are coming to pass now, with a generation of new young Priests who love Tradition and the TLM. And also appreciate Archbishop Lefebvre and the Good Work His Grace did for the Church.
Very interesting, I hadn't seen this before.
Hi JM. Glad you found it interesting. Hope you like the below article on +ABL.
"let us recount the greatness and heroic deeds, the sacrifices, struggles and missionary labors of His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the holy French Catholic Missionary to Africa, a true Apostle of Jesus Christ Our King. Let us examine the case from the very beginning to see where truth lies.
The First Phase of Lefebvre's Life (1929-1958). Ordained a Priest in 1929 at the age of 23 to preparing for the Second Vatican Council in 1959. The Shining Catholic Missionary who helped grow the Roman Catholic Church in Africa.
I highly recommend all Catholics interested in the question watch this beautiful documentary, a greatly edifying, truly educational and highly inspirational video, that explains the glorious life and apostolic ministry of Archbishop Lefebvre in Africa. For those who prefer to read, his biography is published by Angelus Press as well as the three volume Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies.
https://youtu.be/Cf9oy7wDkms
In blood, sweat, tears and toil, Archbishop Lefebvre labored for decades, ministering to hundreds of thousands of Catholics, and spreading the missionary work to save souls. Together with Venerable American Archbishop Fulton Sheen, he was one of the greatest Catholic evangelists of the 20th century. His zeal was admired by Pope Pius XII, who elevated him to Vicar Apostolic, overseeing some 50,000 Catholics throughout Africa. His missionary ideas to elevate the nascent African Christendom were later adopted by Pius XII in his encyclical on the missions, Fidei Donum (1957).
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
His missionary efforts have borne the greatest fruits. The Church in Africa today is an amazing success story. As Aleteia notes, and in a completely incredible and unexpected way, there are now more Christians in Africa than in Europe and even Latin America. According to John Allen, "Africa in the twentieth century went from a Catholic population of 1.9 million in 1900 to 130 million in 2000, a growth rate of 6,708 percent, the most rapid expansion of Catholicism in a single continent in two thousand years of church history."[1]
From: https://onepeterfive.com/in-praise-of-archbishop-lefebvre-and-defense-of-the-sspx/
Quote from: Maximilian on June 26, 2022, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on June 26, 2022, 11:05:33 AM
Pope St. Pius X abrogated what Pope Pius IV decreed, and allowed for heretic cardinals to vote in the conclave
Interesting. Thanks for posting this.
Quote from: Stubborn on June 26, 2022, 11:05:33 AM
- which therefore admits that a heretic could indeed be elected pope -
Yes, that does seem to be the conclusion.
It is the only conclusion. The sedes are wont to say that since the saint pope and all the popes after him did not specifically say "heretics" or "heretic cardinals" in his Constitution that heretics are excluded. Obviously if this were true then the saint pope is guilty of an an obvious and unforgivable blunder! But there is at least one very good reason he includes them.
Quote from: Maximilian on June 26, 2022, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on June 26, 2022, 11:05:33 AM
without putting the Church's indefectibiity at risk.
No, the danger to the Church's indefectibility is not the documents but the reality. If a heretic were to be elected pope, and if he were then to:
- destroy the Catholic Mass
- destroy all the sacraments
- destroy Catholic moral teaching
- destroy all the doctrinal Tradition
that is what would pose a danger to the Church's indefectibility, not whatever had been predicted one way or another in past documents.
Not so.
First, it is ONLY with faith that we know Our Lord's words are true and cannot be false, wrong or in any way mistaken.
Second, even with one after another heretic popes and each one progressively worse, we still have the true Mass, all of the true sacraments, true teachings and doctrines.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."Only very recently I had occasion to speak to more than a few converts from atheism, protism and NOism - these are sincere souls seeking the true faith - and they found it! They found it in spite of heretic popes and hierarchy. This bespeaks of the Church's indefectibility, this demonstrates the Church's indefectibility "in action" if you will. This will happen until Christ comes again.
The Church has had heretical popes and hierarchy, preaching and promoting grave error for almost 60 years, yet the Church has not been destroyed, nor will it ever - we have Our Lord's assurance, we need nothing more in this regard.
As Father Wathen puts it:
"If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place."
Quote from: Maximilian on June 26, 2022, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then...
...they would've been actual saints.
They would have been actual popes. Simply doing your job doesn't make you a saint. But it does at least make you a person who is not guilty of dereliction of duty.
Obviously.
However, my comment was aimed at another aspect of this question. Ecclesia Dei trads are required to believe that those who were
at the very minimum guilty of dereliction of duty are indeed saints.
If Wojtyla was a saint, traditional Catholicism is irrelevant.
On the "Universal Recognition" issue; by what magical or alchemichal wonder does "Universal Recognition" turn a heretic into a Catholic?
There was a study on the "Pope heretic" question done in the 1960's by a Brazilian Theologian, Arnaldo Vidgal Xavier Da Silveira,
recommended by Msgr. Lefebre, here: https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
Quote
As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical.
So Msgr. Lefebvre stated that all the studies done on the question of the "heretical Pope", treated of the problem of a Pope becoming a heretic as a private doctor, not as the Pope. The Conciliar Popes (If one holds them to be Popes) have taught heresies as Popes, not as private doctors. The theologians never thought possible that a Pope would become a public heretic; the majority even denied that the Pope "even as a private theologian", would ever fall into heresy, because of the promises of Our Lord in Lk. 22, 32 where Our Lord prays for St. Peter's faith to fail not.
Next, Dr. Silveria treats of the problem of "Universal Acceptance" In the English translation of his work: , "Can The Pope Go Bad?"
Translated by John Russel Spann, published by Catholic Research Institute, Greenacres, Wa. U.S.A. June 1998:
pg. 74-75:
Quote4.The election of a person who cannot be Pope
(treats of the case of a woman, a heretic, a child or a demented person being elected Pope), This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits "sanatio in radice", would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of the election? A complete answer to this question would require a detailed anylysi of each of the cases of invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves.
Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the perspective in which we place ourselves: the election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his election?
At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory, very simple: since God cannot permit that the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the true Pope. ...A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church. For such acceptation to have been pacific and universal would it be enough that in a council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had singed the acts, recognizing in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one? Would it be enough that no voice, or practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert? Or, on the contrary, would a certain very generalized, though not always well defined, distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and universal character of the acceptance of the Pope? And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist? And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped up with some frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of his election by the Sacred College?
Can the "universal acceptance" of a Woman elected as Pope, suddenly and magically transform her into a man and therefore a Pope? Therefore, by what process can the universal acceptance of a public heretic also magically transform that person into a Catholic.
Further, is there really "Universal Acceptance" of the Conciliar Popes as Popes? How many Catholics really and truly hold the Conciliar Popes to be their "proximate rule of faith"?
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on June 26, 2022, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then...
...they would've been actual saints.
They would have been actual popes. Simply doing your job doesn't make you a saint. But it does at least make you a person who is not guilty of dereliction of duty.
Obviously.
However, my comment was aimed at another aspect of this question. Ecclesia Dei trads are required to believe that those who were at the very minimum guilty of dereliction of duty are indeed saints.
If Wojtyla was a saint, traditional Catholicism is irrelevant.
Dictatus Papæ, promulgated by Pope Paschal II in 1090: "23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope."
Even derelict clerics can die in a state of grace (just look at St. Andrew Wouters). That has no bearing on the relevance of Traditional Catholicism.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 26, 2022, 05:09:18 PM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on June 26, 2022, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then...
...they would've been actual saints.
They would have been actual popes. Simply doing your job doesn't make you a saint. But it does at least make you a person who is not guilty of dereliction of duty.
Obviously.
However, my comment was aimed at another aspect of this question. Ecclesia Dei trads are required to believe that those who were at the very minimum guilty of dereliction of duty are indeed saints.
If Wojtyla was a saint, traditional Catholicism is irrelevant.
Dictatus Papæ, promulgated by Pope Paschal II in 1090: "23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope."
Even derelict clerics can die in a state of grace (just look at St. Andrew Wouters). That has no bearing on the relevance of Traditional Catholicism.
St. Andrew Wouters died a martyr's death. He was a womanizer, not a heretic.
St. Paul VI or St. John Paul II presided over the meticulous dismantling of the Church, openly consorted with heretics, paved the way to religious indifferentism, prayed with Jews, Muslims and Pagans, persecuted Catholics, protected pedophiles,
etc. If these people are saints, then traditional Catholicism is a moot point. Pretty much anyone in the world can hope to die in a state of grace, be it Wojtyla, Brother Roger or Rabbi Shlomo.
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 07:02:27 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 26, 2022, 05:09:18 PM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on June 26, 2022, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 25, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
If St. John XXIII and his successors had enforced Church discipline vigorously, condemned errors and bad bishops swiftly and clearly, and had avoided giving even the faintest hint of cause for scandal, then...
...they would've been actual saints.
They would have been actual popes. Simply doing your job doesn't make you a saint. But it does at least make you a person who is not guilty of dereliction of duty.
Obviously.
However, my comment was aimed at another aspect of this question. Ecclesia Dei trads are required to believe that those who were at the very minimum guilty of dereliction of duty are indeed saints.
If Wojtyla was a saint, traditional Catholicism is irrelevant.
Dictatus Papæ, promulgated by Pope Paschal II in 1090: "23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope."
Even derelict clerics can die in a state of grace (just look at St. Andrew Wouters). That has no bearing on the relevance of Traditional Catholicism.
St. Andrew Wouters died a martyr's death. He was a womanizer, not a heretic.
The line is: "Fornicator I always was; heretic I never was." :lol:
St. Andrew is one of my favorite martyrs, but most of his life is hardly worthy of emulation. That was my main point.
QuoteSt. Paul VI or St. John Paul II presided over the meticulous dismantling of the Church, openly consorted with heretics, paved the way to religious indifferentism, prayed with Jews, Muslims and Pagans, persecuted Catholics, protected pedophiles, etc. If these people are saints, then traditional Catholicism is a moot point. Pretty much anyone in the world can hope to die in a state of grace, be it Wojtyla, Brother Roger or Rabbi Shlomo.
I'm a Traditional Catholic because of and for the sake of Our Lord, not the Pope. At my particular judgement, I will have to answer to Christ, not any of His vicars. Nor am I a traditional Catholic primarily to get to heaven, but out of love for Our Lord; while I'd certainly love to die in a state of grace, ultimately I accept whatever God wills. If He has elected me to manifest his mercy, then
Deo gratias; if He has chosen to pass me over in the end to manifest his justice, then
Deo gratias.
God's glory is the point of traditional Catholicism, and nothing can render that moot. May all the glory be His.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 26, 2022, 07:17:08 PM
The line is: "Fornicator I always was; heretic I never was." :lol:
St. Andrew is one of my favorite martyrs, but most of his life is hardly worthy of emulation. That was my main point.
I'm afraid it's a moot point, though. None of the new saints in question (Roncalli, Montini and Wojtyla) died a martyr's death and all of them can be accused of professing heresies.
QuoteI'm a Traditional Catholic because of and for the sake of Our Lord, not the Pope. At my particular judgement, I will have to answer to Christ, not any of His vicars. Nor am I a traditional Catholic primarily to get to heaven, but out of love for Our Lord; while I'd certainly love to die in a state of grace, ultimately I accept whatever God wills. If He has elected me to manifest his mercy, then Deo gratias; if He has chosen to pass me over in the end to manifest his justice, then Deo gratias.
God's glory is the point of traditional Catholicism, and nothing can render that moot. May all the glory be His.
Those are uplifting thoughts, Justin.
However, I believe they miss the point. Traditional Catholicism exists as a response to Vatican II and its aftermath. It's both a theological, as well as a practical stand from faithful clerics and laymen in the face of the destruction of the Church. If one can be raised to the glory of the altars while adhering to the heresies of the age, then traditional Catholicism is but a senseless chimera.
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 07:31:50 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 26, 2022, 07:17:08 PM
The line is: "Fornicator I always was; heretic I never was." :lol:
St. Andrew is one of my favorite martyrs, but most of his life is hardly worthy of emulation. That was my main point.
I'm afraid it's a moot point, though. None of the new saints in question (Roncalli, Montini and Wojtyla) died a martyr's death and all of them can be accused of professing heresies.
TouchéQuote
However, I believe they miss the point. Traditional Catholicism exists as a response to Vatican II and its aftermath.
And this is where we disagree.
Traditional Catholicism (or, rather, simply Catholicism) exists primarily and essentially because it is the religion founded by Christ Our Lord which has been passed down from the Apostles to the present day. It exists because it is the sole way God has revealed for us to glorify and adore Him as he wills. It does not exist simply as a reactionary movement against Vatican II and its fruits. Traditional Catholicism long preceded the abberations that followed Vatican II, and it will exist long after their demise. Nor does it still exist in the present day as a reaction to Vatican II; rather, it exists because faithful men chose to preserve the traditions that had been handed down to them. They would have done this with or without all the chaos of the last sixty years. Indeed, our duty and calling is constant in every age.
To put it another way, a man like Lefebvre did not see Vatican II happen, and then react; Vatican II happened, and he simply chose to keep doing what he had been from the day he was ordained. Rather, it was this choice to adhere to the traditions of Christ that caused the modernists to react to him. Likewise, the Counter-Reformation was not essentially a reaction to Protestantism, but rather a firm adherence to tradition, and a concerted effort to more faithfully live out the gospel. That was the whole secret of its success.
All the rotten fruits of the last sixty years (or longer) and the necessary, concommitant reactions to them on our part are extrinsic to the essence of traditional Catholicism. Come what may, be it heresies or scandal or even persecution, none of the rotten fruits can harm or render irrelevant what traditional Catholicism
is. All of these things can make the practice of the faith more difficult in our daily life, but they can and will never take away the Mass, or the transmission of tradition, or our ability to serve Our Lord in spirit and truth. Even if we have to celebrate the Holy Mass in hotel lobbies or caves, we will always have the Mass of our forefathers.
No, the transient chimera lies with those who feel compelled to raise to the Altar, regardless of lack of heroic virtue, any one whom they feel can give another few years of life to their dying experiment. I can only pray I live to see the day that the experiment is dead and buried.
^^Indeed, with our without any evil that has to be reacted upon, the consistency of the Tradition of Catholicism has no other choice but to go on because it is the will of God.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 26, 2022, 08:13:37 PM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 07:31:50 PM
However, I believe they miss the point. Traditional Catholicism exists as a response to Vatican II and its aftermath.
And this is where we disagree.
Traditional Catholicism (or, rather, simply Catholicism) exists primarily and essentially because it is the religion founded by Christ Our Lord which has been based down from the Apostle's to the present day. It exists because it is the sole way God has revealed for us to glorify and adore Him as he wills. It does not exist simply as a reactionary movement against Vatican II and its fruits. Traditional Catholicism long preceded the abberations that followed Vatican II, and it will exist long after their demise. Nor does it still exist in the present day as a reaction to Vatican II; rather, it exists because faithful men chose to preserve the traditions that had been handed down to them. They would have done this with or without all the chaos of the last sixty years. Indeed, our duty and calling is constant in every age.
You're conflating the traditional Catholic faith with the traditional Catholic movement. The faith is perennial and does not exist as a reaction to anything. It would've been absurd to suggest it. However, the international movement we know as traditional Catholicism exists because of Vatican II and its aftermath. You knew exactly what I meant before you decided to "disagree."
QuoteAll the rotten fruits of the last sixty years (or longer) and the necessary, concommitant reactions to them on our part are extrinsic to the essence of traditional Catholicism. Come what may, be it heresies or scandal or even persecution, none of the rotten fruits can harm or render irrelevant what traditional Catholicism is. All of these things can make the practice of the faith more difficult in our daily life, but they can and will never take away the Mass, or the transmission of tradition, or our ability to serve Our Lord in spirit and truth. Even if we have to celebrate the Holy Mass in hotel lobbies or caves, we will always have the Mass of our forefathers.
This makes for an excellent read to foster perseverance and encouragement. However, the Catholic Church does not exist independent of the papacy and its magisterium. We may very well keep the faith in the catacombs but it does matter to us in the grand scheme of things whether the magisterium is teaching error or not. The Church and her ministers in their official capacity cannot lead anyone to error.
QuoteNo, the transient chimera lies with those who feel compelled to raise to the Altar, regardless of lack of heroic virtue, any one whom they feel can give another few years of life to their dying experiment. I can only pray I live to see the day that the experiment is dead and buried.
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 26, 2022, 09:06:06 AM
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
There are a few teachings that I am worried about:
1. Slavery. I don't think it is right for a slavemaster to buy and sell his enslaved child slaves at the auction block just as you would buy or sell a pig. But according to what is said here: Slavery is not against the natural law. I don't see that at all.
2. Receiving interest on a loan. Many Catholics have bank accounts and receive interest on their account according to the prevailing interest rate? How many refuse the interest and give back all of the interest received to the bank? However, according to the authoritative Papal Encyclical Vix Pervenit, receiving interest is a sin and you are required to make restitution for any interest that you have received.
3. The New Mass has been promulgated by saintly Popes. But SSPX says that they reject the New Mass and they go so far as to say it could be a sin to attend the New Mass which is a danger to the Catholic faith. Further the SSPX rejects SV and I guess this implies that these saintly Popes have made a very serious mistake.
Quote from: AlNg on June 26, 2022, 11:21:11 PM
There are a few teachings that I am worried about:
1. Slavery. I don't think it is right for a slavemaster to buy and sell his enslaved child slaves at the auction block just as you would buy or sell a pig. But according to what is said here: Slavery is not against the natural law. I don't see that at all.
2. Receiving interest on a loan. Many Catholics have bank accounts and receive interest on their account according to the prevailing interest rate? How many refuse the interest and give back all of the interest received to the bank? However, according to the authoritative Papal Encyclical Vix Pervenit, receiving interest is a sin and you are required to make restitution for any interest that you have received.
3. The New Mass has been promulgated by saintly Popes. But SSPX says that they reject the New Mass and they go so far as to say it could be a sin to attend the New Mass which is a danger to the Catholic faith. Further the SSPX rejects SV and I guess this implies that these saintly Popes have made a very serious mistake.
1. Since slavery was allowed under the Mosaic Law, you might as well condemn the religion of the Israelites! Ethical Aspect of Slavery (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm)
2. The aspect of usury is a most complicated matter and simplifying it to only receiving interest on a loan is most naive! And the specific loan in question is a that of a mutuum, or in our terms, a full recourse loan. I find this FAQ most helpful: Usury FAQ, or, money on the Pill (https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/)
3. I dispute many things after Vatican II, especially that Paul VI was saintly! At the same time, I'm not a sedevacantist. There is a lot of confusion, but nothing that impugns Papal infallibility!
QuoteNot sure where you get the year as 1873, your above quote is from Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559, not 1873.
From the OP. We are debating THAT definition of indefectibility, which dates from 1873.
My example (Pope Paul IV, 1559) shows that using this definition results in a contradiction.
QuoteIf one can be raised to the glory of the altars while adhering to the heresies of the age, then traditional Catholicism is but a senseless chimera.
If we ever get rock solid confirmation that Wojtyla is a saint, I'm going out with a coke fueled rave involving a bunch of Russian professionals. Won't be as bad as what Wojtyla did, so I'd still make it and might even be named a saint.
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 07:27:18 AM
2. The aspect of usury is a most complicated matter and simplifying it to only receiving interest on a loan is most naive!
The quote is from an authoritative papal encyclical.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 26, 2022, 09:06:06 AM
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
There is the question of torture. Pope Innocent IV allowed it, but present theologians say it is against human dignity and should not be allowed.
And capital punishment.
Quote from: AlNg on June 27, 2022, 09:55:49 AM
There is the question of torture. Pope Innocent IV allowed it, but present theologians say it is against human dignity and should not be allowed.
And capital punishment.
You're a Vatican II Catholic, aren't you? You believe that Vatican II corrected all the traditional theology to be more in line with modern times! Well sorry to hurt your feelings, but Catholic truth is above all that, even the ramblings of modern theologians!
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 09:58:57 AM
You're a Vatican II Catholic, aren't you?
Vix pervenit was before Vatican II and it says that if you receive interest you must make restitution. Do you have a bank account? Do you return all of the interest received on your account to the bank? Do you believe that it is a sin to receive interest on the money in your bank account?
Quote from: AlNg on June 27, 2022, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 26, 2022, 09:06:06 AM
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
There is the question of torture. Pope Innocent IV allowed it, but present theologians say it is against human dignity and should not be allowed.
And capital punishment.
The real issue is actually the prior condemnation by Nicholas I in his Apostolic Letter to the Bulgarians. The modern condemnations are ambiguous and can be read in line with Innocent IV, but not so with Nicholas I
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 10:58:04 AM
Quote from: AlNg on June 27, 2022, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 26, 2022, 09:06:06 AM
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
There is the question of torture. Pope Innocent IV allowed it, but present theologians say it is against human dignity and should not be allowed.
And capital punishment.
The real issue is actually the prior condemnation by Nicholas I in his Apostolic Letter to the Bulgarians. The modern condemnations are ambiguous and can be read in line with Innocent IV, but not so with Nicholas I
Can you post please, JM? First time I'm hearing this, although I recall reading something close to it in a secondary source.
Thanks.
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:08:14 PM
You're conflating the traditional Catholic faith with the traditional Catholic movement. The faith is perennial and does not exist as a reaction to anything. It would've been absurd to suggest it. However, the international movement we know as traditional Catholicism exists because of Vatican II and its aftermath. You knew exactly what I meant before you decided to "disagree."
The two ought not to be distinct. For the sake of argument, taking for granted that they are, this is still false. Men like +De Castro Mayer and Lefebvre didn't hold fast to the traditional teaching and liturgy of the Church because of Vatican II. Rather, they did it because they were the traditional teachings and liturgy of the Church, which is reason enough to hold fast to them. Faithfulness to tradition and to the greater glory of God were the genesis and purpose of traditional Catholicism as a movement.
I will agree that
today large swathes of the traditional Catholic movement seem to base its existence on reacting to whatever the newest scandal is coming out of Rome and to continue to react to Vatican II. Whether or not this shift is a good thing is a question for another time.
QuoteThis makes for an excellent read to foster perseverance and encouragement. However, the Catholic Church does not exist independent of the papacy and its magisterium. We may very well keep the faith in the catacombs but it does matter to us in the grand scheme of things whether the magisterium is teaching error or not. The Church and her ministers in their official capacity cannot lead anyone to error.
Of course it matters. My point was that it is not what is most important. Faithfulness to Christ and His Doctrine is.
Quote
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Amen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) The body most commonly known and regarded as the Catholic Church is not actually the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (
Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
Found a source: "In the year 866, however, Pope Nicholas I adopted a different angle in his letter to the newly converted Bulgarian Christians. Nicholas urges the neophytes to promote life both of body and soul, and to "rescue from death not only the innocent, but also the guilty." [29] As grounds for his argument, Nicholas appeals to the example of Christ, who had saved the Bulgarians from their imprisonment to death and brought them to eternal life. [30]"
From: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/capital-punishment-and-the-just-society.html
Interestingly, Pope St. Nicholas I is both a Saint, and one of only three traditional Popes of the First Millenium to be called "The Great" (after Pope St. Leo the Great) and (Pope St. Gregory the Great).
So much for the argument of QMR and others that the death penalty issue is "game over" for trads and the Catholic Church. I am astonished that a Saintly Sovereign Pontiff of the First Millenium gives grounds for a reasonable belief that Capital Punishment can legitimately be done away with by the state, because of the example of Christ.
Frankly, I myself, while always rejecting the argument of "the game-over" ers (Quare, Pon etc), based solely on faith in the Divine Promise, was not entirely sure how to reconcile the death penalty issue with Tradition. The CE article is a start, at least.
Another argument I've heard is based on Christ saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (Jn 8:7). By this statement, advocates of this argument say, Christ said only a sinless person can use the death penalty, namely He Himself, or His Mother. But since none of us are without sin, as per St. John, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 Jn 1:8 ), then an argument can be made, in the New Covenant, that Christ was saying the death penalty was practically unnecessary. Another argument for the death penalty is based on Genesis 9:6 "6Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed". But since Christ's Blood was shed for all, even the most guilty, in the New Covenant, does this still apply? I know many will perhaps disagree with me here, and that's ok. But based on these considerations and texts, and the First Millenial Teaching of Pope St. Nicholas I the Great, one of the arguments for defection fails.
Quote from: AlNg on June 27, 2022, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 09:58:57 AM
You're a Vatican II Catholic, aren't you?
Vix pervenit was before Vatican II and it says that if you receive interest you must make restitution. Do you have a bank account? Do you return all of the interest received on your account to the bank? Do you believe that it is a sin to receive interest on the money in your bank account?
Total nonsense using Vix Pervenit for a bank account! It's interest on a full recourse loan that constitutes usury, not opening a bank account! That's ludicrous! Good job, not even reading the link I ave you, instead spouting off nonsense like this!
Quote from: Xavier on June 27, 2022, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 10:58:04 AM
Quote from: AlNg on June 27, 2022, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 26, 2022, 09:06:06 AM
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
There is the question of torture. Pope Innocent IV allowed it, but present theologians say it is against human dignity and should not be allowed.
And capital punishment.
The real issue is actually the prior condemnation by Nicholas I in his Apostolic Letter to the Bulgarians. The modern condemnations are ambiguous and can be read in line with Innocent IV, but not so with Nicholas I
Can you post please, JM? First time I'm hearing this, although I recall reading something close to it in a secondary source.
Thanks.
Quote from: Pope Nicholas I, Apostolic Letter to the Bulgarians
If a thief or a robber is apprehended and denies that he is involved, you say that in your country the judge would beat his head with lashes and prick his sides with iron goads until he came up with the truth. Neither divine nor human law allows this practice in any way, since a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather proferred voluntarily. But if it just so happens that you find nothing at all which casts the crime upon the one who has suffered, aren't you ashamed and don't you recognize how impiously you judge? Likewise, if the accused man, after suffering, says that he committed what he did not commit because he is unable to bear such [torture], upon whom, I ask you, will the magnitude of so great an impiety fall if not upon the person who compelled this man to confess these things falsely? Indeed, the person who utters from his mouth what he does not hold in his heart is known not to confess but to speak.[cf. Mt. 12:34] Therefore leave such practices behind and heartily curse the things which you have hitherto done foolishly. Indeed, what fruit shall you have in those practices, of which you are now ashamed. Finally when a free man is caught in a crime, unless he is first found guilty of some wicked deed, he either falls victim to the punishment after being convicted by three witnesses or, if he cannot be convicted, he is absolved after swearing upon the holy Gospel that he did not commit [the crime] which is laid against him, and from that moment on the matter is at an end, just as the oft-mentioned Apostle, the teacher of the nations, attests, when he says: an oath for confirmation is an end of all their strife.[Heb. 6:16]
Quote from: Pope Innocent IV, Ad Extirpanda
The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.
Fr. Brian Harrison has a very scholarly examination of this topic you should be able to find online, if you're interested in the topic. He resolved this particular issue to my satisfaction.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
Quote
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Amen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) What is apparently the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
Of course, there's another possibility: Francis isn't Pope, and Benedict is still the Pope! But nah, that's too absurd, for some people. ::) That's all I'll say on this matter. I won't answer any replies, since this is a minefield I do not care to trip.
Thanks, JM.
Here, from a practical perspective, is proof that the Catholic Church has not defected but is living and alive. She lives in the Good and Faithful Lay Catholics who fight and fought, in prayer and sacrifices, in tireless vigils, in Holy Hours and Eucharistic Adoration, to overturn abortion-killing. She lives in the Good Bishops who condemned abortion. And I love how Evangelical Christians, seeing the good role the Catholic Church has played in the the abolition of abortion, begin to fall in love with Her, the Bride of Christ.
https://twitter.com/CatholicMe/status/1541157336202391552?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWNKYOGVsAAbDBx?format=jpg&name=900x900)
And for those who think Ecumenism is a reason the Church has defected, true and proper Catholic Ecumenism has pre-V2 roots. CE Article, Re-Union of Christendom: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
QuoteThe Catholic Church is by far the largest, the most widespread, and the most ancient of Christian communions in the world, and is moreover the mighty trunk from which the other communions claiming to be Christian have broken off at one time or another. If, then, we limit the application of the term Christendom to this, its most authentic expression, the unity of Christendom is not a lost ideal to be recovered, but a stupendous reality which has always been in stable possession. For not only has this Catholic Church ever taught that unity is an essential note of the true Church of Christ, but throughout her long history she has been, to the amazement of the world, distinguished by the most conspicuous unity of faith and government, and this notwithstanding that she has at all times embraced within her fold nationalities of the most different temperaments, and has had to contend with incessant oscillations of mental speculation and political power. Still, in another and broader sense of the term, which is also the more usual and is followed in the present article, Christendom includes not merely the Catholic Church, but, together with it, the many other religious communions which have either directly or indirectly, separated from it, and yet, although in conflict both with it and among themselves as to various points of doctrine and practice agree with it in this: that they look up to our Lord Jesus Christ as the Founder of their Faith, and claim to make His teaching the rule of their lives. As these separated communities when massed together, indeed in some cases even of themselves, count a vast number of souls, among whom many are conspicuous for their religious earnestness, this extension of the term Christendom to include them all has its solid justification. On the other hand, if it is accepted, it becomes no longer possible to speak of the unity of Christendom but rather of a Christendom torn by divisions and offering the saddest spectacle to the eyes. And then the question arises: Is this scandal always to continue? The Holy See has never tired of appealing in season and out of season for its removal but without meeting with much response from a world which had learnt to live contentedly within its sectarian enclosures. Happily a new spirit has lately come over these dissentient Christians, numbers of whom are becoming keenly sensitive to the paralyzing effects of division and an active reunion movement has arisen which, If far from being as widespread and solid as one could wish, is at least cherished on all sides by devout minds ...
Still, though the prospects of corporate reunion appear discouraging, Catholics may well show themselves appreciative and sympathetic towards the efforts of those of other communions who are captivated by the splendid ideal and think that under one form or another it is capable of realization. We may safely leave to the Providence of God to determine what course the present reunion movement shall ultimately take, and meanwhile we may emphasize the substantial point that Catholics and other reunionists have in common: their mutual desire to see the barriers that separate them removed. They can co-operate, too, in working for the good cause in useful ways without any surrender of their own principles. For they can cultivate friendly personal relations, to the formation of which it will greatly contribute if they can work together for objects, social or otherwise, as to the value of which they are agreed. There is a special value in the personal friendships thus formed, for they tend to dissolve the obstacles which come from sheer misunderstandings and the animosities that these engender. And they can further co-operate for the removal of these same obstacles by positive efforts to understand one another correctly, particularly by the others seeking and the Catholics, if they are competent, showing a readiness to give simple explanations of the true character of their beliefs and practices.
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
Quote
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Amen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) What is apparently the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
Of course, there's another possibility: Francis isn't Pope, and Benedict is still the Pope! But nah, that's too absurd, for some people. ::) That's all I'll say on this matter. I won't answer any replies, since this is a minefield I do not care to trip.
Benedict being the Pope has all the weaknesses of sedevacantism with none of its strengths. In alot of ways he is worse than Francis. That's why its absurd.
Plus that's covered under option a, since if Benedict is the Pope the sect in communion with Francis is not the Church. You would still have to go find the Catholic Church elsewhere, in this case among those who are in open communion with Benedict.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
"d", really?? That's certainly thinking outside the box :lol:
I suppose it has a certain appeal as the most bold and improbable of the explanations.
AINg
Quotehere are a few teachings that I am worried about:
1. Slavery. I don't think it is right for a slavemaster to buy and sell his enslaved child slaves at the auction block just as you would buy or sell a pig. But according to what is said here: Slavery is not against the natural law. I don't see that at all.
2. Receiving interest on a loan. Many Catholics have bank accounts and receive interest on their account according to the prevailing interest rate? How many refuse the interest and give back all of the interest received to the bank? However, according to the authoritative Papal Encyclical Vix Pervenit, receiving interest is a sin and you are required to make restitution for any interest that you have received.
3. The New Mass has been promulgated by saintly Popes. But SSPX says that they reject the New Mass and they go so far as to say it could be a sin to attend the New Mass which is a danger to the Catholic faith. Further the SSPX rejects SV and I guess this implies that these saintly Popes have made a very serious mistake.
My observation is this: If you are not ready to accept the teaching of the magisterium of the past, because it does not accord with your views on the above subjects; then why are you concerned about the magisterium of the present? If the Church's magisterium can teach error and lead souls into perdition, then what does it matter what it teaches? You accept the New Mass because of what principle? You hold that the Popes of the Council are saints, because the present Pope has canonized them; but that is based on the teaching that Canonizations are infallible; do you accept this teaching? If so, why?
On the SSPX; they hold that the N.O.M. Is indeed harmful for souls and that the Conciliar Popes are not saintly, but on the contrary taught harmful errors and promulgated harmful discipline. I agree that their position is irreconcilable with the traditional Ecclesiology; but again, why would you care what the traditional Ecclesiology holds?
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 02:27:46 PM
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
Quote
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Amen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) What is apparently the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
Of course, there's another possibility: Francis isn't Pope, and Benedict is still the Pope! But nah, that's too absurd, for some people. ::) That's all I'll say on this matter. I won't answer any replies, since this is a minefield I do not care to trip.
Benedict being the Pope has all the weaknesses of sedevacantism with none of its strengths. In alot of ways he is worse than Francis. That's why its absurd.
Plus that's covered under option a, since if Benedict is the Pope the sect in communion with Francis is not the Church. You would still have to go find the Catholic Church elsewhere, in this case among those who are in open communion with Benedict.
I'll just say this much: even under the 3 Popes schism, none of the people who believed any one of the 2 anti-Popes as the true Pope in good faith were outside the Church. St. Vincent Ferrer is the prime example. And the situation is more complicated than you make it out to be. It's easy to make harsh judgments on Pope Benedict without knowing the other side of the story! As for believing Benedict is still the Pope, there are a lot of good arguments, IMHO, but I'm not going to argue them here. I just find your observation of Pope Benedict being worse than Francis plain absurd! Especially with Francis accepting awards from the B'nai B'rith, and all his nonsense!
Xavier,
QuoteSo much for the argument of QMR and others that the death penalty issue is "game over" for trads and the Catholic Church. I am astonished that a Saintly Sovereign Pontiff of the First Millenium gives grounds for a reasonable belief that Capital Punishment can legitimately be done away with by the state, because of the example of Christ.
One thing is the reduction of cases where Capital punishment should be applied; and the Church has been historically in favor of the softening of the harsh penal laws inherited from the Roman Law.
A second thing is the declaration:
Quote2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person"[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide".
Well in the "light of the Gospel", Our Lord never condemned the death penalty; and in the Old Testament God positively commanded it. How can God command something that is "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person"?
How could the Church have taught that the death penalty was licit and not against the law of God until 2018? Then after 2018 it is? Game over, for the Conciliar Church, that is.
Ref. "Ecumenism"; if you have adopted the SSPX position vis-a-vis the Conciliar Church; you might be interested in one of the studies done on this topic by the SSPX entitled: "From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy" a short excerpt of the work can be read here: https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/from_ecumenism_to_silent_apostasy_0.pdf
The title is a pretty good resume of the book.
Quote from: Padraig on June 27, 2022, 03:32:36 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
"d", really?? That's certainly thinking outside the box :lol:
I suppose it has a certain appeal as the most bold and improbable of the explanations.
The main appeal is that it was promulgated as papal teaching, albeit low level. It is certainly extravagant :lol:
There is some debate over how to interpret this portion of
Dictatus Papæ 23, due to ambiguity in the Latin (
sanctus can mean either Holy or a Saint). Of course, if it teaches that the Pope is undoubtedly made holy rather than just made a saint, that is even less conformable to observable reality, especially at the time it was promulgated (it was within living memory of the
Sæculum Obscurum and the pontificate(s) of Benedict IX).
Currently the two plausible interpretations I'm mulling over are:
That all Popes become saints
or
That all Popes who die in a state of grace have their purgatory time remitted on account of the merits of St. Peter.
The former is how it sounds at face value, while the latter would make more sense.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the decree of Pope St. Symmachus or the teaching of St. Ennodius that
Dictatus Papæ references as support for this bold claim. The whole document is in fact incredibly bold, full of stuff like "Princes may kiss the Pope's slippers alone". The Gregorian Reforms were quite the interesting era.
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 03:47:28 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 02:27:46 PM
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
Quote
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Amen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) What is apparently the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
Of course, there's another possibility: Francis isn't Pope, and Benedict is still the Pope! But nah, that's too absurd, for some people. ::) That's all I'll say on this matter. I won't answer any replies, since this is a minefield I do not care to trip.
Benedict being the Pope has all the weaknesses of sedevacantism with none of its strengths. In alot of ways he is worse than Francis. That's why its absurd.
Plus that's covered under option a, since if Benedict is the Pope the sect in communion with Francis is not the Church. You would still have to go find the Catholic Church elsewhere, in this case among those who are in open communion with Benedict.
I'll just say this much: even under the 3 Popes schism, none of the people who believed any one of the 2 anti-Popes as the true Pope in good faith were outside the Church. St. Vincent Ferrer is the prime example.
During the Great Western Schism, both obediences (and toward the end, all three) considered the other a schismatic false sect, and even waged Holy Wars against each other. That's not to say the vast majority of people were personally culpable of the sin of schism (they weren't), but the obedience of Avignon and those under it were in a state of objective schism and were not visible members of the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 04:13:05 PM
During the Great Western Schism, both obediences (and toward the end, all three) considered the other a schismatic false sect, and even waged Holy Wars against each other. That's not to say the vast majority of people were personally culpable of the sin of schism (they weren't), but the obedience of Avignon and those under it were in a state of objective schism and were not visible members of the Catholic Church.
That's a no-brainer: that the hierarchy is more culpable in instigating schism. I'm focussing on the laity mainly since we don't know the inside stories as it occurs. We can only judge correctly after all is said and done. In the middle of things, especially a great apostasy and confusion, like now, the truth is very blurry. All we can do is stick to the dogmas and pray and continue living the Catholic Faith, while we may disagree on the cause of the confusion and apostasy.
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 04:50:59 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 04:13:05 PM
During the Great Western Schism, both obediences (and toward the end, all three) considered the other a schismatic false sect, and even waged Holy Wars against each other. That's not to say the vast majority of people were personally culpable of the sin of schism (they weren't), but the obedience of Avignon and those under it were in a state of objective schism and were not visible members of the Catholic Church.
That's a no-brainer: that the hierarchy is more culpable in instigating schism. I'm focussing on the laity mainly since we don't know the inside stories as it occurs. We can only judge correctly after all is said and done. In the middle of things, especially a great apostasy and confusion, like now, the truth is very blurry. All we can do is stick to the dogmas and pray and continue living the Catholic Faith, while we may disagree on the cause of the confusion and apostasy.
Amen.
Quote from: Paul_D on June 27, 2022, 03:47:28 PM
I'll just say this much: even under the 3 Popes schism, none of the people who believed any one of the 2 anti-Popes as the true Pope in good faith were outside the Church. St. Vincent Ferrer is the prime example.
I fully agree with this fact.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 26, 2022, 09:08:14 PM
The Catholic Church cannot raise heretics to the Altar.
Amen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) The body most commonly known and regarded as the Catholic Church is not actually the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
Let's see.
Option
a) (meaning Sedevacantism or the Cassiaciacum thesis) can be deemed highly probable in light of Vatican II and these past 60 years;
Option
b) can only be defended by an insane amount of gaslighting;
Option
c) is contrary to Catholic doctrine;
Option
d) can only be reasonably interpreted, and I'll use your words, as teaching that "all Popes who die in a state of grace have their purgatory time remitted on account of the merits of St. Peter."
Option
b) however is the only option remaining for those who swore fidelity to the Conciliar Church. These new saints are indeed a necessity for the Vatican: they need the divine stamp of approval in order to canonize the new religion in the eyes of the faithful. The transformation thus is complete.
"For it is not a matter merely of collecting and spreading the council's teachings, but of transforming oneself into the image of the conciliar Church [l'Eglise conciliaire], renewed in its prayer, in the expression of its faith and hope and in the clarity of its dialogue with all Christians and all men. In that way, each Catholic will be able to help his brother believe in Christ and recognize Him in His Church." (Saint Paul VI).
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 28, 2022, 11:34:26 AM
"For it is not a matter merely of collecting and spreading the council's teachings, but of transforming oneself into the image of the conciliar Church [l'Eglise conciliaire], renewed in its prayer, in the expression of its faith and hope and in the clarity of its dialogue with all Christians and all men. In that way, each Catholic will be able to help his brother believe in Christ and recognize Him in His Church." (Saint Paul VI).
Do you have a source for this so I can read the whole context? This quote is alarming to say the least.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 28, 2022, 01:37:01 PM
Quote from: Goldfinch on June 28, 2022, 11:34:26 AM
"For it is not a matter merely of collecting and spreading the council's teachings, but of transforming oneself into the image of the conciliar Church [l'Eglise conciliaire], renewed in its prayer, in the expression of its faith and hope and in the clarity of its dialogue with all Christians and all men. In that way, each Catholic will be able to help his brother believe in Christ and recognize Him in His Church." (Saint Paul VI).
Do you have a source for this so I can read the whole context? This quote is alarming to say the least.
Discours du Pape Paul VI aux Membres du Comité Permament des Congrès Internationaux pour L'Apostolat des Laïcs (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/fr/speeches/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19660308_apostolato-laici.html) (
Address to Members of the Permanent Committee of the International Congresses for the Apostolate of the Laity), March 8th, 1966.
Quote from: AlNg on June 26, 2022, 11:21:11 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 26, 2022, 09:06:06 AM
AINg,
why is it important for you that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility should be overturned?
There are a few teachings that I am worried about:
1. Slavery. I don?t think it is right for a slavemaster to buy and sell his enslaved child slaves at the auction block just as you would buy or sell a pig. But according to what is said here: Slavery is not against the natural law. I don?t see that at all.
2. Receiving interest on a loan. Many Catholics have bank accounts and receive interest on their account according to the prevailing interest rate? How many refuse the interest and give back all of the interest received to the bank? However, according to the authoritative Papal Encyclical Vix Pervenit, receiving interest is a sin and you are required to make restitution for any interest that you have received.
3. The New Mass has been promulgated by saintly Popes. But SSPX says that they reject the New Mass and they go so far as to say it could be a sin to attend the New Mass which is a danger to the Catholic faith. Further the SSPX rejects SV and I guess this implies that these saintly Popes have made a very serious mistake.
To possess the supernatural virtue of faith requires one to
not doubt any doctrine of the Church that's been definitively taught. I think you should pray for the grace of faith.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 04:13:05 PM
During the Great Western Schism, both obediences (and toward the end, all three) considered the other a schismatic false sect, and even waged Holy Wars against each other. That's not to say the vast majority of people were personally culpable of the sin of schism (they weren't), but the obedience of Avignon and those under it were in a state of objective schism and were not visible members of the Catholic Church.
Based on what I've read so far concerning that period, theologians seemed to be pretty unanimous in
including those under the Avignon allegiance as
fellow members of the Mystical Body.
QuoteAmen.
However, the Church has raised John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II to the Altar. That is the whole dilemma. The solutions to this dilemma are:
a) The body most commonly known and regarded as the Catholic Church is not actually the Catholic Church, and it can instead be found among the Sedevacantists, or perhaps one of the schismatic sects of the east (absurd as this part sounds, many trads have turned to Photianism in the past)
b) These men were not heretics, despite arguments to the contrary.
c) Traditional doctrine on the infallibility of canonizations is false.
d) "...the Roman pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter..." (Dictatus Papae 23.)
d) is the teaching of the Church, so I pick d). If accepting this teaching of Pope Paschal II makes me insufficiently "traditional", then so be it.
A somewhat modified "A", the common denominator in this dilemma is Bergoglio, who has been called out for heresy by a cardinal, arch bishop, bishop, and theologians. Which means he is not Catholic and not the pope. I call this the neo-sede position.
And I'll add "E": Pope Benedict is still the pope. So all acts done by false pope Bergoglio are null and void.
James, what would you pick if the year was 2012 and Ratzinger was still pope? By that time, John XXIII and JPII had been beatified. While not as binding to the universal Church as a canonization, it was still a papal act distinguishing these men as examples of virtue.
James,
Benedict XVI when he was a theologian published "a book full of heresies" (Bishop Tissier); that would make him a "public heretic", and therefore not a Catholic or member of the Church (Pius XII, M.C.); so how could he become the Pope?
Here is the interview with Stephen Heiner in "The Remnant": https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm
Quote SH: Well, that's all my questions, my lord. Now, when I type this I want to make sure all my quotes are accurate, so I will send you a transcript before you go to Veneta...
HL: No, no, these questions, you have not addressed the essential things – I appreciate your questions but you did not touch anything essential in your questions.
SH: What more, My Lord?
HL: Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.
SH: When you say "has professed," do you mean he still does?
HL: No, but he has never retracted his errors.
SH: But My Lord, if he has not retracted them, does he not still retain them? Of what are you speaking? Can you be more specific? I must admit I am no theologian and I have not read any of his works. Was this when he was a cardinal?
HL: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.
SH: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
HL: Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.
SH: In what sense, My Lord?
HL: He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins, did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ's atonement of sins.
SH: Ah, I'm not sure I understand...
HL: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.
SH: This sounds like Luther.
HL: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice...the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.
SH: My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
HL: No. But he has never retracted these statements.
SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was "suspicious," "questionable," "favoring heresy"?
HL: No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects "an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction...some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love" (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).
SH: What other heresies, My Lord?
HL: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation...
SH: This cannot be true...
HL: It is very true. He re-reads, re-interprets all the dogmas of the Church. This is it. This is what he calls the "hermeneutic" in his discourse of 22 December 2005.
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the "living tradition..." It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights...
HL: Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.
SH: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist...
HL: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope...
SH: But these are strong words...
HL: Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: "in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power." He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 12:23:15 PM
Fr. Brian Harrison has a very scholarly examination of this topic you should be able to find online, if you're interested in the topic. He resolved this particular issue to my satisfaction.
I love Fr. Harrison so much. Hung out with him at a Catholic Identity Conference one year. He was very close to Fr. Malachi Martin, btw. He is a national treasure, on so many levels.
Quotethat would make him a "public heretic", and therefore not a Catholic or member of the Church
That's the dispute. The neo-sede position is that two public warnings are required in order to be considered a manifest heretic. There's no dispute over Bergoglio when it comes to sede's.
My personal opinion is that Pope Benedict is still the Pope, due to the Fatima prophesy, which also says after him is an anti-Pope. It also says Pope Benedict will reveal the secret. (Note this is not from Sr. Lucia, but from the Fatima priests). So if Pope Benedict dies and doesn't release the secret, I'll be a neo-sede. And I consider that possible.
QuoteThat's the dispute. The neo-sede position is that two public warnings are required in order to be considered a manifest heretic. There's no dispute over Bergoglio when it comes to sede's.
The "two public warnings" is only necessary in the case that the person was unaware of what the Catholic teaching on the matter was; but as the above quote shows, Fr. Ratzinger was not only aware of the Catholic teaching of Our Lord's vicarious attonement:
Quote"an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction...
He expressly rejects the Catholic teaching.
That public heretics can still be actual members of the Church, would destroy the visible unity of the Church, making it impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 09:10:46 AM
That public heretics can still be actual members of the Church, would destroy the visible unity of the Church, making it impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't.
You really should not post such a thing Michael, it is exactly as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said in your previous post:
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 08:30:09 AM
HL: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.....
SH: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist...
HL: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope...
SH: But these are strong words...
HL: Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: "in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power." He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.
Unless you know them personally, see them at Mass or ask them, it's always been impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't - the whole world could not tell that Jesus was God Himself.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 09:10:46 AM
That public heretics can still be actual members of the Church, would destroy the visible unity of the Church, making it impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't.
Yes, that's one opinion. But Bishop Tissier de Mallerais -- who in many ways is the true founder of the SSPX -- says the opposite. He says that Ratzinger is BOTH a notorious heretic and the pope.
Quote from: truly-a-philosofan on June 29, 2022, 05:36:26 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 27, 2022, 04:13:05 PM
During the Great Western Schism, both obediences (and toward the end, all three) considered the other a schismatic false sect, and even waged Holy Wars against each other. That's not to say the vast majority of people were personally culpable of the sin of schism (they weren't), but the obedience of Avignon and those under it were in a state of objective schism and were not visible members of the Catholic Church.
Based on what I've read so far concerning that period, theologians seemed to be pretty unanimous in including those under the Avignon allegiance as members of the Mystical Body.
This was certainly the case among latter ages. I was speaking to how Catholics treated it at the time. Holy Wars in Flanders and mutual excommunications galore.
The Council of Pisa, for example, declared all the other claimants heretics and heads of false sects. Not exactly the Irenicism of 19th century historians
Quote from: Maximilian on June 29, 2022, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 09:10:46 AM
That public heretics can still be actual members of the Church, would destroy the visible unity of the Church, making it impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't.
Yes, that's one opinion. But Bishop Tissier de Mallerais -- who in many ways is the true founder of the SSPX -- says the opposite. He says that Ratzinger is BOTH a notorious heretic and the pope.
I don't know how Msgr. Tissier can hold this in opposition to Catholic doctrine, expressed most clearly by Pius XII in Mistici Corporis:
QuoteBut it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body." 15 Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
The Church is a "visible" body, composed of members who are united professing the same faith; practicing the same worship and being subject to the same authority.
Those who do not confess the true faith are not to be considered members of the Church (Ibid)
Quote22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." 17 As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Bishop Tissier makes a reference to "supplied jurisdiction":
QuoteHL: Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: "in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power." He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.
But a man who is given "supplied jurisdiction", means that he does not possess ordinary jurisdiction. For example, in case of emergency, a non-Catholic priest can administer the Sacrament of Penance, even though he does not possess ordinary jurisdiction. The same way as these putative Popes can receive supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church and for souls, as for example the appointing of bishops to residential Sees and Cardinal electors. But this does not constitute them as Popes; no more than the non-Catholic minister would somehow become a Catholic one.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 01:10:28 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on June 29, 2022, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 09:10:46 AM
That public heretics can still be actual members of the Church, would destroy the visible unity of the Church, making it impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't.
Yes, that's one opinion. But Bishop Tissier de Mallerais -- who in many ways is the true founder of the SSPX -- says the opposite. He says that Ratzinger is BOTH a notorious heretic and the pope.
I don't know how Msgr. Tissier can hold this in opposition to Catholic doctrine, expressed most clearly by Pius XII in Mistici Corporis:
QuoteBut it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body." 15 Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
The Church is a "visible" body, composed of members who are united professing the same faith; practicing the same worship and being subject to the same authority.
Those who do not confess the true faith are not to be considered members of the Church (Ibid)
Quote22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." 17 As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Bishop Tissier makes a reference to "supplied jurisdiction":
QuoteHL: Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: "in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power." He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.
But a man who is given "supplied jurisdiction", means that he does not possess ordinary jurisdiction. For example, in case of emergency, a non-Catholic priest can administer the Sacrament of Penance, even though he does not possess ordinary jurisdiction. The same way as these putative Popes can receive supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church and for souls, as for example the appointing of bishops to residential Sees and Cardinal electors. But this does not constitute them as Popes; no more than the non-Catholic minister would somehow become a Catholic one.
Sounds to me like Bishop Tissier holds to the opinion of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, that a heretical Pope remains a secondary moral head.
Stubb,
QuoteUnless you know them personally, see them at Mass or ask them, it's always been impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't - the whole world could not tell that Jesus was God Himself.
Even then we would not know, for what if they did not want to tell us that they were Catholic? Or what if they were really heretics and told us that they were Catholics? How could anyone tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't?
The Church has already stated on various occasions that only those who are baptized, confess the true faith and have not separated themselves from legitimate authority are to be considered members of the Church; here is the Catechism of St. Pius X:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
Quote8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
There is no mention of asking people what they think or any other subjective criteria.
The Church is a visible society composed of men who are 1. Baptized; therefore anyone who isn't baptized isn't a member of the Church. 2. Confess the True faith; therefore anyone who does not confess the true faith, is not a member of the Church.
3. Acknowledge and obey the Pope and the lawful pastors. Therefore anyone who does not acknowledge the Pope and true pastors of the Church is not a member of the Church.
J.M.
QuoteSounds to me like Bishop Tissier holds to the opinion of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, that a heretical Pope remains a secondary moral head.
He doesn't spell out the basis of his opinion as far as I know.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 01:20:14 PM
Stubb,
QuoteUnless you know them personally, see them at Mass or ask them, it's always been impossible to tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't - the whole world could not tell that Jesus was God Himself.
Even then we would not know, for what if they did not want to tell us that they were Catholic? Or what if they were really heretics and told us that they were Catholics? How could anyone tell who was a Catholic and who wasn't?
The Church has already stated on various occasions that only those who are baptized, confess the true faith and have not separated themselves from legitimate authority are to be considered members of the Church; here is the Catechism of St. Pius X:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
Quote8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
There is no mention of asking people what they think or any other subjective criteria.
The Church is a visible society composed of men who are 1. Baptized; therefore anyone who isn't baptized isn't a member of the Church. 2. Confess the True faith; therefore anyone who does not confess the true faith, is not a member of the Church.
3. Acknowledge and obey the Pope and the lawful pastors. Therefore anyone who does not acknowledge the Pope and true pastors of the Church is not a member of the Church.
Yes, the catechism explains very clearly what a member of the Church is Michael.
What the catechism does not teach, is that same Catholic is no longer a Catholic should they fall into the sin of heresy and no longer "believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, or participate in the same Sacraments, or acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church." The catechism is not saying that.
Trent's catechsm teaches:
"Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted". Although they belong to her only as deserters, the catechism says they still belong to her - in spite of themselves, and in spite perhaps of their trying to get out of it.
Stubb,
You have the Catechism of The Council of Trent contradicting Pope Pius X and Pius XII (according to your interpretation); which they don't. Maybe you have to re-think your position
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 29, 2022, 05:02:37 PM
Stubb,
You have the Catechism of The Council of Trent contradicting Pope Pius X and Pius XII (according to your interpretation); which they don't. Maybe you have to re-think your position
There is only harmony Michael, no contradiction, no interpretation, just reading what it is that is being taught.
The Catholic that the Catechism of St. Pius X teaches about in your quotes, is that same Catholic that fell into mortal sin that Trent's catechism teaches about. Trent's catechism is speaking specifically about members of the Church (the same members of St. Pius X's catechism), who fell into the mortal sins of schism and heresy.
As is the case with all Catholics, if the Catholics of both Trent's and St. Pius X's catechism want to be absolved of their sins of heresy and schism while they're still living, all they need to do is the same thing every other penitent member of the Church does, which is go to confession, a privilege enjoyed only by members of the Church. The Church has never taught otherwise.
It is because both catechisms' subject matter is specifically about Catholics that we know that neither catechism is referring to prots, jews etc. or all those heretics who never were Catholic, there is no contradiction whatsoever.
As is most often the case, the apparent contradiction only occurs when their clear teachings are "interpreted" in order to conclude that they mean something other than what they actually teach.
In the process of reading the posts I sense the truth of, "Thy Will be done." During the time that Jesus was preaching and before He ascended to Heaven, He never said to be rebellious against any of the Church authority. I agree with you Stubborn. Are you are Priest? If I may ask.
Quote from: Julio on June 30, 2022, 02:33:41 PM
In the process of reading the posts I sense the truth of, "Thy Will be done." During the time that Jesus was preaching and before He ascended to Heaven, He never said to be rebellious against any of the Church authority. I agree with you Stubborn. Are you are Priest? If I may ask.
Ha! No, I am not a priest, just a wretched sinner who loves his faith like everyone else here. And you're right, we believe that Our Lord established the Kingdom of God on earth to teach, govern, sanctify, and save all men, not to tell even her most wretched sinners; "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." lol
Stubb,
the Church does not judge the "interior dispositions" of a person, as for example their intentions, or whether they have committed Mortal Sin; as this is practically impossible to determine. That is why your including of "Mortal Sin" into the subject of who or who isn't a member is irrelevant.
The Church is a "visible society" that is made up of men who publicly profess and practice the Catholic faith, and who are subject to the authority of the Pope. A person can commit a mortal sin, and yet still be a member of the Church. But a person who no longer confesses the faith, or practices it, or is no longer subject to the Pope, is not considered and actual member. He may be a member in desire (in voto), or totally cut off from the Church if he is formally a heretic, schismatic or apostate:
Dr. Ludwig Ott, pg. 309:
Quote
The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church.
There is no mention of "Mortal Sin", because it is not necessary to commit a Mortal Sin, to separate oneself from membership in the Church:
Dr. Ott again on what makes one a member of the Church:
Quotepg. 310:
Baptism is, therefore, the real cause of our incorporation into the Church. The Confession of the true Faith and the adherence to the communion of the Church are for adults subjective conditions for the achievement and the unhindered perpetuation of their membership of the Church, which is initiated by Baptism. Those Children validly baptized outside the Church are members of the Church unless and until after reaching the use of reason, they voluntarily separate themselves from the confession of the Faith or from the communion of the Church."
So all those who have validly received Baptism are members of the Church including those baptized in non-Catholic sects; until they voluntarily adhere to a false creed or false worship; even if they do so innocently i.e. Without committing a Mortal Sin.
Dr. Ott again:
Quotepg. 311
Inferrence.
b)Open apostates and heretics. Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. However, this does not prevent them from belonging spiritually to the Church, by their desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae) and through this, achieving justification and salvation.
So even "material heretics and schismatics" i.e. In good faith, are not "actual members of the Church". In spite of not having committed a Mortal Sin against the faith or unity of the Church.
As to the Trent quote; it comes originally from St. Augustine, comparing the Baptismal character imprinted on the soul, to the tattoo that the Roman Legionaries had, which marked them as members of the army; and even when they deserted, carried with them. And just as deserters do not belong to the army, except as "former" members; so those who leave the Catholic faith will still carry the Baptismal character with them, even if they go to Hell, as mark of having formerly belonged to the Catholic Church.
And to finish, deserters from the Roman army were executed if discovered. Something that they would not do to a member of their army in good standing.
Michael,
Heresy is among the absolute worse of all sins that a Catholic can commit, hence, all the more reason that poor soul needs to get to confession asap, the bottom line is that the sacrament of penance is permitted only to Catholics.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 01, 2022, 11:42:00 AM
Michael,
Heresy is among the absolute worse of all sins that a Catholic can commit, hence, all the more reason that poor soul needs to get to confession asap, the bottom line is that the sacrament of penance is permitted only to Catholics.
Once the Catholic professes heresy, he is cut off from the Church. He's no longer a member. The teaching is clear.
Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church.
Quote from: Goldfinch on July 01, 2022, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 01, 2022, 11:42:00 AM
Michael,
Heresy is among the absolute worse of all sins that a Catholic can commit, hence, all the more reason that poor soul needs to get to confession asap, the bottom line is that the sacrament of penance is permitted only to Catholics.
Once the Catholic professes heresy, he is cut off from the Church. He's no longer a member. The teaching is clear.
Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church.
The quote is right, but again, only as long as the people in the quote were never Catholic.
The issue seems to be that sedes are forgetting why God founded the Church and established the sacraments. Also forgetting that although her children abandon her, she will never abandon us, never. But in order for this to be true, and it is true, we must first be her children in the faith, the Catholic faith.
Quote from: Goldfinch on July 01, 2022, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 01, 2022, 11:42:00 AM
Michael,
Heresy is among the absolute worse of all sins that a Catholic can commit, hence, all the more reason that poor soul needs to get to confession asap, the bottom line is that the sacrament of penance is permitted only to Catholics.
Once the Catholic professes heresy, he is cut off from the Church. He's no longer a member. The teaching is clear.
Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church.
Sedes have misunderstood this quote. This is referring exclusively to Professing Protestants and Baptized Orthodox Christians.
Pope Francis is a Professing Catholic, so the quote doesn't apply to him. Either he is a formal heretic, or just Catholic in error.
Here is proof from Fr. Ballerini that pertinacity, or formality of heresy, is absolutely necessary in the Pontiff who is to supposedly lose office (which I, in agreement with St. Robert's "pious and probable opinion", St. Alphonsus etc, hold will never actually happen to a Universally Accepted, i.e. Validly Elected Pope:
"Fr. Ballerini: "The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this (issue a public and solemn warning to the Pope who publicly denies e.g. the Divinity of Christ, or the Immaculate Conception, or Virgin Birth etc);
or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: 'Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment' (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent,
but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (...) T
herefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he
would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church". (15) See also: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sedemanifest.htm "Manifest Heretic" means "Public AND Formal Heretic", i.e. not merely one who falls into material heresy or mere error, but who falls into strict heresy, and this in such a way that his PERTINACITY, which makes heresy formal, is absolutely manifest. Fr. Ballerini's clear teaching shows the sedes have, tragically, got this wrong for 50+ years. Happily, it's still not too late to come home to Rome.
Mike, will answer the questions you addressed to me about Cardinal Billot's Teaching on Universal Acceptance etc later.
God Bless,
Xavier.
Stubb :
QuoteThe quote is right, but again, only as long as the people in the quote were never Catholic.
The issue seems to be that sedes are forgetting why God founded the Church and established the sacraments. Also forgetting that although her children abandon her, she will never abandon us, never. But in order for this to be true, and it is true, we must first be her children in the faith, the Catholic faith.
Those who are validly Baptized even in heretical sects are by this very fact members of the Church; for Baptism is the cause of our incorporation into the Church:
Ott:
Quotepg. 310:
Baptism is, therefore, the real cause of our incorporation into the Church.
Therefore when those who are validly baptized, profess publicly a false doctrine or take part in false worship or worship in a false sect, can no longer be considered actual members of the Church; since two of the three requirements for being considered a Catholic are missing.
Xavier,
QuoteSedes have misunderstood this quote. This is referring exclusively to Professing Protestants and Baptized Orthodox Christians.
Pope Francis is a Professing Catholic, so the quote doesn't apply to him. Either he is a formal heretic, or just Catholic in error.
No, it is referring to the necessity of the visible profession of the Catholic faith; Orthodox and Protestants that are validly baptized were by that very fact incorporated into the Church and were then actual members until their public defection.
The Ballerini quote does not address the issue of who is a member of the Church, but examines the case of a heretical Pope; which is a purely hypothetical case.
Xavier,
Quoteope Francis is a Professing Catholic, so the quote doesn't apply to him. Either he is a formal heretic, or just Catholic in error.
He does not publicly profess the Catholic faith either before his election or afterwards, even to this day. He was admonished for public heresy by 150 Catholic theologians; and by four Cardinals.
On pertinacity,
pertinacity only requires that the person know what the Church teaches and then denies it. It is assumed in the case of clerics and those who fall into heresy that they are ipso facto guilty and lose their office by tacit resignation (at least in the 1917 code)
QuoteCanon 188 (1983 CIC 194) Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444,
2168, 2314, 2379, 2388
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
Falling into public heresy is accepted as the equivalent of "tacit resignation'', since being a member of the Church requires the public profession of the Catholic faith.
If people who professed heresy were considered members of the Church, one could not distinguish the Catholic faith from error and the visibility of the Church would be destroyed.
This theory that public heretics remain members of the Church would logically lead to the Protestant notion of the "invisible Church" i.e. Only those who love God sincerely are true members of the Church". But how could we distinguish those who "love God sincerely" from those who don't?
QuoteThe issue seems to be that sedes are forgetting why God founded the Church and established the sacraments. Also forgetting that although her children abandon her, she will never abandon us, never. But in order for this to be true, and it is true, we must first be her children in the faith, the Catholic faith.
The Church never abandons her children, and if they abandon her, she incessant calls them back to the fold. But public heresy, schism or apostasy, rend a man from the visible unity of the Church.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 01, 2022, 12:59:20 PM
Stubb :
QuoteThe quote is right, but again, only as long as the people in the quote were never Catholic.
The issue seems to be that sedes are forgetting why God founded the Church and established the sacraments. Also forgetting that although her children abandon her, she will never abandon us, never. But in order for this to be true, and it is true, we must first be her children in the faith, the Catholic faith.
Those who are validly Baptized even in heretical sects are by this very fact members of the Church; for Baptism is the cause of our incorporation into the Church:
Ott:
Quotepg. 310:
Baptism is, therefore, the real cause of our incorporation into the Church.
As infants, yes, after the age of reason, no. As Trent says:
"the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which faith no man was ever justified;" Trent is talking about the Catholic faith, as such we can presume that Ott means to imply the same thing, either that or admit he is wrong, or admit we do not understand what the heck he is saying. I prefer to say he means to imply the same as Trent teaches.
After the age of reason, baptism is altogether useless for those outside of the Church - because never having been a member as per your quotes from St. Pius X catechism, they are outside of the Church.
The sacrament of baptism alone does not reward those who've never been Catholic any of the other sacraments, because they are outside of the Church, because they never were Catholic. It is because they are not members that they have no access to the sacrament of penance or any other sacrament.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 01, 2022, 12:59:20 PM
QuoteTherefore when those who are validly baptized, profess publicly a false doctrine or take part in false worship or worship in a false sect, can no longer be considered actual members of the Church; since two of the three requirements for being considered a Catholic are missing.
It is because the first requirement, never having been a Catholic, is missing that they are not in the Church. A valid baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without the Catholic faith, is useless for all those over the age of reason.
Stubb,
QuoteAs infants, yes, after the age of reason, no. As Trent says: "the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which faith no man was ever justified;" Trent is talking about the Catholic faith, as such we can presume that Ott means to imply the same thing, either that or admit he is wrong, or admit we do not understand what the heck he is saying. I prefer to say he means to imply the same as Trent teaches.
So babies baptized validly in heretical sects are Catholic, and remain so until they latter adhere to the false teachings of those sects, even innocently i.e. "Material heretics" , then they cease to be Catholic? Thank you. So this teaching doesn't apply to those who have "never been Catholic" as you have said before?
QuoteThe quote is right, but again, only as long as the people in the quote were never Catholic.
The relevant issue is adherence to the Church as the proximate rule of faith, not how perfectly one adheres to every individual dogma and doctrine. What Sedevacantists would have to demonstrate is not the existence of material heresy on the part of the last six popes, but that they rejected the Church as their proximate rule of faith. I've personally never encountered any quotation from any of the last six putative pontiffs wherein they did such a thing; rather, I have seen quotes from all six (well, five; I didn't bother to look into Ven. John Paul I) where they explicitly affirm the Church as their proximate rule of faith.
Michael, I've thought about it and will offer this: The surest way to know that a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is still a Catholic, is not denying that that person can walk into the confessional and be absolved, same as only Catholics can and must do for the forgiveness of their mortal sins.
What is not required of the above penitent is the 6 weeks of catechetical instruction that converts require, who are still not welcomed into the Church until the abjuration of heresies is professed, and either baptism or (if doubtful) conditional baptism is administered.
If you want to insist that the penitent Catholic "must first publicly abjure his heresies" before he goes to confession, then fine. I disagree it is always required but for the sake of argument, let's say it is always required.
A public abjuration does not change his status, because after making the abjuration he still walks into the confessional to be absolved like every other Catholic - without having to go through the 6 weeks of instruction.
Referencing Trent, I said baptism without the faith is useless, here I reference the same teaching from St. Thomas (pdf attached):
QuoteThe Nature and Effects of Faith.--The first thing that is necessary for every Christian is faith,
without which no one is truly called a faithful Christian. Faith brings about four good effects.
The first is that through faith the soul is united to God, and by it there is between the soul and God a
union akin to marriage. "I will espouse thee in faith."When a man is baptised the first question
that is asked him is: "Do you believe in God?" This is because Baptism is the first Sacrament of
faith. Hence, the Lord said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved."Baptism without
faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have
faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." St. Augustine explains these words of St.
Paul, "All that is not of faith is sin,"in this way: "Where there is no knowledge of the eternal and
unchanging Truth, virtue even in the midst of the best moral life is false."
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 01, 2022, 06:01:43 PM
The relevant issue is adherence to the Church as the proximate rule of faith, not how perfectly one adheres to every individual dogma and doctrine. What Sedevacantists would have to demonstrate is not the existence of material heresy on the part of the last six popes, but that they rejected the Church as their proximate rule of faith. I've personally never encountered any quotation from any of the last six putative pontiffs wherein they did such a thing; rather, I have seen quotes from all six (well, five; I didn't bother to look into Ven. John Paul I) where they explicitly affirm the Church as their proximate rule of faith.
The embracing of teachings contrary to Church doctrine is an explicit rejection of the Church as one's "proximate rule of faith". That is why it is not necessary to go and interview each person who publicly proclaims error, in order to find out what their deepest innermost feelings are. The John Paul I declared publicly that he had held the Church's teaching on Religious Liberty, before before Vatican II, and changed his view on the matter because of the Council; he was therefore not unaware of the contradiction in the two doctrines. The same for his view on the Church's condemnation of Birth Control; he gave a conference to newlyweds in Venice, while he was still a Cardinal, in which he stated that the Church had to change her teaching on this subject.
Again, the only objective criteria that one can identify a Catholic from those that are not of the faith, is the public practice and proclamation of one's Catholic faith. The inner-motivation for publicly holding errors only affects one's subjective culpability before God, not one's belonging to the "legal commonwealth" of the Church.
The Church is a visible institution composed of men who publicly practice and believe in her teachings and obey her legitimate pastors. My adversaries in this discussion keep confusing the fact of belonging to the visible institution, with belonging to her spiritually. Conceded that a person who publicly professes a false doctrine may do so innocently, and therefore belongs to the Church "in voto", but not to the "legal commonwealth".
Stubb,
you keep changing the argument:
1. Impossible to tell a Catholic from a non-Catholic except through a personal interview; therefore per reductio absurdum, we can't really determine if the Dalai Lama is a Catholic unless we ask him; and (also r.a.) If he affirms that he is, then we have to accept this.
2. That the Catechism doesn't teach that one who doesn't profess the Catholic faith; practice it, or submit to the Pope isn't a Catholic. Really? Then what distinguishes a Catholic from a heretic, schismatic or apostate?
3. Public heretics are members of the Church.
4.The Ott quote refers to those who have not been validly Baptized i.e. As adults (???)
The Ott quote refers to "heretics"; a person who has not been validly baptized and professes a false creed, is not a "heretic" (even a material one, but a Pagan i.e. An unbaptized person. So the quote does refer to validly baptized men, who are therefore members of the Church and who latter fall away from her, through embracing erroneous doctrine etc. Even innocently i.e. "Material heretics".
5. I never argued that Faith is not necessary to validly receive Baptism; that is an argument you introduced. But what is strange, is that you don't accept the consequence: "To be a member of the Church, one must have faith". For you, all that is necessary is that one opine even privately that one is a Catholic, no matter what one believes or practices.
6. The argument of what the "Church requires for the reconciliation of heretics, schismatics and apostates"; is besides the point. The Church once required years of public penance, for public defection from the faith. Catholics can and do defect from the faith, through heresy, schism and apostasy. And are therefore not members of the Church.
QuoteFr. Ballerini's clear teaching shows the sedes have, tragically, got this wrong for 50+ years.
And then came Bergoglio. Who has been called out publicly so many times, I have lost track. And we aren't talking about some laymen somewhere who decides he committed heresy, we have a cardinal, archbishops, bishops, and theologians. Heck, everytime ++Vigano writes something, he's calling out Bergoglio. And Bergoglio has never recanted.
But I lean towards the theory that Pope Benedict is still the Pope, so Bergoglio's heresies are moot. But if Pope Benedict isn't the Pope, then we have no Pope.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 02, 2022, 08:24:22 AM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 01, 2022, 06:01:43 PM
The relevant issue is adherence to the Church as the proximate rule of faith, not how perfectly one adheres to every individual dogma and doctrine. What Sedevacantists would have to demonstrate is not the existence of material heresy on the part of the last six popes, but that they rejected the Church as their proximate rule of faith. I've personally never encountered any quotation from any of the last six putative pontiffs wherein they did such a thing; rather, I have seen quotes from all six (well, five; I didn't bother to look into Ven. John Paul I) where they explicitly affirm the Church as their proximate rule of faith.
The embracing of teachings contrary to Church doctrine is an explicit rejection of the Church as one's "proximate rule of faith". That is why it is not necessary to go and interview each person who publicly proclaims error, in order to find out what their deepest innermost feelings are. The John Paul I declared publicly that he had held the Church's teaching on Religious Liberty, before before Vatican II, and changed his view on the matter because of the Council; he was therefore not unaware of the contradiction in the two doctrines. The same for his view on the Church's condemnation of Birth Control; he gave a conference to newlyweds in Venice, while he was still a Cardinal, in which he stated that the Church had to change her teaching on this subject.
Again, the only objective criteria that one can identify a Catholic from those that are not of the faith, is the public practice and proclamation of one's Catholic faith. The inner-motivation for publicly holding errors only affects one's subjective culpability before God, not one's belonging to the "legal commonwealth" of the Church.
The Church is a visible institution composed of men who publicly practice and believe in her teachings and obey her legitimate pastors. My adversaries in this discussion keep confusing the fact of belonging to the visible institution, with belonging to her spiritually. Conceded that a person who publicly professes a false doctrine may do so innocently, and therefore belongs to the Church "in voto", but not to the "legal commonwealth".
That's the whole rub, though, so to speak. All of these Popes thought that what they were teaching was the teaching of the Church - and they argued as such whenever they were confronted on the topic.
The case of Ven. John Paul I you bring up is a clear example of this: he erroneously believed the Church had changed her Doctrine on this point, and adhered to what he believed She taught accordingly.
I have never seen objectively demonstrated pertinacity or rejection of the Church as rule of faith on the part of these men, only material errors both in praxis and doctrine. As such, the formal element of heresy is lacking; namely, the pertinacious rejection of the Church as rule of faith.
Quote from: ST II-II Q5A3
Art. 3: Whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles?
OBJ 1: It would seem that a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in the other articles. For the natural intellect of a heretic is not more able than that of a catholic. Now a catholic's intellect needs the aid of the gift of faith in order to believe any article whatever of faith. Therefore it seems that heretics cannot believe any articles of faith without the gift of lifeless faith.
OBJ 2: Further, just as faith contains many articles, so does one science, viz. geometry, contain many conclusions. Now a man may possess the science of geometry as to some geometrical conclusions, and yet be ignorant of other conclusions. Therefore a man can believe some articles of faith without believing the others.
OBJ 3: Further, just as man obeys God in believing the articles of faith, so does he also in keeping the commandments of the Law. Now a man can obey some commandments, and disobey others. Therefore he can believe some articles, and disbelieve others.
On the contrary, Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.
I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
Reply OBJ 1: A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment.
Reply OBJ 2: The various conclusions of a science have their respective means of demonstration, one of which may be known without another, so that we may know some conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.
Reply OBJ 3: The various precepts of the Law may be referred either to their respective proximate motives, and thus one can be kept without another; or to their primary motive, which is perfect obedience to God, in which a man fails whenever he breaks one commandment, according to James 2:10: "Whosoever shall . . . offend in one point is become guilty of all."
And a historical example, as relayed to us by John Daly, a Sedevacantist:
QuoteOn January 10, 1907, during the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X, a parish priest submitted a question to a moral theologian on the staff at L'Ami Du Clergé, concerning a family at his parish. The members of the family were all baptized Catholics and openly professed to being Catholic, but they had stopped regularly attending Mass, sent their children to Protestant schools, and from time to time attended Protestant services themselves. They even professed Protestant heresies (false doctrines) about the Blessed Sacrament. According to Mr. Daly, they went so far as having "blasphemed the Blessed Eucharist to the parish priest, relying on typically Protestant arguments."
Even so, the family professed that they were Catholics, not Protestants, and wanted to have their newborn children baptized by the parish priest. The priest contacted L'Ami Du Clergé for guidance in answering several questions. He wanted to know "whether the parents had incurred excommunication, whether they could be buried as Catholics, and whether, if he should manage to convert any of them, they would have to make a formal abjuration."
L'Ami Du Clergé, a highly respected publication that was approved and even encouraged by Pope St. Pius X at the time, replied by saying that the family's attendance at Protestant services was not proof that they intended to leave the Church (which was confirmed by the fact that they publicly declared themselves to be Catholics). Because they continued to profess being Catholics, the moral theologian concluded that, even though they publicly professed heretical doctrines about the Blessed Sacrament, "these poor misguided souls had no wish to knowingly and willingly reject the dogma of the Church concerning the Holy Eucharist"...So in evaluating the questions posed by the parish priest, the Ami du Clergé replied that the culprits were still members of the Catholic Church, were not excommunicated, had no need to make formal abjuration of their errors, but only to repair the scandal given...
S.J.
QuoteThat's the whole rub, though, so to speak. All of these Popes thought that whatthey were teaching was the teaching of the Church - and they argued as such whenever they were confronted on the topic.
The case of Ven. John Paul I you bring up is a clear example of this: he erroneously believed the Church had changed her Doctrine on this point, and adhered to what he believed She taught accordingly. That he erred in what he thought the teaching of the Church was is immaterial to whether or not he is a heretic.
I have never seen objectively demonstrated pertinacity or rejection of the Church as rule of faith on the part of these men, only material errors both in praxis and doctrine. As such, the formal element of heresy is lacking; namely, the pertinacious rejection of the Church as rule of faith.
Thank you for the response and quote from S.T. You are confusing the "objective" or outward requirement for being considered a member of the Church, with the inward "subjective" requirements. That Card. Luciani "thought" he was adhering to the teaching of the Church or "knew" that he was rejecting it, only deals with the inward or subjective culpability of his actions. Outwardly in the objective order, there is no difference between a "Material" or "Formal" heretic.
If Cardinal "A" States that "Jesus is not God" but believes that this is the teaching of the Church; and Cardinal "B" also states that "Jesus is not God", knowing full well that this is heretical; they have both publicly defected from the faith. "A" is innocent of sin (at least the sin of heresy), and "B" is guilty, neither is a member of the Legal Commonwealth of the Church..
Mr. Daly's quote from St. Pius X demonstrates only that Pius X advised leniency towards ignorant and misguided laymen, not the objective rule of membership in the Church. If Catholics were generally allowed to deny doctrines of the Church and to attend non-Catholic services, then it would be impossible to identify who was a Catholic or not.
The 1917 Code here is Msgr. Lefebvre citing an official commentary on Canon 1258, on the attending and taking part in non-Catholic services: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1186
QuoteCanon Naz's Dictionary of Canon Law, a wholly official and approved commentary on what has been the Catholic Church's body of law for nineteen centuries. On the subject of sharing in the worship of non-Catholics (after all, this is what we now see Pope and bishops doing), the Church says, in Canon 1258-1: "It is absolutely forbidden for Catholics to attend or take any active part in the worship of non-Catholics in any way whatsoever." On this Canon the quasi-official Naz Commentary says, and I quote, "A Catholic takes active part when he joins in heterodox; i.e., non-Catholic worship with the intention of honouring God by this means in the way non-Catholics do. It is forbidden to pray, to sing or to play the organ in a heretical or schismatic temple, in association with the people worshipping there, even if the words of the hymn or the song or the prayer are orthodox." The reason for this prohibition is that any participation in non-Catholic worship implies profession of a false religion and hence denial of the Catholic Faith. By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non-Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them "suspect of heresy, and if they persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics."
The very participation in non-Catholic services implies the profession of a false religion and denial of the Catholic faith.
"active participation" in non-Catholic services was always strictly forbidden under pain of Mortal Sin.
Here is an article by Fr. Thomas Crean O.P. http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm
QuoteThe traditional teaching of Catholic theology on whether Catholics may participate in non-Catholic religious services is summed up by St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, 'It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them'.1 The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith. This is true even if the man in question retains the true faith in his heart. So to take the classic example, Christians in the Roman Empire realised that they must not throw incense before a statue of the Emperor, even if they had no belief at all in his divinity – for the act was of itself, in their context, expressive of such a belief, and hence sinful.....It is active participation in a non-Catholic religious service which is forbidden by the traditional teaching on communicatio in sacris, for example joining in with psalms and hymns in the course of a Lutheran Eucharist. The following examples may serve to show the unanimity of pre-conciliar theologians on this point.
Fr. D. Prummer OP, writing in 1910, affirms in his Manuale Theologiæ Moralis that it is never licit for a Catholic to take part in a non-Catholic cult with the intention of worshipping God in the manner of non-Catholics, more acatholicorum. Such an act, he declares, is nothing other than a denial of the Catholic faith.2 In the same year, writing an article on 'Heresy' for the Catholic Encyclopœdia, Fr. J. Wilhelm SJ affirms that a Catholic may attend non-Catholic services, but only 'provided no active part be taken in them'. In an article on the same subject, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique reiterates, in 1920, that active participation in non-Catholic rites is toujours interdite – the reason being that it is 'equivalent to a denial of the Catholic faith'. In 1930, Fr. B. Merkelbach OP in his Summa Theologiæ Moralis writes that 'active participation in the sacred things of a [non-Catholic] public cult is illicit, since it implies approval of the worship and a recognition of the sect.'3 Using a slightly different terminology but teaching the same doctrine, Fr. L. Fanfani OP writes, in 1950, 'material communicatio in sacris ['material' in the sense that the person in question does not mean to renounce his Catholic faith], if it is active and immediate, is never permissible for Catholics.'4 The reason for this, he explains, is that such behaviour necessarily manifests a commitment to a heretical or at least an illegitimate cultus.
Fr. Crean goes on to say that this prohibition is not based on an "ecclessiastical law", but on Divine Law (no one can dispense one from sin in the case of violation):
QuoteIt is important to notice that this prohibition is not presented by these theologians as an ecclesiastical ban. It is not the law of the Church which is traditionally understood to exclude Catholics from taking part in non-Catholic services; it is the divine law, which requires that outward acts of worship be expressive of inward faith. Nor is common worship only forbidden when the prayers or scriptural translations used by the non-Catholic group have an heretical sense: the mere act of sharing the worship of a non-Catholic group, according to the teaching of the theologians cited above, implies a community of religion with that group, and hence constitutes a sin against the faith. This explains why, as Pius XI recalled in the 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, '[the] Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.'
Mr. Daly was arguing against Catholics who immediately and rashly judge their fellow Catholics of heresy or having "left the Church", when the Church is patient and does all it can to remind Catholics of their duty and recall them to the truth.
He also cited the example of Msgr. Darboy, Archbishop of Paris who delayed a long time before accepting the decrees of the Vatican Council. But this is hardly an argument for the liceity of his behavior or what the Church demands of those who would be considered her members.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 02, 2022, 08:48:09 AM
Stubb,
you keep changing the argument:
1. Impossible to tell a Catholic from a non-Catholic except through a personal interview; therefore per reductio absurdum, we can't really determine if the Dalai Lama is a Catholic unless we ask him; and (also r.a.) If he affirms that he is, then we have to accept this.
2. That the Catechism doesn't teach that one who doesn't profess the Catholic faith; practice it, or submit to the Pope isn't a Catholic. Really? Then what distinguishes a Catholic from a heretic, schismatic or apostate?
3. Public heretics are members of the Church.
4.The Ott quote refers to those who have not been validly Baptized i.e. As adults (???)
The Ott quote refers to "heretics"; a person who has not been validly baptized and professes a false creed, is not a "heretic" (even a material one, but a Pagan i.e. An unbaptized person. So the quote does refer to validly baptized men, who are therefore members of the Church and who latter fall away from her, through embracing erroneous doctrine etc. Even innocently i.e. "Material heretics".
5. I never argued that Faith is not necessary to validly receive Baptism; that is an argument you introduced. But what is strange, is that you don't accept the consequence: "To be a member of the Church, one must have faith". For you, all that is necessary is that one opine even privately that one is a Catholic, no matter what one believes or practices.
6. The argument of what the "Church requires for the reconciliation of heretics, schismatics and apostates"; is besides the point. The Church once required years of public penance, for public defection from the faith. Catholics can and do defect from the faith, through heresy, schism and apostasy. And are therefore not members of the Church.
First let me say that when I use the word "Catholic" below, take that to mean your quote from the St. Pius X catechism. Please remember this whenever you read the word "Catholic" below.
1. No. That is ridiculous. If the Dali Lama ever was Catholic, then whatever else he is, that's what he is and will always be in this life.
2a. That is correct, the catechism teaches what a Catholic is, not what a Catholic isn't.
2b. and 3.
We distinguish Catholic teachings from heretical, apostate or schismatic teachings by what they teach. We cannot always distinguish whether or not the heretic, apostate or schismatic ever professed the Catholic faith prior to them preaching heresies.
4. and 5.
Whether pagans or heretics, if they never had the faith, i.e. if they were never Catholic, they were never members of the Church even if they were validly baptized as adults, because, as St. Thomas puts it:
"Baptism without faith is of no value." 6. No, what the "Church requires for the reconciliation of heretics, schismatics and apostates"; is *not* besides the point, IT IS THE POINT, THE WHOLE POINT. If you miss this, then you are missing the whole point.
The Church calls for all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin to repent
in the sacrament of penance , including and especially Catholics who have fallen into the mortal sins of heresy, schism and apostasy.
This last point is a point that for whatever reason, seems to completely and totally elude you.
You seems to think that if a Catholic were to simply stop preaching heresy and / or start preaching truth, that that is sufficient for him to no longer be in mortal sin of heresy, or no longer be a heretic, I'm not sure. But what I am sure of, is what you are doing, is you are neglecting to add the sacrament of penance into the formula.
This glaring omission truly only applies to those heretics, pagans, etc., who were never Catholic. In your effort to maintain the idea that even Catholics who fell into the mortal sin of heresy are not members of the Church, you use this omission and apply it to both Catholics and those who were never Catholic - and it seems to me that this is where you will continue to err until you include (rather than omit) the sacrament of penance into the formula.
Stubb,
QuoteThe Church calls for all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin to repent in the sacrament of penance , including and especially Catholics who have fallen into the mortal sins of heresy, schism and apostasy.
This last point is a point that for whatever reason, seems to completely and totally elude you.
I understand the need for repentance and Confession for those who have committed Mortal sin. I am arguing that one does not have to knowingly and willingly profess heresy i.e. Become a formal heretic, in order not to be considered an actual member of the Church. I have provided several quotes from authorized sources that support this position.
Quote
You seems to think that if a Catholic were to simply stop preaching heresy and / or start preaching truth, that that is sufficient for him to no longer be in mortal sin of heresy, or no longer be a heretic, I'm not sure. But what I am sure of, is what you are doing, is you are neglecting to add the sacrament of penance into the formula.
No, I never argued this at all. You are the one who brought this argument into the discussion.
Quote
This glaring omission truly only applies to those heretics, pagans, etc., who were never Catholic. In your effort to maintain the idea that even Catholics who fell into the mortal sin of heresy are not members of the Church, you use this omission and apply it to both Catholics and those who were never Catholic - and it seems to me that this is where you will continue to err until you include (rather than omit) the sacrament of penance into the formula.
You totally lost me on this; I have no idea what you are saying here.
Stubb,
Quote
2b. and 3.
We distinguish Catholic teachings from heretical, apostate or schismatic teachings by what they teach. We cannot always distinguish whether or not the heretic, apostate or schismatic ever professed the Catholic faith prior to them preaching heresies.
How does this bear on the argument of who is a Catholic?
Quote4. and 5.
Whether pagans or heretics, if they never had the faith, i.e. if they were never Catholic, they were never members of the Church even if they were validly baptized as adults, because, as St. Thomas puts it: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
If the Baptism was valid, then they were members of the Church. For there cannot be a valid Baptism that does not incorporate one to the Church. If the Baptism was not valid, then they are Pagans; thus not heretics or schismatics; to separate oneself from the Church, it is necessary to first belong to the Church.
Once again, why does the necessity of Confession for those who have separated from the Church have any bearing on this discussion?
Quote from: Stubborn on July 03, 2022, 08:57:40 AM(snip)
4. and 5.
Whether pagans or heretics, if they never had the faith, i.e. if they were never Catholic, they were never members of the Church even if they were validly baptized as adults, because, as St. Thomas puts it: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
6. No, what the "Church requires for the reconciliation of heretics, schismatics and apostates"; is *not* besides the point, IT IS THE POINT, THE WHOLE POINT. If you miss this, then you are missing the whole point.
The Church calls for all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin to repent in the sacrament of penance , including and especially Catholics who have fallen into the mortal sins of heresy, schism and apostasy.
This last point is a point that for whatever reason, seems to completely and totally elude you.
You seems to think that if a Catholic were to simply stop preaching heresy and / or start preaching truth, that that is sufficient for him to no longer be in mortal sin of heresy, or no longer be a heretic, I'm not sure. But what I am sure of, is what you are doing, is you are neglecting to add the sacrament of penance into the formula.
This glaring omission truly only applies to those heretics, pagans, etc., who were never Catholic. In your effort to maintain the idea that even Catholics who fell into the mortal sin of heresy are not members of the Church, you use this omission and apply it to both Catholics and those who were never Catholic - and it seems to me that this is where you will continue to err until you include (rather than omit) the sacrament of penance into the formula.
I remember the February 2, 2022, incident by which Pope Francis stated that even the "blasphemers" are still members of the Communions of Saints. He just emphasized on the indelible character of Baptism that he said shall make every baptized person part of the Communion of Saints, regardless of the state of their soul if they are committing mortal sin.
His statement is really against the position of St. Thomas Aquinas that, "Baptism without faith is of no value." The Pope even failed to explain that the sacrament of penance is essential in becoming part of the Communion of Saints ones again so that the indelible character of Baptism shall apply. God bless.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 03, 2022, 09:16:32 AM
Stubb,
Quote
2b. and 3.
We distinguish Catholic teachings from heretical, apostate or schismatic teachings by what they teach. We cannot always distinguish whether or not the heretic, apostate or schismatic ever professed the Catholic faith prior to them preaching heresies.
How does this bear on the argument of who is a Catholic?
You asked
"Then what distinguishes a Catholic from a heretic, schismatic or apostate?" Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 03, 2022, 09:16:32 AM
Quote4. and 5.
Whether pagans or heretics, if they never had the faith, i.e. if they were never Catholic, they were never members of the Church even if they were validly baptized as adults, because, as St. Thomas puts it: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
If the Baptism was valid, then they were members of the Church. For there cannot be a valid Baptism that does not incorporate one to the Church. If the Baptism was not valid, then they are Pagans; thus not heretics or schismatics; to separate oneself from the Church, it is necessary to first belong to the Church.
Once again, why does the necessity of Confession for those who have separated from the Church have any bearing on this discussion?
The necessity of the sacrament of penance has bearing because as you know, only members of the Church are permitted - and urged - to use this sacrament.
Were a Catholic to become an adulterer with three wives and 10 children between them, and became a manifest heretic, a Mason, and murdered 2 innocent bystanders while robbing a bank, should he choose to repent, what does he need to do? Yes he needs to amend his life, but what he really needs to do is, he needs to go to confession, something that only members of the Church can (and must) do.
The reason he can (and must) go to confession is because he is a member of the Church - who fell into mortal sins, grievous, public mortal sins.
OTOH, if he was not a member of the Church, then he could not go to confession until he became a member of the Church, which traditionally has meant about 6 weeks of catechetical instruction, an abjuration, then baptism at the Easter Vigil.
And Michael, the sacrament of baptism, valid or not, without the faith is of no value *for adults*. Baptism without the faith, is like being perfectly wired for electricity, but without current - the perfect wiring is altogether useless. Or having all the proper plumbing, pipes, pumps, tanks and filters, but no water. Again, it's useless. Forgive my gravely inadequate analogies, but I think you get the jist.
I thought St. Thomas was quite clear, remember, St. Thomas is giving catechetical instructions to converts to the faith, not to infants, not to anyone else. So to say
"If the Baptism was valid, then they were members of the Church." - without the faith - is wrong because by that omission you contradict or nullify Trent, St. Thomas, Scripture, and what the Church has always taught.
Quote from: Julio on July 03, 2022, 02:14:12 PM
I remember the February 2, 2022, incident by which Pope Francis stated that even the "blasphemers" are still members of the Communions of Saints. He just emphasized on the indelible character of Baptism that he said shall make every baptized person part of the Communion of Saints, regardless of the state of their soul if they are committing mortal sin.
His statement is really against the position of St. Thomas Aquinas that, "Baptism without faith is of no value." The Pope even failed to explain that the sacrament of penance is essential in becoming part of the Communion of Saints ones again so that the indelible character of Baptism shall apply. God bless.
Yes, the pope needs many prayers, he is lost in his Liberalism, he has everything all screwed up.
Stubb,
if the Baptism was valid, then those who left the Church either through heresy, schism or apostasy, can return, through the Sacrament of Penance, since it is Baptism that gives one the ability to receive the other sacraments, by imprinting the Baptismal Character on the soul.
If the person did not receive a valid Baptism, such as in the case of those adults that did not accept the Catholic faith before their Baptism.
Therefore they were never validly baptized and therefore they were never Catholic; and could not receive the Sacrament of Penance validly.
Therefore they are Pagans, i.e. "Unbaptized"; and therefore not heretics etc.
There is therefore no such thing as a heretic, schismatic or apostate that was not validly Baptized and therefore once a member of the Church.
Next, therefore the quote from Dr. Ott about "Material heretics" not being members of the Church, refers, and only can refer to those adults that were validly baptized either as infants or adults and who therefore had the faith and were members of the Church.
From what I can understand from all that you wrote, you do not believe that once a person is a member of the Church, they can ever be separated from the Church, even by heresy, schism or apostasy; is this correct?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 08:39:01 AM
Stubb,
if the Baptism was valid, then those who left the Church either through heresy, schism or apostasy, can return, through the Sacrament of Penance, since it is Baptism that gives one the ability to receive the other sacraments, by imprinting the Baptismal Character on the soul.
If the person did not receive a valid Baptism, such as in the case of those adults that did not accept the Catholic faith before their Baptism.
Therefore they were never validly baptized and therefore they were never Catholic; and could not receive the Sacrament of Penance validly.
Therefore they are Pagans, i.e. "Unbaptized"; and therefore not heretics etc.
This is not true. I cannot imagine how this even makes any sense to you. But if this is in fact what you actually believe, then it's no wonder that you cannot understand what I am posting.
FWIW, in case of necessity, a Muslim, or Jew, a tiny child, or anyone at all really, can administer a valid baptism.
The validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the recipient, it has everything to do with whomever administers it, in that sense it's just like all of the other sacraments. All those who receive any of the sacraments unworthily, including baptism, commits a sacrilege.
Trent:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing
what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 08:39:01 AM
From what I can understand from all that you wrote, you do not believe that once a person is a member of the Church, they can ever be separated from the Church, even by heresy, schism or apostasy; is this correct?
All Catholics severe themselves from the Church through mortal sin, even just a single mortal sin - regardless of which mortal sin. In this case we're talking about the mortal sin of heresy.
Michael, if (God forbid) you severed your arm completely off in a terrible farming accident and it's laying under some bushes all mangled up 20 feet away, it's still your arm. It's not my arm, it's not nobody's arm, it's your arm.
It works the same way with Holy Mother the Church. When mortal sin severs Catholics from the Church - we are still hers, just as surely as your arm, mangled as it is lying 20 feet away, is still your arm. The difference is, as a Catholic, we are urged through grace to use the sacrament(s) Christ established for this very purpose so that we can heal the sever - sometimes ending up better than before.
Those outside of the Church plainly do not have this luxury when they commit mortal sin, this is a luxury available only Catholics.
Stubb,
you stated before that in order for an adult to receive Baptism validly, they needed to believe in the Catholic faith.
""Baptism without faith is of no value."
Now you are stating that: "The validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the recipient". Did I misunderstand what you stated before?
The canon from Trent is not discussing the conditions for the valid reception of Baptism, but is condemning the proposition that "Sacraments administered by heretics are invalid". Two separate issues.
Trent: "..... that the baptism which is even given by heretics.....is not true baptism; let him be anathema."
I will demonstrate the difference: A Catholic bishop administering the sacrament of Holy Orders to a woman, would be invalid, even if he used the right matter, form and intention.
A baptism administered by a Jew, pagan or Moslem, is valid, as long as they use the right matter, form and have the right intention; but if they administer it to a person who has not intention of receiving it, or does not have the faith, then it is as St. Thomas put it "of no value". It isn't that the Sacrament doesn't work, it does of itself, but the recipient has an "impediment" otherwise knows as an "obex", which does not let the sacrament operate its effect.
The same for a priest that gives a penitent the right form of absolution, but the penitent has deliberately omitted confessing some of his Mortal Sins, or does not have contrition. The absolution is valid in itself, but cannot remove the sins of the penitent, because of the obex that he has placed to the grace of the sacrament.
Stubb,
QuoteAll Catholics severe themselves from the Church through mortal sin, even just a single mortal sin - regardless of which mortal sin. In this case we're talking about the mortal sin of heresy.
No, there are mortal sins that do not separate a Catholic from the Church, only those against the faith.
But then you go on to state:
QuoteWhen mortal sin severs Catholics from the Church - we are still hers,
Are we "severed" or not?
If we are "severed" then we are not 'hers' if we are 'hers' then we are not severed.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
Stubb,
you stated before that in order for an adult to receive Baptism validly, they needed to believe in the Catholic faith.
""Baptism without faith is of no value."
Now you are stating that: "The validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the recipient". Did I misunderstand what you stated before?
The sacraments is valid, but what St. Thomas means is that the sacrament is of no value
to the recipient if it is received by those who do not have the Catholic faith.
At Catholic Baptisms, the first question asked of the Godparents or adult to be baptized by the priest before anything else, even before being let into the Church, is:
Priest: [Name] what do you ask of the Catholic Church?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Faith.
The very next question is:
Priest: What does Faith offer you?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Life everlasting.
This explains in the simplest terms why a valid baptism without faith (of the recipient) is of no value - to the recipient. A valid baptism has no value to the recipient who does not have the faith, because without the faith there is no life everlasting - even with a valid baptism.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
The canon from Trent is not discussing the conditions for the valid reception of Baptism, but is condemning the proposition that "Sacraments administered by heretics are invalid". Two separate issues.
Trent: "..... that the baptism which is even given by heretics.....is not true baptism; let him be anathema."
I will demonstrate the difference: A Catholic bishop administering the sacrament of Holy Orders to a woman, would be invalid, even if he used the right matter, form and intention.
A baptism administered by a Jew, pagan or Moslem, is valid, as long as they use the right matter, form and have the right intention; but if they administer it to a person who has not intention of receiving it, or does not have the faith, then it is as St. Thomas put it "of no value". It isn't that the Sacrament doesn't work, it does of itself, but the recipient has an "impediment" otherwise knows as an "obex", which does not let the sacrament operate its effect.
The same for a priest that gives a penitent the right form of absolution, but the penitent has deliberately omitted confessing some of his Mortal Sins, or does not have contrition. The absolution is valid in itself, but cannot remove the sins of the penitent, because of the obex that he has placed to the grace of the sacrament.
Agreed.
As I said speaking of a catechumen, the validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the recipient. He can receive the valid sacrament of baptism, but if he does not have, or seek or want the Catholic faith, it is of no value to him.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 01:57:36 PM
Stubb,
QuoteAll Catholics severe themselves from the Church through mortal sin, even just a single mortal sin - regardless of which mortal sin. In this case we're talking about the mortal sin of heresy.
No, there are mortal sins that do not separate a Catholic from the Church, only those against the faith.
But then you go on to state:
Michael, you cannot name one mortal sin that does not sever Catholics from the life of grace, which is the Church. Any more than you can name any other way for Catholics to know with certainty that they are forgiven of mortal sin, other than the sacrament of penance.
You have to convince yourself that heresy is a sin, a sin against the 1st commandment, adultery is a sin against the 6th/9th commandment, lying is a sin against the 8th commandment, murder is a sin against the 5th commandment and so on.
Whenever one is in mortal sin, and it does not matter which mortal sin, he may not receive Our Lord in holy communion. Why not? What must he do in order to receive holy communion?
The unrepentant liar, murder or adulterer cannot receive holy communion - neither can the heretic - because they are all in the state of mortal sin. Again, what does the Church teach that they all must do to be forgiven, to be welcomed back into the fold or community, which is the Church, from their separation / their severance?
Without exception they all must go to confession, the murderer, the liar, the adulterer and the heretic, they must all drive to the Church, walk in, examine their conscience, humble themselves and confess their sins to the priest. That is what only those who are members of the Church can do and the Church binds them to do it.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 01:57:36 PM
QuoteWhen mortal sin severs Catholics from the Church - we are still hers,
Are we "severed" or not?
If we are "severed" then we are not 'hers' if we are 'hers' then we are not severed.
And whose arm was it that was severed from your body? Nobody's?
Quote from: Stubborn on July 05, 2022, 04:57:06 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
Stubb,
you stated before that in order for an adult to receive Baptism validly, they needed to believe in the Catholic faith.
""Baptism without faith is of no value."
Now you are stating that: "The validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the recipient". Did I misunderstand what you stated before?
The sacraments is valid, but what St. Thomas means is that the sacrament is of no value to the recipient if it is received by those who do not have the Catholic faith.
Which is why a Catholic who has strayed and who has lived a recent life or a whole life of heresy can benefit from the sacrament of Penance while a non-Catholic (never been a member) cannot. One is considered a sheep who has strayed from the flock; the other, not yet a member, must first become a member.
Both, if public heretics, might also need to publicly abjure their heretical statements or affiliations in order to derive full benefit from the sacrament of Penance (as a condition), but for the non-Catholic, he must first go through the process of becoming a member. There are many real-life stories of non-members who have entered confessionals or approached priests and asked them if they could, but none of those received the sacrament, even if the priest was willing to indulge their desire.
A lay person has no power to judge the state of soul (including heresy or apostasy) of even another lay person, let alone a cleric of any rank. We can objectively categorize specific public statements but not subjectively the soul of the person, which is where the rubber meets the road.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 05, 2022, 08:00:17 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 05, 2022, 04:57:06 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 04, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
Stubb,
you stated before that in order for an adult to receive Baptism validly, they needed to believe in the Catholic faith.
""Baptism without faith is of no value."
Now you are stating that: "The validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the recipient". Did I misunderstand what you stated before?
The sacraments is valid, but what St. Thomas means is that the sacrament is of no value to the recipient if it is received by those who do not have the Catholic faith.
Which is why a Catholic who has strayed and who has lived a recent life or a whole life of heresy can benefit from the sacrament of Penance while a non-Catholic (never been a member) cannot. One is considered a sheep who has strayed from the flock; the other, not yet a member, must first become a member.
Both, if public heretics, might also need to publicly abjure their heretical statements or affiliations in order to derive full benefit from the sacrament of Penance (as a condition), but for the non-Catholic, he must first go through the process of becoming a member. There are many real-life stories of non-members who have entered confessionals or approached priests and asked them if they could, but none of those received the sacrament, even if the priest was willing to indulge their desire.
A lay person has no power to judge the state of soul (including heresy or apostasy) of even another lay person, let alone a cleric of any rank. We can objectively categorize specific public statements but not subjectively the soul of the person, which is where the rubber meets the road.
Thanks Miriam, well said!
Quote from: Stubborn on July 05, 2022, 05:31:53 AM
The unrepentant liar, murder or adulterer cannot receive holy communion - neither can the heretic - because they are all in the state of mortal sin.
Are you an unrepentant heretic if you disagree with the official teaching of the Catholic Church on receiving interest as given in the papal encyclical Vix pervenit?
Quote from: AlNg on July 05, 2022, 10:41:56 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 05, 2022, 05:31:53 AM
The unrepentant liar, murder or adulterer cannot receive holy communion - neither can the heretic - because they are all in the state of mortal sin.
Are you an unrepentant heretic if you disagree with the official teaching of the Catholic Church on receiving interest as given in the papal encyclical Vix pervenit?
I don't understand the question. To be a heretic all one has to do is deny a single doctrine of the Church, far as I know there is no doctrine on receiving interest.
Our Lord seems to support the idea in his parable:
"And why then didst thou not give my money into the bank, that at my coming, I might have exacted it with usury?" Luke 19:23
"Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury." Matthew 25:27
Stubb,
If the Baptism was valid, then are those who receive it members of the Church?
Also, on the "severed" from the Church, question; are the "severed", members or not?
"Mortal Sin" does not sever one from membership from the Church, except in the cases name by Pope Pius.
Being severed from the "life of grace" does not sever one from the Church, one remains a "dead member", but a member nonetheless.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 07, 2022, 01:28:30 PM
Stubb,
1) If the Baptism was valid, then are those who receive it members of the Church?
2) Also, on the "severed" from the Church, question; are the "severed", members or not?
3) "Mortal Sin" does not sever one from membership from the Church, except in the cases name by Pope Pius.
4) Being severed from the "life of grace" does not sever one from the Church, one remains a "dead member", but a member nonetheless.
1) St. Thomas said: "the sacrament of baptism without the faith is of no value."
2) As for Catholics who are severed, refer to the question you have not answered: "And whose arm was it that was severed from your body? Nobody's?"
3) You misquote the teaching, he says "not every sin...is such as of its own nature to sever a man..." What he does not say, is "Mortal sin does not sever..."
4) Mortal sin literally means the soul is spiritually dead, so all Catholics who commit even only one single mortal sin, are "dead members," dead members are severed from the Church by their mortal sin.
The unrepentant liar, murder or adulterer cannot receive holy communion - neither can the heretic - because they are all in the state of mortal sin.
However, if between the four only the Catholic who fell into the sin of heresy were to confess his sin, he can again receive communion, but not the others - why do you suppose that is?
How the heck did a Catholic guilty of heresy even go to confession in the first place if, as you claim, he is not a member of the Church?
Stubbs, the mortal sins of heresy, schism and apostasy or infidelity or unique; they take away not only grace, but faith as well, which makes us members of the body of Christ. Hence, the person who falls into formal heresy, especially in a public or manifest manner, with clear and undeniable pertinacity in the manner explained by Fr. Ballerini cited earlier, is no longer even a dead member but a non-member of the Church. This is explained by Pope Ven. Pius XII in MCC. Taken from: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
Quote from: Pope Ven. Pius XII"23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
24. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."[21] "As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed." [22]"
The sedes are correct that the sin of heresy does sever a man from the Church in a way that for e.g. adultery does not. But they are incorrect in forgetting that this formal heresy (material heresy is not a sin, as even they agree), with public pertinacity, is absolutely necessary in the alleged Pope-heretic. Vatican I in fact says the faith of Peter will never fail, since the Lord prayed that it would not. Even when St. Peter outwardly denied he even knew the Lord, according to the Doctors, he still believe inwardly, but only feared.
Now, here is Fr. Connell explain how, through Universal Acceptance, in the special case of the Pope, we can have infallible certainty (based on the Teaching of the Whole OUM, or the World's Bishops) that the Pope is the Pope and not in fact a heretic.
Quote from: Fr. Connell, American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1965
Certainty of the Pope's Status
Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?
Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church."
Mike, will answer your questions about Cardinal Billot, and cite him, in a subsequent post, later on. God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier on July 08, 2022, 11:10:26 AM
Stubbs, the mortal sins of heresy, schism and apostasy or infidelity or unique; they take away not only grace, but faith as well, which makes us members of the body of Christ. Hence, the person who falls into formal heresy, especially in a public or manifest manner, with clear and undeniable pertinacity in the manner explained by Fr. Ballerini cited earlier, is no longer even a dead member but a non-member of the Church.
Like Michael, you are ignoring the fact that a Catholic who fell into the sin of heresy and becomes a "public or manifest heretic, with clear and undeniable pertinacity" who, if he ever wants to repent, MUST WALK INTO THE CONFESSIONAL TO BE FORGIVEN, JUST THE SAME AS HE DID EVERY MONTH FOR 30 YEARS BEFORE HE FELL INTO THE MORTAL SIN OF HERESY.
Since the sacrament of penance is strictly for Catholics, I don't get what it is that is so confusing about this simple truth?
So if a Protestant who is a formal heretic (let's say an ex-Catholic) repents and goes to Confession, he was a Catholic even before his Confession? Nope, he entered the Confessional as a NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC and exited it a Catholic Christian afterward.
God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier on July 08, 2022, 12:28:34 PM
So if a Protestant who is a formal heretic (let's say an ex-Catholic) repents and goes to Confession, he was a Catholic even before his Confession? Nope, he entered the Confessional as a NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC and exited it a Catholic Christian afterward.
God Bless.
True to some extent, but there is a logical problem with that because Protestants are not able to be forgiven in confession.
Quote from: AlNg on July 08, 2022, 12:53:22 PM
Quote from: Xavier on July 08, 2022, 12:28:34 PM
So if a Protestant who is a formal heretic (let's say an ex-Catholic) repents and goes to Confession, he was a Catholic even before his Confession? Nope, he entered the Confessional as a NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC and exited it a Catholic Christian afterward.
God Bless.
True to some extent, but there is a logical problem with that because Protestants are not able to be forgiven in confession.
Penitent Protestants are in the process of regaining the grace of spiritual rebirth, or the adoption of grace as sons/daughters of God, which they lost through culpable mortal sin. In the language of St. Augustine (who applied this analogy to Catechumens before Baptism) they are conceived but not yet born, and are born after receiving the Sacrament, which makes them full members. God Bless.
Quote from: Xavier on July 08, 2022, 12:28:34 PM
So if a Protestant who is a formal heretic (let's say an ex-Catholic) repents and goes to Confession, he was a Catholic even before his Confession? Nope, he entered the Confessional as a NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC and exited it a Catholic Christian afterward.
God Bless.
I disagree because before obtaining the sacrament of Confession, one must be baptized first. In your example you are hypothetically presenting a situation wherein the one who goes to Confession is a non-Catholic. The sacrament of Confession under that case ergo has no effect because one should first be Baptized. There is truth that salvation is exclusively in the One Catholic and Apostolic Church only.
Quote from: Xavier on July 08, 2022, 12:28:34 PM
So if a Protestant who is a formal heretic (let's say an ex-Catholic) repents and goes to Confession, he was a Catholic even before his Confession? Nope, he entered the Confessional as a NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC and exited it a Catholic Christian afterward.
God Bless.
Non-Catholics are not permitted to use the sacrament of Penance - period. How do you guys not know this?
If a Catholic becomes a prot heretic, murderer, adulterer, thief and a liar, that is mortal sin upon mortal sin. He HAS to get to confession just the same as you and I do if he wants to repent and obtain forgiveness - just the same as you and I do. He has no other choice, no other option, no other remedy - but unlike those in the same boat who were never Catholic, at least he has that choice, that option, that remedy always at his disposal as long as he lives.
He entered the confessional the only way he could - as a Catholic in need of the sacrament which is available only to Catholics. He left the confessional as a Catholic absolved from his sins.
Unless the Protestant was baptized as an infant, there is a doubt as to the validity of his baptism; part of the ritual of receiving a Protestant into the Church, is for them 1. Go To Confession; 2. Receive Baptism conditionally. The Priest hears the Confession of the Protestant, then he administers Baptism conditionally, then the conditionally baptize Protestant/Catholic, returns to the Confessional, where the priest administers absolution. The reason for the process, is that Protestants are usually not very careful about following the correct form of administering Baptism or of not applying enough water, etc. So if the convert has been baptized validly, then the absolution is valid; if they haven't then the Baptism is.
Quote from: Julio on July 08, 2022, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Xavier on July 08, 2022, 12:28:34 PM
So if a Protestant who is a formal heretic (let's say an ex-Catholic) repents and goes to Confession, he was a Catholic even before his Confession? Nope, he entered the Confessional as a NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC and exited it a Catholic Christian afterward.
God Bless.
I disagree because before obtaining the sacrament of Confession, one must be baptized first. In your example you are hypothetically presenting a situation wherein the one who goes to Confession is a non-Catholic. The sacrament of Confession under that case ergo has no effect because one should first be Baptized. There is truth that salvation is exclusively in the One Catholic and Apostolic Church only.
Hi Julio.
(1) Except Protestants are already validly Baptized, in most cases at least, as Trent anathematizes the proposition that Baptism administered by heretics, in the Name of the Holy Trinity, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is invalid: "If any man shall say that the baptism which is given by heretics in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism, let him be anathema"
(sess. 7:can. 4).(2) The case I mentioned was that of an Ex-Catholic, who obviously had Valid Baptism, and Catholic Baptism at that.
QuoteHe entered the confessional the only way he could - as a Catholic in need of the sacrament which is available only to Catholics. He left the confessional as a Catholic absolved from his sins.
We will agree to disagree. An unrepentant heretic is still a heretic. A heretic who has not yet received the grace of absolution through the Priest's hand is still in the process of becoming a Catholic. He becomes a Catholic again once he receives it.
Michael,
Quote from: Michael WilsonOn the "Universal Recognition" issue; by what magical or alchemichal wonder does "Universal Recognition" turn a heretic into a Catholic?
What Universal Recognition does is PROVE that the man elected is a Catholic and NOT a heretic. It is, in the language of canonists Wernz-Vidal, "a Sign and Infallible Effect of a
Valid Election". Hence, it proves that the Pope is a Catholic.
Let's take the example of Savanorala the Sedevacantist. This Sede accused the Roman Pontiff Pope Alexander of being an Apostate and an Atheist, of not only being a heretic and a simoniac, but of going beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety. Cardinal Billot gives a simple response to this. Pope Alexander VI had UA/UR; therefore, he was not in fact a heretic.
Savanorala the Sede-Vacantist: "The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a Pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence,
this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety" (Letter to the Emperor). [Footnote : These were neither new nor isolated accusations. cf. Schnitzer, "Savonarola", Italian translation by E. Rutili, Milan, 1931, vol. ii, p. 303.]
Savonarola would later recant, and even kiss the feet of the Papal Representative of Pope Alexander VI, but was still burned at the stake as a heretic: "On 12 May 1497, Pope Alexander VI excommunicated[44] Savonarola and threatened the Florentines with an interdict if they persisted in harbouring him. After describing the Church as a whore, Savonarola was excommunicated for heresy and sedition ... Fra Girolamo, Fra Domenico, and Fra Silvestro Maruffi were arrested and imprisoned. Under torture Savonarola confessed to having invented his prophecies and visions, then recanted, then confessed again.[47] In his prison cell in the tower of the government palace he composed meditations on Psalms 51 and 31.[48] On the morning of 23 May 1498, the three friars were led out into the main square where, before a tribunal of high clerics and government officials, they were condemned as heretics and schismatics, and sentenced to die forthwith" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola#Proto-Protestant The unhappy ending of the father of sede-vacantism.
Cardinal Billot refutes what he calls this schismatic attempt by Savonarola through the Catholic Doctrine of Universal Acceptance: ""Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter [Savonarola] broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one." http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html
And here's the rest of what Cardinal Billot wrote: From: https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/
Quote from: Cardinal Billot"One point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,' and 'Behold I shall be with you all days.' ...
God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions."
So, Cardinal Billot is saying UA proves infallibly the existence of the required conditions, namely that the elected man is a Catholic, not a heretic.
This should answer the objections. Re: a woman. God will never allow a woman to be elected, much less universally accepted. "He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately." If a false Pope is elected, he will never UA, as some of the false Popes of the Great Western Schism did not have it, but his election will be contested by the True Pope. Re: does the Pope have UA? Yes, pretty much all the Bishops who comprise the OUM of the Church recognize him. Even if you want to argue, Michael, that for e.g. Archbishop +Vigano doesn't recognize Pope Francis, certainly all the Bishops with OJ recognized the Popes from John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI until their deaths or resignation, which means they were certainly True Popes. The case of Bene-vacantism is a little different; what argues against it is Pope Benedict XVI himself declared many times that he completely resigned the pontificate, and now publicly recognizes Francis as the Pope.
God Bless.
Xavier, you stated that person is an ex-Catholic. Don't you think he needs to be renew the Baptism before being able to validly receive the Sacrament of Confession? Ergo, the Baptism is a must.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 08, 2022, 05:33:35 PM
Unless the Protestant was baptized as an infant, there is a doubt as to the validity of his baptism; part of the ritual of receiving a Protestant into the Church, is for them 1. Go To Confession; 2. Receive Baptism conditionally. The Priest hears the Confession of the Protestant, then he administers Baptism conditionally, then the conditionally baptize Protestant/Catholic, returns to the Confessional, where the priest administers absolution. The reason for the process, is that Protestants are usually not very careful about following the correct form of administering Baptism or of not applying enough water, etc. So if the convert has been baptized validly, then the absolution is valid; if they haven't then the Baptism is.
Having been to a prot conversion, the process after being schooled, is - and always has been:
1. Receive Baptism conditionally (or not at all if there is no doubt)
2. then go to confession
3. then receive holy communion
4. then go celebrate the event with a nice lunch!
Look, here we have Xavier stating that a
"NON-CATHOLIC HERETIC" can go to confession and exit
"a Catholic Christian". Why are there no face palm icons on SD?
A non catholic cannot go to confession because that is a sacrilege, the priest cannot absolve him or he commits a sacrilege....in the words of Our Lord:
"and the last state of that man is made worse than the first." This is only elementary catechism here.
Why can you not make an example using yourself.....
Suppose you were to fall into heresy and denied a doctrine, any doctrine - you pick it, and posted this obscene heresy as a truth all over the internet so that within a week, a million people read your heresy. Faithful Catholics will *correctly* say "that's heresy" and "he's a heretic."
But the next day, or a week later you realize it's heresy and want to repent - what do you do?
Go to confession?
Make a public profession of faith then go to confession?
Get [conditionally] baptized and make a public abjuration of heresy before you go to confession?
Go through +6 weeks of catechetical instructions, then get [conditionally] baptized, then go to confession, then receive holy communion?
According to your reasoning, your heresy put you outside of the Church, you are no longer a member, you are officially a "non-catholic heretic." This is your reasoning. By this measure you have no choice in the matter, you are not a Catholic, so what must *you* do to become a Catholic, a member of the Church again?
NOW, 6 months after that you fall into heresy again - only worse this time, and like the first time a week later you want to repent etc., and 2 years after that the same thing happens, and 3 after that the same thing happens and so on.
Is there a limit on the number of times one person can become a non-member of the Church before he can no longer become a member or is it a swinging door until death?
QuoteHaving been to a prot conversion, the process after being schooled, is - and always has been:
1. Receive Baptism conditionally (or not at all if there is no doubt)
2. then go to confession
3. then receive holy communion
4. then go celebrate the event with a nice lunch!
I don't remember it in this order; are you sure? I remember the: Confession; Conditional Baptism; conditional absolution, sequence.
QuoteA non catholic cannot go to confession because that is a sacrilege, the priest cannot absolve him or he commits a sacrilege....in the words of Our Lord: "and the last state of that man is made worse than the first." This is only elementary catechism here.
Why can you not make an example using yourself.....
Suppose you were to fall into heresy and denied a doctrine, any doctrine - you pick it, and posted this obscene heresy as a truth all over the internet so that within a week, a million people read your heresy. Faithful Catholics will *correctly* say "that's heresy" and "he's a heretic."
But the next day, or a week later you realize it's heresy and want to repent - what do you do?
Go to confession?
Make a public profession of faith then go to confession?
Get [conditionally] baptized and make a public abjuration of heresy before you go to confession?
Go through +6 weeks of catechetical instructions, then get [conditionally] baptized, then go to confession, then receive holy communion?
If the heretic was validly baptized and renounced their errors, I believe that the Confession would be valid.
The Church does not now demand a public recantation of errors from those who publicly defect from the faith, but that doesn't mean that it did not demand it at one time; or that it cannot demand it in the future.
Quote
According to your reasoning, your heresy put you outside of the Church, you are no longer a member, you are officially a "non-catholic heretic." This is your reasoning. By this measure you have no choice in the matter, you are not a Catholic, so what must *you* do to become a Catholic, a member of the Church again?
No, this isn't "my reasoning", this actually the teaching of the Church, per the quote from Pius XII, Mistici Corporis, and the Catechism; Dr. Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" and any other standard Catholic reference work.
Quote
NOW, 6 months after that you fall into heresy again - only worse this time, and like the first time a week later you want to repent etc., and 2 years after that the same thing happens, and 3 after that the same thing happens and so on.
Is there a limit on the number of times one person can become a non-member of the Church before he can no longer become a member or is it a swinging door until death?
St. Matthew 18:
Quote
[21] Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? [22] Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.
The Church does not limit the number of times that a sinner can repent and go to Confession.
Quote from: Julio on July 09, 2022, 03:46:12 AM
Xavier, you stated that person is an ex-Catholic. Don't you think he needs to be renew the Baptism before being able to validly receive the Sacrament of Confession? Ergo, the Baptism is a must.
Baptism is a sacrament that cannot be repeated. So for those who fall into sin after Baptism, only Confession or in case of necessity, perfect contrition is necessary.
Stubborn,
are heretics, schismatics and apostates, "actual members of the Church".
If they are "cut off", does that mean that they are not "actual members".
What about infants baptized validly in non-Catholic sects: when they arrive at the age of reason, are they "actual members", if not, why not; if so, why?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 08:01:49 AM
QuoteHaving been to a prot conversion, the process after being schooled, is - and always has been:
1. Receive Baptism conditionally (or not at all if there is no doubt)
2. then go to confession
3. then receive holy communion
4. then go celebrate the event with a nice lunch!
I don't remember it in this order; are you sure? I remember the: Confession; Conditional Baptism; conditional absolution, sequence.
fwiw my catechesis was the same as in Stubbs example.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 08:01:49 AM
QuoteHaving been to a prot conversion, the process after being schooled, is - and always has been:
1. Receive Baptism conditionally (or not at all if there is no doubt)
2. then go to confession
3. then receive holy communion
4. then go celebrate the event with a nice lunch!
I don't remember it in this order; are you sure? I remember the: Confession; Conditional Baptism; conditional absolution, sequence.
The convert must receive conditional baptism prior to confession in case the first baptism was invalid. If it was invalid then what good would it do to go to confession first? So the order is always the same for converts as it is for cradle Catholics. For converts, it all happens much sooner is all.
If it is certain that the first baptism was valid, then there can be no conditional baptism at all, just skip that step.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 08:01:49 AM
QuoteA non catholic cannot go to confession because that is a sacrilege, the priest cannot absolve him or he commits a sacrilege....in the words of Our Lord: "and the last state of that man is made worse than the first." This is only elementary catechism here.
Why can you not make an example using yourself.....
Suppose you were to fall into heresy and denied a doctrine, any doctrine - you pick it, and posted this obscene heresy as a truth all over the internet so that within a week, a million people read your heresy. Faithful Catholics will *correctly* say "that's heresy" and "he's a heretic."
But the next day, or a week later you realize it's heresy and want to repent - what do you do?....
If the heretic was validly baptized and renounced their errors, I believe that the Confession would be valid.
The Church does not now demand a public recantation of errors from those who publicly defect from the faith, but that doesn't mean that it did not demand it at one time; or that it cannot demand it in the future.
No, you did not read what I wrote because the whole scenario is based on making YOU the example, I said to "use yourself", not some phantom or prot heretic.
A public recantation of your heresies would be the very first thing you would do asap without being told to imo but yes, it is something that must be done imo, as soon as possible. But I believe doing so is only conditional, that is, if your confessor decides you must publicly recant as a condition for you to be absolved. It's like when one is guilty of stealing, you must repay what you stole.
So, again - what would *you* do?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 08:08:41 AM
Stubborn,
1. are heretics, schismatics and apostates, "actual members of the Church".
2. If they are "cut off", does that mean that they are not "actual members".
3. What about infants baptized validly in non-Catholic sects: when they arrive at the age of reason, are they "actual members", if not, why not; if so, why?
Oh oh, now he is calling me by my whole name, it's getting serious :pray2:
1. If they were ever members according to your St. Pius X catechism definition, yes.
2. No
3. Even if the baptism was valid, if they remain with non-Catholic sects after the age of reason, then no, they are not actual members -
"Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."You need to remember Michael, infants cannot choose anything, not the faith, not even to be baptized or where to be baptized - that is the parent's first responsibility toward their children. Should that infant die before reaching the age of reason, he would go straight to heaven, not to hell. This is so because 1) he is without Original sin from his baptism, 2) because he's an infant, he is not guilty of any actual sins so he died in the state of sanctifying grace.
Now for us Catholics, the parents and Godparents promise that the child will be raised in the faith, this is why the sponsors give all the answers on behalf of the infant, if they don't, then the priest cannot baptize the infant.
The parents and sponsors are promising for the infant, promising that the infant wants to be baptized, wants the faith, wants to be Catholic, wants eternal life and on and on - in a sense, they must convince the Church to baptize their infant by vowing for the infant that he will be raised a Catholic, or the priest cannot baptize him.
Xavier, the Church does not use the term "Ex-Catholic" to refer to someone excommunicated. The word literally means "out of the community." Again, there are two levels of membership:
The first has to do with one's permanent admission in the life of the Church; the second has to do with one's canonical permission to partake of the life of the Church. The excommunicant is no longer (but hopefully only temporarily, which is the purpose of the exile) a participating member of the practicing community, since the excommunicant has earned exclusion from the rights of membership. But I agree with Julio's point: the member was either validly baptized or not, and baptism provides the indelible mark.
Non-members cannot be excommunicated, or temporarily exiled until they agree to the terms of full, practicing inclusion. There would be nothing to sever them from.
Stubb,
I would repent, renounce my error and go to Confession; and if I posted such an error publicly, say on this forum, I would also publicly retract it.
QuoteOh oh, now he is calling me by my whole name, it's getting serious :pray2:
A momentary lapse into good manners! :laugh:
Q. 1. are heretics, schismatics and apostates, "actual members of the Church".
Stubb: 1. If they were ever members according to your St. Pius X catechism definition, yes.
Did I understand this correctly? Are you saying that according to St. Pius X's Catechism "heretics, schismatics and apostates are actual members of the Church (If they were ever members)"?
Q. Are those cut off from the Church, actual members?
2. No
Can Catholics ever be "cut off" from the Church, i.e. Cease to be actual members?
His excellency the most emminent Marquis de Stubborn:
Quote
3. Even if the baptism was valid, if they remain with non-Catholic sects after the age of reason, then no, they are not actual members - "Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."
Baptism of infants by non-Catholics (such as the Orthodox and some Protestants) are considered valid by the Church; if so, those children are Catholics; are you saying then that when they reach the age of reason, and embrace the false religion, they cease to be "actual members of the Church?"
Julio, as Michael said, Baptism imprints an Indelible Character on the soul, and thus can never be repeated. The Catholic, who once became a heretic, but now wants to be Catholic again, needs to repent, renounce his error and go to Confession to be one.
Stubborn and Miriam, can you please explain how you understand these words of Pope Pius XII: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy".
God Bless.
Thank you for all the discussions. Xavier and Michael, I stated about Baptism to be done because of the word, "ex-Catholic," which Merriam explained that it refers to excommunication which is the more precise term.
My take on that is this:
"Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.
§2. If after completing a diligent inquiry a prudent doubt still exists whether the sacraments mentioned in §1
were actually or validly conferred, they are to be conferred conditionally." https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html#CHAPTER_III.
Quote from: Xavier on July 09, 2022, 03:00:17 AM
Savonarola would later recant, and even kiss the feet of the Papal Representative of Pope Alexander VI, but was still burned at the stake as a heretic:
I thought that capital punishment was against human dignity? Why do Catholic authorities go against human dignity?
Quote from: AlNg on July 09, 2022, 02:40:31 PM
I thought that capital punishment was against human dignity? Why do Catholic authorities go against human dignity?
Is that all you think about? In the first place, criminals committing heavy crimes forfeit their human dignity and need to be punished according to moral law! You really seem to be a Vatican II Catholic!
Quote from: Paul_D on July 09, 2022, 04:23:54 PM
Is that all you think about?
No. Actually, I have been thinking about several other things. For one example what came before the beginning of time? God is above time, but His Son came down from heaven and became man within time. Would it be a contradiction to be above time and within time simultaneously?
Also, how powerful is the devil? Why did God let the devil have so much power? We see Catholic leaders such as Biden and Pelosi strongly, and I mean very strongly, support the "right" of a mother to murder her unborn child? And where is the corresponding strong response from most Catholic bishops (with a few exceptions). It is millions of women across the globe who are fighting for the right to murder their unborn children? Does this mean that Satan is winning the battle to capture the minds, hearts, and souls of so many women? Was it necessary for God to have created Satan or an angel God knew would transform into Satan?
There are afew other things I have been thinking about, but perhaps it would be inappropriate to raise them in this thread which is about the indefectibility of the Catholic church. I think though that you are wrong if you think that it is not appropriate to bring up the question of capital punishment. After all, if the Catholic Church teaches at one time that capital punishment is admissable, and then teaches at another time that it is not admissable, questions are raised about whether or not the Church was in error at one time or another since its teaching has changed in that it allowed capital punishment at one time, but it rejects it now.
Quote from: AlNg on July 09, 2022, 07:46:35 PM
Quote from: Paul_D on July 09, 2022, 04:23:54 PM
Is that all you think about?
No. Actually, I have been thinking about several other things. For one example what came before the beginning of time? God is above time, but His Son came down from heaven and became man within time. Would it be a contradiction to be above time and within time simultaneously?
Also, how powerful is the devil? Why did God let the devil have so much power? We see Catholic leaders such as Biden and Pelosi strongly, and I mean very strongly, support the "right" of a mother to murder her unborn child? And where is the corresponding strong response from most Catholic bishops (with a few exceptions). It is millions of women across the globe who are fighting for the right to murder their unborn children? Does this mean that Satan is winning the battle to capture the minds, hearts, and souls of so many women? Was it necessary for God to have created Satan or an angel God knew would transform into Satan?
There are afew other things I have been thinking about, but perhaps it would be inappropriate to raise them in this thread which is about the indefectibility of the Catholic church. I think though that you are wrong if you think that it is not appropriate to bring up the question of capital punishment. After all, if the Catholic Church teaches at one time that capital punishment is admissable, and then teaches at another time that it is not admissable, questions are raised about whether or not the Church was in error at one time or another since its teaching has changed in that it allowed capital punishment at one time, but it rejects it now.
All these excellent questions you ask is why I am so fascinated by the work of exorcists -- and their revelations about their work -- over the last 5-10 years. It seems that the need for exorcists has grown exponentially over the last 5 years especially. It certainly does seem, often, that Satan is winning, but that is only a temporary reality or perception. The events in the news absolutely make it appear as if much of the world is possessed. In particular, the women organizing continuous demonstrations about the recent SC ruling sound like screaming caricatures of witches.
Regarding capital punishment, the Church never made capital punishment a
de fide aspect of dogma. There's quite a difference between an innocent, unborn child and an adult career murderer.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 09, 2022, 10:07:32 PM
All these excellent questions you ask is why I am so fascinated by the work of exorcists -- and their revelations about their work -- over the last 5-10 years. It seems that the need for exorcists has grown exponentially over the last 5 years especially.
You make good points, but what Fr. Ripperger said is that over the past 5 - 10 years, exorcisms aren't working any more. He says that even the simplest ones are taking much longer, and the difficult ones aren't working at all.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 09, 2022, 10:07:32 PM
It certainly does seem, often, that Satan is winning, but that is only a temporary reality or perception.
"Temporary" in comparison to eternity, but it could be a very long time in human terms, like thousands of years.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 09, 2022, 10:07:32 PM
Regarding capital punishment, the Church never made capital punishment a de fide aspect of dogma.
Not
de fide, as you point out, but there was a major change to the Catechism in the nineties. I had an experience where a high school pupil said to her Catholic school teacher, "Look, it says right here in my catechism that capital punishment is approved by the Church." The teacher replied, "My catechism says the opposite." It turns out that they had different editions published only a couple years apart in the nineties, and the teaching was changed during that time.
The catechism is supposed to be a reliable guide for Catholics, but it is no longer reliable.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 09, 2022, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 09, 2022, 10:07:32 PM
All these excellent questions you ask is why I am so fascinated by the work of exorcists -- and their revelations about their work -- over the last 5-10 years. It seems that the need for exorcists has grown exponentially over the last 5 years especially.
You make good points, but what Fr. Ripperger said is that over the past 5 - 10 years, exorcisms aren't working any more. He says that even the simplest ones are taking much longer, and the difficult ones aren't working at all.
He has said the first assertion. Regarding the difficult ones, most recently, what I heard him say is that those are now taking an extremely long time, demanding far more perseverance, stamina, and ingenuity of exorcists. I have not heard him utter anything like "they aren't working at all." He describes reaching a sort-of stopping point, when it seems like there is nothing more to do, and he's wiped out physically and emotionally, as well as perplexed. Then (I thought he said), something happens to allow it the final stage to proceed.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 09, 2022, 10:07:32 PM
It certainly does seem, often, that Satan is winning, but that is only a temporary reality or perception.
Quote"Temporary" in comparison to eternity, but it could be a very long time in human terms, like thousands of years.
I don't deny that.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 09, 2022, 10:07:32 PM
Regarding capital punishment, the Church never made capital punishment a de fide aspect of dogma.
QuoteNot de fide, as you point out, but there was a major change to the Catechism in the nineties. I had an experience where a high school pupil said to her Catholic school teacher, "Look, it says right here in my catechism that capital punishment is approved by the Church." The teacher replied, "My catechism says the opposite." It turns out that they had different editions published only a couple years apart in the nineties, and the teaching was changed during that time.
The catechism is supposed to be a reliable guide for Catholics, but it is no longer reliable.
Yes, but remember that the catechism is a teaching guide, and the modern one is terribly written in some sections, reflecting the modernism and ambiguity of its writers. I don't think I did argue, however, that the modern one is reliable.
Speaking of Exorcisms, they can be very useful for Heaven in confirming or revealing timeless Truths or current events in a greater light. In the Gospel, the demons confessed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, or that St. Paul was a True Apostle of God. In Church History, under compulsion from Heaven, the demons confessed the Power of the Rosary, and the Blessed Mother's Prayers, in destroying their Kingdom; more recently, in this Swiss Exorcism in the 70s, which several Priests have stated they believe is authentic, the history of the development of the abusive and sinful practice of Holy Communion in the hand is traced: https://www.tldm.org/news4/warningsfrombeyond.1of3.htm
Confirmed here in this report from 1P5: "The popes, first Paul VI and then John Paul II, had grasped the problem, also thanks to the reports of Cardinal Bafile (prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints from 1975 to 1980). Notwithstanding this, Cardinal Knox continued on his course. Paul VI did asked Cardinal Knox not to evaluate the suggestions of Cardinal Bafile, but to think about how to apply them concretely. These suggestions were essentially the suspension of the concession of the new indult – the necessity of remembering that the practice of Commuion in the hand is discouraged by the Church and that, where the indult was not granted, Communion in the hand constituted an abuse." https://onepeterfive.com/communion-hand-true-story/
Quote from: 70's ExorcismCONFESSION AND HOLY COMMUNION
A: ...they must receive the Sacraments; receive them in the proper way. True confession, not just participation in penitential ceremonies, and Communion. At this time (Communion) the priest should say "Lord, I am not worthy" three times, and not just once.[7] Communion must he received in the mouth and not in the hand.
E: Speak only the truth, in the name of the Precious Blood, the Holy Cross, the Immaculate Conception of Lourdes. Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima!
A: We racked our brains for a very long time down there (he points downward), until we succeeded in getting Communion in the hand under way.[8] Communion in the hand... Communion in the hand is very good for us in Hell, believe me!
E: We order you, in the name... to say only what Heaven orders you! Speak only the truth, you have no right to lie, so leave off, stop it!
A: She (he points upward) wishes me to say...
E: Tell the truth, in the name...!
A: She wishes me to say... that if She, the Great Lady, were still living on earth. She would receive Communion in the mouth, but on her knees, and She would bow deeply, like this (he makes the gesture).
E: In the name of the Blessed Virgin... and of the Thrones, by order of the Thrones, tell the truth!
A: I have to say the Communion must not be received in the hand. The Pope himself gives Communion in the mouth. He does not want Communion to be given in the hand at all. That comes from the Cardinals.
E: In the name..., by order of the Thrones, tell the truth!
A: Then it went to the bishops and they imagined that it was a question of obedience, that they must obey the cardinals. Finally, it came to the priests, and they, in turn, imagined that they had to conform, because obedience is written in very large letters.
E: Tell the truth, you have no right to lie, in the name...!
A: Evil people should not he obeyed. The Pope, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin are the ones who must he obeyed. Communion in the hand is not at all the will of God.
E: Continue telling the truth, in the name...!
Speaking of capital punishment, the modern teaching contradicts that of St. Paul!
Romans 13:3-4
Quote[3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
I heard that the SSPX has no such trouble with their exorcisms. Would be interested if somebody had more information about that.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 11:38:29 AM
Stubb,
I would repent, renounce my error and go to Confession; and if I posted such an error publicly, say on this forum, I would also publicly retract it.
Ok, good answer.
So, how is it that you, a heretic who put yourself outside of the Church by your heresy and being no longer a member of the Church, made use of a sacrament that only Catholics, members of the Church are able to access?
The whole point is in the answer to the above query: Answer: You would go to confession, something non-Catholics cannot even hope to do, because your heresy did not lose for you membership in the Church.
I can make use of the Sacrament of the Church, 1. Because of my valid Baptism, which imprints an indelible mark on my soul and allows me to receive the other sacraments validly, as long as I possess the right dispositions. 2. By removing the "obex" or impediment that prevented me from receiving the sacrament validly i.e. Heresy. Once this impediment is removed by the renouncing of my error and the confession of the true faith.
AINg
QuoteNo. Actually, I have been thinking about several other things. For one example what came before the beginning of time? God is above time, but His Son came down from heaven and became man within time. Would it be a contradiction to be above time and within time simultaneously?
Also, how powerful is the devil? Why did God let the devil have so much power? We see Catholic leaders such as Biden and Pelosi strongly, and I mean very strongly, support the "right" of a mother to murder her unborn child? And where is the corresponding strong response from most Catholic bishops (with a few exceptions). It is millions of women across the globe who are fighting for the right to murder their unborn children? Does this mean that Satan is winning the battle to capture the minds, hearts, and souls of so many women? Was it necessary for God to have created Satan or an angel God knew would transform into Satan?
There are afew other things I have been thinking about, but perhaps it would be inappropriate to raise them in this thread which is about the indefectibility of the Catholic church. I think though that you are wrong if you think that it is not appropriate to bring up the question of capital punishment. After all, if the Catholic Church teaches at one time that capital punishment is admissable, and then teaches at another time that it is not admissable, questions are raised about whether or not the Church was in error at one time or another since its teaching has changed in that it allowed capital punishment at one time, but it rejects it now.
The death penalty was ordered by God not only against the enemies of Israel, but even against the Israelites that violated the 10 Commandments such as working on Sunday, or committing adultery. So Our Lord Himself recommended the death penalty for those who would "scandalize" i.e. Cause to sin a child. The Catholic Church cannot change its teaching, since this teaching does not belong to it, but has been revealed to it by God for its propagation and the salvation of men.
How on earth can the new Catechism and the Pope change that teaching legitimately? The Holy Ghost would protect the Pope from such a change if he were a real Pope (sedism) or the Pope can teach errors any time except in the most solemn of proclamations (R&R).
On the Incarnation: It would be a contradiction if God, as God would live in time and in Eternity; but when the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on the human nature in the Incarnation, He did not cease to live in eternity, but lived as a man in time, for Christ was a true man with a true human nature, that needed to eat, sleep, grow, etc. He as God lived in eternity, but His human nature that was passible and created, lived in time.
Ref. "The devil's power": St. Paul predicted that in the latter times, as men fell from the faith, they would grow in wickedness, until the "man of sin" would reveal himself. Just as Our Lord allowed His enemies to capture, torture and execute Him, in order to accomplish the Redemption; so it will happen to His Mystical Body at the end of the world, where it would appear for all intense and purposes that the Church has disappeared, but then will follow its glorious triumph.
Ref. Satan: God created him a Holy Angel, endowed with all the gifts of the angelic nature and of Sanctifying Grace, with the real possibility of gaining eternal happiness in the Beatific Vision. He rebelled against God's revelation and authority and thus fell from the state of grace to that of eternal misery and sin.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 11:54:47 AM
QuoteOh oh, now he is calling me by my whole name, it's getting serious :pray2:
A momentary lapse into good manners! :laugh:
Q. 1. are heretics, schismatics and apostates, "actual members of the Church".
Stubb: 1. If they were ever members according to your St. Pius X catechism definition, yes.
Did I understand this correctly? Are you saying that according to St. Pius X's Catechism "heretics, schismatics and apostates are actual members of the Church (If they were ever members)"?
Q. Are those cut off from the Church, actual members?
2. No
Can Catholics ever be "cut off" from the Church, i.e. Cease to be actual members?
For 1. Yes, you understand me correctly.
You rephrased your own question for #2 . . I answered "No" to
2. If they are "cut off", does that mean that they are not "actual members". This answer is based on those "cut off" having had the faith before being "cut off."
To answer your new #2,
Q. Are those cut off from the Church, actual members?I answer: If they were never Catholic, No.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 09, 2022, 11:54:47 AM
His excellency the most emminent Marquis de Stubborn:
Quote
3. Even if the baptism was valid, if they remain with non-Catholic sects after the age of reason, then no, they are not actual members - "Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."
Baptism of infants by non-Catholics (such as the Orthodox and some Protestants) are considered valid by the Church; if so, those children are Catholics; are you saying then that when they reach the age of reason, and embrace the false religion, they cease to be "actual members of the Church?"
Yes, that is correct. They have baptism, but they lack the rest of the requirements, which are:
"believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church." - SPX Catechism
IOW, they are baptized, but they never had the faith, without which, baptism is of no value.
I would urge you to read some of what happens (https://sensusfidelium.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Roman-Rite.pdf) at Catholic baptisms of infants.
The Church requires the catechumen to have the proper disposition, i.e. wants the faith, wants to become a member of the Church, or the catechumen will not be baptized.
As Trent's catechism puts it:
"This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."Obviously, infants being incapable, have no disposition. This disposition is presumed through the sponsors who take the baptismal vows, and promises
on behalf, in place of, and for the child. The sponsors vow that the child wants the Catholic faith and will be raised in the Catholic faith, IOW they answer for the child that the child has the "proper disposition." Without this, the priest cannot baptize the infant.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 09:52:20 AM
I can make use of the Sacrament of the Church, 1. Because of my valid Baptism, which imprints an indelible mark on my soul and allows me to receive the other sacraments validly, as long as I possess the right dispositions. 2. By removing the "obex" or impediment that prevented me from receiving the sacrament validly i.e. Heresy. Once this impediment is removed by the renouncing of my error and the confession of the true faith.
No Michael, you grant the sacrament of baptism expanded powers that on it's own it does not possess - as I posted repeatedly St. Thomas' clear teaching in that regard.
Additionally, *you* do not have the power to remove this impediment or "obex". If you could do that, why not simply ascend into heaven and be done with this valley of tears? Or at least skip confession altogether?
The reason for this is because what you call an impediment or "obex", the Church calls, "heresy" and if manifest wins the heretic the censure of "excommunication."
"...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.The traditional formula for absolution..
"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 Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin. The excommunicated Catholic is in a more serious moral depression than the Catholic who is in the state of sin only. But neither is in the woeful condition of those who are outside the Church. Again, this is one of the reasons why the Catholic should "rejoice always," (Phil. 4:4)., for no matter how terrible his sins, by the "power of the keys," he can be freed of them." - Fr. Wathen's book, Who Shall Ascend?
Stubb,
you appear to be arguing the opposite side of the question, of what does a Catholic have to do if he falls into heresy, and wants to be reconciled with the Church. You stated earlier, that all he had to do was "go to Confession"; now you appear to be saying that I cannot go to Confession. I must not be understanding what you are arguing.
On the Validity and fruitfulness of Baptism of infants in heretical sects:
Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVA. pg. 176:
Quote86. Infants, namely, those who have not yet acquired the use of reason (the perpetually insane are on the same level), because they are incapable of having an intention, can be validly and fruitfully baptized. Baptism administered to them confers all the effects, even with regard to the infused virtues and habits, and it must not be repeated when they arrive at the age of discretion. This latter practice (of rebaptism) was affirmed by some Catholics, Anabaptists, Baptists, and Modernists. who were preceded by Erasmust (D 1627)
Further on page 177 ibid.
QuoteThe non-Catholic theologian Karl Barth, relying on a new theory of Baptism, denied infant Baptism. According to Barth, baptism from its very institution supposes such a disposition of mind and command of the will that they cannot be given by infants. "For baptism is a sacrament of faith" and therefore it presupposes faith.
pg. 178, ibid:
QuoteAgainst these errors there is a continual and universal practice of the Church, and the constant doctrine of the Fathers and the theologians. This is founded on the necessity of baptism from the universal law of Christ also for children, since there is no other remedy available to them. Indeed if baptism were not valid for them, because of lack of faith, little children who die before obtaining the use of reason would not be able to be saved.
pg. 186 ibid:
QuoteAs Innocent I (D-94) said, if it is a matter of heretics who have converted to the Catholic faith, the question must be raised above all, and in each individual case, whether they were de facto baptized, and with what formula, matter and intention. If in a concrete case there is not certainty regarding any abnormality, it suffices to know the liturgical uses of that heretical sect. According to the results of this inquiry, the new convert will not be rebaptized, or baptized absolutely or conditionally, according as it is determined that he was or was not baptized, or a prudent doubt exists about the validity of the previously received baptism.
And from the Council of Florence, on the "Decree for the Armenians", Dz-696:
Quote...the minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is competent by office to baptize. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 10:08:22 AM
Ref. Satan: God created him a Holy Angel, endowed with all the gifts of the angelic nature and of Sanctifying Grace, with the real possibility of gaining eternal happiness in the Beatific Vision. He rebelled against God's revelation and authority and thus fell from the state of grace to that of eternal misery and sin.
Did God create the Angel in time or outside of time? And God knew that the Angel (or Angels) would become Satan and interfere with His Creation of Adam and Eve? Having free will, God was not required to create this Angel which He knew would cause so much misery as we see in the world today and the world of yesterday.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 10:57:22 AM
Stubb,
you appear to be arguing the opposite side of the question, of what does a Catholic have to do if he falls into heresy, and wants to be reconciled with the Church. You stated earlier, that all he had to do was "go to Confession"; now you appear to be saying that I cannot go to Confession. I must not be understanding what you are arguing.
No, it is not I who changed to the opposite side. Rather, it is you who seemingly chooses both sides.
You said (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=28391.msg583451#msg583451) that if you (a Catholic) were the heretic who wanted to repent, that you
"could make use of the sacraments of the Church." Which is to say that although in heresy, you remain "a Catholic - since only Catholics can make use of the sacraments.
This is opposite of your insistence that heretics are not Catholics because if, as you insist, heretics are not Catholic, then they cannot
"make use of the sacraments of the Church."So either you, the heretic, is a Catholic and can, as you say,
"make use of the sacraments of the Church,"or you are a heretic, not a Catholic,
""not included as members of the Church" = not members of the Church" (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=28233.msg583246#msg583246) therefore cannot
"make use of the sacraments of the Church."This is no trick question, but you cannot be both, so which is it?
Quote from: AlNg on July 10, 2022, 12:14:54 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 10:08:22 AM
Ref. Satan: God created him a Holy Angel, endowed with all the gifts of the angelic nature and of Sanctifying Grace, with the real possibility of gaining eternal happiness in the Beatific Vision. He rebelled against God's revelation and authority and thus fell from the state of grace to that of eternal misery and sin.
Did God create the Angel in time or outside of time? And God knew that the Angel (or Angels) would become Satan and interfere with His Creation of Adam and Eve? Having free will, God was not required to create this Angel which He knew would cause so much misery as we see in the world today and the world of yesterday.
This is more than offset by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, being incarnated, suffered, and died, and made everyone be able to go to Heaven. The Devil does not alone cause misery; humans are just as to blame, misusing their free will by disobeying God. Don't even think of blaming God for this. He wanted to create the world and all in it despite the evil that would occur because of His love. His love can never be conquered!
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 10:08:22 AM
How on earth can the new Catechism and the Pope change that teaching legitimately? The Holy Ghost would protect the Pope from such a change if he were a real Pope (sedism)
Well other catechisms have been changed, No? Take for example the Catechismus Romanus 1871 ed. De septimo praecepto, 8.
"Whatever is received beyond the principal and that capital which is given, whether it be money or whether it be any other thing which can be purchased or estimated in money, is usury; for it is written in Ezekiel, :"He has not lent at usury nor received an increase," and in Luke the Lord says, "lend hoping nothing thereby." This was always a most grave crime, even among the gentiles, and especially odious. "
Yet soon after 1871, receiving a modest amount of interest beyond the principal was allowed and that change in teaching did not make the papal office vacant.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 11:36:30 AM
On the Validity and fruitfulness of Baptism of infants in heretical sects:......
Yes, we already agree valid baptisms of infants is salvific for infants. You seemingly cannot grasp that more is necessary after the age of reason. After the age of reason they must learn/accept/embrace the Catholic faith in order to be members of the Church -because after the age of reason, the sacrament of baptism without the Catholic faith is not enough, the sacrament is of no value without the Catholic faith.
This seems simple enough to me.
If after the age of reason the validly baptized infant never attains the faith, then that infant is not a Catholic, not a member, he is outside of the Church - because he never had the faith, which makes the sacrament of baptism of no value, which again, means he is "not included as members of the Church" = not members of the Church" therefore cannot "make use of the sacraments of the Church."
Quote from: Stubborn on July 10, 2022, 12:17:36 PM
This is no trick question, but you cannot be both, so which is it?
Is it that you are a Catholic in name (but not in belief), as you want to separate yourself from the teachings of the Church? You have the right to repent and come back to the Church by confession.
Quote from: AlNg on July 10, 2022, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 10:08:22 AM
How on earth can the new Catechism and the Pope change that teaching legitimately? The Holy Ghost would protect the Pope from such a change if he were a real Pope (sedism)
Well other catechisms have been changed, No? Take for example the Catechismus Romanus 1871 ed. De septimo praecepto, 8.
"Whatever is received beyond the principal and that capital which is given, whether it be money or whether it be any other thing which can be purchased or estimated in money, is usury; for it is written in Ezekiel, :"He has not lent at usury nor received an increase," and in Luke the Lord says, "lend hoping nothing thereby." This was always a most grave crime, even among the gentiles, and especially odious. "
Yet soon after 1871, receiving a modest amount of interest beyond the principal was allowed and that change in teaching did not make the papal office vacant.
That is wrong! The Holy See simply conceded that modern banking is more complicated and the confessor doesn't know the ins and outs of it. But saying that receiving interest on a full-recourse loan isn't usurious is simply false!
Quote from: Paul_D on July 10, 2022, 12:44:46 PM
But saying that receiving interest on a full-recourse loan isn't usurious is simply false!
So receiving interest on a loan you give to the bank with your bank account is usurious and a grave sin?
But the Vatican requires its administrators to pay interest on a loan, No?
See Canon 1284 #5 (1983)
Quote from: AlNg on July 10, 2022, 01:05:57 PM
Quote from: Paul_D on July 10, 2022, 12:44:46 PM
But saying that receiving interest on a full-recourse loan isn't usurious is simply false!
So receiving interest on a loan you give to the bank with your bank account is usurious and a grave sin?
But the Vatican requires its administrators to pay interest on a loan, No?
See Canon 1284 #5 (1983)
Practice is different from doctrine, very regretfully nowadays! And I think most institutional borrowing and lending is non-recourse, *not full recourse*. As I said, you really need to use strict definitions or you'll call usury that which really isn't!
Quote from: AlNg on July 10, 2022, 12:14:54 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 10:08:22 AM
Ref. Satan: God created him a Holy Angel, endowed with all the gifts of the angelic nature and of Sanctifying Grace, with the real possibility of gaining eternal happiness in the Beatific Vision. He rebelled against God's revelation and authority and thus fell from the state of grace to that of eternal misery and sin.
Did God create the Angel in time or outside of time? And God knew that the Angel (or Angels) would become Satan and interfere with His Creation of Adam and Eve? Having free will, God was not required to create this Angel which He knew would cause so much misery as we see in the world today and the world of yesterday.
When God created a finite creature, that is when time began. Time is the succession of one moment with another. God does not exist in time, as He lives in the Eternal NOW, with no "before" or "after". We as humans and limited creatures, cannot really grasp this, except through analogy.
He is never obliged to do anything that is contrary to His goodness; when He decreed to create intelligent creatures, He knew that in giving them the possibility of loving Him and of attaining to the beatific vision, that there would be some who would reject His loving invitation.
Why did He create these beings, knowing what misery they would cause? Ultimately He did it because He knew that even in their rebellion and rejection, He could draw good out of it for the Majority of the Angels; and in the case of men, from the triumph of the virtuous over the obstacles that the wicked would place in their path.
Stubb,
QuoteYes, we already agree valid baptisms of infants is salvific for infants. You seemingly cannot grasp that more is necessary after the age of reason. After the age of reason they must learn/accept/embrace the Catholic faith in order to be members of the Church -because after the age of reason, the sacrament of baptism without the Catholic faith is not enough, the sacrament is of no value without the Catholic faith.
I have to disagree: If the Baptism of infants is valid and fruitful, therefore "salvific" (otherwise it would not be salvific), then they are incorporated into the Church, for "there is no salvation outside the Church" i.e. Nobody can be saved except to be incorporated in the Church.
So if they reach the age of reason, they have to do something to make the salvific baptism, "un-salvific", for example, commit a Mortal Sin or knowingly reject the Catholic faith.
However, they were members of the Church.
Quote
If after the age of reason the validly baptized infant never attains the faith, then that infant is not a Catholic, not a member, he is outside of the Church - because he never had the faith, which makes the sacrament of baptism of no value, which again, means he is "not included as members of the Church" = not members of the Church" therefore cannot "make use of the sacraments of the Church."
He has to have had faith, because baptism infuses the Theological virtues into the soul; and therefore he had to be a member of the Church.
Stubb,
QuoteQ. 1. are heretics, schismatics and apostates, "actual members of the Church".
Stubb: 1. If they were ever members according to your St. Pius X catechism definition, yes.
Stubb: For 1. Yes, you understand me correctly.
This contradicts what Pius XII taught in Mistici Corporis and what the Catechism of St. Pius X teaches.
Pius XII teaches that only those who can be counted as actual members of the Church, are those who etc. etc.
Quote22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." 17 As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
So only those can be "actually included as members" i.e. "Actual members" who have not 'separated themselves' or 'been separated from the unity of the body by legitimate authority. That those "divided in faith (heretics) or government (schismatics) cannot be living in the unity of the body".
The fact that someone can "separate themselves from the unity of the body", means that they once belonged to "the unity of the body".
Pius XII goes on in the next paragraph of the same Encyclical that "not every sin" can sever a man from the Body of the Church as does schism, heresy and apostasy:
QuoteFor not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
Again, one can only be "severed" if one previously belonged to the body; and if one is severed, one cannot be an 'actual member".
Stubb,
Quote
You said that if you (a Catholic) were the heretic who wanted to repent, that you "could make use of the sacraments of the Church." Which is to say that although in heresy, you remain "a Catholic - since only Catholics can make use of the sacraments.
No, I do not say that heretics remain members of the Church; that is your argument.
Quote
This is opposite of your insistence that heretics are not Catholics because if, as you insist, heretics are not Catholic, then they cannot "make use of the sacraments of the Church."
One can make use of the sacraments of the Church even if one is not Catholic, because of the Baptismal character imprinted on the soul, which gives one the ability to receive the other sacraments, if one does not oppose and obstacle on such reception; for example, an Orthodox who is a "material heretic or schismatic" i.e. Innocent, can assist fruitfully at Mass and receive Communion or go to Confession in his schismatic sect; not because of the virtue of his false sect, but because of the fruitfulness of the Catholic sacraments and his not putting an obstacle to God's grace.
Quote
So either you, the heretic, is a Catholic and can, as you say, "make use of the sacraments of the Church,"
or you are a heretic, not a Catholic, ""not included as members of the Church" = not members of the Church" therefore cannot "make use of the sacraments of the Church."
A heretic who renounces his errors and embraces the Catholic faith, is not a "heretic", but a Catholic.
Quote
This is no trick question, but you cannot be both, so which is it?
That is a question that you have answered as "both", by positing that a heretic, schismatic or apostate is still an "actual member" of the Church:
QuoteQ. 1. are heretics, schismatics and apostates, "actual members of the Church".
Stubb: 1. If they were ever members according to your St. Pius X catechism definition, yes.
Stubb: For 1. Yes, you understand me correctly.
Quote from: AlNg on July 10, 2022, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 10, 2022, 12:17:36 PM
This is no trick question, but you cannot be both, so which is it?
Is it that you are a Catholic in name (but not in belief), as you want to separate yourself from the teachings of the Church? You have the right to repent and come back to the Church by confession.
Yes, you can separate yourself from the Church i.e. Cease to be a member, but you can also repent and return, as in the parable of the prodigal son.
AINg,
QuoteWell other catechisms have been changed, No? Take for example the Catechismus Romanus 1871 ed. De septimo praecepto, 8.
"Whatever is received beyond the principal and that capital which is given, whether it be money or whether it be any other thing which can be purchased or estimated in money, is usury; for it is written in Ezekiel, :"He has not lent at usury nor received an increase," and in Luke the Lord says, "lend hoping nothing thereby." This was always a most grave crime, even among the gentiles, and especially odious. "
Yet soon after 1871, receiving a modest amount of interest beyond the principal was allowed and that change in teaching did not make the papal office vacant.
Catechisms did not change their teaching in the sense of contradicting previous teaching; but at times the teaching authority could make a clarification of teaching that was not as clear or developed before. However, Church discipline was modified from time to time, such as the fast laws during Lent and for the worthy reception of Holy Communion.
Money in the Middle Ages was all minted from gold and silver, and remained stable and static in value; because of the scarcity of such coin and mineral; therefore if I lent someone say $5.00 of Gold coin in one year, that person could return the same amount in another year or several years, with no loss of value. The issuing of paper money and the discovery of large amounts of gold and silver in the New World, led to the creation of inflation and also of deflation of the value of money, which meant that money no longer held a steady value, but rose and fell unpredictably; lenders no longer received the same value back when they received the same amount of money. Which meant that there was a new situation in which the Church had to determine what was the morally correct behavior. So the teaching of the Church in the older Catechisms still reflected the "static" value of money, as opposed to the more fluctuating concept.
Quote from: queen.saints on July 10, 2022, 09:23:05 AM
I heard that the SSPX has no such trouble with their exorcisms. Would be interested if somebody had more information about that.
I would be interested as well.
Quote from: AlNg on July 10, 2022, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 10, 2022, 12:17:36 PM
This is no trick question, but you cannot be both, so which is it?
Is it that you are a Catholic in name (but not in belief), as you want to separate yourself from the teachings of the Church? You have the right to repent and come back to the Church by confession.
I think that's a good way of putting it - you are Catholic in name but not belief.....this is true only if the heretic was ever Catholic in the first place before losing the faith. If one never had the faith, then obviously one cannot lose a faith that he never had.
A Catholic who has fallen into heresy has the right and he has the obligation of using confession - otoh, someone who has never had the faith, was therefore never Catholic, cannot use confession.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 04:10:16 PM
Stubb,
QuoteYes, we already agree valid baptisms of infants is salvific for infants. You seemingly cannot grasp that more is necessary after the age of reason. After the age of reason they must learn/accept/embrace the Catholic faith in order to be members of the Church -because after the age of reason, the sacrament of baptism without the Catholic faith is not enough, the sacrament is of no value without the Catholic faith.
I have to disagree: If the Baptism of infants is valid and fruitful, therefore "salvific" (otherwise it would not be salvific), then they are incorporated into the Church, for "there is no salvation outside the Church" i.e. Nobody can be saved except to be incorporated in the Church.
So if they reach the age of reason, they have to do something to make the salvific baptism, "un-salvific", for example, commit a Mortal Sin or knowingly reject the Catholic faith.
However, they were members of the Church.
The sin that is committed after the age of reason is the sin of not having the faith.
John 16:8
"And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. [9] Of sin: because they believed not in me."Does not Our Lord clearly tell us this in John 16:9 that it is a sin to not believe in Christ? To not have the Catholic faith is to not believe in the Church, which is to not believe in Christ, who are both one and the same - as Pope Pius XII teaches in Humani Generis:
"...based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 04:10:16 PM
Quote
If after the age of reason the validly baptized infant never attains the faith, then that infant is not a Catholic, not a member, he is outside of the Church - because he never had the faith, which makes the sacrament of baptism of no value, which again, means he is "not included as members of the Church" = not members of the Church" therefore cannot "make use of the sacraments of the Church."
He has to have had faith, because baptism infuses the Theological virtues into the soul; and therefore he had to be a member of the Church.
Infants are incapable of having faith, and baptism does not teach the faith to anyone.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 10, 2022, 04:28:23 PM
Again, one can only be "severed" if one previously belonged to the body; and if one is severed, one cannot be an 'actual member". [....]
So only those can be "actually included as members" i.e. "Actual members" who have not 'separated themselves' or 'been separated from the unity of the body by legitimate authority. That those "divided in faith (heretics) or government (schismatics) cannot be living in the unity of the body".
The fact that someone can "separate themselves from the unity of the body", means that they once belonged to "the unity of the body".
Pius XII goes on in the next paragraph of the same Encyclical that "not every sin" can sever a man from the Body of the Church as does schism, heresy and apostasy:
Of course they are separated from the unity of the body - because of mortal sin they have separated themselves. Because of mortal sin they are to be considered "as a heathen, and a publican", and it is because of mortal sin they are to be considered to be a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic, an adulterer, a murderer, a thief, a liar or whatever - they may all be "excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed" which is mortal sin. Mortal sin = "grave faults committed". He is not only warning us about them, he is warning each and every one of us too.
They remain members because they have been baptized and professed the true faith before separating themselves by mortal sin. They can use the sacrament of penance, i.e. go to confession because only actual members can.
And you never answered, whose arm is it? Yet you know that it is your arm. When we severe ourselves from the Church, it is always through mortal sin, God made the procedure for members of the Church to repair the severance a whole lot easier than for your arm.
Stubb,
Infants have the infused virtue of faith; they do not profess any faith; its one of the "effects" of the Sacrament.
You are confusing the "virtue" of faith, and the "act" of faith:
Here is St. Thomas, Summa III Q.69 A. 4
QuoteI answer that, As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized are incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members, according to John 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence it is clear that man receives grace and virtues in Baptism.
Article 6. Whether children receive grace and virtue in the Sacrament?
QuoteOn the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion lii): "When little children are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted in birth: so that to them also may be applied the words: 'We are buried together with Him by Baptism unto death'": (and he continues thus) "'that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.'" Now newness of life is through grace and virtues. Therefore children receive grace and virtues in Baptism.
I answer that, Some of the early writers held that children do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism, but that they receive the imprint of the character of Christ, by the power of which they receive grace and virtue when they arrive at the perfect age. But this is evidently false, for two reasons. First, because children, like adults, are made members of Christ in Baptism; hence they must, of necessity, receive an influx of grace and virtues from the Head. Secondly, because, if this were true, children that die after Baptism, would not come to eternal life; since according to Romans 6:23, "the grace of God is life everlasting." And consequently Baptism would not have profited them unto salvation.
The difference between "habit" and "act"
QuoteNow the source of their error was that they did not recognize the distinction between habit and act. And so, seeing children to be incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at all after Baptism. But this inability of children to act is not due to the absence of habits, but to an impediment on the part of the body: thus also when a man is asleep, though he may have the habits of virtue, yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep.
I think we have pretty well killed this issue.
Thanks for your responses; interesting and stimulating (without "over-stimulation" on my part, this time).
^^Thank you both of you. It is a very enlightening discussion indeed.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 11, 2022, 05:00:32 PM
Stubb,
Infants have the infused virtue of faith; they do not profess any faith; its one of the "effects" of the Sacrament.
You are confusing the "virtue" of faith, and the "act" of faith:
Yes, by their baptism infants are incorporated into the Church, but they do not, because they cannot, profess the faith according to your St. Pius X catechism - which, as the catechism teaches, is necessary for adults to be members.
Your bringing infants into this discussion really has no bearing on the issue. Through the parents and sponsors, the Church presumes an infant baptized in the Church has and will be raised in the faith - that is the reason they must answer for the infant. Reading that link I posted on the Church's baptismal rubrics for children confirms this.
Michael, the sacrament administered in a Lutheran church does not make an adult who receives it a Catholic, why not? The short answer is, because he does not want to be Catholic. He is still outside of the Church,
because baptism without the faith has no value. There is no sin, no matter what the sin is or how numerous, that cannot be forgiven in the sacrament of penance - a sacrament only Catholics can use.
Even validly baptized adults outside of the Church cannot be forgiven without this sacrament - that's why God made it. This sacrament alone should be an invaluable enticement for those "sincere non-Catholic Christians" to join the Church, but what we value so highly, they do not want any part of - even though they may be validly baptized.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 11, 2022, 05:00:32 PM
I think we have pretty well killed this issue.
Thanks for your responses; interesting and stimulating (without "over-stimulation" on my part, this time).
Suits me - I just hope someone else posts something so I don't have the last word. :)
"THE LAST WORD" (I couldn't resist).
Quote from: Stubborn on July 12, 2022, 05:29:35 AM
Even validly baptized adults outside of the Church cannot be forgiven without this sacrament
Suppose a Baptist man gets angry and yells at his wife since the house needs cleaning up. Then that night he tells his wife he was sorry for getting angry and he will help her clean up and he then kneels down and accepts Jesus as his personal Savior and repents of his sin of anger, making a perfect act of contrition. He tells God that he is sorry for his sin of anger which is offensive to God, and resolves to amend his life and resolves to not get unjustly angry in the future.
Do you say that this Baptist man cannot be forgiven of his sin of anger even though he has made a perfect act of contrition and accepts Jesus as his personal Savior?
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 12, 2022, 05:29:35 AM
Even validly baptized adults outside of the Church cannot be forgiven without this sacrament
Suppose a Baptist man gets angry and yells at his wife since the house needs cleaning up. Then that night he tells his wife he was sorry for getting angry and he will help her clean up and he then kneels down and accepts Jesus as his personal Savior and repents of his sin of anger, making a perfect act of contrition. He tells God that he is sorry for his sin of anger which is offensive to God, and resolves to amend his life and resolves to not get unjustly angry in the future.
Do you say that this Baptist man cannot be forgiven of his sin of anger even though he has made a perfect act of contrition and accepts Jesus as his personal Savior?
I would say, how does he know he made a perfect act of contrition?
From Trent's catechism:
The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance
Returning now to the Sacrament,
it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means; for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.
Necessity Of Confession
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces?
This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 08:19:41 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 12, 2022, 05:29:35 AM
Even validly baptized adults outside of the Church cannot be forgiven without this sacrament
Suppose a Baptist man gets angry and yells at his wife since the house needs cleaning up. Then that night he tells his wife he was sorry for getting angry and he will help her clean up and he then kneels down and accepts Jesus as his personal Savior and repents of his sin of anger, making a perfect act of contrition. He tells God that he is sorry for his sin of anger which is offensive to God, and resolves to amend his life and resolves to not get unjustly angry in the future.
Do you say that this Baptist man cannot be forgiven of his sin of anger even though he has made a perfect act of contrition and accepts Jesus as his personal Savior?
I would say, how does he know he made a perfect act of contrition?
So even if he did kneel down and repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior and he did make a perfect act of contrition in the eye of God, his sin would not be forgiven?
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 08:23:18 AM
So even if he did kneel down and repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior and he did make a perfect act of contrition in the eye of God, his sin would not be forgiven?
Read the second sentence of the Bull Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) - it says:
"We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..." According to that, we must answer that his sin would not be forgiven.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 08:19:41 AM
I would say, how does he know he made a perfect act of contrition?
How do you know that your sins are forgiven in confession in the mainstream Catholic Church when Catholics here say that Pope Francis is not the Pope, but is an imposter, and as well, Popes Benedict, john Paul I, john Paul II, were imposters and further there are Catholics who say that the ordination rite in the mainstream Catholic Church is invalid and the priests ordained in the mainstream Catholic Church are not priests but only laypeople, and further that the mainstream Catholic Church is not really the Catholic Church at all, but is an anti-Church with imposter Popes and laypeople parading as priests?
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 08:34:48 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 08:23:18 AM
So even if he did kneel down and repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior and he did make a perfect act of contrition in the eye of God, his sin would not be forgiven?
Read the second sentence of the Bull Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) - it says:
"We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."
According to that, we must answer that his sin would not be forgiven.
No wonder that some Protestants and some E. Orthodox do not feel too much warmth toward Roman Catholics.
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 01:01:25 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 08:19:41 AM
I would say, how does he know he made a perfect act of contrition?
How do you know that your sins are forgiven in confession in the mainstream Catholic Church when Catholics here say that Pope Francis is not the Pope, but is an imposter, and as well, Popes Benedict, john Paul I, john Paul II, were imposters and further there are Catholics who say that the ordination rite in the mainstream Catholic Church is invalid and the priests ordained in the mainstream Catholic Church are not priests but only laypeople, and further that the mainstream Catholic Church is not really the Catholic Church at all, but is an anti-Church with imposter Popes and laypeople parading as priests?
I have avoided all things NO my whole life so none of the above is really of any concern to me, but the doubtful validity of NO priests and sacraments are a concern and, are one of the main reasons why I have avoided all things NO my whole life.
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 01:03:32 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 08:34:48 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 08:23:18 AM
So even if he did kneel down and repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior and he did make a perfect act of contrition in the eye of God, his sin would not be forgiven?
Read the second sentence of the Bull Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) - it says:
"We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."
According to that, we must answer that his sin would not be forgiven.
No wonder that some Protestants and some E. Orthodox do not feel too much warmth toward Roman Catholics.
It is as Fr. Wathen said somewhere: "...If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe!"
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 01:03:32 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 18, 2022, 08:34:48 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 08:23:18 AM
So even if he did kneel down and repent and accept Jesus as his personal Savior and he did make a perfect act of contrition in the eye of God, his sin would not be forgiven?
Read the second sentence of the Bull Unam Sanctam (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) - it says:
"We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."
According to that, we must answer that his sin would not be forgiven.
No wonder that some Protestants and some E. Orthodox do not feel too much warmth toward Roman Catholics.
It is as Fr. Wathen said somewhere: "...If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe!"
Oh yeah. Things look very severe in the mainstream Roman Catholic Church today. It is only here that your sins are forgiven?
https://wdtprs.com/2022/07/a-unique-expression-of-the-lex-orandi-in-chicago/
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 06:25:11 PM
Oh yeah. Things look very severe in the mainstream Roman Catholic Church today. It is only here that your sins are forgiven?
https://wdtprs.com/2022/07/a-unique-expression-of-the-lex-orandi-in-chicago/
And that's why we avoid all things NO always.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 19, 2022, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 06:25:11 PM
Oh yeah. Things look very severe in the mainstream Roman Catholic Church today. It is only here that your sins are forgiven?
https://wdtprs.com/2022/07/a-unique-expression-of-the-lex-orandi-in-chicago/
And that's why we avoid all things NO always.
So the mainstream Catholic Church has defected? Or is it the one true Catholic Church where you can obtain forgiveness of your sins.
Quote from: AlNg on July 19, 2022, 05:20:33 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 19, 2022, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 06:25:11 PM
Oh yeah. Things look very severe in the mainstream Roman Catholic Church today. It is only here that your sins are forgiven?
https://wdtprs.com/2022/07/a-unique-expression-of-the-lex-orandi-in-chicago/
And that's why we avoid all things NO always.
So the mainstream Catholic Church has defected? Or is it the one true Catholic Church where you can obtain forgiveness of your sins.
I go to where I know the priests and sacraments are valid, and the truth never changes. Which means the lines for confessions are usually pretty long. I have nothing to do with the NO.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 19, 2022, 11:16:55 AM
I have nothing to do with the NO.
So you reject the mainstream Catholic church of His Holiness the Vicar of Christ Pope Francis? Are you in schism from the mainstream Catholic Church?
Quote from: AlNg on July 20, 2022, 12:32:37 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 19, 2022, 11:16:55 AM
I have nothing to do with the NO.
So you reject the mainstream Catholic church of His Holiness the Vicar of Christ Pope Francis? Are you in schism from the mainstream Catholic Church?
For me, the mainstream Catholic church is Catholic in name only and is in schism from the Catholic Church, hence, I have nothing to do with it.
Before you ask lol, if the pope ever gives a command I can obey without offending God, then of course I will obey - but none of the conciliar popes have given such commands. But if he ever does, I'm sure I'll get wind of it somehow, if nothing else I'm sure that it'll be posted all over the forums.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 20, 2022, 01:30:14 PM
For me, the mainstream Catholic is in schism from the Catholic Church,
Depending on how you look at it, you are then in schism from the mainstream Catholic Church and as such, your sins cannot be forgiven, since it is only in the mainstream Catholic Church, under His Holiness the Pope of Rome, that your sins can be forgiven at least it would appear so according to what you have stated above. You are in the same position as other schismatics who you have said cannot have their sins forgiven because they are not in the Catholic Church. Further, you are like a Protestant who believes in private and personal interpretation of theological issues and does not yield to the professional authority of 5600 Catholic bishops. There are 5600 Catholic bishops who profess allegiance to the mainstream Catholic Church (this includes some Eastern Catholic bishops who pledge allegiance to Pope Francis). How many bishops do you have in your schismatic Catholic Church who have publicly stated that they do not follow Pope Francis and his mainstream Catholic church? Even SSPX says that Pope Francis is the Pope of the Catholic Church and say that they are una cum Pope Francis in all their Masses.
^^I agree with you. The Pope maybe a sinner but the authority is in him being the holder of the sit of St. Peter. In the revelation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, He spoke about the importance of respect towards the authority. He also stated it here:
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." (Mathew 23:1,2 and 3)
Quote from: AlNg on July 20, 2022, 03:12:39 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 20, 2022, 01:30:14 PM
For me, the mainstream Catholic is in schism from the Catholic Church,
Depending on how you look at it, you are then in schism from the mainstream Catholic Church and as such, your sins cannot be forgiven, since it is only in the mainstream Catholic Church, under His Holiness the Pope of Rome, that your sins can be forgiven at least it would appear so according to what you have stated above...
The pope in Rome is still the pope and I still am his subject - so your whole post is a waste of space. Thanks be to God that I will not be answering for him or all the corrupt NO laity, clergy and bishops - and neither will you.
Quote from: Julio on July 20, 2022, 03:23:09 PM
^^I agree with you. The Pope maybe a sinner but the authority is in him being the holder of the sit of St. Peter. In the revelation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, He spoke about the importance of respect towards the authority. He also stated it here:
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." (Mathew 23:1,2 and 3)
Yes, and Our Lord also warned us to beware of false prophets, which means He warned us to watch out for all those who preach false doctrines - this includes all those who preach NO doctrines.
You should read Jeremias, (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/28023.htm) the whole chapter 23 as his prophesy applies to our times - it is recommended reading:
[1]Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord.
[2] Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.
[3] And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied.
[4] And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.
^^Nothing is about disobedience or rebellion against the pastor as provided by Jeremias. Furthermore, it is about prophesy of Jesus creating and instituting His Catholic Church, by way of the New Covenant. Assuming that NO is incorrect, which I won't state anything because I will know about that as I die, but St. Vincent Ferrer served a bad Pope yet he was provided with God's gifts through His miracles. So I disagree with you on this matter.
Quote from: Julio on July 21, 2022, 06:23:40 AM
^^Nothing is about disobedience or rebellion against the pastor as provided by Jeremias. Furthermore, it is about prophesy of Jesus creating and instituting His Catholic Church, by way of the New Covenant. Assuming that NO is incorrect, which I won't state anything because I will know about that as I die, but St. Vincent Ferrer served a bad Pope yet he was provided with God's gifts through His miracles. So I disagree with you on this matter.
There may be nothing about disobedience, but it is all about bad pastors within the Church.
For our part, we strive to remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first.
Quote from: Stubborn on July 21, 2022, 07:30:00 AM
Quote from: Julio on July 21, 2022, 06:23:40 AM
^^Nothing is about disobedience or rebellion against the pastor as provided by Jeremias. Furthermore, it is about prophesy of Jesus creating and instituting His Catholic Church, by way of the New Covenant. Assuming that NO is incorrect, which I won't state anything because I will know about that as I die, but St. Vincent Ferrer served a bad Pope yet he was provided with God's gifts through His miracles. So I disagree with you on this matter.
There may be nothing about disobedience, but it is all about bad pastors within the Church.
For our part, we strive to remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first.
Correct, it is about bad pastors and nothing about disobedience. Yes God must be first and He said this:
"If he refuses to listen to them,
tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you,
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew (18:17 and 18)
That is a clear evidence of importance of the Church in our life. It also provides the power and authority of the successor of St. Peter. God must be first and respect to the authority is His command. Whether or not the holder of that sit is a sinner or not is the call of God. We may disagree with him but his authority remains as such. It is up for him to answer to God and rebellion is never taught upon us by Jesus. I say, we adore God like St. Vincent Ferrer irrespective of the acts by holder of the sit of St. Peter.
May I ask you, when Jesus ascended to Heaven, was TLM the Mass that was celebrated by His disciples? In my understanding that was not the case. In fact the New Testament was not yet written at that time. It means that the holder of the sit of St. Peter made certain changes because like what Jesus said, he has the authority. If he abuse that such is another matter. I am saddened that Pope Francis banned it. I am against his actions on that. But TLM goers does not translate superiority over NO attendees. God bless brother.
Quote from: Julio on July 21, 2022, 02:10:03 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 21, 2022, 07:30:00 AM
Quote from: Julio on July 21, 2022, 06:23:40 AM
^^Nothing is about disobedience or rebellion against the pastor as provided by Jeremias. Furthermore, it is about prophesy of Jesus creating and instituting His Catholic Church, by way of the New Covenant. Assuming that NO is incorrect, which I won't state anything because I will know about that as I die, but St. Vincent Ferrer served a bad Pope yet he was provided with God's gifts through His miracles. So I disagree with you on this matter.
There may be nothing about disobedience, but it is all about bad pastors within the Church.
For our part, we strive to remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first.
Correct, it is about bad pastors and nothing about disobedience. Yes God must be first and He said this:
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew (18:17 and 18)
That is a clear evidence of importance of the Church in our life. It also provides the power and authority of the successor of St. Peter. God must be first and respect to the authority is His command. Whether or not the holder of that sit is a sinner or not is the call of God. We may disagree with him but his authority remains as such. It is up for him to answer to God and rebellion is never taught upon us by Jesus. I say, we adore God like St. Vincent Ferrer irrespective of the acts by holder of the sit of St. Peter.
I agree with all you say, what you seem to be missing is the fact that we cannot follow bad pastors who preach bad doctrines no matter who they are - not even popes. This does not mean they are not pastors, but it does mean we cannot go along with them lest we be driven away from the Church with the rest of scattered flock who listen to them.
Quote from: Julio on July 21, 2022, 02:10:03 PM
May I ask you, when Jesus ascended to Heaven, was TLM the Mass that was celebrated by His disciples? In my understanding that was not the case. In fact the New Testament was not yet written at that time. It means that the holder of the sit of St. Peter made certain changes because like what Jesus said, he has the authority. If he abuse that such is another matter. I am saddened that Pope Francis banned it. I am against his actions on that. But TLM goers does not translate superiority over NO attendees. God bless brother.
The Law of the Liturgy, Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm), was established by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.
In the second paragraph, he states:
QuoteHence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their
work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from
elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same
sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.
When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection,
We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy
the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies
they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.
So for our purpose, the True Mass is the same Mass as the original, which is to say it is traced all the way back to the Apostles. Whereas the new "mass" needed the approval of 6 protestant ministers before it could be released. But most people who go to it fail to see the protness which is all over it and inherent within the evil thing.
If you read the link, you will not be able to deny that the new mass clearly goes against the law of Quo Primum.
The words of Fr. Wathen below are indisputable, particularly the boded text:
"People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.
People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don't deviate from it."
^^Yes, I agree that we are not suppose to follow the bad pastor. That is what Jesus said. We have our deposit of faith and like what you stated the Law on Liturgy was established in 1570 by St. Pope Pius V. Just a side note, I highly admire this Saint for organizing the Holy League. Assuming that the statement of the authority perfectly fits to the form as it declares that it is a restoration of the original form and rite of the holy Fathers, it does not follow that the form of Missal prior to that which may not be in keeping with the original form is by itself heretic. Ergo, further changes on the basis of the authority emanating from the sit of St. Peter and the Second Ecumenical Council does not translate violation of the form of any missal due to the authority juxtaposition to the amendment that happened in 1570. Those missal in between the period where any possible changes were made from the time the rite was established by the holy Fathers until such time it was restored was not declared under the reign of St. Pope Pius V heretical. It has its own charism and the same value of adoration in the perspective of the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church as established or made by Jesus.
Take note, when St. Pope Pius V, established that Law of the Liturgy, nothing is mentioned about declaration of wrongness or heretical description of the past rite that was changed by that. That being the case, his action was to restore the original rite. Were the holy Fathers were all saying the Mass in Latin? I say no, the Book of Acts is so clear that they spoke in several languages during the Pentecost:
"And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim." Acts of the Apostles (2:2,3 and 4)
Again, I am saddened of dismissal of TLM by Pope Francis. TLM however is among the tradition but not the Tradition. The Bible itself did not state that Latin was the exclusive language spoken by those who evangelize the Words of God. The ultimate prayer and form of evangelization is the celebration of the Holy Mass. I say each of those Apostles of Jesus celebrated the Mass in different languages. Take note also that the Apostles themselves have disagreements in certain matters. They however were still unified under the sit of St. Peter as God made that.
I have no disagreement with you with not following pastors with bad doctrines. I do not agree that doctrinal matters like giving an opinion on who must receive Communion must be made as a pastoral issue the way Pope Francis explains that. I also do not agree that his power is limitless because he is not God. To think that way is pagan and is not Catholic. But he is still the Pope, and for whatever reason he is there, God knows why.
Quote from: Julio on July 21, 2022, 06:17:37 PM
^^Yes, I agree that we are not suppose to follow the bad pastor.
This is what it pretty much boils down to.
Quote from: AlNg on July 19, 2022, 05:20:33 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on July 19, 2022, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: AlNg on July 18, 2022, 06:25:11 PM
Oh yeah. Things look very severe in the mainstream Roman Catholic Church today. It is only here that your sins are forgiven?
https://wdtprs.com/2022/07/a-unique-expression-of-the-lex-orandi-in-chicago/
And that's why we avoid all things NO always.
So the mainstream Catholic Church has defected? Or is it the one true Catholic Church where you can obtain forgiveness of your sins.
The visible Church you see today contains both the anti-church and the Church of God. Comingled together like the wheat and chaff in the field. They will be separated at harvest time. The chaff will then be thrown into the fire (hell) and the wheat will be stored away (into heaven).
Now is the time of the great test with Francis the Destroyer on the Chair of Peter.
Case in point:
QuoteFourteen Republicans who voted in the U.S. House of Representatives to codify same-sex "marriage" via the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act" are Catholics, adding to the 89 total Catholics who voted for the bill.
The Tuesday vote by these GOP members, as well as the Democrat Catholics they have joined, defies the fundamental, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that a marriage, by its definition, unites a man and a woman, and by its nature is ordered toward the procreation of offspring.
The gay "marriage" legislation would repeal the recognition of marriage as a man-woman union in federal law, federally recognize any "marriage" lawfully performed by any state, and force every state to recognize any "marriage" of any other state "between two individuals" without regard for "the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals."
These are the chaff, members of the anti-church led by Francis the Destroyer.
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 10, 2022, 06:00:12 PMQuote from: queen.saints on July 10, 2022, 09:23:05 AMI heard that the SSPX has no such trouble with their exorcisms. Would be interested if somebody had more information about that.
I would be interested as well.
I have been attending church regularly with the SSPX for the past 2 years, and also have an interest in exorcism due to past experience with seeing someone become demonically possessed and many years of first-hand experience in an extremely haunted/infested house. Such experience is, in fact, why I became Catholic.
This led me to inquire about the involvement of the SSPX with exorcism. It's not a common question, so church members were a bit surprised I asked but willing to share, nevertheless.
The SSPX has their own bishops and structure within the Church. As a result, they are not under a Novus Ordo diocese. They also have their own seminaries which follow the traditional pre-Vatican II way of ordination. Thus, EVERY bishop, priest, deacon, sub-deacon, and acolyte is an ordained exorcist. They combine the ordination to acolyte and exorcist into one step. As they move up the ladder of ordination, the exorcist ordination remains with them.
As to what they can do with it, they all practice general spiritual warfare. The only solemn exorcism I know for a fact was done by the SSPX, was performed by the prior (head priest) of the local SSPX who (like diocesan exorcists) had to obtain permission first from higher up.
A long time member I spoke with said it must have been quickly effective because he returned 3.5 hours later saying it was done/complete. Anyone who follows Fr. Ripperger, Fr. Lampert or others like them knows that solemn exorcisms of severe cases through Novus Ordo channels are now taking 2 years or more.
As far as I'm concerned, this simple fact speaks louder to me of their legitimacy than any other argument in their defense (and there are many good ones). When I found out, I knew I was in the right place.
Quote from: Padraig on June 21, 2022, 01:51:04 PMC. The Sedevacantist Solution
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church. It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline.
.... The sedevacantist replies that the vacancy of the papal or episcopal see is not incompatible with the visibility of the Church, as the Church remains visible during the vacancies which have occurred at the death of every incumbent. While the length of the vacancy certainly puts the Church in turmoil, there is nothing intrinsically contrary to the nature of the Church in the vacancy of the see. [...] For the Faith, they would argue, is much more important than the visibility of the structure of the Church, i.e., there is a dependence of the visibility of the Church on the Faith of the Church, and therefore it is not sufficient for the Church?s visibility that merely any structure be visible, but rather a structure which professes the Catholic Faith. To have some visible organization which does not profess the Catholic Faith may be a visible organization, but it is not the Catholic Church.
SV say the Catholic Church is indefectible and say that the Roman Church was indefectible before Vatican II, but then near the end of Vatican II, the Roman Church defected and became a non-Catholic church? If the SV say the Church is visible, then who is the visible head of the Catholic church today? In the case of an interregnum, which has happened before many times, you still have the college of Catholic Cardinals who are able to elect a Pope. But the Cardinals since Vatican II profess allegiance to those Church leaders who the SV say are not Catholic, and are not Popes and they have not elected true popes as is done during an interregnum. If Catholic Cardinals are loyal to a false Pope and cannot elect a true Pope, then that seems to be a defection right there.
Quote from: AlNg on April 17, 2023, 09:13:11 PMSV say the Catholic Church is indefectible and say that the Roman Church was indefectible before Vatican II, but then near the end of Vatican II, the Roman Church defected and became a non-Catholic church? If the SV say the Church is visible, then who is the visible head of the Catholic church today? In the case of an interregnum, which has happened before many times, you still have the college of Catholic Cardinals who are able to elect a Pope. But the Cardinals since Vatican II profess allegiance to those Church leaders who the SV say are not Catholic, and are not Popes and they have not elected true popes as is done during an interregnum. If Catholic Cardinals are loyal to a false Pope and cannot elect a true Pope, then that seems to be a defection right there.
The Roman Catholic Church did not become the conciliar church, rather, the Church's enemies infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church and are still within it trying to do everything they can to destroy it from within, and in the process deceive whatever of the faithful they can into believing the Church is going to be or already is destroyed. The enemies do not believe the Church is indefectible, which explains why they will never stop trying to destroy it.
Spend about 6 minutes and understand it simply as explained by Fr. Hesse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARwrAT4yiag&ab_channel=FideiPromotor)....
Quote from: Stubborn on April 18, 2023, 05:17:53 AMQuote from: AlNg on April 17, 2023, 09:13:11 PMSV say the Catholic Church is indefectible and say that the Roman Church was indefectible before Vatican II, but then near the end of Vatican II, the Roman Church defected and became a non-Catholic church? If the SV say the Church is visible, then who is the visible head of the Catholic church today? In the case of an interregnum, which has happened before many times, you still have the college of Catholic Cardinals who are able to elect a Pope. But the Cardinals since Vatican II profess allegiance to those Church leaders who the SV say are not Catholic, and are not Popes and they have not elected true popes as is done during an interregnum. If Catholic Cardinals are loyal to a false Pope and cannot elect a true Pope, then that seems to be a defection right there.
The Roman Catholic Church did not become the conciliar church, rather, the Church's enemies infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church and are still within it trying to do everything they can to destroy it from within, and in the process deceive whatever of the faithful they can into believing the Church is going to be or already is destroyed. The enemies do not believe the Church is indefectible, which explains why they will never stop trying to destroy it.
Spend about 6 minutes and understand it simply as explained by Fr. Hesse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARwrAT4yiag&ab_channel=FideiPromotor)....
I was responding to the OP which gave the SV solution. Supposing that the SV solution is correct, then who is the visible Head of the Catholic church today? If SV is true, then we have a visible Church without a visible Head and we have Cardinals who have not been able to choose a true visible Head of the Church. Father Hesse says that the missal of 1968 shows the indefectibility of the Church. but the missal of 1968, as said today by SSPX, recognizes Pope Francis as the Pope. The SV say that Francis is not the Pope, with some SV saying there is no Pope, while others have elected their own Pope. Which of the SV popes should we follow: Gregory XVII, Michael, John Paul III, Peter II, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), or Alexander IX (in 2007)?
Quote from: AlNg on April 18, 2023, 12:22:13 PMI was responding to the OP which gave the SV solution. Supposing that the SV solution is correct, then who is the visible Head of the Catholic church today? If SV is true, then we have a visible Church without a visible Head and we have Cardinals who have not been able to choose a true visible Head of the Church. Father Hesse says that the missal of 1968 shows the indefectibility of the Church. but the missal of 1968, as said today by SSPX, recognizes Pope Francis as the Pope. The SV say that Francis is not the Pope, with some SV saying there is no Pope, while others have elected their own Pope. Which of the SV popes should we follow: Gregory XVII, Michael, John Paul III, Peter II, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), or Alexander IX (in 2007)?
I think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....
"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."
Quote from: Stubborn on April 19, 2023, 03:12:03 AMQuote from: AlNg on April 18, 2023, 12:22:13 PMI was responding to the OP which gave the SV solution. Supposing that the SV solution is correct, then who is the visible Head of the Catholic church today? If SV is true, then we have a visible Church without a visible Head and we have Cardinals who have not been able to choose a true visible Head of the Church. Father Hesse says that the missal of 1968 shows the indefectibility of the Church. but the missal of 1968, as said today by SSPX, recognizes Pope Francis as the Pope. The SV say that Francis is not the Pope, with some SV saying there is no Pope, while others have elected their own Pope. Which of the SV popes should we follow: Gregory XVII, Michael, John Paul III, Peter II, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), or Alexander IX (in 2007)?
I think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....
"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."
I am responding also to some of the points made in the first post of this thread.
I thought that the traditional Catholic teaching is that Peter will have perpetual successors: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem; anathema sit." With this teaching of Pastor Aeternus, I don't see how you could have six consecutive false popes and therefore no visible head to the Catholic church for this length of time.
Quote from: AlNg on April 19, 2023, 10:58:43 AMI am responding also to some of the points made in the first post of this thread.
I thought that the traditional Catholic teaching is that Peter will have perpetual successors: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem; anathema sit." With this teaching of Pastor Aeternus, I don't see how you could have six consecutive false popes and therefore no visible head to the Catholic church for this length of time.
Me neither, particularly when he is and they were, all there for the whole world to see.
It's an old argument really, one that has been addressed repeatedly almost since this crisis began.
The Dimond interview with Fr. Wathen I quoted from, was from a time when the Dimond fool was not yet a sede, I think it's somewhat incredible because he not only agreed with everything Fr. said, he added papal quotes and teachings to the things that Fr. was saying that condemned sedeism.
Quote from: Stubborn on April 19, 2023, 03:12:03 AM"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
This is nonsense. Sedevacantists do no such thing.
An heretical 'pope' has already been judged - by God. Sedevacantists
recognise this, unlike your good self who has been repeating error about the Sede position for years.
Here are some of the quotes that have been posted repeatedly in answer to your nonsense.
QuoteSaint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)
Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)
Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."
J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Sedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching. A Pope cannot be a heretic. God would not allow it.
Francis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope. But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 04:05:31 PMQuote from: Stubborn on April 19, 2023, 03:12:03 AM"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
This is nonsense. Sedevacantists do no such thing.
An heretical 'pope' has already been judged - by God. Sedevacantists recognise this, unlike your good self who has been repeating error about the Sede position for years.
Here are some of the quotes that have been posted repeatedly in answer to your nonsense.
QuoteSaint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)
Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)
Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."
J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Sedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching. A Pope cannot be a heretic. God would not allow it.
Francis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope. But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.
OK, but how many consecutive false Popes can you have. Already, there has been a consecutive string of six false Popes? Is it possible to have a consecutive string of seven false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of twelve false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of one hundred false Popes?
Or...
I thought it was Traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church must have a visible Head, who is a successor of Peter? Can you have a large consecutive string of false Popes residing in Rome, and with the approval of the Catholic hierarchy or does this violate the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the requirement for a visible Head?
Quote from: AlNg on April 19, 2023, 04:23:12 PMOK, but how many consecutive false Popes can you have. Already, there has been a consecutive string of six false Popes? Is it possible to have a consecutive string of seven false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of twelve false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of one hundred false Popes?
Or...
If you're prepared to accept the clear and much repeated teaching of Doctors, Saints, Popes and Theologians that God does not recognise a heretic as Pope, then there are no answers to your questions other that - "Wait and see."
Meanwhile, try not to let your discomfort at the consequences lead you into attacking the teaching.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 04:44:54 PMQuote from: AlNg on April 19, 2023, 04:23:12 PMOK, but how many consecutive false Popes can you have. Already, there has been a consecutive string of six false Popes? Is it possible to have a consecutive string of seven false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of twelve false Popes?
Or a consecutive string of one hundred false Popes?
Or...
If you're prepared to accept the clear and much repeated teaching of Doctors, Saints, Popes and Theologians that God does not recognise a heretic as Pope, then there are no answers to your questions other that - "Wait and see."
Meanwhile, try not to let your discomfort at the consequences lead you into attacking the teaching.
Do you believe that there is a traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church has a visible Head? Would it violate traditional Catholic teaching to have a string of 300 heretical and false non-popes consecutively, while the hierarchy maintains that these heretical and false non-popes are all true popes and true visible Heads of the Catholic church?
Quote from: Stubborn on April 19, 2023, 03:12:03 AMI think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....
"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."
I have the same take of it as you on this matter. It is an act of rebellion and assumption that God has already judged upon the charged pontiff of any violation of the Divine Law sans the pronouncement directly from Him is not only presumptive but gravely sinful because it is an act of usurpation of authority.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 04:05:31 PMQuote from: Stubborn on April 19, 2023, 03:12:03 AM"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
This is nonsense. Sedevacantists do no such thing.
An heretical 'pope' has already been judged - by God. Sedevacantists recognise this, unlike your good self who has been repeating error about the Sede position for years.
Here are some of the quotes that have been posted repeatedly in answer to your nonsense.
QuoteSaint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)
Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)
Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."
J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Sedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching. A Pope cannot be a heretic. God would not allow it.
Francis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope. But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.
There is no issue about the truth of those teachings of the Catholic authorities. They are all true. However, it is not for you or any mortal to judge the Pope. That is the exclusive realm of God to do. Any act that crosses that power of God is usurpation of His authority hence the work of the devil.
This Sunday's Gospel
John 10:11-16
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. 12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: 13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd
Quote from: Julio on April 19, 2023, 06:25:20 PMThere is no issue about the truth of those teachings of the Catholic authorities. They are all true. However, it is not for you or any mortal to judge the Pope. That is the exclusive realm of God to do. Any act that crosses that power of God is usurpation of His authority hence the work of the devil.
If Francis is a formal public heretic, then God has already judged him as not the Pope. Therefore, if Francis is a formal public heretic, he is not the Pope in God's eyes. Therefore he is merely a man and can be judged like any other man.
It all depends on whether or not you believe Francis is a formal public heretic.
Do you?
Quote from: AlNg on April 19, 2023, 05:40:44 PMDo you believe that there is a traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church has a visible Head? Would it violate traditional Catholic teaching to have a string of 300 heretical and false non-popes consecutively, while the hierarchy maintains that these heretical and false non-popes are all true popes and true visible Heads of the Catholic church?
Yes and yes.
But we haven't had 300 false 'popes'. There have only been 6 so far.
But I see your dilemma. My explanation for the current situation is that it's over. We're at the end. The 'one who holds' was 'taken out of the way' in 1958 so that the 'revolt', which is Vatican II, could take place.
Cardinal Manning also identified the 'one who holds' as the Pope.
So there's no need to worry about 300 false Popes.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 06:57:46 PMQuote from: AlNg on April 19, 2023, 05:40:44 PMDo you believe that there is a traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic church has a visible Head? Would it violate traditional Catholic teaching to have a string of 300 heretical and false non-popes consecutively, while the hierarchy maintains that these heretical and false non-popes are all true popes and true visible Heads of the Catholic church?
Yes and yes.
But we haven't had 300 false 'popes'. There have only been 6 so far.
So it is Ok to have 6. SV says yes.
Is it then OK to have 7? SV says yes (let's suppose)
Is it then OK to have 8? SV says yes. (let's suppose)
Continuing.
Is it OK to have 300? SV says no.
At what first number between 6 and 301 does SV say no?
Let's say it is 20. Why is it OK to have 19 but not 20? 20 is just one more than 19 and it has been OK so far to have 1 through 19?
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 06:48:54 PMIf Francis is a formal public heretic, then God has already judged him as not the Pope. Therefore, if Francis is a formal public heretic, he is not the Pope in God's eyes. Therefore he is merely a man and can be judged like any other man.
It all depends on whether or not you believe Francis is a formal public heretic.
Do you?
With all due respect to Pope Francis, I see certain pronouncements of him to be not in keeping with the Catholic Traditions. His leadership is not the hallmark of precision. Vagueness is not divine. But he remains the holder of the sit of Saint Peter. It is for God to judge him.
When did you learn that God has judged him?
Quote from: AlNg on April 19, 2023, 07:14:50 PMSo it is Ok to have 6. SV says yes.
Is it then OK to have 7? SV says yes (let's suppose)
Is it then OK to have 8? SV says yes. (let's suppose)
Continuing.
Is it OK to have 300? SV says no.
At what first number between 6 and 301 does SV say no?
Let's say it is 20. Why is it OK to have 19 but not 20? 20 is just one more than 19 and it has been OK so far to have 1 through 19?
:deadhorse:
Quote from: Julio on April 19, 2023, 08:04:23 PMWith all due respect to Pope Francis, I see certain pronouncements of him to be not in keeping with the Catholic Traditions. His leadership is not the hallmark of precision. Vagueness is not divine. But he remains the holder of the sit of Saint Peter. It is for God to judge him.
When did you learn that God has judged him?
Every time Francis comes out with another heresy - which is about once a week - God is telling us that Francis is a heretic and is therefore not Pope.
I'm sorry if you can't see this.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 04:05:31 PMSedevacantists recognise the facts and interpret them according to Catholic teaching. A Pope cannot be a heretic. God would not allow it.
Not really. When we start from the beginning, sedes begin with a false premise, the premise that they must determine the status of the pope. From there it balloons out to gathering opinions of the Fathers, then treat those opinions as if they are authentic and de fide teachings of the Church, then misinterpret those opinions according to their own misguided ideas.
All for no reason because it is not our business to determine the status of popes.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 19, 2023, 04:05:31 PMFrancis, who is an formal, public heretic, has already been judged by God and in God's eyes is not Pope. But if you want to insist that God is wrong, then good luck to you.
In God's eyes Francis is the pope, as were the previous conciliar popes, as will be the next conciliar popes who will be elected according to the law. Hopefully not, but it is most likely that the next popes will be progressively worse. Live with it, we have no say-so whatsoever in the matter so we do not concern ourselves with it, rather, we go about our business of saving our souls. That is our obligation, not the status of popes, not whether or not God already judged the pope - which is altogether absurd to even say.
Quote from: Julio on April 19, 2023, 06:17:52 PMQuote from: Stubborn on April 19, 2023, 03:12:03 AMI think even some of the sedes would say that their position is no solution to the crisis, and clearly it isn't. But what you are explaining above, Fr. Wathen, in an interview with I think Michael Dimond when he was still non-sede, more accurately explains it like this....
"...The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head, that we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism..."
I have the same take of it as you on this matter. It is an act of rebellion and assumption that God has already judged upon the charged pontiff of any violation of the Divine Law sans the pronouncement directly from Him is not only presumptive but gravely sinful because it is an act of usurpation of authority.
It's strange how God works in that the sedes do not see their idea as being the least bit intrinsically anarchistic, instead, they've managed to convince themselves that it is their obligation to expose the pope as not being the pope, many of them as if it's a dogmatic fact. Quite absurd when you stop to think about it.
In Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. goes on to speak more Catholic common sense in the matter:
"...If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church,
but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful..."
Code of Canon Law of 1917. Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ... #4) has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith."
Caesar Badii: "Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases: [...] (d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head." (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165.)
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: "Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit." (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.)
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen: "The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy. At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess." (Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.)
Quote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 05:20:04 AMCode of Canon Law of 1917. Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ... #4) has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith."
So it would seem that the sedes are wrong to go around making the declaration?
Also, A. Vermeersch, F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal, Caesar Badii are not the Church. All that they say are officially the [theological] opinions of some theologians(?).
Quote from: Stubborn on April 20, 2023, 06:10:48 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 05:20:04 AMCode of Canon Law of 1917. Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ... #4) has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith."
So it would seem that the sedes are wrong to go around making the declaration?
Also, A. Vermeersch, F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal, Caesar Badii are not the Church. All that they say are officially the [theological] opinions of some theologians(?).
Relentless anti-Sedes know better than any theologian, don't they?
If a theologians won't do, how about a Saint?
Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say [better], declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy.)
And another Saint. Would that help?
Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10.)
Would a Cardinal do?
Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): "Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church."
Or the Catholic encyclopedia?
J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
What does it matter to you if he's pope or not?
Without regard to his status, can you keep the faith? Can you pray? Can you fast and do penance? Can you do all the things Catholic must do to save their souls?
Of course you can. If you can, then so can everyone else - whether he is pope or not. Make sense?
Sede arguments belong on the Sede sub-forum.
I can understand if you and other rabid anti-Sedes were feeling a bit lonely there. The Sedes on SD seem to have given up and left you to talk amongst yourselves.
So here you are, where Sede arguments don't belong. I, however, wasn't prepared to let your posts go unanswered.
Now that your arguments have been addressed, surely it's time you went back to the designated Sede sub-forum and continued to talk amongst yourselves.
I'm sure someone will pop in to post something from time to time.
Ah, my bad, I thought I was posting in the sede sub, my apologies.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 09:23:53 AMSede arguments belong on the Sede sub-forum.
The thread is about the indefectibility of the Church which is related to the SV question as was mentioned in the OP. The perpetual indefectibility of the Roman See shows that the SV position is untenable.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 06:42:08 AMOr the Catholic encyclopedia?
J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
The great Cardinal Birk will get around to publicly accusing him eventually.....
Quote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 06:42:08 AMJ. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Is it Bishop Wiilliamson or Pope JPIII or one of the other SV Popes or bishops who decides if the adherence to a heresy is notorious? It can be alleged that SV themselves are notoriously heretical because they deny that the Catholic Church must have a visible Head and by claiming that there have been a string of six consecutive Popes who have defected from the Catholic faith, the SV deny the perpetual indefectibility of the Roman See.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 05:20:04 AMCode of Canon Law of 1917. Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ... #4) has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith."
You are talking about the Pope who is answerable only to God.
Only God can declare that and sans any declaration from Him the pontiff remains the holder of the sit of St. Peter. The orderliness is a matter that God desires. Jesus said this:
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying,
"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." (Matthew 23:1-4) https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/23
Clearly, Jesus during His time was dealing with Pharisees who were violators of the law of God yet He still recognize them to have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, He advised that the people must still do and observe all things whatsover they tell them. Until Jesus installed the Holy Eucharist and authorized His Apostles to preach during the time that the Holy Ghost decended upon them did these Pharisees lost their teaching authority.
Now, nothing has been actually done by God to eject the holder of the sit of St. Peter. There were historically declared heretic popes and that was still done in keeping with the rules.
More importantly, the fact and issue of publicly forsaking the Catholic faith is a matter that should first be decreed. It must be established first that there was public forsaking, which needs to be decreed by the authority. For the Pope it is God who is the authority. Nothing has been said by Jesus over that. Any interpretation is not in keeping with the Catholic truth.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 04:08:39 AMEvery time Francis comes out with another heresy - which is about once a week - God is telling us that Francis is a heretic and is therefore not Pope.
I'm sorry if you can't see this.
Pope Francis is still alive and can still mend himself before God. Nothing has been stated by Jesus Himself about that. I did not hear Jesus saying anything like that and I do not want to assume just because the Pontiff uttered those words. Who knows if God purposedly placed him there?
Did God purposedly allowed the devil to tempt Job and made him suffer? What about us, what made you think you and I do not deserve this leadership of Pope Francis?
Quote from: Julio on April 20, 2023, 09:29:38 PMQuote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 05:20:04 AMCode of Canon Law of 1917. Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ... #4) has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith."
You are talking about the Pope who is answerable only to God.
Only God can declare that and sans any declaration from Him the pontiff remains the holder of the sit of St. Peter. The orderliness is a matter that God desires. Jesus said this:
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." (Matthew 23:1-4) https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/23
Clearly, Jesus during His time was dealing with Pharisees who were violators of the law of God yet He still recognize them to have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, He advised that the people must still do and observe all things whatsover they tell them. Until Jesus installed the Holy Eucharist and authorized His Apostles to preach during the time that the Holy Ghost decended upon them did these Pharisees lost their teaching authority.
Now, nothing has been actually done by God to eject the holder of the sit of St. Peter. There were historically declared heretic popes and that was still done in keeping with the rules.
More importantly, the fact and issue of publicly forsaking the Catholic faith is a matter that should first be decreed. It must be established first that there was public forsaking, which needs to be decreed by the authority. For the Pope it is God who is the authority. Nothing has been said by Jesus over that. Any interpretation is not in keeping with the Catholic truth.
What kind of declaration would God have to make over and above what His Church has already taught? Are you saying that God would have to give some kind of supernatural sign to show that Francis is a heretic and therefore not Pope?
God doesn't need to make any sign or declaration. The heresies of Francis are as clear as day, and given the opinions of numerous Doctors, Saints and Theologians that a heretic cannot be Pope because God would strip him of his office if he were, the declaration that Francis is not Pope is being made every time Francis utters another heresy.
The heresies of Francis and the teaching of the Church are all that you need because God's Church has told us that a heretic cannot be Pope.
It's that simple, although people endlessly try to complicate things.
Quote from: Julio on April 20, 2023, 09:36:11 PMWhat about us, what made you think you and I do not deserve this leadership of Pope Francis?
Because it would be contrary to everything the Church has taught. Recognising heretics as Popes destroys the Papacy. Who would ever believe a Pope again after that?
If a Pope can be a heretic, there's no point of having one.
Quote from: Jmartyr on April 20, 2023, 03:46:47 PMQuote from: awkward customer on April 20, 2023, 06:42:08 AMOr the Catholic encyclopedia?
J. Wilhelm: "The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
The great Cardinal Birk will get around to publicly accusing him eventually.....
Francis already has been publicly accused.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:33:18 AMBecause it would be contrary to everything the Church has taught. Recognising heretics as Popes destroys the Papacy. Who would ever believe a Pope again after that?
If a Pope can be a heretic, there's no point of having one.
The words of the heretic Pope will never destroy a faithful Catholic. It is just like during the time of Jesus wherein those heretic Pharishees never corrupted the hearts of the pious souls from among the Jews.
Like when we have bad father, it does not remove his fatherly figure in us. He remains our father and he ought to be respected. There is no such thing as annulment of father or mother and in same vein that we cannot nullify that papacy of the elected pontiff for he is only answerable to God.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:28:30 AMWhat kind of declaration would God have to make over and above what His Church has already taught? Are you saying that God would have to give some kind of supernatural sign to show that Francis is a heretic and therefore not Pope?
God doesn't need to make any sign or declaration. The heresies of Francis are as clear as day, and given the opinions of numerous Doctors, Saints and Theologians that a heretic cannot be Pope because God would strip him of his office if he were, the declaration that Francis is not Pope is being made every time Francis utters another heresy.
The heresies of Francis and the teaching of the Church are all that you need because God's Church has told us that a heretic cannot be Pope.
It's that simple, although people endlessly try to complicate things.
The actual intervention of God the way He sent the person of His Son Jesus when the Israelites transgressed and violated His Laws to the extreme. Jesus will come back and shall implement the Divine Law in due time. In the meantime the existing laws and order should be respected.
Quote from: Julio on April 21, 2023, 09:36:15 AMThe words of the heretic Pope will never destroy a faithful Catholic. It is just like during the time of Jesus wherein those heretic Pharishees never corrupted the hearts of the pious souls from among the Jews.
Like when we have bad father, it does not remove his fatherly figure in us. He remains our father and he ought to be respected. There is no such thing as annulment of father or mother and in same vein that we cannot nullify that papacy of the elected pontiff for he is only answerable to God.
The Conciliar 'popes' and their false Catholicism have destroyed the faith of millions.
As for the familiar argument of the 'Pope as a bad dad' who remains your dad no matter what - only one man ever born can be your father. No other man can be your father in the sense that your father is.
The analogy doesn't work because the Pope is not your father who can never be replaced, but the Holy Father who can be replaced.
Quote from: Julio on April 21, 2023, 09:40:12 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:28:30 AMWhat kind of declaration would God have to make over and above what His Church has already taught? Are you saying that God would have to give some kind of supernatural sign to show that Francis is a heretic and therefore not Pope?
God doesn't need to make any sign or declaration. The heresies of Francis are as clear as day, and given the opinions of numerous Doctors, Saints and Theologians that a heretic cannot be Pope because God would strip him of his office if he were, the declaration that Francis is not Pope is being made every time Francis utters another heresy.
The heresies of Francis and the teaching of the Church are all that you need because God's Church has told us that a heretic cannot be Pope.
It's that simple, although people endlessly try to complicate things.
The actual intervention of God the way He sent the person of His Son Jesus when the Israelites transgressed and violated His Laws to the extreme. Jesus will come back and shall implement the Divine Law in due time. In the meantime the existing laws and order should be respected.
Quote from: Julio on April 21, 2023, 09:40:12 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:28:30 AMWhat kind of declaration would God have to make over and above what His Church has already taught? Are you saying that God would have to give some kind of supernatural sign to show that Francis is a heretic and therefore not Pope?
God doesn't need to make any sign or declaration. The heresies of Francis are as clear as day, and given the opinions of numerous Doctors, Saints and Theologians that a heretic cannot be Pope because God would strip him of his office if he were, the declaration that Francis is not Pope is being made every time Francis utters another heresy.
The heresies of Francis and the teaching of the Church are all that you need because God's Church has told us that a heretic cannot be Pope.
It's that simple, although people endlessly try to complicate things.
The actual intervention of God the way He sent the person of His Son Jesus when the Israelites transgressed and violated His Laws to the extreme. Jesus will come back and shall implement the Divine Law in due time. Quote from: Julio on April 21, 2023, 09:40:12 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:28:30 AMWhat kind of declaration would God have to make over and above what His Church has already taught? Are you saying that God would have to give some kind of supernatural sign to show that Francis is a heretic and therefore not Pope?
God doesn't need to make any sign or declaration. The heresies of Francis are as clear as day, and given the opinions of numerous Doctors, Saints and Theologians that a heretic cannot be Pope because God would strip him of his office if he were, the declaration that Francis is not Pope is being made every time Francis utters another heresy.
The heresies of Francis and the teaching of the Church are all that you need because God's Church has told us that a heretic cannot be Pope.
It's that simple, although people endlessly try to complicate things.
The actual intervention of God the way He sent the person of His Son Jesus when the Israelites transgressed and violated His Laws to the extreme. Jesus will come back and shall implement the Divine Law in due time. In the meantime the existing laws and order should be respected.
According to the existing laws and orders, which should be respected as you say, a heretic cannot be Pope.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:37:55 AMFrancis already has been publicly accused.
Being publicly accused is not the same as being judged as notoriously guilty.
Quote from: AlNg on April 21, 2023, 01:03:52 PMQuote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 08:37:55 AMFrancis already has been publicly accused.
Being publicly accused is not the same as being judged as notoriously guilty.
Who would judge him?
No-one needs to judge Bergoglio. God has already judged that Bergoglio is not the Pope.
How do we know this?
By his heresies.
All we have to do is recognise that fact.
Who would judge him, though? Who would investigate the accusations?
Quote from: Tennessean on April 22, 2023, 04:36:44 AMWho would judge him, though? Who would investigate the accusations?
Unfortunately, in practical terms, the answer is no-one.
God may not recognise Bergoglio as Pope, but who is actually going to give him his marching orders? That's the problem. Almost the entire hierarchy of the Church is with Bergoglio because almost the entire hierarchy of the Church is on board with the Vatican II 'revolt'.
St Paul warned that this would happen, that the 'one who holds' would be taken out of the way so that the 'revolt' could take place. Cardinal Manning identified the 'one who holds' as the Pope.
Well, I agree with Cardinal Manning and IMO, the 'one who holds' was 'taken out of the way' in 1958 so that the Vatican II revolt could take place.
If this really is St Paul's warning being fulfilled, then the Son of Perdition is on his way, and Pope Pius XII was the last Pope - ever.
I think we will get another Pope, because Our Blessed Mother said at Fatima that the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and there will be a period of peace.
Quote from: Tennessean on April 22, 2023, 12:32:39 AMWho would judge him, though? Who would investigate the accusations?
it is my understanding that according to Catholic teaching, no one can judge a Pope:
Old Code, Canon 1556: The Primatial See can be judged by no one.
New Code, Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.
To those who claim that the current Pope is notoriously heretical, I don't see who has the authority to make that judgement.
Quote from: AlNg on April 22, 2023, 01:18:19 PMQuote from: Tennessean on April 22, 2023, 12:32:39 AMWho would judge him, though? Who would investigate the accusations?
it is my understanding that according to Catholic teaching, no one can judge a Pope:
Old Code, Canon 1556: The Primatial See can be judged by no one.
New Code, Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.
To those who claim that the current Pope is notoriously heretical, I don't see who has the authority to make that judgement.
Very convenient.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 10:04:02 AMThe Conciliar 'popes' and their false Catholicism have destroyed the faith of millions.
As for the familiar argument of the 'Pope as a bad dad' who remains your dad no matter what - only one man ever born can be your father. No other man can be your father in the sense that your father is.
The analogy doesn't work because the Pope is not your father who can never be replaced, but the Holy Father who can be replaced.
If they are faithful Catholics, then the evil cannot tempt them.
More importantly, the indelible mark in the intellect of the Pope to be the holder of the sit of St. Peter upon assumption of the sit of St. Peter is the fact that no mortal can change other than Jesus. It is the reason that only Jesus can judge him and not you or anyone.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 21, 2023, 10:12:43 AMAccording to the existing laws and orders, which should be respected as you say, a heretic cannot be Pope.
... and the Pope can be adjudge only by Jesus. Is it not?
It is never the call of any mortal to state that the sit is vacant while the holder is still there and is living. If there is process to be made then it must be in keeping with the Catholic Laws and never the mere pronouncement of usurpers.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 22, 2023, 04:22:36 AMNo-one needs to judge Bergoglio. God has already judged that Bergoglio is not the Pope.
How do we know this?
By his heresies.
All we have to do is recognise that fact.
His pronouncment does not make you God to judge him.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 22, 2023, 12:10:27 PMI think we will get another Pope, because Our Blessed Mother said at Fatima that the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and there will be a period of peace.
Perhaps, but in the meantime he is the Pope.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 22, 2023, 05:00:46 AMUnfortunately, in practical terms, the answer is no-one.
God may not recognise Bergoglio as Pope, but who is actually going to give him his marching orders? That's the problem. Almost the entire hierarchy of the Church is with Bergoglio because almost the entire hierarchy of the Church is on board with the Vatican II 'revolt'.
St Paul warned that this would happen, that the 'one who holds' would be taken out of the way so that the 'revolt' could take place. Cardinal Manning identified the 'one who holds' as the Pope.
Well, I agree with Cardinal Manning and IMO, the 'one who holds' was 'taken out of the way' in 1958 so that the Vatican II revolt could take place.
If this really is St Paul's warning being fulfilled, then the Son of Perdition is on his way, and Pope Pius XII was the last Pope - ever.
The precision that the warning of St. Paul has been fulfilled is not our concern. It is the call of judge for this is His story. Our duty is just only be faithful to Him and obey the authority in keeping with the justness of God. Rebellion is never the teaching of Jesus. It is the reason the Israelites did not see Him as the Messiah.
If Vatican II is the revolt against Jesus, then we are not suppose to disrespect the leadership. He is answerable to Jesus and Catholics must only be faithful to God and be obedient to His will and among that is to respect the authority. It is so clear in the Ten Commandments. That piety towards the authority is very important to anyone who call himself a faithful of God.
If Vatican II is a true Church Council, then it would not have taught errors, very serious errors against faith and morals. If it taught errors against faith and morals, then it is not a true Church Council. The Church is the Immaculate Bride of Christ, which does not teach or lead souls into error and corruption. Vatican II has taught very serious errors against faith and morals and has lead millions of souls into error, sin and perdition.
Quote from: Julio on April 22, 2023, 04:50:04 PM If Vatican II is the revolt against Jesus, then we are not suppose to disrespect the leadership. He is answerable to Jesus and Catholics must only be faithful to God and be obedient to His will and among that is to respect the authority. It is so clear in the Ten Commandments. That piety towards the authority is very important to anyone who call himself a faithful of God.
If Vatican II is the 'revolt', then there is no leadership because the 'one who holds', who is the Pope, has been 'taken out of the way'.
If Vatican II is the 'revolt', then you have chosen to 'respect the authority' of the false popes responsible for revolt.
Good luck.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 23, 2023, 11:34:59 AMIf Vatican II is the 'revolt', then there is no leadership because the 'one who holds', who is the Pope, has been 'taken out of the way'.
If Vatican II is the 'revolt', then you have chosen to 'respect the authority' of the false popes responsible for revolt.
Good luck.
I will state it again, that even during the time of Jesus this questionable leadership were manifested by the Pharisees. However, Jesus Himself did state that there was no leadership because the one who holds it has been taken out of the way. He never said that they're false holders of the sit of Moses. He even encouraged the people to listen to what they say. Piety and respect was encouraged by Jesus and not lawlessness and disorderliness.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 23, 2023, 11:16:04 AMIf Vatican II is a true Church Council, then it would not have taught errors, very serious errors against faith and morals. If it taught errors against faith and morals, then it is not a true Church Council. The Church is the Immaculate Bride of Christ, which does not teach or lead souls into error and corruption. Vatican II has taught very serious errors against faith and morals and has lead millions of souls into error, sin and perdition.
Vatican II is not the Catholic Church. Like the Pharisees during the time of Jesus the authorities were committing sins, but it does not mean that the Old Covenant had ended just because the holders of the sit of Moses were full of themselves. Only Jesus was able to create the New Covenant and so no one has the right to declare that the holder of the sit of St. Peter is absent sans the declaration by God about that.
The Catholic Church is like the Noahs Ark that's full of wild beast, but it is the only place of salvation.
Quote from: Julio on April 24, 2023, 03:41:09 AMQuote from: Michael Wilson on April 23, 2023, 11:16:04 AMIf Vatican II is a true Church Council, then it would not have taught errors, very serious errors against faith and morals. If it taught errors against faith and morals, then it is not a true Church Council. The Church is the Immaculate Bride of Christ, which does not teach or lead souls into error and corruption. Vatican II has taught very serious errors against faith and morals and has lead millions of souls into error, sin and perdition.
Vatican II is not the Catholic Church. Like the Pharisees during the time of Jesus the authorities were committing sins, but it does not mean that the Old Covenant had ended just because the holders of the sit of Moses were full of themselves. Only Jesus was able to create the New Covenant and so no one has the right to declare that the holder of the sit of St. Peter is absent sans the declaration by God about that.
The Catholic Church is like the Noahs Ark that's full of wild beast, but it is the only place of salvation.
The Pharisees were not given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. So the situation is quite different. How could God allow the Holder of the Keys to be a heretic?
Every time Bergoglio is expressing a heresy, God is declaring to us that the Seat is vacant.
The difference between the Pharisees and the present (apparent) occupant of the See of Peter is that the former, evil and hypocritical as they were, were not heretics; we have Our Lord's word on it. While the latter is a public heretic; but a public heretic cannot be a member of the Church, and much less its head.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 24, 2023, 10:52:45 AMThe Pharisees were not given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. So the situation is quite different. How could God allow the Holder of the Keys to be a heretic?
Every time Bergoglio is expressing a heresy, God is declaring to us that the Seat is vacant.
Of course that is not the only difference, the Pharisees were also to whom the Ten Commandments were bestowed having been the holders of the seat of Moses which in effect was transferred to St. Peter as the holder of the key. The point being is that despite the sinfulness of these people Jesus still mandated the public to obey what they say. It was not some kind of assumption that because they err then the seat has been abandoned. Until the Passion of Jesus was completed and the New Covenant was made, that these Pharisees lost their authority. Nothing like that is happening. All is just an assumption.
Edit: Thanks Awkward for emphasizing the correct spelling and meaning of Seat. God bless.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 24, 2023, 05:20:17 PMThe difference between the Pharisees and the present (apparent) occupant of the See of Peter is that the former, evil and hypocritical as they were, were not heretics; we have Our Lord's word on it. While the latter is a public heretic; but a public heretic cannot be a member of the Church, and much less its head.
The Pope can only be judged by God. Here on earth, the authority bestowed by Jesus to the Apostles is in the hands of the Bishops. No declaration from the authority that the Pope is heretic.
Don't you think this Pope is there because the people deserve him? Do you want to exempt yourself from God's chastisement? Are you not willing to take that cross?
The people deserve a shepherd, and maybe Abp Vigano is a shepherd future church doctors can point to, along with others like the Abp out of Ukraine, whose name escapes me. Or is it everyone elses fault that the pope is a hideous idolator? That's where you lose me. The man can't keep saying "I didn't know." To even be in the position he can be scandalized by a protestant service, or a pagan ritual... where's the line? He's a socialist, and the one before him blamed the velvet mafia for his demise. The Holy Spirit is not with these men; they aren't popes. If they were idolators in secret, we could debate if the man at least died catholic, but to play the con in broad daylight like Absolam, and then talk their way out of scandal like politicians is notorious enough for me.
^^You are not God to decide what must happen in this world. In the meantime he is the elected Pope. Maybe we must endure the pain of having a Pope who represents the majority of the Catholic for reason that the people opt democracy and the will of the people as the sovereign law. Perhaps, God is just trying to show the meaning regarding the way the supreme law of the people looks like in this world that is reigned by relativity and feelings for the kind of reasoning. This is the effect of rejecting God. That is just my guess for having a pontiff like this man. I pray for him.
Quote"Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation..."
- John of St. Thomas
Quote"The Church is able to declare the crime of a Pontiff and, according to divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic that must be avoided. The Pontiff, however, by the fact of having to be avoided, is necessarily rendered impotent by the force of such a declaration, since a Pope who is to be avoided is unable to influence the Church as its head." - John of St. Thomas
Quote"The reason is the following: It would be extremely harmful to the Church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend herself from such a grave danger; furthermore it would go against the dignity of the Church to oblige her to remain subject to a heretic Pontiff without being able to expel him from herself; for such as are the prince and the priest, so the people are accustomed to be (...) heresy 'spreads like cancer,' which is why heretics should be avoided as much as possible. This is, therefore, all the more so with regard to an heretical pastor; but how can such a danger be avoided, unless he ceases to be the pastor?" Fr. Francisco Suarez, Doctor Eximus et Pius
Quote"A cleric must, besides, be degraded if, after having been duly warned, he persists in being a member of such a society. All the offices he may hold become vacant, ipso facto, without any further declaration. This is tacit resignation recognized by law (Canon 188.4) and therefore the vacancy is one de facto et iure [by fact and by law]." Fr. Augustine, Commentary on 1917 Code of Canon Law
Quote"Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. ... For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate..." Fr. Ballerini
Divine Law:
Quote'Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment' (Tit. 3, 10-11).
QuoteBear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.
QuoteBut when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed [Galatians 2:11]
The last verse shows (1) Cardinal, Paul, had the authority to call on the Pope, Peter, to repent of his error.
Paleo-sedes and Neo-sedes disagree over the need for a warning, but we both agree that Bergoglio is an heretic, because Cardinal Burke has publicly warned him to recant twice, and Bergoglio has refused to recant. Furthermore there have been other warnings from bishops, priests, and theologians calling out his heresy. And then there is ++Vigano. The man has been duly warned, and this is public knowledge. He has refused to recant. His pertinacity in heresy is manifest so he is not Catholic and he is not the Pope.
Quote from: Julio on April 25, 2023, 04:45:18 AM^^You are not God to decide what must happen in this world. In the meantime he is the elected Pope. Maybe we must endure the pain of having a Pope who represents the majority of the Catholic for reason that the people opt democracy and the will of the people as the sovereign law. Perhaps, God is just trying to show the meaning regarding the way the supreme law of the people looks like in this world that is reigned by relativity and feelings for the kind of reasoning. This is the effect of rejecting God. That is just my guess for having a pontiff like this man. I pray for him.
Nice strawman. I never said I was God. Who are you to say that we need a heretic shepherd and God is deservedly chastising us? Are you some prophet, then? Perhaps God is showing us there's a false, secular church made by the CIA and MI6, pretending to be catholic. If the Popes were suffering persecution and chastisment with us, guarding Tradition against V2 and schismatics, you'd have my ear, but they are leading the persecutions. They're leading pagan and protestant services, and offering nothing but excuses. They're wordsmiths and confusing.
Quote from: Tennessean on April 25, 2023, 01:06:16 PMNice strawman. I never said I was God. Who are you to say that we need a heretic shepherd and God is deservedly chastising us? Are you some prophet, then? Perhaps God is showing us there's a false, secular church made by the CIA and MI6, pretending to be catholic. If the Popes were suffering persecution and chastisment with us, guarding Tradition against V2 and schismatics, you'd have my ear, but they are leading the persecutions. They're leading pagan and protestant services, and offering nothing but excuses. They're wordsmiths and confusing.
No, it is not in that kind of context. My only point is the present Pope is the expression of the majority of the Baptized catholic. The fact remains that in the U.S. itself so many Catholic married couple uses contraceptives which is a manifestation of weakness of the faith.
I see it like the Pharisees during the time of Jesus. But God Himself did not said that His people must not listen to them because they are not the authority.
Quote from: Tennessean on April 25, 2023, 01:06:16 PMPerhaps God is showing us there's a false, secular church made by the CIA and MI6, pretending to be catholic.
The SV thesis implies something similar - that the true Catholic Church has morphed into a false, counterfeit Conciliar non-Catholic Church pretending to be the Catholic Church. And some of the SV say that this Conciliar Church has no visible Head, while others have elected their own Popes - at my latest count there are nine different SV Popes. But it looks to some that the morphing into a false counterfeit church would mean that the Catholic Church has defected, and if the Catholic Church has 9 different Popes or no Pope at all, then it has lost its unity. This appears to be contrary to the Catholic teaching on the indefectibility and the unity of the Catholic church.
Quote from: james03 on April 25, 2023, 07:33:34 AMPaleo-sedes and Neo-sedes disagree over the need for a warning, but we both agree that Bergoglio is an heretic, because Cardinal Burke has publicly warned him to recant twice, and Bergoglio has refused to recant. Furthermore there have been other warnings from bishops, priests, and theologians calling out his heresy. And then there is ++Vigano. The man has been duly warned, and this is public knowledge. He has refused to recant. His pertinacity in heresy is manifest so he is not Catholic and he is not the Pope.
To declare the vacancy of the seat and the place of the authority of the Pope entails vested power from Jesus as the maker of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Old Covenant was only abolished until the New Covenant was created by Jesus and the Visual Church is this that Pope Francis is leading. There is none other than that. The rest are rebels from that authority. Jesus even worshipped in the Synagogue which was the same temple where the Pharisees worhsipped at that time. Nothing was stated by Jesus that the seat or authority of Moses had been vacant despite the ill reputation of these people and their sinfulness for thwarting the Laws of God.
In the same vein that such is going on right now. The declaration of vacancy of the seat of St. Peter belongs to God and not for any mortal because Catholicism is not anarchic. It is the place where orderliness of God must be observed even in these moments of severe crisis under this precarious leadership of the pontiff.
St. Padre Pio saw that this was coming and his call was to remember the works of the Apostolic Father, the Tradition and the emulate the lives of the Saints. Nothing was about non-recognition of the leadership of the Pope.
Take note, St. Padre Pio should know the repercussions of Vatican II under Pope Paul VI. But he was still giving much respect to that leadership.
A person who is a public heretic ceases to be a member of the Church; in the case of Jorge Bergoglio aka Pope Francis, he ceases to be Pope (if he ever was); all the rest is just excuses. God is not going to come down here and tell us that Pope Francis is a heretic; but Catholics have the duty to "avoid the heretic" (St. Paul); how can Catholics avoid the heretic if they can not even tell the difference between a Catholic who professes the true faith and a person who does not?
Those who insist that Pope Francis is the Pope, are also obliged by logic to embrace the errors of Vatican II and the post Conciliar magisterium. To claim that Francis and the rest are Popes, and at the same time refuse them the assent of their teaching, and obedience to their disciplinary laws, such as the N.O.M. Is to be in practical schism with the man (men) who they hold to be Pope (s). Its pure incoherence. Either "fish or cut bait"; but don't tell us that you accept the Conciliar Pope (s) as Pope, and at the same time refuse to accept their doctrines of Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, the salvific value of non-Catholic religions and universal salvation.
Quote from: Julio on April 25, 2023, 03:06:42 PMQuote from: Tennessean on April 25, 2023, 01:06:16 PMNice strawman. I never said I was God. Who are you to say that we need a heretic shepherd and God is deservedly chastising us? Are you some prophet, then? Perhaps God is showing us there's a false, secular church made by the CIA and MI6, pretending to be catholic. If the Popes were suffering persecution and chastisment with us, guarding Tradition against V2 and schismatics, you'd have my ear, but they are leading the persecutions. They're leading pagan and protestant services, and offering nothing but excuses. They're wordsmiths and confusing.
No, it is not in that kind of context. My only point is the present Pope is the expression of the majority of the Baptized catholic. The fact remains that in the U.S. itself so many Catholic married couple uses contraceptives which is a manifestation of weakness of the faith.
I see it like the Pharisees during the time of Jesus. But God Himself did not said that His people must not listen to them because they are not the authority.
Well, you clearly aren't insane, so if your explanation sits well with you. But I don't agree with the idea that the guilt falls on the culture (or lack thereof); the heirarchy isn't just an expression of man's society.
I think we can draw on parallels all over scripture, and maybe the pharisees are a good one, because the jews and their mercenaries have triumphed over the 20th century. There's no knowing for sure where this ends, except in Christ's return, but there seems to me to be an occupation by secular forces. There's a church of V2, and a Church of Vigano and Burke.
Quote from: Tennessean on April 25, 2023, 05:41:03 PMWell, you clearly aren't insane, so if your explanation sits well with you. But I don't agree with the idea that the guilt falls on the culture (or lack thereof); the heirarchy isn't just an expression of man's society.
I think we can draw on parallels all over scripture, and maybe the pharisees are a good one, because the jews and their mercenaries have triumphed over the 20th century. There's no knowing for sure where this ends, except in Christ's return, but there seems to me to be an occupation by secular forces. There's a church of V2, and a Church of Vigano and Burke.
The words spoken by Vigano regaring the heretic actions of the pontiff today, in my humble evaluation is accurate. The Law of God however has two aspects. They are the substantive law and the procedural law. Like when Adam and Eve committed sins and violated the Law of God, the substantive law that they breached was the "prohibition against eating the fruit in the tree of knowledge." God did not immediately condemn them. He summoned them and asked Adam what happened, which is the procedural aspect of the Law of God. The substantive law was violated and then God exhibited to mankind the meaning of
due process of law.
Right now, I am convinced that Pope Francis is violating the substantive Law of God. But the due process of evicting him from that seat of St. Peter which belongs to God only has never happened. The authority of declaring anyone a heretic was also given to the Apostolic Fathers and are right now subrograted unto the hands of the the Bishops, and no pronouncement from these authorities had been made. If there is failure on their end to do that, then that is their obligation to God and they shall answer for that in due time. That is the problem with the self serving declaration by those who assume that the Papacy is vacant. It has not complied with the very important aspect of which that is the due process of the Law of God. That act fo declaring that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is anarchic because it has not complied with "due process of law."
That failue to comply with
due process of God's Law is the error of Vigano et al, I submit.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 25, 2023, 03:59:28 PMA person who is a public heretic ceases to be a member of the Church; in the case of Jorge Bergoglio aka Pope Francis, he ceases to be Pope (if he ever was); all the rest is just excuses. God is not going to come down here and tell us that Pope Francis is a heretic; but Catholics have the duty to "avoid the heretic" (St. Paul); how can Catholics avoid the heretic if they can not even tell the difference between a Catholic who professes the true faith and a person who does not?
Those who insist that Pope Francis is the Pope, are also obliged by logic to embrace the errors of Vatican II and the post Conciliar magisterium. To claim that Francis and the rest are Popes, and at the same time refuse them the assent of their teaching, and obedience to their disciplinary laws, such as the N.O.M. Is to be in practical schism with the man (men) who they hold to be Pope (s). Its pure incoherence. Either "fish or cut bait"; but don't tell us that you accept the Conciliar Pope (s) as Pope, and at the same time refuse to accept their doctrines of Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, the salvific value of non-Catholic religions and universal salvation.
Yes, there is violation of the substantive Law of God. The procedural Law of God to declare that the seat of St. Peter is however, wanting. The first act of due process of law happened in the Garden of Eden. God is constant and shall always implement due process of law.
The declaration of the vacancy of the seat of St. Peter is not something that can be assumed. There must be observance of due process of law about that. Like God must pronounce that or those College of Bishop should so declare the heretic act by the pontif. Sans that overt actions, any statement that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is nothing but an speculation.
An error of failing to observe due process of law.
Quote from: Julio on April 25, 2023, 06:38:34 PMThe authority of declaring anyone a heretic was also given to the Apostolic Fathers and are right now subrograted unto the hands of the the Bishops, and no pronouncement from these authorities had been made. If there is failure on their end to do that, then that is their obligation to God and they shall answer for that in due time. That is the problem with the self serving declaration by those who assume that the Papacy is vacant. It has not complied with the very important aspect of which that is the due process of the Law of God. That act fo declaring that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is anarchic because it has not complied with "due process of law."
That failue to comply with due process of God's Law is the error of Vigano et al, I submit.
Correct.
It is contrary to canon law to judge a Pope. Anyway, in Catholic history, we see already that there has been a Pope who taught error and that fact did not mean that the Roman See was vacant.
Further, we note the following official teachings of the Catholic church:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII
[How can you be subject to the Roman Pontiff, if there is no visible Head of the Catholic Church?]
Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. Pope John XXIII
{Same issue]
Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation. Pope Pius IX
[Are SV obstinate toward the authority of Pope Francis? They deny his authority]
^^Indeed, and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is in the state of Indifectibility because it is not personality based but on the Institution made by Jesus the way He Instituted the Holy Eucharist to maintain His real presence during each Holy Mass. Priests and even Popes maybe sinners but their sinfulness shall never destroy the Church that Jesus made. Failing to recognize their authority is lawlessness.
QuoteI think we can draw on parallels all over scripture,
King David is an example. Look at what happened to the population after he had the dude killed so he could bang his wife, and when he took the census.
QuoteCorrect.
It is contrary to canon law to judge a Pope.
Can you rebuke a Pope? You'll not find anything saying you can't, and in fact St. Thomas calls it a duty. So you rebuke Bergoglio twice, publicly, and he doesn't recant. Then what?
I've quoted the theologians. His heresy is now known because the form of the sin of heresy is pertinacity. And the public rebuke with refusal to recant manifests the pertinacity. At that point there is no judging, no trial. He's a heretic who has separated himself from the Faith. He is not the Pope.
^^Yes, James, you can rebuke him but you cannot declare that he is not a Pope sans due process of law. It happened in the Garden of Eden, it must happen everytime there shall be conviction against anyone including the Pope regarding the Law of God. Even Jesus being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity showed humanity how it is to respect the authority that God installed here on earth.
Take note, even in the case of Lucifer, before God sent this fallen angel to hell, there was due process but he objected to the notice upon him and rather he waged war and disrespected God's due process of law. The first violator of due process of God's Law is this fallen angel. Here is the manifestation of judgment:
"I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls."(Revelation 20:12)
The sinners committed the violations of God's Law but it was not some kind of automatic throwing of them to hell. There shall be execution of judgment according to their deeds. Not just some kind of unilateral pronouncement like declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant in the absence of due process of law. That is dismissal of God's due process and installation of authorities on earth.
QuoteYes, James, you can rebuke him but you cannot declare that he is not a Pope sans due process of law.
This is not ecclessiastical law, this is Divine Law:
QuoteAvoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment' (Tit. 3, 10-11).
And I'm not just sitting here inventing stuff:
QuoteFor the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul.
So Bergoglio has refused to recant on multiple occasions. He has now manifested his pertinacity and is rightly called an heretic. He is not Catholic and can't be the Pope.
^^You see James, there must be public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod against the pontiff based on your source. That warning is the manifestation of due process of law. The same warning should be made not on their personal capacity but as an institution. Nothings has been made by any of those mentioned institution as provided in your post against any pope most recently. The absence of that due process of law screams.
I never said that due process of law as I stated it here is not Divine Law. It all started from the Garden of Eden and it is God who did it for the first time. That public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, according to your source is the authority of these Catholic institutions that has been subrogated by them from the St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles to whom Jesus bestowed the same.
Your source is telling you that the due process had been violated by the people who dismiss Pope Francis as the Holy Father of the Catholic Church. Like what I stated the first who breached this due process of law that is from God is Lucifer.
Remember that this Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is the "Church Militant" that is composed both by good and bad members. Among those bad members can be the Pope. Don't you get that?
Also, James, look at that this:
"Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment' "
There must be first correction. That is due process of law, James. Nothings has been done anything that is like that against any Pope since Vatican II. Your source is telling you that all those who claim that the seat of St. Peter is vacant are all in the state of grave and serious error.
Cardinal Burke sent two letters, which were made public. And they were signed by others. This was a formal act.
Cardinal Paul did likewise when he rebuked Pope Peter I.
Bergoglio has refused to recant and has proceeded to double down on his heresies.
If I have a Catholic friend who tells me he doesn't believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is not God, do I wait around for a Church trial before I rebuke him? That would be absurd. His own words manifest his heresy. The failure of Bergoglio to recant, let alone respond to the public rebuke manifests his pertinacity.
Do you believe Begoglio is an heretic?
QuoteIt is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private (sic) opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and is guarded, protected and interpreted by the Magisterium.
-- Cardinal Burke
Correction, it was four cardinals.
QuoteIn the present case, four Cardinals have presented formally to the Holy Father five fundamental questions or doubts regarding faith and morals based on the reading of Amoris Laetitiae.
That letter was a form of inquiry not a condemnation. It was made in their personal capacity. It is not the due process of law which is being referred to by your own source. Thereafter, not a single word from that letter did they pronounce that the seat of St. Peter is vacant. Nothing, James.
You can rebuke your friend and even the Pope. But you cannot declare that the seat of St. Peter is vacant because you do not have the capacity to remove that indelible mark in the intellect of the Pope when he was elected and assumed the office. That power is only for God to do. In the case of the Catholics it must be through formal execution of due process. There is none that has been made by any Catholic institution against any Pope since Vatican II. Ergo, to declare that the seat of St. Peter is vacant sans those requirments of due process of law is a so grave error, my friend.
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 01:39:48 PMQuoteIt is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private (sic) opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and is guarded, protected and interpreted by the Magisterium.
-- Cardinal Burke
Did you see any word there that the seat of St. Peter is already vacant? It is even not precise if it is about heresy because it merely state that the private opions of the Pope do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church. It must be specific. That is the problem with all the authorities of our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It lost the hallmark of clarity. Blame it to Pope Francis or everyone?
Again, there is no due process of law which states that the papacy is vacant.
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 01:43:23 PMCorrection, it was four cardinals.
QuoteIn the present case, four Cardinals have presented formally to the Holy Father five fundamental questions or doubts regarding faith and morals based on the reading of Amoris Laetitiae.
Yes, it is question or querry. Not a formal declaration that Pope Francis is heretic. I think these people also have a problem with proper execution of their authority. If there are those who must act against the heretic actions of Pope Francis it must be them. But there is none. Don't you think they should answer God for their inaction?
Compare:
QuoteThereafter, not a single word from that letter did they pronounce that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
vs.
QuoteHe reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church.
QuoteDid you seen any word there that the seat of St. Peter is already vacant?
It was not a declaration that the See was vacant just as the dubia was not a declaration that the See is vacant. It was a rebuke. Peter recanted, Bergoglio has not recanted.
And by not recanting Bergoglio has manifested his pertinacity. This has nothing to do with ecclesiastical law, this is a matter of Faith, and Bergoglio doesn't have the Catholic Faith.
QuoteYou can rebuke your friend and even the Pope.
Can I separate from my friend, keep my family away from him if he is pertinacious in his heresy? Or must I wait until there is a Church trial?
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 01:52:37 PMCompare:
QuoteThereafter, not a single word from that letter did they pronounce that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
vs.
QuoteHe reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church.
You purposedly and deliberately cut the rest of the sentences about declaration from the Cardinals et al. Not so honest posting, James. The essense of due process is being dismissed by you by cutting them.
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 01:55:59 PMQuoteDid you seen any word there that the seat of St. Peter is already vacant?
It was not a declaration that the See was vacant just as the dubia was not a declaration that the See is vacant. It was a rebuke. Peter recanted, Bergoglio has not recanted.
And by not recanting Bergoglio has manifested his pertinacity. This has nothing to do with ecclesiastical law, this is a matter of Faith, and Bergoglio doesn't have the Catholic Faith.
It does not mean that he is not the elected Pope. The absence of due process, James.
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 01:57:09 PMQuoteYou can rebuke your friend and even the Pope.
Can I separate from my friend, keep my family away from him if he is pertinacious in his heresy? Or must I wait until there is a Church trial?
You are doing it in your private capacity of course so you can. Declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is another matter. It needs due process. Satan was the first who disrespected due process of law of God.
QuoteYou are doing it in your private capacity of course so you can.
So I can avoid a heretic. But if the heretic claims to be Pope, I can't avoid him? And by the Tradition of the Church and Divine Law I know that Bergoglio has manifested his pertinacity by refusing to recant. I have the confidence of Tradition.
And I'm relying on the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:
QuoteThe fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu," for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.
QuoteYou purposedly and deliberately cut the rest of the sentences about declaration from the Cardinals et al. Not so honest posting, James. The essense of due process is being dismissed by you by cutting them.
No, I was replying to your dishonesty. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
So why did you make that statement if that wasn't my argument? My argument: If a person does not recant after he has been rebuked, his pertinacity is made manifest.
You have done nothing to address that argument.
^^No one prevents anyone from not following words that are made by the Pope which runs in contrast to the Traditions of the Catholic Church. You see, James, there is a mention of judicial sentence. The meaning of that is after the execution of which the effect of the excommunication or that judicial declaration is retroactive. It did not provide however that judicial declaration is not needed. It means there must be due process of law.
You should not only rely on that source that you posted but must understand that also vividly.
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 02:16:47 PMQuoteYou purposedly and deliberately cut the rest of the sentences about declaration from the Cardinals et al. Not so honest posting, James. The essense of due process is being dismissed by you by cutting them.
No, I was replying to your dishonesty. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
So why did you make that statement if that wasn't my argument? My argument: If a person does not recant after he has been rebuked, his pertinacity is made manifest.
You have done nothing to address that argument.
I see so, if that is not your argument, you shall agree with me that Pope Francis is the Pope of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
You still won't address my argument, because you can't.
QuoteMy argument: If a person does not recant after he has been rebuked, his pertinacity is made manifest.
QuoteWe declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII
Tell me then: "Which one of you who claim that Francis is the Pope, are "subject" to him, his teachings and his disciplinary laws?
never mind
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 02:29:02 PMYou still won't address my argument, because you can't.
QuoteMy argument: If a person does not recant after he has been rebuked, his pertinacity is made manifest.
There is no issue about heretic averments of the present pontiff because as I've stated, I am convinced that he made pronouncements about that. The issue is whether or not Pope Francis is the Pope of the Catholic Church and henceforth despite his sinfulness, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church remains indefectible. His papacy is the proof that the Church Militant despite the existence of good and bad members must remain indefectible.
In view thereof, you now agree with me that he is the Pope because there is no due process of law in removing him from the office. Correct?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 26, 2023, 04:47:27 PMQuoteWe declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII
Tell me then: "Which one of you who claim that Francis is the Pope, are "subject" to him, his teachings and his disciplinary laws?
Being subjected to his authority does not mean the Catholic faithful binds himself to his sinfulness. Remember, he is not there in his personal capacity. He is endowed with that indelible mark of being a Pope and only the power of God can remove it both by His own power and that which He granted to St. Peter, the Apostolic Fathers and the present holders of that authority in the Catholic Church. That indelible mark does not make him immune from sinfulness as a mortal. So, being subject to him under his Magisterial teaching as the holder of the seat of St. Peter will never change because his Magisterial teaching is only in regard to the truth of the Traditions and the Holy Scripture. Those errors that he made is not part of that authority vested in him. Do get that he is not there in his personal capacity?
Like a judge who decides a case in violation of the law does not bind the people. His erroneous decision is void from the very beginning but he remains a judge until he is removed from office be a decree. This judicial system is borrowed by the secular world from the concept of due process of law by God which happened for the first time in the Garden of Eden.
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 02:13:06 PMQuoteYou are doing it in your private capacity of course so you can.
So I can avoid a heretic. But if the heretic claims to be Pope, I can't avoid him? And by the Tradition of the Church and Divine Law I know that Bergoglio has manifested his pertinacity by refusing to recant. I have the confidence of Tradition.
And I'm relying on the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:
QuoteThe fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu," for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.
You must understand these words from your own source for your Catholic education my friend:
For, granted that two things constitute the Christian — t
he faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore,
he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
The words are so clear that he, "ought to be removed, since he is disposed. Removal entails due process of law.
Your own sources provides the clarity of your error.
Julio,
QuoteSo, being subject to him under his Magisterial teaching as the holder of the seat of St. Peter will never change because his Magisterial teaching is only in regard to the truth of the Traditions and the Holy Scripture. Those errors that he made is not part of that authority vested in him. Do get that he is not there in his personal capacity?
So in other words you admit that you do not accept the teaching and authority of the men who you claim to be Popes? So you admit that you are not subject to them? So if these "Popes" have promulgated Council documents, Encyclicals and other magisterial documents; Catechisms; new sacramental rites etc. etc. We do not have to accept them?
Julio,
QuoteFor, granted that two things constitute the Christian — the faith and the [baptismal] character — the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
The words are so clear that he, "ought to be removed, since he is disposed. Removal entails due process of law. Your own sources provides the clarity of your error.
James's sources state the contrary to what you are claiming; Cardinal Bellarmine only gives Cajetan's opinion (about the heretic still being united (somehow) to the Church, and therefore still Pope):"the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed,
QuoteAgainst this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu," for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.
St. Bellarmine shows that Cajetan's opinion cannot hold, because if the Baptismal character which is permanent keeps a man united to the Church; and this character is indelible; which it is; then the Church would never be able to separate a heretic from the Church, since she cannot remove this character.
So Cardinal Bellarmine is quite clear.
Another great source on "membership in the Church" are Catechisms, here is one from the 16th C.
QuoteFr Laurence Vaux
A Catechisme of Christian Doctrine
1567
Q. 2: Whom do ye call a Christian Catholic Man?
Him that hath received the sacrament of baptism whereby he is made a member of the Catholic Church, and doth profess in heart, word, and deed the wholesome doctrine of Jesus Christ and of the Catholic Church, and doth not consent nor agree to any strange sects of opinions that the Catholic Church doth disavow and condemn. (p 17)
Q27: Who be alienated and utterly separated from the Church of Christ?
The Jews, and all infidels, and they that by apostasy forsake their faith (Cf. Mt 18:17). And heretics, which although they be christened yet obstinately defend error against the Catholic faith (Cf. 1 Cor 5). Moreover schismatics, which separate themselves from peace and Catholic unity. Also they that be lawfully excommunicated. [...] (p 25)
So it is very clear, only those who confess the Catholic faith are members of the Church, those who do not, i.e. heretics are "alienated and utterly separated from the Church"
So as you have admitted, Francis is a public heretic, he is therefore "utterly separated from the Church" and has no jurisdiction.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 26, 2023, 07:14:54 PMJulio,
QuoteSo, being subject to him under his Magisterial teaching as the holder of the seat of St. Peter will never change because his Magisterial teaching is only in regard to the truth of the Traditions and the Holy Scripture. Those errors that he made is not part of that authority vested in him. Do get that he is not there in his personal capacity?
So in other words you admit that you do not accept the teaching and authority of the men who you claim to be Popes? So you admit that you are not subject to them? So if these "Popes" have promulgated Council documents, Encyclicals and other magisterial documents; Catechisms; new sacramental rites etc. etc. We do not have to accept them?
Not admitting the heretic words is a matter of discretion. He remains the Pope. His erroneous teachings that is not within the ambit of the Church Traditions and the Holy Scripture does not bind faithful and they are not the expression of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
His papacy remains valid for no one removed that indelible mark in him from the moment of his election and assumption of office.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 26, 2023, 07:41:06 PMSo it is very clear, only those who confess the Catholic faith are members of the Church, those who do not, i.e. heretics are "alienated and utterly separated from the Church"
So as you have admitted, Francis is a public heretic, he is therefore "utterly separated from the Church" and has no jurisdiction.
Mike, please check this matter coming from that source of, James:
"This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ,
but only potentially — and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ."
Truly, St. Thomas Aquinas did say that character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ. But they are potentinally there. This is Church Militant, Mike, where the Pope who is a sinner can be adjudged by God to be destined to hell. His authority to be there however cannot be pronounced to be wanting by anyone sans the due process of law. That is the reason St. Thomas Aquinas stated the word, "pontentially" because of the reality of the nature of Church Militant. Being a Pope does not make him invincible from sinning including the commission of heresy. That being the case, without due process of law, the Pope remains the pontiff. That is the so grave error that I submit regarding the position of those who say that the seat of St. Peter is vacant. That is anarchic.
Quote from: Julio on April 26, 2023, 05:41:43 PMyou now agree with me that he is the Pope because there is no due process of law in removing him from the office. Correct?
Yes. I agree with that.
Mike you must also consider this portion of that source of James:
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 07:26:31 AMAnd I'm not just sitting here inventing stuff:
QuoteFor the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul.
As you can read it there must be solemn and public warning by Cardinals, by the Roman Cergy or even by the Synod. Take note of those declarations. Nothing ever happened like that regarding the pontiff who were elected since Vatican II. That declaration itself is the notice to the faithful which is the exhibition of due process of law. Nothing anything like that ever happened. That is the error that I am pointing out regarding the unilateral declaration of vacancy of the seat of St. Peter.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 26, 2023, 07:41:06 PMFr Laurence Vaux
A Catechisme of Christian Doctrine
1567
Q. 2: Whom do ye call a Christian Catholic Man?
Him that hath received the sacrament of baptism whereby he is made a member of the Catholic Church, and doth profess in heart, word, and deed the wholesome doctrine of Jesus Christ and of the Catholic Church, and doth not consent nor agree to any strange sects of opinions that the Catholic Church doth disavow and condemn. (p 17)
Q27: Who be alienated and utterly separated from the Church of Christ?
The Jews, and all infidels, and they that by apostasy forsake their faith (Cf. Mt 18:17). And heretics, which although they be christened yet obstinately defend error against the Catholic faith (Cf. 1 Cor 5). Moreover schismatics, which separate themselves from peace and Catholic unity. Also they that be lawfully excommunicated. [...] (p 25)[/size]
Mike, don't you realize that you are quoting a Catechisis that states that there must be declaration of alienation? It stated
be alienated and utterly separated. There is process about that Mike, like actual pronouncement and among them is excumunication as stated thereat. That is the due process I'd been pointing out all along. "Utterly" means overt act of pronouncement and that power is vested in the authorities of the Catholic Church in their capacity as such. Not some kind of private pronouncements or self serving allegations.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 26, 2023, 04:47:27 PMQuoteWe declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII
Tell me then: "Which one of you who claim that Francis is the Pope, are "subject" to him, his teachings and his disciplinary laws?
SV who attend SSPX Masses say they are una cum Pope Francis. Una cum Pope Francis is pretty much the same thing really, as saying you are "subject" to him, his teachings and his disciplinary laws. Of course you can attempt to wiggle out of this by casuistry. Some other SV are divided as to which one of the nine (or so) SV Popes that they are una cum or IOW are subject to. At least these SV with their own Pope realize the necessity of having visible Head. As far as I can make out, the remaining SV say that a Catholic church with no visible Head for an extended period of time is not against Church teaching.
Quote from: AlNg on April 26, 2023, 08:39:50 PMAs far as I can make out, the remaining SV say that a Catholic church with no visible Head for an extended period of time is not against Church teaching.
St Paul warned that the Church would have no visible head during the time of the rise of the Antichrist.
Quote3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things.
6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
See 2Thess 2.
Cardinal Manning identified the Pope as the 'one who holds', and the Papacy as 'what witholdeth'.
Therefore, 60 years without a Pope is entirely in keeping with Scripture. It can therefore be argued that the Pope who is 'the one who holds' was 'taken out of the way' in 1958 so that the 'revolt', which is Vatican II, could take place.
This period without a Pope is evidence that St Paul's warning has come true and that we are living in the time of the rise of the Antichrist.
QuoteYou must understand these words from your own source for your Catholic education my friend:
...
The words are so clear that he, "ought to be removed, since he is disposed. Removal entails due process of law. Your own sources provides the clarity of your error.
Michael explained it. St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church is quoting an objection by Catejan. He shows that this objection contradicts St. Thomas.
QuoteTruly, St. Thomas Aquinas did say that character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ. But they are potentinally there. This is Church Militant
I am potentially the Pope as there are no impediments (possibly age) to me being ordained and raised to the Papacy. Potential is not Actual. A potential Catholic is not an actual Catholic and he is definitely not part of the Church Militant.
Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
There appears to be confusion due to a conflation of concepts. The concepts are excommunication vs. heresy. A tribunal doesn't make one a heretic, or guilty of the sin of heresy. The heretic wasn't Catholic before any tribunal hearing, he lost the Faith on his own.
The writing I've quoted discuss what is needed for a Catholic to determine a man is an heretic. Divine Law states after a refusal to recant after 2 warnings, this persons pertinacity is made manifest, and the person is a heretic. Excommunication doesn't enter the discussion. A person isn't being "punished" for a "crime". The person is simply an heretic.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 22, 2023, 04:22:36 AMNo-one needs to judge Bergoglio. God has already judged that Bergoglio is not the Pope.
How do we know this?
By his heresies.
All we have to do is recognise that fact.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. You are correct that we can recognize the heresy by the "fact" and thereby reject the heretic as such before a Church judgment. A Church judgment, which could occur much later, is only needed to juridically remove the heretic from his office.
Quote from: james03 on April 27, 2023, 08:10:47 AMThere appears to be confusion due to a conflation of concepts. The concepts are excommunication vs. heresy. A tribunal doesn't make one a heretic, or guilty of the sin of heresy. The heretic wasn't Catholic before any tribunal hearing, he lost the Faith on his own.
The writing I've quoted discuss what is needed for a Catholic to determine a man is an heretic. Divine Law states after a refusal to recant after 2 warnings, this persons pertinacity is made manifest, and the person is a heretic. Excommunication doesn't enter the discussion. A person isn't being "punished" for a "crime". The person is simply an heretic.
You are correct that the "sin" of heresy and the "crime" of heresy must be distinguished. The "sin" of heresy stands regardless of whether or not the Church has legislated it as a crime.
Quote from: james03 on April 27, 2023, 08:05:14 AMQuoteYou must understand these words from your own source for your Catholic education my friend:
...
The words are so clear that he, "ought to be removed, since he is disposed. Removal entails due process of law. Your own sources provides the clarity of your error.
Michael explained it. St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church is quoting an objection by Catejan. He shows that this objection contradicts St. Thomas.
QuoteTruly, St. Thomas Aquinas did say that character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ. But they are potentinally there. This is Church Militant
I am potentially the Pope as there are no impediments (possibly age) to me being ordained and raised to the Papacy. Potential is not Actual. A potential Catholic is not an actual Catholic and he is definitely not part of the Church Militant.
Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
That is to you, but considering that he is potentially part of the Church Militant that is made composed by the good and bad members per the Catechism of the Concil of Trent, then he is a member and the elected Pope. Remember, that a bad member of the Church Militant can be elected as a bad leader. Jesus gave that governing authority to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and this power is subrogated unto the hands of the College of Bishops.
Ergo, if there is declaration to be made it must be from that authority who inherit that power from the installation of the seat of St. Peter. Again, your own source explained that:
QuoteFor the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul.
That process according to the precept of Saint Paul never happened after Vatican II. Ergo, the error James in stating that Pope Francis is not the Pope. You are saying then that the seat of St. Peter is vacant contrary to your claims.
Quote from: james03 on April 27, 2023, 08:10:47 AMThere appears to be confusion due to a conflation of concepts. The concepts are excommunication vs. heresy. A tribunal doesn't make one a heretic, or guilty of the sin of heresy. The heretic wasn't Catholic before any tribunal hearing, he lost the Faith on his own.
The writing I've quoted discuss what is needed for a Catholic to determine a man is an heretic. Divine Law states after a refusal to recant after 2 warnings, this persons pertinacity is made manifest, and the person is a heretic. Excommunication doesn't enter the discussion. A person isn't being "punished" for a "crime". The person is simply an heretic.
Ex communication is just another form of due process. Removal of the pontiff from the office after committing publictly pronounced heresy is another matter that needs due process of law.
You already said that, there must be two warnings. Where is that in regard to Pope Francis? None.
The only point is any declaration that Pope Francis is not the Pope without the due process of law that is from the Divine Law, that is the work of the devil.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 27, 2023, 05:36:15 AMQuote from: AlNg on April 26, 2023, 08:39:50 PMAs far as I can make out, the remaining SV say that a Catholic church with no visible Head for an extended period of time is not against Church teaching.
St Paul warned that the Church would have no visible head during the time of the rise of the Antichrist.
Quote3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things.
6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
See 2Thess 2.
Cardinal Manning identified the Pope as the 'one who holds', and the Papacy as 'what witholdeth'.
Therefore, 60 years without a Pope is entirely in keeping with Scripture. It can therefore be argued that the Pope who is 'the one who holds' was 'taken out of the way' in 1958 so that the 'revolt', which is Vatican II, could take place.
This period without a Pope is evidence that St Paul's warning has come true and that we are living in the time of the rise of the Antichrist.
What if after that 60 years a worse pope is there, will that make the declarants that the seat of St. Peter is vacant, the anti-Christ?
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 27, 2023, 10:28:03 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 22, 2023, 04:22:36 AMNo-one needs to judge Bergoglio. God has already judged that Bergoglio is not the Pope.
How do we know this?
By his heresies.
All we have to do is recognise that fact.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. You are correct that we can recognize the heresy by the "fact" and thereby reject the heretic as such before a Church judgment. A Church judgment, which could occur much later, is only needed to juridically remove the heretic from his office.
No, there must be due process of law. Even God did not execute His law by way of automatic separation of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. He summoned them, asked them and allowed them to explain. Adam even blamed his wife for his ineptness. Due process of law is from God. The first who violated that is Lucifer.
Here are the contradicting statements that you posted, James:
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 02:16:47 PMQuoteYou purposedly and deliberately cut the rest of the sentences about declaration from the Cardinals et al. Not so honest posting, James. The essense of due process is being dismissed by you by cutting them.
No, I was replying to your dishonesty. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
So why did you make that statement if that wasn't my argument? My argument: If a person does not recant after he has been rebuked, his pertinacity is made manifest.
You have done nothing to address that argument.
Quote from: james03 on April 27, 2023, 08:05:14 AMI am potentially the Pope as there are no impediments (possibly age) to me being ordained and raised to the Papacy. Potential is not Actual. A potential Catholic is not an actual Catholic and he is definitely not part of the Church Militant.
Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
I remember contradictory words when Jesus saw unclean spirit come out from the man and to wit:
He asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "Legion is my name. There are many of us."(Mark 5:9)
Contradictions...
Quote from: awkward customer on April 27, 2023, 05:36:15 AM... 60 years without a Pope is entirely in keeping with Scripture.
Scripture or private interpretation of Scripture?
According to Pope Pius XII, the Mystical Body of Christ:
"it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. "
Some SV have elected their own Pope (nine different SV Popes) apparently because they agree with Pope Pius XII on the absolute necessity for the Church to have a visible Supreme Head.
Julio,
the first thing one must do is to determine who is a member of the Church?
Pope Pius XII in Mistici Corporis tells us:
QuotePope Pius XII, Mistici Corporis:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
So heresy (and schism) separate a man from the Church the same as those excluded by legitimate authority.
A person who would openly profess a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, would not be a Catholic; why not? Because the Church is a visible society, and there is no other way of establishing who is a member.
St. Pius X in his Catechism, gives the conditions for identifying a member of the Church:
Quote9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
"Pope" Francis does not profess the teachings of Jesus Christ, and is therefore not a Catholic.
Here Msgr. G. Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II; Christ's Church" pg. 241:
Quote
"Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy". (M.C.C. 30) By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely "material" heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a "formal" heretic)......If public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would anyone ever locate the Catholic Church? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity?
So contrary to what you have been trying to demonstrate, heretics (even "material" heretics) sever themselves from the Church, even before a judicial sentence; why? Because the lack one of the conditions that is necessary to be a member.
If public heretics remained members of the Church the visibility and the unity of the Church would be destroyed. Why? Because how could the Church be one body if it was not united in the profession of the same faith? How could we tell Catholics from non-Catholics?
Van Noort pg. 243:
Quote Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.-Lercher, op.cit. pg. 239, e.
[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 27, 2023, 05:14:48 PMJulio,
the first thing one must do is to determine who is a member of the Church?
Pope Pius XII in Mistici Corporis tells us:
QuotePope Pius XII, Mistici Corporis:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
So heresy (and schism) separate a man from the Church the same as those excluded by legitimate authority.
A person who would openly profess a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, would not be a Catholic; why not? Because the Church is a visible society, and there is no other way of establishing who is a member.
St. Pius X in his Catechism, gives the conditions for identifying a member of the Church:
Quote9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
"Pope" Francis does not profess the teachings of Jesus Christ, and is therefore not a Catholic.
Right, there must first be determination as to who is the member of the Church. The Church Militant is made by both by good and bad members, per Cathechism of the Council of Trent. While it is true that a heretic person separates himself from Jeus in actu but he is still a potential member according to St. Thomas Aquinas. For a potential member to be ejected from the Catholic Church there must be excommunication or any Canonical Proceedings, and this is in keeping with the authority granted to St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by Jesus.
Mike, you subscribed to the authorities posted by James and among them is the process involving the declaration or warning that must be executed at least twice by the Cardinals et al regarding the heretic actions of the Pope. Nothing has been done by these authorities. So any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is self-serving and anarchic. The violation of due process of law screams.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 27, 2023, 05:24:58 PMHere Msgr. G. Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II; Christ's Church" pg. 241:
Quote
"Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy". (M.C.C. 30) By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely "material" heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a "formal" heretic)......If public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would anyone ever locate the Catholic Church? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity?
So contrary to what you have been trying to demonstrate, heretics (even "material" heretics) sever themselves from the Church, even before a judicial sentence; why? Because the lack one of the conditions that is necessary to be a member.
If public heretics remained members of the Church the visibility and the unity of the Church would be destroyed. Why? Because how could the Church be one body if it was not united in the profession of the same faith? How could we tell Catholics from non-Catholics?
Van Noort pg. 243:
Quote Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.-Lercher, op.cit. pg. 239, e.
[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Mike, there is no issue about that separation. St. Thomas Aquinas defined the separation as "in actu" separation from Jesus. But they are
still potential member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Church Militant because the members constituting it are both good and bad people. That does not exempt the pontiff to be among those bad members.
That is the reason there must be actual declaration by the authorities in keeping with the truth and divinity of due process of law that is from God because they are potential members. The failure of the authorities regarding the act to declare over the heretic acts and words by the pontiff is something that they must answer to God. In the meantime Pope Francis is the Pope.
QuoteThat is to you, but considering that he is potentially part of the Church Militant ...
But they are still potential member of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Church Militant
Julio, can you distinguish between actual and potential? A block of wood is a potential chair. To call it a chair is absurd. Bergoglio is a potential Catholic. If he goes to confession, abjures his heresies, and makes a public retraction to help cure the scandal he has caused, he'll be an actual Catholic.
QuoteI remember contradictory words when Jesus saw unclean spirit come out from the man and to wit:
He asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "Legion is my name. There are many of us."(Mark 5:9)
Contradictions...
What an uncharitable statement. You call yourself a Catholic? But since you want to compare me to demons, go ahead and explain it to us. How are these statements mutually exclusive?
Quote1. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
2. Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
^^I am stating it on the basis of your source, by way of discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas where the potential member must be part of the Catholic Church because of Baptism.
You see, James, that indelible mark through baptism is beyond destruction by sin of any kind. The same goes with the Pope that the indelible mark endowed upon him shall be there as the pontiff upon election and the subsequent assumption of office.
Those who remain their sanctity shall be "in actu" with Jesus and they are the good members. Those who dismsiss the will of God and commit act of heresy and other forms of sinfulness that are mortal are those who are the potential members according to St. Thomas Aquinas. They are the bad members of the Church Militant who shall be judged by God to go to hell. While they are still alive they have the opportunity to repent and be in actu with Jesus.
That being the case, the Pope who is elected as member of that Church Militant can only be removed from the seat of St. Peter, by the authorities endowed with that power by Jesus or by Himself in keeping with the truth of due process of law. Any unilateral declaration that the seat is vacant is the work of the devil. The observance of due process of law is divine.
On your discussions about your own post that I describe, that is your own doing, James. I am a Catholic and to love is to will the good of the other and to state the truth is in keeping with willing the good of the other. You stated inconsistent statement and that happened when Jesus meet that unclean spirit.
If Pope Francis is not the actual Pope as you claim, then you are saying that the seat of St. Peter is vacant, contrary to your previous statement in those quoted posts of yours. Facts of the truth of your inconsistency and contradictory statements, James. Inconsisitency is never pursuant to the orderliness of God. It is diabolic.
Moreover James, when I state about the seat of St. Peter, I am referring to the office of the Pope of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church where its occupant right now is Pope Francis who was elected pursuant to the members of the Church Militant. Oh, your block of wood of a potential chair understanding of which is res ipsa loquitur.
Who elected Pope Francis? The members of the Church Militant. Maybe he is the expression of the Church Militant right now.
What should we do? Call that office empty because we disagree with what is going on or pray more to God because we are now suffering from our sinfulness?
I think those who dismiss this Pope without due process of God's Law is disrepecting the will of God. This did not happen if God never willed this.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 27, 2023, 05:14:48 PMA person who would openly profess a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, would not be a Catholic;
I don't think so. Such a Catholic could repent and confess his sin to a priest and become in good standing in the Catholic Church. But only Catholics (and possibly Eastern Orthodox under certain conditions) are admitted to the Catholic Sacraments of confession and absolution. Here is a list of sins for Catholics to consider in their examination of conscience when they are going to confession:
https://levaire.com/sin-list-for-confession/
Notice that one of the sins listed is
False Teaching / Heresy / Teaching the Traditions of Men as Doctrine.
If the Catholic who committed this sin of false teaching and heresy was not a Catholic, how would it be possible for him to confess his sin and obtain absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
^^Indeed, and St. Paul was Saul.
Quote from: Julio on April 27, 2023, 02:22:27 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 27, 2023, 10:28:03 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 22, 2023, 04:22:36 AMNo-one needs to judge Bergoglio. God has already judged that Bergoglio is not the Pope.
How do we know this?
By his heresies.
All we have to do is recognise that fact.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. You are correct that we can recognize the heresy by the "fact" and thereby reject the heretic as such before a Church judgment. A Church judgment, which could occur much later, is only needed to juridically remove the heretic from his office.
No, there must be due process of law. Even God did not execute His law by way of automatic separation of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. He summoned them, asked them and allowed them to explain. Adam even blamed his wife for his ineptness. Due process of law is from God. The first who violated that is Lucifer.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
Quote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181641.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181234.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_182140.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183133.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183519.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183749.png)
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J. or Fr. Kenneth Baker would do better to explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
Quotehow a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
The same way an unbaptized Protestant can receive a Sacrament, Baptism, if he is not a member.
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 01:06:37 PMQuotehow a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
The same way an unbaptized Protestant can receive a Sacrament, Baptism, if he is not a member.
Negative on that. The Church does not permit a prot (baptized or not) to walk into the confessional - after all, prots "confess directly to God," just ask any one of them.
Only Catholics, members of the Church are permitted and encouraged to her sacrament of penance. Does not matter what the sin is - the worse the sin, the more the Church urges her members to go to confession.
But the Church certainly allows a Prot, who is not Catholic, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
In the same way, the Church allows the heretic, who is not Catholic, to repent and receive the Sacrament of Penance. And just as the power of Baptism has the power to wash away sin and give Sanctifying Grace, so to does the Sacrament of Penance have the power to bring a heretic back into the Church, from whence he had separated himself.
There was a debate about this very subject in the early Church, about whether those who had apostatized needed to be rebaptized.
Quote^^I am stating it on the basis of your source, by way of discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas where the potential member must be part of the Catholic Church because of Baptism.
My source, St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office quoted St. Thomas to show that the heretic is not Catholic. It was in reply to the objective of Cajetan, something you still aren't comprehending.
But that is neither here nor there, because St. Robert was not commenting on the Dubia, and he didn't write an opinion on whether heresiarch Bergoglio was not an actual Pope. Because St. Robert wrote centuries ago.
You compared me to demons, the most vile creatures in existence who blaspheme God and hate Mary, Immaculate. And to back up this uncharitable claim, you bolded two statements I made. I asked you to show how those statements are mutually exclusive. You failed, because they aren't conradictory. I'll give you another chance. Here's what you bolded:
Quote1. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
2. Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
You are the one who bolded these, so explain yourself. How are these two statements contradictory? This is the basis of you comparing me to demons.
And if you can't, and you can't because there is no contradiction, then apologize.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Yes, they separate in actu from Jesus but has not lost that indelible mark of their Baptism thus per St. Thomas Aquinas a potential member of the Church Militant.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181641.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181234.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_182140.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183133.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183519.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183749.png)
Read again that last portion of the screen shot:
... heretics, schismatics
are not in reality members of the Visible Body of the Church. Those words not "in reality presuposes" the fact that the Baptism has not been destroyed by the sin that shall cause separation of being "in actu" with Jesus, which goes back to the truth of the cited Catechism of the Council of Trent that Baptism cannot be destroyed by any form of sin. That is the reason St. Thomas Aquinas call them as
potential members of the Church.
Thus, this heretic person remains a member of the Church Militant. To eject him from that needs formal declaration in view of the Baptism. This heretic person may not be part of the Community of Saints, but he is for sure a member of the Church Militant.
QuoteIf Pope Francis is not the actual Pope as you claim, then you are saying that the seat of St. Peter is vacant,
Correct. The seat is vacant. In summary, Bergoglio was publicly rebuked and refused to recant. According to St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church. Prefect of the Holy Office, he therefore manifested his pertinancity.
St. Robert states the following:
QuoteFor, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.
Quotecontrary to your previous statement in those quoted posts of yours. Facts of the truth of your inconsistency and contradictory statements, James.
There is nothing contrary. I am consistent, Bergoglio is a hertetic, not Catholic, and not the Pope. The facts instead show you can't comprehend the argument.
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 01:36:18 PMYou compared me to demons, the most vile creatures in existence who blaspheme God and hate Mary, Immaculate. And to back up this uncharitable claim, you bolded two statements I made. I asked you to show how those statements are mutually exclusive. You failed, because they aren't conradictory. I'll give you another chance. Here's what you bolded:
Quote1. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
2. Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
You are the one who bolded these, so explain yourself. How are these two statements contradictory? This is the basis of you comparing me to demons.
And if you can't, and you can't because there is no contradiction, then apologize.
Your habbit of cutting off your posts to change the meaning goes on:
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 02:16:47 PMQuoteYou purposedly and deliberately cut the rest of the sentences about declaration from the Cardinals et al. Not so honest posting, James. The essense of due process is being dismissed by you by cutting them.
No, I was replying to your dishonesty. Where have I claimed the dubia declared the seat vacant? Quote me. You can't.
So why did you make that statement if that wasn't my argument? My argument: If a person does not recant after he has been rebuked, his pertinacity is made manifest.
You have done nothing to address that argument.
Quote from: james03 on April 27, 2023, 08:05:14 AMI am potentially the Pope as there are no impediments (possibly age) to me being ordained and raised to the Papacy. Potential is not Actual. A potential Catholic is not an actual Catholic and he is definitely not part of the Church Militant.
Bergoglio being a potential Pope means he's not the actual Pope.
I just put on the highlighted part to show the contracition. By stating that a potential Catholic is not an actual Catholic and he is definitely not part of the Church Militant and cocluding that Pope Franics is not the actual Pope means you are claiming that Pope Francis is not the Pope and thus the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
The cutting of the portion of the post where the declaration from the authority is necessary is where this all started. You present contradicting arguments that you do not claim that Pope Francis is not the Pope yet you desire for the declaration of the dubia for his dismissal. They are confusing, contradicting and inconsistent statement which prompted me to compare that post to anything that is diabolic. Vagueness is evil, James.
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 01:49:44 PMQuoteIf Pope Francis is not the actual Pope as you claim, then you are saying that the seat of St. Peter is vacant,
Correct. The seat is vacant. In summary, Bergoglio was publicly rebuked and refused to recant. According to St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church. Prefect of the Holy Office, he therefore manifested his pertinancity.
St. Robert states the following:
QuoteFor, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.
Quotecontrary to your previous statement in those quoted posts of yours. Facts of the truth of your inconsistency and contradictory statements, James.
There is nothing contrary. I am consistent, Bergoglio is a hertetic, not Catholic, and not the Pope. The facts instead show you can't comprehend the argument.
Okay, I get now your perfect position. Let me now make my apology if I hurt your feelings of that comparison. Pardon my passionate asseverations with all due regard to your person as fellow Catholic. My sincere manifestation apology of powerful and strong words against you.
Going back to my previous arguments, you having stated that the seat of St. Peter is vacant, let me again go back to your own sources that there must be public declaration from the Cardinals et al of the public heresy that was committed by the offender. I repeat this did not happen in the time of Pope Francis and the rest of the Vatican II pontiffs. Ergo, they remain as the holders of the seat of St. Peter having beed elected and assumed that office and in view of
the absence of due process of law to eject them from that office.
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 01:25:16 PMBut the Church certainly allows a Prot, who is not Catholic, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Can a Protestant go to Catholic confession and receive absolution? According to my information, a Catholic who has committed the sin of heresy, can confess his sin and receive absolution. In fact, I know of a case, where a Catholic publicly joined a non-Catholic heretical Church and then later on decided that was a mistake. He then went to confession and is now in good standing in the Catholic Church. If he was not a Catholic, how could he receive absolution in Catholic confession?
QuoteOkay, I get now your perfect position. Let me now make my apology if I hurt your feelings of that comparison. Pardon my passionate asseverations with all due regard to your person as fellow Catholic. My sincere manifestation apology of powerful and strong words against you.
Manfully done. I accept your apology.
QuoteCan a Protestant go to Catholic confession and receive absolution?
Assuming he's baptized, does he have contrition for his heresies, and does he renounce them? If so, yes. In fact, that's how he becomes Catholic. If no, the confession would be a sacrilege.
For the unbaptized Prot, it does no good as he has not been reborn in Christ through baptism and can't receive sanctifying Grace.
So is your belief Luther was a Catholic?
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 01:25:16 PMBut the Church certainly allows a Prot, who is not Catholic, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
In the same way, the Church allows the heretic, who is not Catholic, to repent and receive the Sacrament of Penance. And just as the power of Baptism has the power to wash away sin and give Sanctifying Grace, so to does the Sacrament of Penance have the power to bring a heretic back into the Church, from whence he had separated himself.
There was a debate about this very subject in the early Church, about whether those who had apostatized needed to be rebaptized.
Where on earth did you ever hear that "the Church certainly allows a Prot, who is not Catholic, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism?" There is no way, not ever.
The sacraments, all of them, are owned and are the coveted property of Holy Mother the Church to safeguard, preserve and defend, she says if you want our sacraments, then you must be a member or you sin.
Prot baptisms are not only useless, they are sinful. While the sacrament done properly removes the stain of Original Sin, the recipient and the administer both sin by using our sacraments outside of the Church.
QuoteIt is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private (sic) opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and is guarded, protected and interpreted by the Magisterium.
-- Cardinal Burke
This (one example) is supposedly not a rebuke of Bergoglio. It really hinges on this, because if this is a public rebuke, and it is public because I'm quoting it, then Bergoglio has manifested pertinacity by not recanting and by Divine Law we are to separate ourselves from him.
This is not just academic. I have no ill will towards people who hold that Bergoglio is the Pope. However I warn that you risk losing your Faith. We have had people announce that Canonization doesn't mean someone is in heaven, or that they were virtuous. K. had to ban one member for his spiritual good, who could no longer maintain the farce and lost the Faith.
So if you reach that point, remember that St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office presented the argument that refusal to recant after a public rebuke manifests pertinacity, and therefore the person is an heretic and we are to avoid him. This is not special pleading as St. Robert wrote this centuries ago. Just remember that before you decide to apostatize.
QuoteWhere on earth did you ever hear that "the Church certainly allows a Prot, who is not Catholic, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism?" There is no way, not ever.
He's not a Catholic before baptism. So is it your position only Catholics can be baptized? That's incoherent.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181641.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181234.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_182140.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183133.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183519.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183749.png)
If schismatics are excluded from the Catholic church, why are E. Orthodox and O. Orthodox allowed, under certain conditions, to receive Catholic Holy Communion? Further, is it not true that SV are schismatic since they deny the authority of the sitting Roman Pontiff, which is actually a heresy also. Further, the position of SV implies that the Catholic Church has defected, which is another heresy. Where is the visible Head of the Catholic Church today and for the last 60 or so years?
I've been following the thread and as soon as I decide which camp I'm in, the other one offers a strong argument.
I kinda feel like Delmar ..
https://youtu.be/9xJkUyotSc4
:lol:
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 02:53:32 PMQuoteIt is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private (sic) opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and is guarded, protected and interpreted by the Magisterium.
-- Cardinal Burke
This (one example) is supposedly not a rebuke of Bergoglio. It really hinges on this, because if this is a public rebuke, and it is public because I'm quoting it, then Bergoglio has manifested pertinacity by not recanting and by Divine Law we are to separate ourselves from him.
This is not just academic. I have no ill will towards people who hold that Bergoglio is the Pope. However I warn that you risk losing your Faith. We have had people announce that Canonization doesn't mean someone is in heaven, or that they were virtuous. K. had to ban one member for his spiritual good, who could no longer maintain the farce and lost the Faith.
So if you reach that point, remember that St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office presented the argument that refusal to recant after a public rebuke manifests pertinacity, and therefore the person is an heretic and we are to avoid him. This is not special pleading as St. Robert wrote this centuries ago. Just remember that before you decide to apostatize.
Alright, brother, having cited that as public rebuke, I hold that it does not comply with the requirements coming from the source that you cited and to wit:
Quote from: james03 on April 26, 2023, 07:26:31 AMAnd I'm not just sitting here inventing stuff:
QuoteFor the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul.
The underlined words are those which refer to due process. It cannot be only a letter by a Cardinal that is necessary but by
Cardinals meaning as collegial body. Not by some few number of them but by the colegial body. If it is by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, that must also be through the collegial body or by that group. There must be manifest declaration on the basis of the investigation that they made because it must be collegial. Ergo, on the basis of that formal and essential requirement of which the letter of Cardinal Burke does not fit that description of due process.
On top of that the letter does not provide any manifest demand from Cardinal Burke or any of the signatory of that letter that he/they did that essentially in order for Pope Francis to state publicly of the specific manifest heresy. Worst, it does not provide any specific act or statement of Pope Francis that is subject of the supposed public recanting to be made by the Holy Father. He cannot recant on the basis of general statement. Which of that specific action must be recanted? Nothing in it.
You see, when God summoned Adam and Eve, he asked for and explanation of the specific at that they did. Look at this way of examining questions of God, and to prove that:
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?
The man replied, "The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it."
The LORD God then asked the woman: What is this you have done? The woman answered, "The snake tricked me, so I ate it."(Genesis 3:11 to 13)
That is
the essence of due process of law that is divine in character. God asked specific questions. Not the way Cardinal Burke put it like it is very vague and without any specific statement of violation which Pope Francis did. It now show that it does not fit the description coming from your own source of public warning as enunciated by his holiness, St. Paul.
Clearly James, there is no public warning made by anyone from the authorities of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or a formal act of rebuking the heretical words of Pope Francis. There are really statements and acts from this pontiff which I see is not in keeping with the Tradition and the Holy Scripture but it should be provided with proper action of due process of law. That is because he is endowed with that indelible mark as a Pope that needs to be removed from him in formal manner to because it was installed by the power and authority of Jesus.
Also, how many public warntins are necessary? Two. That is only one letter.
Remember, that retroactive effect in reference to the heretical action or utterance shall only take effect upon the formal pronouncement which is the meaning of there is no need of that act of declaration upon execution of judgment. The effect of the separation from the Church Militant of that potential member retroacts from the moment the act was done upon conviction by the authorities upon the observance of due process of law. Nothing has been done by the Catholic authorities in keeping with that observance of due process of law to any Pope since Vatican II.
With all due respect to you brother, I shall reiterate that strong argument that I have that the
absence of due process of law in declaring that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is a violation of the Divine Law. It is a form of schism and anarchic using the description by Stubborn.
QuoteThe underlined words are those which refer to due process. It cannot be only a letter by a Cardinal that is necessary but by Cardinals meaning as collegial body.
No, that is why he references the synod separately. And note the "or".
There's also a reference to the Roman Clergy, which would be the priests in Rome. Because they are under him as their bishop. And a subordinate has a duty to correct a superior who has strayed.
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 08:55:53 PMQuoteThe underlined words are those which refer to due process. It cannot be only a letter by a Cardinal that is necessary but by Cardinals meaning as collegial body.
No, that is why he references the synod separately. And note the "or".
There's also a reference to the Roman Clergy, which would be the priests in Rome. Because they are under him as their bishop. And a subordinate has a duty to correct a superior who has strayed.
Yes, they can do it as separate institutions, like the Cardinals, the Roman Clergy or the Synod. But as collegial body.
Nothing like that has been done by the Cardinals as collegial body, the Roman Clergy as collegfial body, the Synod as collegial body. There is absence of due process of law in relation to public warning tha must be done two times publicly. There is not that has been done by any of them. Nothing.
Verily, the unilateral declaration by those who claim that the seat of St. Peter is vacant has no basis for failure to observe due process of law that is divine in character.
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 01:49:44 PMQuoteIf Pope Francis is not the actual Pope as you claim, then you are saying that the seat of St. Peter is vacant,
Correct. The seat is vacant. In summary, Bergoglio was publicly rebuked and refused to recant. According to St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church. Prefect of the Holy Office, he therefore manifested his pertinancity.
St. Robert states the following:
QuoteFor, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate — which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.
Quotecontrary to your previous statement in those quoted posts of yours. Facts of the truth of your inconsistency and contradictory statements, James.
There is nothing contrary. I am consistent, Bergoglio is a hertetic, not Catholic, and not the Pope. The facts instead show you can't comprehend the argument.
Can a Catholic Pope support a heretical thesis? According to St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice Book. IV, chap. 14, coll. 841-844 we read that Pope John XXII supported a heretical thesis, with the intention of imposing it as the truth on the faithful, and yet I don't see where Pope John XXII lost his office. Further, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic, and yet I don't see where the Catholic church has ever declared that he lost his office?
Quote from: james03 on April 28, 2023, 02:55:19 PMQuoteWhere on earth did you ever hear that "the Church certainly allows a Prot, who is not Catholic, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism?" There is no way, not ever.
He's not a Catholic before baptism. So is it your position only Catholics can be baptized? That's incoherent.
James,
Adults who were never Catholic and are baptized outside of the Church are not "Catholics by baptism," they are "baptized non-Catholics" and are not members of the Church. The Church has never permitted those outside of the Church to use any of her sacraments and those who do, sin against the Church.
Only those who are Catholic, only those who are members of the Church can go to confession and receive absolution. This is absolute, there is no getting out of this.
For example, put yourself in a situation i.e. use yourself as an example of how it all works for us all....
Imagine tomorrow you decide this whole trad scene is wrong, so you forsake the faith. In losing the faith you join the Lutherans. 5 years later you are a well known, prominent representative for the Lutheran Church, holding conferences and preaching the Lutheran religion. Then one day by the grace of God you come to your senses and decide to repent and come back to the Church. The first thing you do as you have forsaken all things Lutheran, is go to confession, obtain absolution and return to the flock as that one sheep out of the 99 re: Mat 18:12.
The reason that you could go to confession is because of that faith that you had, even though you lost it for a time you wanted it back, but through it all you remained a member. That's the way it works for us all - even for popes.
QuoteYes, they can do it as separate institutions, like the Cardinals, the Roman Clergy or the Synod. But as collegial body.
Where's your cite for "collegial body"?
Cardinal Paul rebuked Pope Peter I on his own. And that example is even used by St. Thomas.
QuoteThe Church has never permitted those outside of the Church to use any of her sacraments and those who do, sin against the Church.
As part of being received into the Church the Prot has to go to confession.
It's an interesting question. You also have to abjure your heresy. So is a baptized Prot who abjures his heresy Catholic before going to confession? Maybe at that point he is a Catholic in mortal sin.
The Form of Confession are the words of absolution, so a heretic would abjure his heresy BEFORE receiving the Sacrament, even if he abjures in the Confession booth.
For heresiarch Bergoglio, he probably would be required to publicly abjure his heresies due to the horrible scandal he has caused to the entire world.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 01:55:05 PMQuoteYes, they can do it as separate institutions, like the Cardinals, the Roman Clergy or the Synod. But as collegial body.
Where's your cite for "collegial body"?
Cardinal Paul rebuked Pope Peter I on his own. And that example is even used by St. Thomas.
The Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law. The cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff either collegially when they are convoked to deal with questions of major importance, or individually when they help the Roman Pontiff through the various offices they perform, especially in the daily care of the universal Church.
Can. 350 §1. The college of cardinals is divided into three orders: the episcopal order, to which belong cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff assigns title of a suburbicarian church and Eastern patriarchs who have been brought into the college of cardinals; the presbyteral order and the diaconal order.
(Empahsis supplied)
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html
The public rebuke must be made two times.
James, Cardinal Burke never cited any specific violations of Pope Francis. Nothing. Worst, the letter did not state any specific violations. The none compliance of due process of law is very manifest. Again, any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is not in keeping with the Divine Law. If not that is from the devil.
From the 1521 excommunication of Luther:
Quotemany of those who had followed the errors of Martin took cognizance of our missive and its warnings and injunctions; the spirit of a saner counsel brought them back to themselves, they confessed their errors and abjured the heresy at our instance, and by returning to the true Catholic faith obtained the blessing of absolution with which the self-same messengers had been empowered;
So they "returned" before absolution.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 02:07:28 PMFor heresiarch Bergoglio, he probably would be required to publicly abjure his heresies due to the horrible scandal he has caused to the entire world.
Until now, the proces for him to do that was never done by any Catholic authority. The letter of Cardinal Burke says nothing about that.
QuoteThe public rebuke must be made two times.
James, Cardinal Burke never cited any specific violations of Pope Francis. Nothing. Worst, the letter did not state any specific violations. The none compliance of due process of law is very manifest. Again, any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is not in keeping with the Divine Law. If not that is from the devil.
I count three times minimum. Two times by letter, and the quote I provided. The letter breaks down multiple points where the Pope deviated from the Faith with
Amoris Laetitia.
Instead of recanting, heresiarch Bergoglio doubled down:
QuoteOn the Pope's personal instruction, the 2016 Buenos Aires bishops' guidelines on Chapter 8 of his post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, appeared last week in the Holy See's journal of juridical record, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). The interpretation permits the sacrament of reconciliation and Holy Communion in some cases for remarried divorcees who, for example, try to live lives of sexual abstinence but must continue to live together for the sake of raising their children.
Alongside the bishops' guidelines in the same authoritative journal, which promulgates laws when it publishes them, the Holy See also published Pope Francis' 2016 letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, in which he said the guidelines "fully express the meaning" of Chapter 8 and declared there are "no other interpretations" of this issue.
The 2016 guidelines:
QuoteThen, in a crucial paragraph, the bishops stated that in "more complex cases" the option of living in continence "may not, in fact, be feasible," but a path of discernment is "still possible." They added: "If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability [as per Amoris Laetitia, 301-302], especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. Amoris Laetitia, Footnotes 336 and 351).
^^So Where are those specific accusations by the College of Cardinals against Pope Francis? The Code of Canon Law provides that questions of major importance such as the heretic acts committed by the Pontiff should be executed by them collegially.
I am demanding from you the accusations of the Cardinals against Pople Francis and not those contents of works by the Pope.
St. Robert doesn't mention the "college" of cardinals with regards to a heretic Pope. The four cardinals followed the example of Cardinal Paul and publicly rebuked Bergoglio.
Of course, your source stated about the violations but where is the due process. The two notice rule in relation to the "public rebuke," and the list of violations to be answered by the pope who is accused of heresy.
Like St. Paul, he was specific about the matter that must be recanted. Where is that?
I will state it again, any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant without complying the Divine Law of due process is not from God but from His enemy.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 02:33:26 PMSt. Robert doesn't mention the "college" of cardinals with regards to a heretic Pope. The four cardinals followed the example of Cardinal Paul and publicly rebuked Bergoglio.
Perhaps the Saint did not write about the college of cardinals because he assumed that the Catholics as people of God must know about due process of law which happened all the way from the Garden of Eden. Maybe at that time the Code of Canon Law was different when compared to the Code of Canon Law that provides that rule which was promulgated even during the time of St. Pope Pius X. It does not mean that just because the holy Saint did not write that due process of law must not be observed it should be disregarded. God's Law must be fully obeyed.
The four cardinals did not mention any violation by the Pope. They failed to comply with the way St. Paul did it in relation to specific acts to be recanted. Worst, they did not comply with two notice rule and wrote vague letter which did not even specify any violation by Pope Francis. It is just an inquiry and not demand for public rebuke. How can the Pope recant to a violation that does not specify anything? A vague recantation is non sensical.
So, if due process was not complied with, that is Divine Law, then any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant must not be from God. It is the work of Lucifer, His enemy.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 02:07:28 PMQuoteThe Church has never permitted those outside of the Church to use any of her sacraments and those who do, sin against the Church.
As part of being received into the Church the Prot has to go to confession.
It's an interesting question. You also have to abjure your heresy. So is a baptized Prot who abjures his heresy Catholic before going to confession? Maybe at that point he is a Catholic in mortal sin.
The Form of Confession are the words of absolution, so a heretic would abjure his heresy BEFORE receiving the Sacrament, even if he abjures in the Confession booth.
For heresiarch Bergoglio, he probably would be required to publicly abjure his heresies due to the horrible scandal he has caused to the entire world.
The point you are missing is, it is a matter of faith. One who has never had it, such a prot, is not permitted to step foot in the confessional. This is an altogether different case compared to a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy.
Public abjuration of heresy is not a requirement to obtain forgiveness in the confessional - unless the bishop says it is. Beyond that, a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy can repent and be absolved as I already stated, by going to confession in the exact same way all other Catholic do.
This means a Catholic who lost the faith, became a heretic, schismatic and apostate, remains a member of the Church through it all in virtue of the fact that as a penitent, he can walk into the confessional and obtain absolution, which, needless to say, is something only members of the Church can do.
For years the sedes keep posting all over the place that heretics are outside of the Church, that the pope is a heretic so he cannot be pope because the pope is outside of the Church - which is why I said.....
Quote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 12:35:25 PMFr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J. or Fr. Kenneth Baker would do better to explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
Until someone has a better explanation, I believe that all those papal quotes and quotes from the Fathers stating heretics are not members and are outside of the Church can only be talking about heretics who were never Catholic to begin with, who have never had the Catholic faith, hence who have never been members.
^^I shall subscribe to the way St. Thomas Aquinas call these heretics who were Bapatized as Catholics being the potential members and not "in actu" with Jesus. As potential members while they are still alive they can avail of the Sacrament of Confession and they may again embrace the teachings of the truth from the Church that Jesus made.
Nevertheless, as public heretics, once Baptized that indelible mark of them as Catholics will never be destroyed by any form of sinfulness. That is the reason selling the soul to the devil is a lie because the soul belongs to God and only Him can decide whether this human spirit must be in Heaven or Hell.
This assumption of separation from membership of the Church Militant is dismissal of the truth of Baptism. My understanding however is they are not members of the Community of Saints. I remember Pope Francis stating that they are still members of the Community of Saints, which to my opinion as Catholic is public heresy. This is another matter however. May the Holy Spirt guide me and guide us in our understanding of the only true Faith.
QuoteI will state it again, any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant without complying the Divine Law of due process is not from God but from His enemy.
And I will state acts of open disobedience and rejecting the Magisterium is from the devil. So make sure to counsel divorced Catholics living in perpetual adultery to continue to receive communion. And counsel Trads who attend a Diocesan TLM that is not in compliance with the directives of Pope Francis to cease going.
Don't be a hypocrite.
QuotePerhaps the Saint did not write about the college of cardinals because he assumed that the Catholics as people of God must know about due process of law which happened all the way from the Garden of Eden.
Perhaps? He assumed? So you don't know.
QuoteOf course, your source stated about the violations but where is the due process.
My "source" is St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office. And he ruled out any tribunal, saying that the heretic Pope claimant is
ipso facto deposed when his pertinancity is manifested, which occurs when he does not recant after two warnings.
QuoteThis means a Catholic who lost the faith, became a heretic, schismatic and apostate, remains a member of the Church through it all
This is a complete contradiction to the teaching of the Church. He even uses the term "members":
Quote[22] Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed .... [23]For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
-- Pope Pius XII
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 04:27:45 PMQuotePerhaps the Saint did not write about the college of cardinals because he assumed that the Catholics as people of God must know about due process of law which happened all the way from the Garden of Eden.
Perhaps? He assumed? So you don't know.
QuoteOf course, your source stated about the violations but where is the due process.
My "source" is St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office. And he ruled out any tribunal, saying that the heretic Pope claimant is ipso facto deposed when his pertinancity is manifested, which occurs when he does not recant after two warnings.
Indeed just my assumption.
Yes, he is the Doctor of the Church but his inability to state that requirement does not dismiss the truth that there must be observance of due process. In fact even if the "words due proces" are not specifically menitoned, the Saint referred
the two warnings which are notices that are manifestations and expressions of due process. The words need not be spelled as such in order that its applicability should not be meant as such.
It is you James and the rest of your like who are not able to comprehend that requirement of due process on the bases of two notice rule or two warnings. You are putting words unto the source that is the holy Saint in order to fit your agenda despite the fact that he stated about the two warnings which is the expression of due process.
Even our God showed the importance of due process of law that happened for the first time in the Garden of Eden, and so much as there must be heresy but there should be observance of due process of law thus the declaration by the College of Cardinals et al pursuant to Code of Canon Law.
Again, two warnings, as it is and that requirement is absent. Your failure to present them is self explanatory because there is none in the Records from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Truly that self serving of claim of the vacancy of the seat of St. Peter has no divinity in it. It comes from the devil.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 04:23:19 PMQuoteI will state it again, any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant without complying the Divine Law of due process is not from God but from His enemy.
And I will state acts of open disobedience and rejecting the Magisterium is from the devil. So make sure to counsel divorced Catholics living in perpetual adultery to continue to receive communion. And counsel Trads who attend a Diocesan TLM that is not in compliance with the directives of Pope Francis to cease going.
Don't be a hypocrite.
Pope Francis is not the Law. He is just the holder of the seat of St. Peter. If he fails with that obligation he ought to answer to God in due time.
Now, failure to observe due process of law that is the Divine Law of God as it is for sure demonic and I am not being hypocritical when I state that.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 04:40:31 PMQuoteThis means a Catholic who lost the faith, became a heretic, schismatic and apostate, remains a member of the Church through it all
This is a complete contradiction to the teaching of the Church. He even uses the term "members":
Quote[22] Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed .... [23]For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
-- Pope Pius XII
So if you are in schism, you are not a member of the Catholic Church? I read the following definition of schism:
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff
Now SV refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis, calling him Bergoglio.
So, according to your post, SV are not Catholics since they refuse to submit to the visible Head of the Catholic Church today.
Further, according to Mr. Akin, ""There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (CIC 333:3). For all faithful, non-dissident Catholics, the pope's ruling definitively settles the matter.
Regrettably, Lefebvre died a number of years later in a state of canonical schism, and his organization continues to exist in a state of schism."
https://jimmyakin.com/introduction-to-the-lefebvrist-schism
Are you a Catholic if you openly adhere to an organization which is declared by Jimmy Akin and other Catholic authorities to be in a state of schism?
QuotePope Francis is not the Law.
I did not ask about Pope Francis. I asked what you would do. Will you follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? If a divorced Catholic acquaintance living in adultery asks, "Julio, I read that I'm now allowed to receive communion. Is this true?". What would you tell him?
QuoteSchism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff
Now SV refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis, calling him Bergoglio.
This is the logical fallacy called "begging the question". At issue: Is Bergoglio the Pope? Because if he is not, then SVs are not refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
Julio, a woman goes and gets an abortion and murders her baby. We know that she is excommunicated latae sententiae. Do you consider her excommunication against due process and therefore from the devil?
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:01:04 PMQuotePope Francis is not the Law.
I did not ask about Pope Francis. I asked what you would do. Will you follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? If a divorced Catholic acquaintance living in adultery asks, "Julio, I read that I'm now allowed to receive communion. Is this true?". What would you tell him?
I see, of course I will not follow that even those words that I see is not in keeping with the Traditions of the Catholic Church.
My only point is Pope Francis is the Pope of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I am with you on my objection against those words from the Holy Father. But he is still the Holy Father and my respect to him is in view that his authority is from God. He is not duly removed from that office yet. The
absence of due process is the reason for that.
Take note his Magisterial powers is only limited as to the truth of the Holy Scripture and the Tradition. His power does not exceed from anything that is from God.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:53:11 PMJulio, a woman goes and gets an abortion and murders her baby. We know that she is excommunicated latae sententiae. Do you consider her excommunication against due process and therefore from the devil?
Her situation is too far from the fact of that indelible mark that has been endowed in the Pope when he was elected and assumed that office to the effect of holding the seat of St. Peter. So don't mislead the discussion with an irrelevant comparison.
You posted about the two notice rule or the two warnings which are notices that are manifestations and expressions of due process, from the holy Saint. That is due process in reference to the Pope. You cannot change that rule with your abortionist example.
I submit you better re-examine your readings from your sources if you please.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:03:44 PMQuoteSchism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff
Now SV refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis, calling him Bergoglio.
This is the logical fallacy called "begging the question". At issue: Is Bergoglio the Pope? Because if he is not, then SVs are not refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
No less than St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office gives that guidance of two notice rule that is absent in regard to your declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
The absence of that due process of law is so grave violation against that Divine Law.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:01:04 PMQuotePope Francis is not the Law.
I did not ask about Pope Francis. I asked what you would do. Will you follow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? If a divorced Catholic acquaintance living in adultery asks, "Julio, I read that I'm now allowed to receive communion. Is this true?". What would you tell him?
I'm not Julio, but this is what I'd tell the acquaintance:
"Whatever you have 'heard,' if it does not comply with settled Roman Catholic doctrine -- which itself derives from Scripture as interpreted by the Magisterium for centuries -- you may not oppose that doctrine on a whim, on a rumor, or on private interpretation. [If the same acquaintance then refers to PF by name]...
"I would check with any priest whom you know to have a reputation for orthodox preaching and orthodox absolution. In fact, if you get too vague an answer from that priest, I would ask him in the confessional. We do not know the background of whatever occurred in conversations between PF and particular laypeople, so if PF did indeed give advice contrary to Catholic teaching, we still may not follow it on that excuse. Further, even if 50 news organizations recorded PF saying informally that living with a divorced person is not sinful, I'd wait to see the change in canon law and the catechism before I believed it. Anything else is highly risky on your part, since the Commandments themselves are absolute, and we are responsible as individuals for complying with them, whatever was and was not said by any Pope.
"Our immediate spiritual superior and advisor is not the head of the Catholic Church but the one to whom we owe direct obedience. He is our local priest who is in theological obedience to De Fide dogma and the Code of Canon Law.
This is called chain of command.
Pope Francis as the Holy Father ought to state the truth. His election is the reflection of the character and nature of present membership of the Church Militant. Whatever he is saying he remains as the holder of that office involving the seat of St. Peter. He is the Pope and to say that he is not is a lie and we know who is the souce of all lies.
The Pope however is not a saint. He is a mortal and by his own admission is a sinner. Those who do not recognize his papacy are trying to create a pope that is like a saint. What is being forgotten is God gave freewill to every mortal and that is our exclusive ownership. To choose sanctity belongs exclusively to the will of each mortal and that includes the Pope.
The removal of that indelible mark in the pontiff is another aspect which cannot be decreed unilaterally as vacant. To be more empahatic, no less than St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office gives that guidance of two notice rule that is absent in regard to any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
Pope Francis is not the Law. If he states heretic opinions in private or even in his official function as a pontiff that is a matter that must be answered by him to God in due time. The Cardinals et al that St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out as the Catholic officials who must execute that two warnings failed with that obligation in keeping with those statements that transgressed the Catholic Traditions which to my evaluation are already scandalous. Their failure to do is the reason there is non-compliance with that requirement and Pope Francis is still the Pope.
The lay people do not have that power of unilaterally declaring that Pope Francis is not the pope. That is clear usurpation of authority. It is violation of justice of God which Fr. Chad Ripperger clearly explain in his seminars.
More importantly, the non compliance of that requirement by St. Robert Bellamine is an open disobedience against that guidance by the holy Saint which are violated by these people who claim that Pope Francis is not the Pope. It is not from the divine guidance but from His enemy.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 04:40:31 PMQuoteThis means a Catholic who lost the faith, became a heretic, schismatic and apostate, remains a member of the Church through it all
This is a complete contradiction to the teaching of the Church. He even uses the term "members":
Quote[22] Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed .... [23]For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
-- Pope Pius XII
No, it is in no way a contradiction, rather, it supports what I said. Once a person has the Catholic faith and is a member, "they are to be included as members."
If not, then how is it that they can go to confession?ALL MORTAL SIN SEVER us from the body of the Church, which is Christ, His Mystical Body. This cannot be denied. It is the *nature* of the sins of heresy etc., that sever us unlike the other sins, because unlike the other sins, these are sins directly against the faith where pride is the chief deterrent to repent. As such, repentance of the sins of heresy etc., is far more unlikely than repentance of the other sins. That is what Pope Pius XII is saying.
This subject reminds me of "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." IOW, you can lose the faith, but once a member you cannot cease to be a member.
^^You are right Stubborn. It means even the sin is schism or heresy or apostasy, it cannot sever a man from the Body of the Church.
With all due respect, I believe that the reason there are discussions like this is because of poor Catechism by the leaders of our Church these days and so those who have the inability to comprehend the tenets of the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law et al are unable to grasp the meaning of them and fail to understand also the writings of the Church Saints and the past Popes in the exercise of their Magisterial powers. Thus, the wrong perception and interpreation of their meaning.
Now, I understand why it was prohibited by the Church authorities for the lay people to read the Bible because many are not gifted with the ability to understand the word of God. There must truly be guidance from the Magisterium. Unfortunately, the holder of which today is not in anyway showing the supposed hallmark of clarity.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181641.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_181234.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_182140.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183133.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183519.png)
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-23_183749.png)
AFAIK
Sedevacants reject the legitimacy of the current occupants of the papal office and believe that the See of Peter is vacant. This rejection of the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church is interpreted by some to put sedevacantists in a state of schism from the communion of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the visible head of the Church and that he has the authority to govern and teach the faithful. While Catholics are free to express their opinions and concerns, and even to disagree with the Pope on certain matters, they are called to remain in communion with the Church and to submit to its authority. Sedevacantists, by rejecting the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church, place themselves outside of the visible Catholic church with Pope Francis as the visible Head, and are therefore considered by many to be in a state of schism.
Quote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:03:44 PMQuoteSchism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff
Now SV refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis, calling him Bergoglio.
This is the logical fallacy called "begging the question". At issue: Is Bergoglio the Pope? Because if he is not, then SVs are not refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
That is not the only issue. Sedevacantists argue that the Catholic Church has strayed from the traditional teachings and practices of the Church, and that the current hierarchy is not legitimate. This amounts to saying that the Catholic Church has defected which is contrary to Catholic teaching on the indefectibility of the Catholic church.
Quote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 12:35:25 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J. or Fr. Kenneth Baker would do better to explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
You keep harping on this point. You are more concerned about how a former member of the Catholic Church reconciles with the Church than you are about how he separates from the Church in the first place. In doing so, you oppose a teaching of the Church.
Quote from: Julio on April 28, 2023, 01:43:36 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Yes, they separate in actu from Jesus but has not lost that indelible mark of their Baptism thus per St. Thomas Aquinas a potential member of the Church Militant.
I am glad you affirm.
I know that the heretic does not lose the indelible mark of Baptism. However, Baptism is necessary but not sufficient to be a member of the Catholic Church. Being a potential member of the Catholic Church does not make one an actual member of the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Julio on April 29, 2023, 10:56:19 PMQuote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:53:11 PMJulio, a woman goes and gets an abortion and murders her baby. We know that she is excommunicated latae sententiae. Do you consider her excommunication against due process and therefore from the devil?
Her situation is too far from the fact of that indelible mark that has been endowed in the Pope.....
What indelible mark?
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 02:44:31 PMI am glad you affirm.
I know that the heretic does not lose the indelible mark of Baptism. However, Baptism is necessary but not sufficient to be a member of the Catholic Church. Being a potential member of the Catholic Church does not make one an actual member of the Catholic Church.
Precisely, because the members of the Church Militant are the good and bad members. The former being those in actu with Jeus and the latter those who are potential members.
The Pope as sinner is not exempted to belong to the potential members. He is not a saint. To remove him from the office needs the process per St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office who provided that guidance of two notice rule in relation to any violation by the Pontiff.
That requirement is absent in regard to any declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 02:49:56 PMQuote from: Julio on April 29, 2023, 10:56:19 PMQuote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:53:11 PMJulio, a woman goes and gets an abortion and murders her baby. We know that she is excommunicated latae sententiae. Do you consider her excommunication against due process and therefore from the devil?
Her situation is too far from the fact of that indelible mark that has been endowed in the Pope.....
What indelible mark?
The Code of Canon Law states that:
QuoteCan. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
(Emphasis supplied)
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html
Quote from: Julio on April 30, 2023, 02:57:10 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 02:49:56 PMQuote from: Julio on April 29, 2023, 10:56:19 PMQuote from: james03 on April 29, 2023, 09:53:11 PMJulio, a woman goes and gets an abortion and murders her baby. We know that she is excommunicated latae sententiae. Do you consider her excommunication against due process and therefore from the devil?
Her situation is too far from the fact of that indelible mark that has been endowed in the Pope.....
What indelible mark?
The Code of Canon Law states that:
QuoteCan. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
(Emphasis supplied)
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html
All bishops have an indelible mark as a result of their consecration. Being elected pope does not add an indelible mark.
"Mortal sin, as such, does not break the tie which binds a man as a constituent member to the visible Body which is Christ's. Only such a sin as public heresy, schism, or apostacy does that, and then only because such a sin breaks the tie of visible unity with the Body."
(Fr. Joseph Bluett, S.J., "Mystical Body of Christ" and "Catholic Church" Exactly Coextensive, The Ecclesiastical Review, October 1940, pp. 324-325)
"Certain sins – viz., apostasy, heresy and schism – of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ.....It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions – most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate – sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church."
(The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Arranged and Edited by Canon George Smith, New York, 1961, Fourteenth Printing, p. 708)
"In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante."
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)
"Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship;"
"There is no need to adduce arguments from Scripture or tradition for a truth that is self-evident. St. Jerome says: 'An adulterer, a homicide, and other sinners are driven from the Church by the priests (i.e., by excommunication); but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church by their own free-will.' St. Augustine gives expression to the same doctrine: 'If you do not wish to belong to the Church,...separate yourselves from her members, put yourselves off from her body. But why should I now urge them to leave the Church, since they have already done this? They are heretics, and therefore already out.'"
(Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, S.T.D., The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, p. 128 & p.129 respectively)
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 03:27:08 PMAll bishops have an indelible mark as a result of their consecration. Being elected pope does not add an indelible mark.
In fact the indelible mark starts with the ordination as the priest. However, per that provision it clearly provides that the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character and
he obtains that power from the moment of acceptance. The
reference of acceptance is not when he was concrated as bishop but from the moment of acceptance of the supreme pontificate. Kindly read that again.
"Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'."
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, 153)
Catholic Knight, please read those previous post where this conclusion has been derived:
To remove him from the office needs the process per St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office who provided that guidance of two notice rule in relation to any violation by the Pontiff.
Quote from: Julio on April 30, 2023, 03:37:26 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 03:27:08 PMAll bishops have an indelible mark as a result of their consecration. Being elected pope does not add an indelible mark.
In fact the indelible mark starts with the ordination as the priest. However, per that provision it clearly provides that the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character and he obtains that power from the moment of acceptance. The reference of acceptance is not when he was concrated as bishop but from the moment of acceptance of the supreme pontificate. Kindly read that again.
No. You are wrong. There is no indelible character upon the acceptance of the papacy.
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23)
Quote from: Julio on April 30, 2023, 03:39:54 PMCatholic Knight, please read those previous post where this conclusion has been derived:
To remove him from the office needs the process per St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office who provided that guidance of two notice rule in relation to any violation by the Pontiff.
Where did you get this "two notice rule" from?
QuoteNo, it is in no way a contradiction, rather, it supports what I said. Once a person has the Catholic faith and is a member, "they are to be included as members." If not, then how is it that they can go to confession?
You left out "only". The criteria for "only" is those who have not separated themselves from the Church, or been excommunicated.
As far as your question, asked and answered. The same way a non-Catholic can receive baptism. And if they are confessing heresy, they have to abjure their heresy, or they aren't getting absolved and will remain severed from the Body of the Church as Pope Pius XII says.
QuoteHer situation is too far from the fact of that indelible mark that has been endowed in the Pope when he was elected and assumed that office to the effect of holding the seat of St. Peter. So don't mislead the discussion with an irrelevant comparison.
We weren't discussing any indelible mark or the Pope. We were discussing your claim of due process. So do you consider
latae sententiae excommunication evil because there is no due process? A woman gets an abortion, she's excommunicated.
And an heretic is also excommunicated
latae sententiae.
QuoteNo less than St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office gives that guidance of two notice rule that is absent in regard to your declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
As I said, there is one question that everything revolves around. Did the two public letters and the one writing of Cardinal Burke where he says Bergoglio is in opposition to the teachings of the Church satisfy the minimum 2 warnings that St. Robert talked about? I say yes, you say no. Because if they do satisfy the 2 warnings, then Bergoglio is not the Pope. He has manifested pertinacity and is
latae sententiae excommunicated.
Quote from: james03 on April 30, 2023, 08:23:28 PMAnd an heretic is also excommunicated latae sententiae.
I am not sure how that would apply to people accused of heresy such as:
Sedevacantists (indefectibility of the Catholic Church)
Pope Honorius : See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
Pope John XXII. taught that those who died in the faith did not see the presence of God until the Last Judgment.
2 warnings.
As far as sedes, this is again begging the question.
As far as the indefectibility, that is the subject of the OP. I haven't seen much from Church documents on the subject, except something from the 19th century. Why don't we get back on track and you post the relevant teaching of the Church on the subject.
My own view is that we are in the End Times and the Church has fled into the wilderness.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 02:39:14 PMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 12:35:25 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J. or Fr. Kenneth Baker would do better to explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
You keep harping on this point. You are more concerned about how a former member of the Catholic Church reconciles with the Church than you are about how he separates from the Church in the first place. In doing so, you oppose a teaching of the Church.
And you never answer the point, as if it does not exist you continue to push the erroneous idea that a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is no longer a member.
All I am dong is presenting a challenge, all I get in return is MOTS (more of the same).
Quote from: james03 on April 30, 2023, 08:19:28 PMQuoteNo, it is in no way a contradiction, rather, it supports what I said. Once a person has the Catholic faith and is a member, "they are to be included as members." If not, then how is it that they can go to confession?
You left out "only". The criteria for "only" is those who have not separated themselves from the Church, or been excommunicated.
As far as your question, asked and answered. The same way a non-Catholic can receive baptism. And if they are confessing heresy, they have to abjure their heresy, or they aren't getting absolved and will remain severed from the Body of the Church as Pope Pius XII says.
Negative James, that idea is altogether wrong. Abjuration is not required unless the pope or bishop requires it, or is declared in the official censure.
Beyond that, after 5 years of preaching heresy, you could walk into the confessional as you did before you lost the faith and became a flaming heretic, confess your sins and be absolved exactly as you did 6 years earlier.
So you have not given an answer, what you did is invent a requirement.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 01, 2023, 03:56:51 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 02:39:14 PMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 12:35:25 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 10:36:38 AMQuote from: Stubborn on April 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on April 28, 2023, 05:54:03 AMThe public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
Julio, do you affirm or deny the above proposition?
Heretics belong to the Church, they "belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." - Trent's Catechism
All the screenshots below are take from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J. or Fr. Kenneth Baker would do better to explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
You keep harping on this point. You are more concerned about how a former member of the Catholic Church reconciles with the Church than you are about how he separates from the Church in the first place. In doing so, you oppose a teaching of the Church.
And you never answer the point, as if it does not exist you continue to push the erroneous idea that a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is no longer a member.
All I am dong is presenting a challenge, all I get in return is MOTS (more of the same).
I have provided you sufficient evidence from the Church and theologians that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. That evidence has abundantly shown that the result is that membership in the Catholic Church is lost. This truth is not contingent upon answering your question about how the heretic re-enters the Church after he has lost membership.
QuoteNo, it is in no way a contradiction, rather, it supports what I said. Once a person has the Catholic faith and is a member, "they are to be included as members." If not, then how is it that they can go to confession?
I guess I have to parse it out phrase by phrase for you to comprehend:
Quote[22] Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
Do you see "only"? Because you skipped it last time. Only. That means he is going to give us the criteria. For what?
Quoteas members of the Church
Members. So Pope Pius is going to tell us the only people who are members.
Quotewho have been baptized and profess the true Faith,
OK.
Quoteand who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body,
"have not" separated themselves. So if you are baptized and profess the true Faith, and HAVE NOT SEPARATED YOURSELF, you are a member. Since they seperated themselves, it means previously they were members, and now they are not. These are heretics and schismatics.
Quoteor been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed ....
So those former Catholics who were excommunicated are not members either.
Quote[23]For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church,
So sin does not sever you from membership.
Quoteas does schism or heresy or apostasy.
-- Pope Pius XII
Contrasted with schism, HERESY, or apostasy. These sever you from the Body of the Church.
If you still can't comprehend this after I've parsed it out for you, we are literally incapable of having a discussion.
Good job, james03. I cannot believe that Pope Pius XII spells it out and people still want to argue against what he explicitly states.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 01, 2023, 05:38:55 AMQuote from: Stubborn on May 01, 2023, 03:56:51 AMAll I am dong is presenting a challenge, all I get in return is MOTS (more of the same).
I have provided you sufficient evidence from the Church and theologians that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. That evidence has abundantly shown that the result is that membership in the Catholic Church is lost. This truth is not contingent upon answering your question about how the heretic re-enters the Church after he has lost membership.
As I said, MOTS.
You ignore the fact that the Catholic who fell into the sin of heresy can be absolved in confession, something only Catholics can do and just keep repeating the same quotes over again while not understanding what you're even quoting.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 08:48:29 AMQuoteNo, it is in no way a contradiction, rather, it supports what I said. Once a person has the Catholic faith and is a member, "they are to be included as members." If not, then how is it that they can go to confession?
I guess I have to parse it out phrase by phrase for you to comprehend:
Quote[22] Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
Do you see "only"? Because you skipped it last time. Only. That means he is going to give us the criteria. For what?
Quoteas members of the Church
Members. So Pope Pius is going to tell us the only people who are members.
Quotewho have been baptized and profess the true Faith,
OK.
Quoteand who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body,
"have not" separated themselves. So if you are baptized and profess the true Faith, and HAVE NOT SEPARATED YOURSELF, you are a member. Since they seperated themselves, it means previously they were members, and now they are not. These are heretics and schismatics.
Quoteor been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed ....
So those former Catholics who were excommunicated are not members either.
Quote[23]For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church,
So sin does not sever you from membership.
Quoteas does schism or heresy or apostasy.
-- Pope Pius XII
Contrasted with schism, HERESY, or apostasy. These sever you from the Body of the Church.
If you still can't comprehend this after I've parsed it out for you, we are literally incapable of having a discussion.
So how can the heretic above who wants to repent, walk into confession and have his sins forgiven if he is severed, excommunicated, and not a member of the Church?
Are you actually trying to say that non-Catholics can go to confession just as if they were a Catholic?
He has to abjure his heresy, which is reserved for the bishop. The bishop typically delegates this to the priest. Therefore before receiving the sacrament the heretic abjures his heresy in the confession booth. He also has to have his excommunication lifted. After that he MAY be Catholic again, and receives absolution. It may also be that he is a Catholic again after absolution. I have not found any discussion on the moment when he becomes a member of the Catholic Church again, only that he has to abjure his heresy, have his excommunication lifted, and go to confession.
The same holds true for a woman who murdered her baby with abortion. She is excommunicated and not Catholic. Here there is no heresy, but the priest has to lift the excommunication for her to be a member in the Catholic Church again. This is reserved for the bishop, but almost every bishop delegates this authority to his priests.
Your point that a non-Catholic can't receive sacraments is demonstrably wrong as seen in the case of Baptism.
Quote from: james03 on April 30, 2023, 08:52:50 PMMy own view is that we are in the End Times and the Church has fled into the wilderness.
No, because the Catholic Church is visible and indefectible and therefore does not flee into a wilderness where no one can see it.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 12:12:13 PMHe has to abjure his heresy, which is reserved for the bishop. The bishop typically delegates this to the priest. Therefore before receiving the sacrament the heretic abjures his heresy in the confession booth. He also has to have his excommunication lifted. After that he MAY be Catholic again, and receives absolution. It may also be that he is a Catholic again after absolution. I have not found any discussion on the moment when he becomes a member of the Catholic Church again, only that he has to abjure his heresy, have his excommunication lifted, and go to confession.
No, he does NOT have to abjure his heresy publicly or even privately, where did you get this from? I know that false idea has floated around the forums, but that's what it is, a false idea. If the priest insists upon an abjuration privately or in the confessional then yes, of course he has to do it, but that is not one of the requirements for absolution. Per canon law, public abjuration is not necessary unless the bishop makes it a requirement.
Fr. Wathen explains it (emphasis mine)......
"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....the priest says:
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.)..."
Note also the bolded - the Church does not place anyone under censure who is not a member.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 12:12:13 PMYour point that a non-Catholic can't receive sacraments is demonstrably wrong as seen in the case of Baptism.
Baptism is a whole different subject. One who was never Catholic cannot go to confession because he is not a member. Remember what a member is? If not, refer to you previous papal quotes.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 12:12:13 PMHe has to abjure his heresy, which is reserved for the bishop. The bishop typically delegates this to the priest. Therefore before receiving the sacrament the heretic abjures his heresy in the confession booth. He also has to have his excommunication lifted. After that he MAY be Catholic again, and receives absolution. It may also be that he is a Catholic again after absolution. I have not found any discussion on the moment when he becomes a member of the Catholic Church again, only that he has to abjure his heresy, have his excommunication lifted, and go to confession.
The same holds true for a woman who murdered her baby with abortion. She is excommunicated and not Catholic. Here there is no heresy, but the priest has to lift the excommunication for her to be a member in the Catholic Church again. This is reserved for the bishop, but almost every bishop delegates this authority to his priests.
Your point that a non-Catholic can't receive sacraments is demonstrably wrong as seen in the case of Baptism.
Who Stubborn is really questioning is not you or me but Pope Pius XII. This pope has taught us in Mystici Corporis the requirements for being a member of the Catholic Church. If one of the requirements are not met, then the person in question is not a member of the Catholic Church. If the person is not a member of the Catholic Church, then he is not a Catholic. It is that simple. For Stubborn to not accept that a Catholic can become a non-Catholic by public manifest formal heresy simply because he can't figure out how a non-Catholic can walk into the confessional and get his sin of heresy absolved is an affront to the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
So non-Catholics can not be baptized. That's incoherent.
Quote"With sincere heart and unfeigned faith I detest and abjure every error, heresy, and sect opposed to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Roman Church. I reject and condemn all that she rejects and condemns."
Quote from: james03 on April 30, 2023, 08:23:28 PMQuoteHer situation is too far from the fact of that indelible mark that has been endowed in the Pope when he was elected and assumed that office to the effect of holding the seat of St. Peter. So don't mislead the discussion with an irrelevant comparison.
We weren't discussing any indelible mark or the Pope. We were discussing your claim of due process. So do you consider latae sententiae excommunication evil because there is no due process? A woman gets an abortion, she's excommunicated.
And an heretic is also excommunicated latae sententiae.
You really don't understand the concept of due process and the application of the law. Latae sententiae is part of the Canon Law on specific offenses.
In the case of the Pope it demands due process because per St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office who provided that guidance of two notice rule in relation to any violation by the Pontiff.
The absence of due process is evil under that situation because of the demand by the law itself. Even the holy Saint mentioned the process due to its essential nature.
Quote from: james03 on April 30, 2023, 08:33:00 PMQuoteNo less than St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office gives that guidance of two notice rule that is absent in regard to your declaration that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
As I said, there is one question that everything revolves around. Did the two public letters and the one writing of Cardinal Burke where he says Bergoglio is in opposition to the teachings of the Church satisfy the minimum 2 warnings that St. Robert talked about? I say yes, you say no. Because if they do satisfy the 2 warnings, then Bergoglio is not the Pope. He has manifested pertinacity and is latae sententiae excommunicated.
How many letters did he write? Only one. Any specific violations? None.
On top of that it is not executed by the College of Cardinals. All of which are not in keeping with the Canon Law. All are violations of the Divine Law on due process. The error of declaration of the vacancy of the seat of St. Peter screams.
It is not what you say or what is say that matters but the Law.
To Catholic Knight, I adopt those answers to James in relation to your posts and inquiries in order to avoid duplications and to observe orderliness in reading the posts in this thread with all due respect.
Quote from: Julio on May 01, 2023, 03:00:47 PMTo Catholic Knight, I adopt those answers to James in relation to your posts and inquiries in order to avoid duplications and to observe orderliness in reading the posts in this thread with all due respect.
What two notice rule? Please quote and provide the source.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 01, 2023, 03:03:20 PMQuote from: Julio on May 01, 2023, 03:00:47 PMTo Catholic Knight, I adopt those answers to James in relation to your posts and inquiries in order to avoid duplications and to observe orderliness in reading the posts in this thread with all due respect.
What two notice rule? Please quote and provide the source.
Read the citiations of James of St. Robert Belarmine and also this:
Quote from: james03 on April 25, 2023, 07:33:34 AMDivine Law:
Quote'Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment' (Tit. 3, 10-11).
QuoteYou really don't understand the concept of due process and the application of the law. Latae sententiae is part of the Canon Law on specific offenses.
I do understand. Heresy is one case where latae sentetiae excommunication applies.
QuoteOn top of that it is not executed by the College of Cardinals. All of which are not in keeping with the Canon Law.
Cite the Canon Law reference to the "College of Cardinals". You are inventing things.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on April 30, 2023, 03:27:08 PMAll bishops have an indelible mark as a result of their consecration. Being elected pope does not add an indelible mark.
Read this again please and focus on those bolded parts:
QuoteCan. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
(Emphasis supplied)
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 03:15:37 PMQuoteYou really don't understand the concept of due process and the application of the law. Latae sententiae is part of the Canon Law on specific offenses.
I do understand. Heresy is one case where latae sentetiae excommunication applies.
QuoteOn top of that it is not executed by the College of Cardinals. All of which are not in keeping with the Canon Law.
Cite the Canon Law reference to the "College of Cardinals". You are inventing things.
James, here it is please:
QuoteCan. 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law. The cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff either collegially when they are convoked to deal with questions of major importance, or individually when they help the Roman Pontiff through the various offices they perform, especially in the daily care of the universal Church.
The issue of removal of the Pope is of major importance. I posted that already but for your Catholic guidance, I am reposting that for your further education.
QuoteIf the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Compare
Quotewho is marked with episcopal character
It is clear this is referencing the mark received at his consecration as bishop. And if he lacks it, for example someone other than a bishop or cardinal, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 03:21:50 PMQuoteIf the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Compare
Quotewho is marked with episcopal character
It is clear this is referencing the mark received at his consecration as bishop. And if he lacks it, for example someone other than a bishop or cardinal, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Precisely in order to fit to the acceptance of the office of the papacy because the person is unfit to accept the indelible mark in view of the absence of the same. Further studies is what you need, brother.
QuoteThe issue of removal of the Pope is of major importance.
Your cite doesn't reference a rebuke for heresy. The context is "assists the Roman Pontiff". You are still stuck on a tribunal. St. Robert specifically says there is no tribunal, the heretic is ipso facto deposed.
QuoteAll bishops have an indelible mark as a result of their consecration. Being elected pope does not add an indelible mark.
This is a correct statement. Your cite proves it. Election to the papacy of a non-bishop does not provide it. That is why the elected Pope has to be immediately consecrated a bishop. You were wrong.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 03:27:08 PMQuoteThe issue of removal of the Pope is of major importance.
Your cite doesn't reference a rebuke for heresy. The context is "assists the Roman Pontiff". You are still stuck on a tribunal. St. Robert specifically says there is no tribunal, the heretic is ipso facto deposed.
Of course the Code of Canon Law does not provide for the words rebuke. But putting things into order such as guiding the Pope not to commit heretic words is assistance to the Pontiff. Don't you understand that?
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 03:29:29 PMQuoteAll bishops have an indelible mark as a result of their consecration. Being elected pope does not add an indelible mark.
This is a correct statement. Your cite proves it. Election to the papacy of a non-bishop does not provide it. That is why the elected Pope has to be immediately consecrated a bishop. You were wrong.
Look at those words again:
Quotesupreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance.
It referes to moment of acceptance of the office of the pontificate or the seat of St. Peter in reference to the mark. Learn and understand it please.
QuoteIt referes to moment of acceptance of the office of the pontificate or the seat of St. Peter in reference to the mark. Learn and understand it please.
Don't use snark. Because now you look bad. It is clear you don't understand the English, which is not your primary language. The English is making a distinction between a Pope who was previously ordained a bishop, and one who is not. It's somewhat subtle, which is why you are missing it.
QuoteThe Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration.
And now the distinction between two cases. Case 1:
QuoteTherefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance.
"Who is" threw you. "Who is" refers to "a person", not the election. In case 1 the person obtains this power from the moment of election. And now Case 2:
QuoteIf the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
In English, this is somewhat of a weaseling. The author implies that an elected Pope does not receive Full and supreme power at election, but after he is subsequently ordained a bishop. It's a weasel statement because of the passive voice, "he is to be".
The English is discussing the fact that the Pope receives full supreme power. That is the main theme:
QuoteThe Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church
This is achieved through papal election AND ordination as a bishop. The cite then discusses the two cases, one where the Pope had been previously ordained and one where he was not.
Nowhere does it say the Pope is given a mark by a papal election.
QuoteBut putting things into order such as guiding the Pope Quotenot to commit heretic words is assistance
to the Pontiff. Don't you understand that?
Yes I understand that guiding a Pope to prevent him from writing heretical words would be an example of assisting the Pope. This would a an example where your cite applies. Preventing the Pope from writing something heretical.
But that's not the subject. The Subject is a Pope who has written heresy. As I said, your cite does not apply in this case.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 06:11:34 PMQuoteBut putting things into order such as guiding the Pope Quotenot to commit heretic words is assistance
to the Pontiff. Don't you understand that?
Yes I understand that guiding a Pope to prevent him from writing heretical words would be an example of assisting the Pope. This would a an example where your cite applies. Preventing the Pope from writing something heretical.
But that's not the subject. The Subject is a Pope who has written heresy. As I said, your cite does not apply in this case.
To guide the Pope on the right path of sanctity is part of correcting the heretic writings. That is among the way the College or Cardinals shall assist the Pope. To assist him by correcting the heretical works that he did. To correct him by way of public notification which the holy Saint stated as two (2) public warnings. Non compliance of which is putting the Divine Law unto their own hands by the people like you.
A requirement which was never complied with.
James I agree that English is my second language, but that clarity of this provision provides:
QuoteCan. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Understand those words, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtain the power from the moment of acceptance. The mark obtains the power from the moment of acceptance referring to the seat of St. Peter. It is a distinguished mark from the episcopical mark of the epeiscopal concecration which is the reason if that concecration did not happen, he must be ordained a bishop immediately.
Yes, English is my second language, but please look at that construction of that provision of the Canon Law.
Assuming that you are right without admitting it on my end, that matter is not so relevant to the fact that the people like you who call that the seat of St. Peter is vancant failed to show the requirement of the two notice rule by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Prefect of the Holy Office who provided that guidance of that rule in in relation to the observance of due process involiving the supposed violation by the Pontiff.
You failed on that. Non compliance of that Law is not obdience of the Divine Law. That is a human error which leads towards the diabolic. Evil as it is.
The Pope as the highest holder of the human heirarchy of the Church Militant is not above the law. He is not the law and so any pronouncement by him or against him must be in accordance with the Code of Canon Law. He is among the members of the Clergy and occupying the highest position of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This provision of the Canon Law is true to him:
QuoteCan. 700 A decree of dismissal does not have effect unless it has been confirmed by the Holy See, to which the decree and all the acts must be transmitted; if it concerns an institute of diocesan right, confirmation belongs to the bishop of the diocese where the house to which the religious has been attached is situated. To be valid, however, the decree must indicate the right which the dismissed possesses to make recourse to the competent authority within ten days from receiving notification. The recourse has suspensive effect.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann607-709_en.html#DISMISSAL_OF_MEMBERS
Where is that decree of dismissal of the Pope from that office that the Holy See confirmed? Nothing James. You and your likes who declare that the seat of St. Peter is vacant are not the Law.
James, rebuke is not the end of the process, to educate you and your likes hereunder is the process:
QuoteCan. 1341 An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
(Emphasis supplied)
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html#TITLE_IV.
No judicial or administaratve process to impose or declare any penalty regarding the offenses of Pope Francis that you and your likes accuse him of not being a Pope.
For clarity, I am not saying that Pope Francis did not state anything that runs against the Catholic Traditions such as those that contravene to the Catechiism of St. Pope Pious X.
The point is there is no issuance of judgment against Pope Francis. There is absence of any judicial or administrative process to impose or declare any penalty against him after ascentainment that rebuke is not enough. No due process of law against the present occupant of the seat of St. Peter has been made and to claim that he is not a pope is a so grave violation of the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. It is against the Divine Law, from where that power to create the rules as stated in that referred process, was derived from.
There is even absence of any public rebuke against Pope Francis. The violation of the law by the people who claim that the seat of St. Peter is vacant as of the moment is gargantuan.
I submit all this matter to His judgment.
Quote from: james03 on May 01, 2023, 01:59:47 PMQuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
So non-Catholics can not be baptized. That's incoherent.
Baptism is a whole different subject. One who was never Catholic cannot go to confession because he is not a member. Remember what a member is? If not, refer to your previous papal quotes.
I honestly cannot believe this needs to be explained to you......
Those desiring to enter the Church need to be baptized or conditionally baptized - so they can enter the Church and become a member. It is only after being baptized into the Church and becoming a member that that member has access to, and may receive the sacraments, all of the sacraments, just the same as all the other members.
A prot is not a member, a prot is a prot, one who wants nothing to do with the Church, our Mass, our rituals, prayers, beliefs and Our Blessed Mother - (fyi, prots want nothing whatsoever to do with Our Blessed Mother in any capacity) - and cannot partake of the sacraments and cannot walk into the confessional simply because they may (or may not) have been baptized and say "Lord, Lord" and know that Jesus is the Son of God. In short, they do not have and never have had the Catholic faith.
As St. Thomas says: "Baptism without faith is of no value." His meaning of "no value" without the faith literally means "no value." For our discussion, that means prots cannot partake of our sacraments no matter how badly they may want to - until they convert to the true faith and become a member.
Should a priest knowingly administer any of the sacraments to a prot, they both sin. Why? Because Our Lord said "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you."
In my example, after having the faith, you lost it and became a flaming heretic for 5 years, but when you wanted to repent, you walked into the confessional and were absolved - because through it all, you had the faith within you. You tried to "check out," but because "you can never leave" you were able to walk right into the confessional and be absolved.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 01, 2023, 01:29:20 PMWho Stubborn is really questioning is not you or me but Pope Pius XII. This pope has taught us in Mystici Corporis the requirements for being a member of the Catholic Church. If one of the requirements are not met, then the person in question is not a member of the Catholic Church. If the person is not a member of the Catholic Church, then he is not a Catholic. It is that simple. For Stubborn to not accept that a Catholic can become a non-Catholic by public manifest formal heresy simply because he can't figure out how a non-Catholic can walk into the confessional and get his sin of heresy absolved is an affront to the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.
No KN, I am not questioning papal teachings, I am presenting a dilemma that you have. The fact that you ignore and belittle it only serves as proof that you do indeed have the dilemma I am attempting to make you face.
Sedes ignore and belittle what I've asked, only so that they may maintain their narrative that due to his numerous heresies the pope is outside of the Church, is not a member, and is therefore not pope.
The whole idea being altogether absurd to begin with loses any and all validity when presented with a simple question; "How can a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy be absolved from his sin of heresy in the sacrament of penance if he is not a Catholic?"
So far the only attempt at replies, limp. Because there is only one answer: A Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is still Catholic. He must still be Catholic on account of the fact that he can go to confession. There is no possible way out of this.
Once this is accepted as the foundational truth that it is, those that accept this truth will discover that all those papal quotes take on an entirely new meaning, a meaning that is wholly Catholic, with perfect unity....
"...All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity..." - Fr. Wathen
I agree with you Stubborn, and that what makes the Church Militant made of the bad and good members because of the truth that the indelible mark of Baptism is indestructible by any form of sin. The freewill however is the factor that matters a lot when it comes to maintaining sanctity or being in the state of grace. For angels once they choose evil they automatically go to hell. However for the humans while we are still living on earth, the Baptism creates that permanent bond with the Church Militant or the Visible Church until the person dies thus the human spirit akin to the state of the angels upon death thus becomes exclusively spirit only, shall either go to heaven or hell. On top of that, the beauty of being human when compared to angels is that we shall recover that human body upon the Judgment Day. Like Jesus those humans who shall be with Him will be resurrected from the dead. Those who shall be damned shall burn in Hell till eternity. This truth is only for the Baptized. Which is the reason Limbo is there that is part of Hell where those who did not commit mortal sin and need not be damned should go. They however cannot unify with Jesus for carrying that original sin from Adam and Eve which only the Sacarament of Baptism can wash away.
Thus the truth that the Sacrament of Baptism can save the members of the Catholic Church for no one can go to confession unless that member of the Church Militant was duly Baptized under the Canonical Law.
The Idefectibility of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is that, it has the exclusive and only way to be saved which starts with the Sacrament of Baptism. By destroying the structure the way some people declare that the seat of St. Peter is vacant is an attack against the integrity of the entire system of the Holy Church.
Respect to the authority and the recognition that no one is above the law is truly an act of piety and is holy. By removing the Magisterium, only the Tradition and the Holy Scripture are left. That is schism and anarchic.
Quote from: Julio on May 01, 2023, 03:11:32 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 01, 2023, 03:03:20 PMQuote from: Julio on May 01, 2023, 03:00:47 PMTo Catholic Knight, I adopt those answers to James in relation to your posts and inquiries in order to avoid duplications and to observe orderliness in reading the posts in this thread with all due respect.
What two notice rule? Please quote and provide the source.
Read the citiations of James of St. Robert Belarmine and also this:
Quote from: james03 on April 25, 2023, 07:33:34 AMDivine Law:
Quote'Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment' (Tit. 3, 10-11).
And what form do you expect these corrections to take?
Quote from: Stubborn on May 02, 2023, 04:19:00 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 01, 2023, 01:29:20 PMWho Stubborn is really questioning is not you or me but Pope Pius XII. This pope has taught us in Mystici Corporis the requirements for being a member of the Catholic Church. If one of the requirements are not met, then the person in question is not a member of the Catholic Church. If the person is not a member of the Catholic Church, then he is not a Catholic. It is that simple. For Stubborn to not accept that a Catholic can become a non-Catholic by public manifest formal heresy simply because he can't figure out how a non-Catholic can walk into the confessional and get his sin of heresy absolved is an affront to the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.
No KN, I am not questioning papal teachings, I am presenting a dilemma that you have. The fact that you ignore and belittle it only serves as proof that you do indeed have the dilemma I am attempting to make you face.
Sedes ignore and belittle what I've asked, only so that they may maintain their narrative that due to his numerous heresies the pope is outside of the Church, is not a member, and is therefore not pope.
The whole idea being altogether absurd to begin with loses any and all validity when presented with a simple question; "How can a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy be absolved from his sin of heresy in the sacrament of penance if he is not a Catholic?"
So far the only attempt at replies, limp. Because there is only one answer: A Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy is still Catholic. He must still be Catholic on account of the fact that he can go to confession. There is no possible way out of this.
Once this is accepted as the foundational truth that it is, those that accept this truth will discover that all those papal quotes take on an entirely new meaning, a meaning that is wholly Catholic, with perfect unity....
"...All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity..." - Fr. Wathen
Stubborn, please affirm or deny the follow proposition:
A member of the Catholic Church who commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy loses his membership in the Catholic Church.
QuoteUnderstand those words,
I speak English, I understand the cite. You speak passable English, you don't. And the fact that you decided to go with snark makes you look really bad now.
QuoteThe Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration.
"Together with" is somewhat equivalent to "and", however it, the obtaining of full and supreme power, is shown happening together, so this phrasing packs more information than a simple "and". The cite then distinguishes between two cases, as I've shown. You aren't comprehending the cite. It does not say or even suggest that papal election leaves a mark.
QuoteBaptism is a whole different subject.
No, it's a Sacrament.
Now is the time for you to admit this statement:
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
is erroneous.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:57:12 AMStubborn, please affirm or deny the follow proposition:
A member of the Catholic Church who commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy loses his membership in the Catholic Church.
KN, please answer the question:
How can a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy be absolved from his sin of heresy in the sacrament of penance if he is not a Catholic?
QuoteThere is even absence of any public rebuke against Pope Francis.
Any? In addition to the cardinals, an archbishop, bishop, priests, and theologians have rebuked him. And then there is Archbishop Vigano, who has been rebuking him almost monthly for years now.
QuoteThere is absence of any judicial or administrative process to impose or declare any penalty against him after ascentainment that rebuke is not enough.
This is not a requirement per St. Robert, and there is also no judicial or administrative process in that case of a woman who murders her baby, another case where latae sententiae excommunication applies. In fact, latae sententiae excommunication is the case were no judicial or administrative process applies. And in the case of heresy, a heretic like Bergoglio is excommunicated latae sententia because he separates himself from the Church.
There is only one question: Do the public writings rise to the level of warning or rebuke? For people who believe they do not, I can respect their decision because it is reasonable. I disagree, but if they make this decision then they can coherently hold that Bergoglio is the Pope.
Everything else that Julio and Stubborn throw out is just them rummaging through their pockets for any excuse they can find.
Latae Sententiae excommunication by its very definition does not involve a judicial proceeding.
A heretic separates himself from the Church.
Excommunicated people are not members of the Catholic Church.
Baptism is a sacrament, and non-Catholic receive it.
To say otherwise is to contradict the Catholic Church.
edit: This is the position of the neo-sedes. Paleo-sedes have other arguments. Both groups of SVs agree that Bergoglio has manifested pertinacity, and is not the Pope.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 07:49:29 AMBaptism is a sacrament, and non-Catholic receive it.
To say otherwise is to contradict the Catholic Church.
This forum needs a face palm emoji.
Yes, baptism is a sacrament and non-Catholic catechumens may worthily receive it in the Church in order to become a member, but that is the only sacrament non-Catholics can receive. Non Catholics cannot receive the sacrament of penance, only Catholics can.
To say otherwise is to contradict the Catholic Church.
So in other words, when you made this statement:
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
You were wrong.
As far as The Sacrament of Penance, it's an open question. After the baptized heretic, either a Prot or otherwise, makes his abjuration, is he considered a Catholic, or does he become Catholic after absolution? Don't know and I find no cite.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 02, 2023, 07:28:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:57:12 AMStubborn, please affirm or deny the follow proposition:
A member of the Catholic Church who commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy loses his membership in the Catholic Church.
KN, please answer the question:
How can a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy be absolved from his sin of heresy in the sacrament of penance if he is not a Catholic?
Your question is a consequent to my question. As such, the answer to your question has no impact to the answer to my mine. James has broken down for you Pope Pius XII's relevant portion of Mystici Corporis that teaches that membership is lost through heresy. If you deny the proposition I presented to you, then you oppose the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 07:49:29 AMThere is only one question: Do the public writings rise to the level of warning or rebuke?
Has Julio stated somewhere that the warnings have to be formal canonical admonitions?
Don't know, he can answer that.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 09:04:50 AMSo in other words, when you made this statement:
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
You were wrong.
As far as The Sacrament of Penance, it's an open question. After the baptized heretic, either a Prot or otherwise, makes his abjuration, is he considered a Catholic, or does he become Catholic after absolution? Don't know and I find no cite.
No, it is NOT an open question. Without the Catholic faith, baptism is of no value. Why? Because without faith it is impossible to please God.
This means no matter how contrite the prot might be, without the faith no amount of sorrow on his part will do him any good. THIS is why the Church does not permit non-Catholics from going to confession.
It's all about faith.Ever been to a baptism? It goes like this...
Priest: What do you ask of the Church of God?
Sponsors or adult about to be baptized: Faith.
Priest: What does faith offer you?
Sponsors or adult: Everlasting life.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 09:17:26 AMQuote from: Stubborn on May 02, 2023, 07:28:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:57:12 AMStubborn, please affirm or deny the follow proposition:
A member of the Catholic Church who commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy loses his membership in the Catholic Church.
KN, please answer the question:
How can a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy be absolved from his sin of heresy in the sacrament of penance if he is not a Catholic?
Your question is a consequent to my question. As such, the answer to your question has no impact to the answer to my mine. James has broken down for you Pope Pius XII's relevant portion of Mystici Corporis that teaches that membership is lost through heresy. If you deny the proposition I presented to you, then you oppose the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.
Maybe you should take up boxing since you are proficient at dodging.
It is your own doing that you still cannot understand the answer even after having it given and explained to you.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 02, 2023, 10:40:10 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 09:17:26 AMQuote from: Stubborn on May 02, 2023, 07:28:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:57:12 AMStubborn, please affirm or deny the follow proposition:
A member of the Catholic Church who commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy loses his membership in the Catholic Church.
KN, please answer the question:
How can a Catholic who has fallen into the sin of heresy be absolved from his sin of heresy in the sacrament of penance if he is not a Catholic?
Your question is a consequent to my question. As such, the answer to your question has no impact to the answer to my mine. James has broken down for you Pope Pius XII's relevant portion of Mystici Corporis that teaches that membership is lost through heresy. If you deny the proposition I presented to you, then you oppose the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.
Maybe you should take up boxing since you are proficient at dodging.
It is your own doing that you still cannot understand the answer even after having it given and explained to you.
I am done arguing with you. Bye bye.
QuoteNo, it is NOT an open question.
OK, then. Provide the cite that tells us if a baptized heretic is returned to the Church after abjuration or after absolution. Otherwise, it's an open question.
QuoteWithout the Catholic faith, baptism is of no value. Why? Because without faith it is impossible to please God.
This means no matter how contrite the prot might be, without the faith no amount of sorrow on his part will do him any good.
Non sequitur. At issue is baptism, a sacrament. And the unbaptized are not Catholic. So your statement:
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
was wrong.
QuoteTHIS is why the Church does not permit non-Catholics from going to confession. It's all about faith.
See above. I have found no cite that states the point when a heretic returns to the Church. Only that he has to abjure his heresy, and get absolution. It's possible that after abjuration he is considered a Catholic in mortal sin, but it is an open question.
Your pride is doing you a disservice. When you screw up, admit it and move on.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 10:52:04 AMQuoteNo, it is NOT an open question.
OK, then. Provide the cite that tells us if a baptized heretic is returned to the Church after abjuration or after absolution. Otherwise, it's an open question.
QuoteWithout the Catholic faith, baptism is of no value. Why? Because without faith it is impossible to please God.
This means no matter how contrite the prot might be, without the faith no amount of sorrow on his part will do him any good.
Non sequitur. At issue is baptism, a sacrament. And the unbaptized are not Catholic. So your statement:
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
was wrong.
For whatever reason, you are bringing in the sacrament of Baptism, which a non-Catholic can receive. I am talking about all of the other sacraments except baptism when I say that: "One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments."
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 10:52:04 AMQuoteTHIS is why the Church does not permit non-Catholics from going to confession. It's all about faith.
See above. I have found no cite that states the point when a heretic returns to the Church. Only that he has to abjure his heresy, and get absolution. It's possible that after abjuration he is considered a Catholic in mortal sin, but it is an open question.
Your pride is doing you a disservice. When you screw up, admit it and move on.
I say the below presuming you understand that for for everyone, but for this discussion for Catholics in particular, heresy, apostacy and schism are mortal sins. Maybe this will help to clarify.....
A) The
Catholic who becomes a heretic separates himself from the Church
by the sin of heresy.B) The Church teaches that the heretic, apostate, schismatic excommunicant cannot lawfully receive any sacrament
because he is in a state of mortal sin, i.e. the mortal sins of heresy/apostacy/schism.
Also note that the Church only censures her members, those who are outside of the Church she does not censure. Unlike sedes, the Church does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live the faith and attain salvation.
C) That person decides to repent.
D) He can (and the Church encourages him) to go to confession and receive absolution, which needless to say is something the Church teaches that only Catholics may do and that non-Catholics are forbidden to do.
E) Should the heretic, apostate, schismatic excommunicant be on his deathbed and desire to repent, he can receive the Last Rites straight away, which is also a sacrament the Church forbids to non-Catholics.
F) The public abjuration before a priest or bishop or pope, (depending on the censure) is only necessary for adult catechumens who've never been baptized, or for cases where public abjuration is required to avoid scandal, or if the censure is reserved to the Holy See.
G) You can only conclude that because the heretic, apostate, schismatic can go to confession without first needing to be baptized that the penitent was always Catholic by virtue of the faith within him and the sacramental character. You cannot honestly conclude otherwise.
My point: The unbaptized person is not Catholic.
The lifting of excommunication MAY be delegated to a priest in the confessional. In that case the penitent abjures his heresy in the confession booth before absolution. I did not say that "public" was a requirement. In heresiarch Bergoglio's case, it at least SHOULD be a requirement due to the immense scandal he has caused the entire world.
QuoteA) The Catholic who becomes a heretic separates himself from the Church by the sin of heresy.
That's been our point all along. And the form of the sin is pertinacity. That's the basis of my argument, which is the neo-sede position. Paleo-sedes also believe that pertinacity is the form of the sin, but believe it can be determined by various other means.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 12:54:31 PMMy point: The unbaptized person is not Catholic.
My point: Baptized prots who've never had the Catholic faith are not Catholic.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 12:54:31 PMThe lifting of excommunication MAY be delegated to a priest in the confessional. In that case the penitent abjures his heresy in the confession booth before absolution. I did not say that "public" was a requirement. In heresiarch Bergoglio's case, it at least SHOULD be a requirement due to the immense scandal he has caused the entire world.
I agree it should be a requirement, but it is not an absolute requirement because absolution may be attained without it.
And no, the heretic does not abjure his heresy in the confession before absolution - unless the priest requires it. If you go back to my example of you being a flaming heretic for 5 years, unless the priest required it, you could be absolved without having to make a formal abjuration.
The Abjuration of heresy is required to be professed either publicly, or privately to the priest, by converts before they get baptized. That is absolute. It is not absolute for a heretic to profess it.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 12:54:31 PMQuoteA) The Catholic who becomes a heretic separates himself from the Church by the sin of heresy.
That's been our point all along. And the form of the sin is pertinacity. That's the basis of my argument, which is the neo-sede position. Paleo-sedes also believe that pertinacity is the form of the sin, but believe it can be determined by various other means.
No, the point you are both arguing repeatedly, is that the sin of heresy makes a Catholic a non-Catholic, no longer a member of the Church and boots a Catholic right out of the Church.
Yes, heresy etc. is a sin of pertinacity, it is pertinacity that is the nature of the sins Pope Pius XII is explaining. He is talking abut the nature of the sin when he says: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
The sedes by their constant trumpeting of a falsehood have convinced many of the faithful that the pope (Pius XII) is teaching that heretics lose membership in the Church, just as if no other mortal sin severs us from the body of the Church. But that is not what pope Pius XII is talking about AT ALL. He is talking specifically about *the nature* of those sins, the pertinacity involved in those sins unlike other sins ("not all sins...") due to the pertinacity of those sins.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 07:17:40 AMQuoteUnderstand those words,
I speak English, I understand the cite. You speak passable English, you don't. And the fact that you decided to go with snark makes you look really bad now.
QuoteThe Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration.
"Together with" is somewhat equivalent to "and", however it, the obtaining of full and supreme power, is shown happening together, so this phrasing packs more information than a simple "and". The cite then distinguishes between two cases, as I've shown. You aren't comprehending the cite. It does not say or even suggest that papal election leaves a mark.
You bolded it that it is necessary to obtain that indelible mark of papacy.
At any rate, that is not the main poin, the violation is this:
QuoteCan. 700 A decree of dismissal does not have effect unless it has been confirmed by the Holy See, to which the decree and all the acts must be transmitted; if it concerns an institute of diocesan right, confirmation belongs to the bishop of the diocese where the house to which the religious has been attached is situated. To be valid, however, the decree must indicate the right which the dismissed possesses to make recourse to the competent authority within ten days from receiving notification. The recourse has suspensive effect.
Very simple rule that the people like you James violate by considering that the seat of St. Peter is vacant.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 07:28:22 AMQuoteThere is even absence of any public rebuke against Pope Francis.
Any? In addition to the cardinals, an archbishop, bishop, priests, and theologians have rebuked him. And then there is Archbishop Vigano, who has been rebuking him almost monthly for years now.
QuoteThere is absence of any judicial or administrative process to impose or declare any penalty against him after ascentainment that rebuke is not enough.
This is not a requirement per St. Robert, and there is also no judicial or administrative process in that case of a woman who murders her baby, another case where latae sententiae excommunication applies. In fact, latae sententiae excommunication is the case were no judicial or administrative process applies. And in the case of heresy, a heretic like Bergoglio is excommunicated latae sententia because he separates himself from the Church.
The Canon Law states that:
QuoteCan. 700 A decree of dismissal does not have effect unless it has been confirmed by the Holy See, to which the decree and all the acts must be transmitted; if it concerns an institute of diocesan right, confirmation belongs to the bishop of the diocese where the house to which the religious has been attached is situated. To be valid, however, the decree must indicate the right which the dismissed possesses to make recourse to the competent authority within ten days from receiving notification. The recourse has suspensive effect.
You are very disrespectful against Pope Francis. You do not have any evidence of his dismissal from office. You are not the Law.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 09:04:50 AMSo in other words, when you made this statement:
QuoteOne who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
You were wrong.
As far as The Sacrament of Penance, it's an open question. After the baptized heretic, either a Prot or otherwise, makes his abjuration, is he considered a Catholic, or does he become Catholic after absolution? Don't know and I find no cite.
This is the Code of Canon Law on that:
QuoteCan. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
The gateway and necessary for salvation by actual receiption of it. Where is your Law for you self serving allegations? Consistently anarchic.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:54:11 AMAnd what form do you expect these corrections to take?
This is the specifica actions to be taken under the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 1341 An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
Can. 1342 §1. Whenever just causes preclude a judicial process, a penalty can be imposed or declared by extrajudicial decree; penal remedies and penances, however, can be applied by decree in any case whatsoever.
§2. Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by decree, nor can penalties be so applied when the law or precept establishing them prohibits their application by decree.
§3. What a law or precept states about the imposition or declaration of a penalty by a judge in a trial must be applied to a superior who imposes or declares a penalty by extrajudicial decree unless it is otherwise evident or unless it concerns prescripts which pertain only to procedural matters.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html#TITLE_IV
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 07:49:29 AMThere is only one question: Do the public writings rise to the level of warning or rebuke? For people who believe they do not, I can respect their decision because it is reasonable. I disagree, but if they make this decision then they can coherently hold that Bergoglio is the Pope.
Everything else that Julio and Stubborn throw out is just them rummaging through their pockets for any excuse they can find.
Latae Sententiae excommunication by its very definition does not involve a judicial proceeding.
A heretic separates himself from the Church.
Excommunicated people are not members of the Catholic Church.
Baptism is a sacrament, and non-Catholic receive it.
To say otherwise is to contradict the Catholic Church.
edit: This is the position of the neo-sedes. Paleo-sedes have other arguments. Both groups of SVs agree that Bergoglio has manifested pertinacity, and is not the Pope.
Your concocted thoughts has no place in the Code of Canon Law, here is the rule:
QuoteCan. 1339 §1. An ordinary, personally or through another, can warn a person who is in the proximate occasion of committing a delict or upon whom, after investigation, grave suspicion of having committed a delict has fallen.
§2. He can also rebuke a person whose behavior causes scandal or a grave disturbance of order, in a manner accommodated to the special conditions of the person and the deed.
§3. The warning or rebuke must always be established at least by some document which is to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.
Where is that document?
James in cases of latae sentences, there is necessity that such must be provided with sentence and to prove:
QuoteCan. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
Excommunication can only be done through execution of sentence even if there is no trial. Where is that against the Pope?
James, please cite any provision as an evidence under the Code of Canon Law that the indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism is erased when a Baptized catholic has been sentenced of excommunication or any penal judgment which is so grave. You will find none because the indelible mark of Baptism cannot be erased by any form of sin per the Catechism of the Concil of Trent.
Ergo, the Baptized Catholic shall be given the chance to redeem himself and be back "in actu" with Jesus as potential member per the description of those bad members of Church Militant by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Sans that presentation under the provisions of the Code of Canon Law, your conclusions are all self serving and has no leg to stand on for you are not the Law of the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Julio on May 02, 2023, 01:48:19 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:54:11 AMAnd what form do you expect these corrections to take?
This is the specifica actions to be taken under the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 1341 An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
Can. 1342 §1. Whenever just causes preclude a judicial process, a penalty can be imposed or declared by extrajudicial decree; penal remedies and penances, however, can be applied by decree in any case whatsoever.
§2. Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by decree, nor can penalties be so applied when the law or precept establishing them prohibits their application by decree.
§3. What a law or precept states about the imposition or declaration of a penalty by a judge in a trial must be applied to a superior who imposes or declares a penalty by extrajudicial decree unless it is otherwise evident or unless it concerns prescripts which pertain only to procedural matters.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html#TITLE_IV
Canon 1341 cannot apply to a pope because a pope has no superior on earth. To hold that even all the cardinals and bishops in the world can impose the proceedings of Canon 1341 upon a pope is heresy because it goes against the dogma taught at Vatican I regarding the pope's primacy and universal jurisdiction.
QuoteJames, please cite any provision as an evidence under the Code of Canon Law that the indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism is erased when a Baptized catholic has been sentenced of excommunication or any penal judgment which is so grave.
Non sequitur. That has never been my position. You're rummaging around flinging stuff again.
QuoteErgo, the Baptized Catholic shall be given the chance to redeem himself and be back "in actu" with Jesus
Correct, in order to become an actual Catholic he can abjure his heresy and receive absolution.
QuoteExcommunication can only be done through execution of sentence even if there is no trial. Where is that against the Pope?
Where is what? A trial? There is no trial. The heretic separates himself from the Church. He is excommunicated
latae sententiae.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 03:04:08 PMCanon 1341 cannot apply to a pope because a pope has no superior on earth. To hold that even all the cardinals and bishops in the world can impose the proceedings of Canon 1341 upon a pope is heresy because it goes against the dogma taught at Vatican I regarding the pope's primacy and universal jurisdiction.
Yes, the Pope is answerable to God only, however God gave the authority to the Apostles to create laws and this has been subrogated by the Bishops and the Cardinals. Here is the application of the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.
§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Pope is not exempted because he is not above the Law. Only God is the Law unto Himself.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2023, 03:30:00 PMQuoteJames, please cite any provision as an evidence under the Code of Canon Law that the indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism is erased when a Baptized catholic has been sentenced of excommunication or any penal judgment which is so grave.
Non sequitur. That has never been my position. You're rummaging around flinging stuff again.
QuoteErgo, the Baptized Catholic shall be given the chance to redeem himself and be back "in actu" with Jesus
Correct, in order to become an actual Catholic he can abjure his heresy and receive absolution.
QuoteExcommunication can only be done through execution of sentence even if there is no trial. Where is that against the Pope?
Where is what? A trial? There is no trial. The heretic separates himself from the Church. He is excommunicated latae sententiae.
Yes, there is no trial by there is execution of sentence. Read this again:
QuoteCan. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
That being the case since he is the Pope, there must be execution of judgment in relation to his office and this must be present:
QuoteCan. 192 A person is removed from office either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of can. 194.
Can. 193 §1. A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law.
§2. The same is valid for the removal of a person from an office conferred for a definite period of time before this time has elapsed, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 624, §3.
§3. A person upon whom an office is conferred at the prudent discretion of a competent authority according to the prescripts of the law can, upon the judgment of the same authority, be removed from that office for a just cause.
§4. To take effect, the decree of removal must be communicated in writing.
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
Can. 195 If a person is removed not by the law itself but by a decree of competent authority from an office which provides the person's support, the same authority is to take care that the support is provided for a suitable period, unless other provision is made.
Assuming without admitting that Pope Francis lost his office because of his manifest heresy, then the Code of Canon Law requires that there must be dismissal from his office by the competent authority. There is no communication in writing to Pope Francis for any dismissal from that office in order that such pronouncement that the seat of St. Peter is vacant must effectuate.
James, you are not the competent authority to declare that he is not a pope.
^^In relation with that rule hereunders is the applicable provision of the Code of Canon Law in removal of clerics from the office:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
Ergo, there is no way that Pope Francis should not receive any document of dismissal because it is necessary in the proceeddings.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 03:04:08 PMQuote from: Julio on May 02, 2023, 01:48:19 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 05:54:11 AMAnd what form do you expect these corrections to take?
This is the specifica actions to be taken under the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 1341 An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
Can. 1342 §1. Whenever just causes preclude a judicial process, a penalty can be imposed or declared by extrajudicial decree; penal remedies and penances, however, can be applied by decree in any case whatsoever.
§2. Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by decree, nor can penalties be so applied when the law or precept establishing them prohibits their application by decree.
§3. What a law or precept states about the imposition or declaration of a penalty by a judge in a trial must be applied to a superior who imposes or declares a penalty by extrajudicial decree unless it is otherwise evident or unless it concerns prescripts which pertain only to procedural matters.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html#TITLE_IV
Canon 1341 cannot apply to a pope because a pope has no superior on earth. To hold that even all the cardinals and bishops in the world can impose the proceedings of Canon 1341 upon a pope is heresy because it goes against the dogma taught at Vatican I regarding the pope's primacy and universal jurisdiction.
Well that is very convenient. What happened to the pope who is a heretic is no longer pope, therefore can be judged by his subjects?
Quote from: Julio on May 02, 2023, 05:43:52 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 02, 2023, 03:04:08 PMCanon 1341 cannot apply to a pope because a pope has no superior on earth. To hold that even all the cardinals and bishops in the world can impose the proceedings of Canon 1341 upon a pope is heresy because it goes against the dogma taught at Vatican I regarding the pope's primacy and universal jurisdiction.
Yes, the Pope is answerable to God only, however God gave the authority to the Apostles to create laws and this has been subrogated by the Bishops and the Cardinals. Here is the application of the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.
§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Pope is not exempted because he is not above the Law. Only God is the Law unto Himself.
So are you saying that the cardinals and/or bishops can bring a pope to a canonical trial for heresy?
QuoteWhat happened to the pope who is a heretic is no longer pope, therefore can be judged by his subjects?
If, as you presuppose, the heretic is no longer pope, what judging is required?
QuoteCan. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
And thus we get back to the only question that matters: Do the warnings, rebukes, condemnations, and other writings which continue to this day rise to the point where a heresiarch's pertinacity is manifested? Can we say with moral certainty that Bergoglio is guilty of the sin of heresy because he is pertinacious? That's the question.
You can say no, in which case it is reasonable to hold that heresiarch Bergoglio is the Pope. I say yes, and so it is reasonable for me to not view him as Pope, and to disregard feast days for Pope "St." Paul VI and Pope "St." JPII, and to tell divorced Catholics who live in perpetual adultery that receiving communion would be sacrilege, because what the heresiarch caused to be published in the AAS is void.
You are stuck on tribunals and trials. That's not a proper mindset. If he has manifested pertinacity then he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and is excommunicated
latae sententiae.
Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2023, 08:53:34 AMQuoteCan. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
And thus we get back to the only question that matters: Do the warnings, rebukes, condemnations, and other writings which continue to this day rise to the point where a heresiarch's pertinacity is manifested? Can we say with moral certainty that Bergoglio is guilty of the sin of heresy because he is pertinacious? That's the question.
You can say no, in which case it is reasonable to hold that heresiarch Bergoglio is the Pope. I say yes, and so it is reasonable for me to not view him as Pope, and to disregard feast days for Pope "St." Paul VI and Pope "St." JPII, and to tell divorced Catholics who live in perpetual adultery that receiving communion would be sacrilege, because what the heresiarch caused to be published in the AAS is void.
You are stuck on tribunals and trials. That's not a proper mindset. If he has manifested pertinacity then he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and is excommunicated latae sententiae.
And even if the Church did not legislate heresy as a crime, the heretic would still be separated from the Church because the public sin of manifest formal heresy PER SE separates the heretic from the Church.
QuotePope Innocent III (1198-1216) explained how a pope who falls into the sin of heresy is "judged."
'Without faith it is impossible to please God.... To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For 'he who does not believe is already judged'."(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 03, 2023, 05:37:08 AMSo are you saying that the cardinals and/or bishops can bring a pope to a canonical trial for heresy?
It happened before, it can happen today.
Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2023, 08:53:34 AMQuoteCan. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
And thus we get back to the only question that matters: Do the warnings, rebukes, condemnations, and other writings which continue to this day rise to the point where a heresiarch's pertinacity is manifested? Can we say with moral certainty that Bergoglio is guilty of the sin of heresy because he is pertinacious? That's the question.
You can say no, in which case it is reasonable to hold that heresiarch Bergoglio is the Pope. I say yes, and so it is reasonable for me to not view him as Pope, and to disregard feast days for Pope "St." Paul VI and Pope "St." JPII, and to tell divorced Catholics who live in perpetual adultery that receiving communion would be sacrilege, because what the heresiarch caused to be published in the AAS is void.
You are stuck on tribunals and trials. That's not a proper mindset. If he has manifested pertinacity then he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and is excommunicated latae sententiae.
Brother James, this is the proceedings stated by the Canon Law on commission of such violation and to wit:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
So, much as there is excommunicated
latae sententiae to a heretic member, yet the Code of Canon Law provides that the major superior with the concil is to issue with any delay a delcaration fof act so that the dismissal is established judicially. That is the Law.
In the case of Pope Francis there is no issuance of the declaration of fact of his dismissal. So the seat of St. Peter is not vacant.
It is not about trial, James. There must be notification because that is still manifestation of due process of law that is Divine in origin. Nothing that is like that ever happened.
So I submit you are in grave error on this matter.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 03, 2023, 10:09:53 AMAnd even if the Church did not legislate heresy as a crime, the heretic would still be separated from the Church because the public sin of manifest formal heresy PER SE separates the heretic from the Church.
No, this is the applicable provisions of the Code of Canon Law, for your better understanding of the process:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
Kindly read those bolded words of the law. A heretic who defected notoriously from the Catholic faith must be issued without any delay by the major superior with the council a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established judicialy.
QuoteIn these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
So you have established that all Cardinals and bishops who believe Bergoligio is an heretic are violating Canon Law. Canon Law requires them to issue a declaration. Fair enough, they're violating Canon Law.
^^Like what I already stated in our discussions, they shall answer to God in due time for failure to act.
We are in the deep state of chastisement.
To conclude, the seat of St. Peter is not vacant, brother James.
It is not even their belief that matter, they have solemn obligation to perform the same for the love of God. This is not surprising at all. If it was done by the Pharisees, why can't it happen today. However. the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church remains indefectible because it is here where washing of the original sins shall happen only through Baptism so that the mission of God to save us shall continue.
Quote from: Julio on May 03, 2023, 01:30:51 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 03, 2023, 05:37:08 AMSo are you saying that the cardinals and/or bishops can bring a pope to a canonical trial for heresy?
It happened before, it can happen today.
Please provide the evidence that there was a time when cardinals and/or bishops brought a pope to a canonical trial for heresy.
I am not at all stating that it already happened. I am pointing out the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. It does not mean that it is not being done the ineptness or failure of the parties who ought to excute that is right.
By the way when I refer to the historical declation of heresy of popes I am referring to this example among others:
"In 680 the third Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV to settle the controversy, which still raged. Because the council decreed that Christ had two wills, Honorius's doctrine was condemned as being pro-monothelitic. Pope St. Leo II confirmed the condemnation in 682, saying that Honorius "allowed the immaculate faith to be stained" by teaching not "in accord with apostolic tradition." Refusing to accept Honorius's doctrine, his successors condemned monothelitism, thus straining relations between Rome and Constantinople. Further, his questionable orthodoxy was revived and used by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1869–70). Honorius's defenders denied that his statements were official, maintaining that his teaching was imprudent rather than heretical, and many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague."https://www.britannica.com/biography/Honorius-I
The third Concil of Constantinople was the one that intiated the condemnation. It was confirmed by Pope St. Leo II.
Quote from: Julio on May 03, 2023, 05:23:44 PMI am not at all stating that it already happened. I am pointing out the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. It does not mean that it is not being done the ineptness or failure of the parties who ought to excute that is right.
By the way when I refer to the historical declation of heresy of popes I am referring to this example among others:
"In 680 the third Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV to settle the controversy, which still raged. Because the council decreed that Christ had two wills, Honorius's doctrine was condemned as being pro-monothelitic. Pope St. Leo II confirmed the condemnation in 682, saying that Honorius "allowed the immaculate faith to be stained" by teaching not "in accord with apostolic tradition." Refusing to accept Honorius's doctrine, his successors condemned monothelitism, thus straining relations between Rome and Constantinople. Further, his questionable orthodoxy was revived and used by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1869–70). Honorius's defenders denied that his statements were official, maintaining that his teaching was imprudent rather than heretical, and many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague."https://www.britannica.com/biography/Honorius-I
The third Concil of Constantinople was the one that intiated the condemnation. It was confirmed by Pope St. Leo II.
Yes and there is an issue with Pope John XXII.
Quote from: Julio on May 03, 2023, 05:23:44 PMI am not at all stating that it already happened. I am pointing out the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. It does not mean that it is not being done the ineptness or failure of the parties who ought to excute that is right.
By the way when I refer to the historical declation of heresy of popes I am referring to this example among others:
"In 680 the third Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV to settle the controversy, which still raged. Because the council decreed that Christ had two wills, Honorius's doctrine was condemned as being pro-monothelitic. Pope St. Leo II confirmed the condemnation in 682, saying that Honorius "allowed the immaculate faith to be stained" by teaching not "in accord with apostolic tradition." Refusing to accept Honorius's doctrine, his successors condemned monothelitism, thus straining relations between Rome and Constantinople. Further, his questionable orthodoxy was revived and used by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1869–70). Honorius's defenders denied that his statements were official, maintaining that his teaching was imprudent rather than heretical, and many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague."https://www.britannica.com/biography/Honorius-I
The third Concil of Constantinople was the one that intiated the condemnation. It was confirmed by Pope St. Leo II.
Pope Honorius was not a public manifest formal heretic. If he was, he would be listed as antipope from the moment he became a public manifest formal heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine admits that Pope Honorius was not truly a heretic.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 04, 2023, 06:12:43 AMPope Honorius was not a public manifest formal heretic. If he was, he would be listed as antipope from the moment he became a public manifest formal heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine admits that Pope Honorius was not truly a heretic.
Is it true that the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680-681 condemned Honorius as a heretic? And that this Council was infallible?
Honorus wasn't Pope in 680.
Quote from: AlNg on May 04, 2023, 08:14:44 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 04, 2023, 06:12:43 AMPope Honorius was not a public manifest formal heretic. If he was, he would be listed as antipope from the moment he became a public manifest formal heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine admits that Pope Honorius was not truly a heretic.
Is it true that the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680-681 condemned Honorius as a heretic? And that this Council was infallible?
Pope Honorius was not a public manifest formal heretic. If he was, he would be listed as antipope from the moment he became a public manifest formal heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine admits that Pope Honorius was not truly a heretic.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 04, 2023, 06:12:43 AMQuote from: Julio on May 03, 2023, 05:23:44 PMI am not at all stating that it already happened. I am pointing out the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. It does not mean that it is not being done the ineptness or failure of the parties who ought to excute that is right.
By the way when I refer to the historical declation of heresy of popes I am referring to this example among others:
"In 680 the third Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV to settle the controversy, which still raged. Because the council decreed that Christ had two wills, Honorius's doctrine was condemned as being pro-monothelitic. Pope St. Leo II confirmed the condemnation in 682, saying that Honorius "allowed the immaculate faith to be stained" by teaching not "in accord with apostolic tradition." Refusing to accept Honorius's doctrine, his successors condemned monothelitism, thus straining relations between Rome and Constantinople. Further, his questionable orthodoxy was revived and used by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1869–70). Honorius's defenders denied that his statements were official, maintaining that his teaching was imprudent rather than heretical, and many scholars believe that it is debatable whether he was a heretic. They hold that he seems to have misunderstood the point at issue, noting that his language is partially vague."https://www.britannica.com/biography/Honorius-I
The third Concil of Constantinople was the one that intiated the condemnation. It was confirmed by Pope St. Leo II.
Pope Honorius was not a public manifest formal heretic. If he was, he would be listed as antipope from the moment he became a public manifest formal heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine admits that Pope Honorius was not truly a heretic.
Furthermore, no cardinal or bishop brought Pope Honorius to a canonical trial during his lifetime. That was the state of my question to you.
^^The papacy of Honorious is questioned, and that is a matter that is peripheral, nevertheless the applicable provisions of the Code of Canon Law involving the violations by the members of the clergy that includes the pope states that:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
So that, if it did not happen before, it does not mean that this is not right.
^^Catholic Knight, read that for your understanding.
Quote from: AlNg on May 04, 2023, 08:14:44 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 04, 2023, 06:12:43 AMPope Honorius was not a public manifest formal heretic. If he was, he would be listed as antipope from the moment he became a public manifest formal heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine admits that Pope Honorius was not truly a heretic.
Is it true that the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680-681 condemned Honorius as a heretic? And that this Council was infallible?
Of course that happened. But do not delve on that because what happened before does not mean it shall be the same applicable system in keeping with the present Code of Canon Law. The law states so clear of the proceedings. All those who claim against the law are all anarchic, lawless and diabolic.
Quote from: Julio on May 04, 2023, 01:29:56 PM^^The papacy of Honorious is questioned, and that is a matter that is peripheral, nevertheless the applicable provisions of the Code of Canon Law involving the violations by the members of the clergy that includes the pope states that:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
So that, if it did not happen before, it does not mean that this is not right.
Once again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 05, 2023, 05:48:42 AMOnce again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
Yes, when it comes to the pope, this ^^ is just exactly the way it is. As for what his subjects can (and should) actually do, read below from Who Shall Ascend?.....
"....However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."
Quote from: Stubborn on May 05, 2023, 10:22:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 05, 2023, 05:48:42 AMOnce again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
Yes, when it comes to the pope, this ^^ is just exactly the way it is. As for what his subjects can (and should) actually do, read below from Who Shall Ascend?.....
"....However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."
Who wrote this? It is not clear whether the writer is referring to a "materially" heretical or "formally" heretical pope.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 05, 2023, 05:48:42 AMQuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
Once again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
That rule must apply because:
QuoteCan. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
There is no exemption in the Code of Canon Law that the pope is exempted from the proceedings.
If the pope has defected from the Catholic faith, then in keeping with Can. 694 he has lost his position as the superior and therefore the Cardinals ought to act on that. That being the case there must be canonical imposition of penalty against him coming from council of Cardinals. Truly there is universal primacy of his jurisdiction but he is not above the law for only God is the Law unto Himself.
The college of Cardinals voted for him. The act and power to place him there includes the act and power of removing him from that office.
Now assuming that I am wrong without myself admitting it, and you are right, then if the
Canonical Law cannot apply to the Pope with more reason that the seat of St. Peter is "not vacant" because only God can remove him there. Therefore, to call Pope Francis not a pope is anarchaic, lawless and diabolic.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 05, 2023, 10:22:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 05, 2023, 05:48:42 AMOnce again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
Yes, when it comes to the pope, this ^^ is just exactly the way it is. As for what his subjects can (and should) actually do, read below from Who Shall Ascend?.....
"....However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."
Stubborn, the bolded words of your post is actually compliance of judicial declaration of his dismissal.
By the way who wrote that? Kindly give us the link or the source. Thank you.
Also, to Catholic Knight, where is the provision of the Code of Canon Law that the Pope is exempted from the provisions of Can. 694?
Quote from: Julio on May 05, 2023, 02:01:23 PMQuote from: Stubborn on May 05, 2023, 10:22:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 05, 2023, 05:48:42 AMOnce again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
Yes, when it comes to the pope, this ^^ is just exactly the way it is. As for what his subjects can (and should) actually do, read below from Who Shall Ascend?.....
"....However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."
Stubborn, the bolded words of your post is actually compliance of judicial declaration of his dismissal.
By the way who wrote that? Kindly give us the link or the source. Thank you.
From Who Shall Ascend?, by Fr. Wathen pdf attached
^^Thank you brother, Stubborn. God bless.
... and here is among the recommendations:
Quote13. All clerics of whatever rank or office should be commanded
to suspend the exercise of their jurisdiction, until they have been
properly reconciled to the Church. Until then, all should be made to
understand that their acts are without validity.
The Pope is among all clerics of whatever rank or office. There must be command to suspend the exercise of their jurisdiction. That is Can. 694.
Quote from: Julio on May 05, 2023, 05:37:15 PM^^Thank you brother, Stubborn. God bless.
... and here is among the recommendations:
Quote13. All clerics of whatever rank or office should be commanded
to suspend the exercise of their jurisdiction, until they have been
properly reconciled to the Church. Until then, all should be made to
understand that their acts are without validity.
The Pope is among all clerics of whatever rank or office. There must be command to suspend the exercise of their jurisdiction. That is Can. 694.
In that quote, #13 is one of the line items that Fr. would submit to the pope to use in order to abolish the NO and return to the true faith. But it is the pope that would mandate and oversee the effort, which is to say that these items apply to everyone except the pope.
At issue is the fact that the Church has never established any official procedure regarding what to do about an heretical pope.
Since we trads live according to the faith and traditions of the Church, and because there is no official procedure in the Church's history or among her traditions, trads should understand - and with faith accept - that this void is not by accident. Rather, imo we are to understand that that void is there on purpose.
Because it is there on purpose, imo it dictates that there is absolutely no possible legitimate or legal way that anyone can do anything about his status, in spite of all our protestations and resulting divisions.
The sedes do not accept or even consider any of this. Presumably, the sede's main goal in all of this is to expel the pope and elect (or directly crown?) another pope - which is of course altogether contrary to tradition because it's contrary to the void.
Quote from: Julio on May 05, 2023, 02:04:31 PMAlso, to Catholic Knight, where is the provision of the Code of Canon Law that the Pope is exempted from the provisions of Can. 694?
Julio, let me be clear. If one presumes that Jorge Bergoglio is pope and at the same time believes that canonical proceedings may be initiated against him, that person is in heresy. Vatican I infallibly taught (emphases mine):
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
The pope has universal jurisdiction. He has no superior. Just like a priest cannot initiate a canonical proceeding against his bishop, who is his superior, all the cardinals and bishops of the world cannot initiate a canonical proceeding against the pope. The dogma of the pope's universal jurisdiction trumps any provision of ecclesiastical legislation.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 05, 2023, 02:44:29 PMQuote from: Julio on May 05, 2023, 02:01:23 PMQuote from: Stubborn on May 05, 2023, 10:22:05 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 05, 2023, 05:48:42 AMOnce again, Julio. The pope has no superior on earth. Therefore, he cannot be brought to a canonical trial or even be issued canonical admonitions. These acts are proper to a superior over an inferior. To say that a pope can be brought to a canonical trial is to offend the universal primacy and jurisdiction of the pope as taught by Vatican I.
Yes, when it comes to the pope, this ^^ is just exactly the way it is. As for what his subjects can (and should) actually do, read below from Who Shall Ascend?.....
"....However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
and has rendered him dangerous and unclean."
Stubborn, the bolded words of your post is actually compliance of judicial declaration of his dismissal.
By the way who wrote that? Kindly give us the link or the source. Thank you.
From Who Shall Ascend?, by Fr. Wathen pdf attached
If Fr. Wathen believed that a public manifest formal heretic could remain pope, then he was in heresy. Of course, I do not say that he was in formal heresy.
Julio,
the idea that you are defending viz, that a council of bishops can judge and depose the Pope is the heresy of "Conciliarism"; which is the following:
QuoteConciliarism, in the Roman Catholic church, a theory that a general council of the church has greater authority than the pope and may, if necessary, depose him. Conciliarism had its roots in discussions of 12th- and 13th-century canonists who were attempting to set juridical limitations on the power of the papacy.
The Pope has no superior and can be judged by no-one, not even a Church Council; if a Church Council could judge the Pope, the it would then be superior to the Pope, as St. Bellarmine correctly noted, the power to judge is one of a superior to an inferior.
John of St. Thomas, a famous theologian, opposed St. Bellarmine's opinion (the the Pope if he fell into heresy would lose his office automatically):
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-robert-bellarmine-and-john-of-st-thomas-versus-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe/
Quote"Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ. And here is his reasoning:
• A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope....
I answer [John of St. Thomas to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church's authority, and not according to private judgment. [4] ON THE DEPOSITION OF THE POPE, Text of John of St. Thomas O.P.Translated from the Latin and annotated by Fr. Pierre-Marie O.P. (Avrillé. France) and published in Le Sel de la Terre [No. 90, Fall 2014] Translated from French to English by Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz.
So the sequence is like this: Cajetan's opinion is that a Pope who falls into public heresy does not lose office automatically; St. Bellarmine responds by stating that the Pope does indeed fall from office automatically; John of St. Thomas responds to Bellarmine by rejecting his opinion that the Pope does fall from office automatically and agrees with Cajetan that the Pope does not.
A coherent position would be either 1. To agree with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas (and Suarez) and reject St. Bellarmine's position or 2. To agree with St. Bellarmine and reject Cajetan's position. You have followed Mr. Siscoe and Salza in adopting idiosyncratic interpretation of Bellarmine's position as agreeing with that of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. Which directly contradicts the very opinions of the parties involved in the original dispute.
And here is St. Bellarmine's opinion once again, which anyone who can read and understand English can ascertain that he holds that the Pope that falls into heresy loses his office automatically, and without any prior warnings or judgements, contrary to what Syscoe and Salza affirm:[/B]
QuoteTherefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head,[/b] in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.
When does Bellarmine say the pope loses office: This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction... NOT AFTER WARNINGS OR DECLARATION BECAUSE heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms... [8][/size][/b]
"NOT AFTER WARNINGS OR DECLARATION BECAUSE HERETICS ALREADY BEFORE BEING EXCOMMUNICATED ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND DEPRIVED OF ALL JURISDICTION.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 06, 2023, 04:34:44 AMIn that quote, #13 is one of the line items that Fr. would submit to the pope to use in order to abolish the NO and return to the true faith. But it is the pope that would mandate and oversee the effort, which is to say that these items apply to everyone except the pope.
At issue is the fact that the Church has never established any official procedure regarding what to do about an heretical pope.
Since we trads live according to the faith and traditions of the Church, and because there is no official procedure in the Church's history or among her traditions, trads should understand - and with faith accept - that this void is not by accident. Rather, imo we are to understand that that void is there on purpose.
Because it is there on purpose, imo it dictates that there is absolutely no possible legitimate or legal way that anyone can do anything about his status, in spite of all our protestations and resulting divisions.
The sedes do not accept or even consider any of this. Presumably, the sede's main goal in all of this is to expel the pope and elect (or directly crown?) another pope - which is of course altogether contrary to tradition because it's contrary to the void.
Before the list here is the discussions:
QuoteIn view of the great aberration of the Conciliar Religion, the
grave disorders which rack the Mystical Body of Christ, and long
sorrow of the Catholic faithful, we are confronted with the question,
what must be done in order that a general restoration of the Church
might be brought about? Were it possible, we would propose to His
Holiness, Pope John Paul II, the following list of steps which need to
be taken immediately. No doubt, many might consider the very idea
preposterous. Be that as it may, it is presented here as a kind of
summation of the seriousness of the Church' s present state, and the
momentous reform which we may pray God will sooner or later be
undertaken.
The presentation of the issues in the discussion by the author was not all about the error of NO but it seriousness of the present state of the Church. To prove that NO is the the main point it is just the first list in the discussion, and here it is:
Quote1. The offering of the Novus Ordo Missae should be forbidden
immediately and for all time to come.
Also, take note of this:
Quote14. It should be announced that the decrees of the Second
Vatican Council are to be considered of no effect. If and when the
next ecumenical council is convened for a more detailed restoration of
the Church, the usefulness of any parts of these decrees can be
studied.
There is a process of correcting any error only if the Cardinals have the courage and zealousness to properly present the issues. Remember that there was a time in our Catholic history during the Avignon papacy that there were rivals or claimants of the seat but it was eventually resolved.
The Code of Canon Law is there as guide to be used to execute the will of God in keeping with the human conditions. But if it shall be considered that there are exemptions to the rule on the basis of the stature, it should be clearly stated thereat. I see that there is none.
The inaction of anyone regarding this problem shall mean the seat of St. Peter is not vacant.
Mike, I believe that St. Bellarmine's opinion must be the right one. Thus, while there shall be the latae sententiae effect over the heretic acts, but the Code of Canon Law provides:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
Explicitly provided is upon commission of the violation is pso facto dismissal and in that regard the corresponding process. Then there is a need for the Cardinals to act on that so that there shall be the existence of the council to issue the declaration of dismissal. The process is that the Cardinals must convene. If there is none, then he remains as the Pope.
A "sinner" the way Pope Francis described himself.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 06, 2023, 08:16:34 AMJulio, let me be clear. If one presumes that Jorge Bergoglio is pope and at the same time believes that canonical proceedings may be initiated against him, that person is in heresy. Vatican I infallibly taught (emphases mine):
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
The pope has universal jurisdiction. He has no superior. Just like a priest cannot initiate a canonical proceeding against his bishop, who is his superior, all the cardinals and bishops of the world cannot initiate a canonical proceeding against the pope. The dogma of the pope's universal jurisdiction trumps any provision of ecclesiastical legislation.
It does not say that the sinful acts of the Pope must be obeyed. The Catholic Tradition does not state that the Pope is immune from sinfulness.
Precisely my point that despite that sinfulness of the Pope he ought to be respected and be obeyed in the exercise of that jurisdiction but not the wrongful acts for as long as he is not deposed by way of the applicable provisions of the Code of Canon Law. Jesus said the same to the people in relation to the Phariseess.
If we think that the Pope must be obeyed at all cost, we are now worshipping the person. The worship must be to God and respect to authorities like them is in view of the love of God. A pontiff as human is not a saint. If he is not leading us in the right path of adoration to God then there should be due process of law that must be done against him because he is not the law. Sans that we are not allowed to create a pope or announce vacancy of his seat at our will. Respect to the authority depite the sinfulness of that person is piety and must be executed in keeping with the love of God.
Quote from: Julio on May 06, 2023, 01:35:14 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 06, 2023, 08:16:34 AMJulio, let me be clear. If one presumes that Jorge Bergoglio is pope and at the same time believes that canonical proceedings may be initiated against him, that person is in heresy. Vatican I infallibly taught (emphases mine):
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
The pope has universal jurisdiction. He has no superior. Just like a priest cannot initiate a canonical proceeding against his bishop, who is his superior, all the cardinals and bishops of the world cannot initiate a canonical proceeding against the pope. The dogma of the pope's universal jurisdiction trumps any provision of ecclesiastical legislation.
It does not say that the sinful acts of the Pope must be obeyed. The Catholic Tradition does not state that the Pope is immune from sinfulness.
Precisely my point that despite that sinfulness of the Pope he ought to be respected and be obeyed in the exercise of that jurisdiction but not the wrongful acts for as long as he is not deposed by way of the applicable provisions of the Code of Canon Law. Jesus said the same to the people in relation to the Phariseess.
Exactly right. V1, in the above quote, V1 binds us to
"true obedience" - "...are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and
true obedience..." which is to say obedience in all things not sinful.
But you need to realize that the pope is the author of canon law, there is no one within the Church who can "arrest him" i.e. censure him or put him under censure or depose him, not even an ecumenical council as V1 puts it:
"they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
I agree on the matters of jurisdiction by the Pope. However, we are talking of a situation where the heresy of the Pope has made him suffered from excommunication
latae sententiae. This error that the Pope committed ought to be undertaken by the council of Cardinals in keeping with the truth of their solemn obligation to serve God. Please check these provisions of the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.
Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
Of course the Pope is the peak of the hierarchy but he is not the law.
In situations where the Roman See is vacant or
entirely impeded, such in the case where there is public commission of heresy, the special laws issued for these circumstance are to be observed, for which the concil of Cardinals I submit must act accordingly.
Without that action, then the governece of the universal Chruch shall not be altered meaning that the seat of St. Peter is not vacant.
^^I am sorry for not mentioning you Stubborn in that post, but that is my retort to you. God bless brother.
Julio,
If the Pope does not lose his office automatically as St. Bellarmine stated, then the Cardinals or Bishops or a Council that would pronounce the Pope as fallen from office would be pronouncing sentence upon the Pope and deposing him, and therefore the Cardinals/Bishops or Council would be superior to the Pope, and this is the error of Conciliarism. You are attempting to "have your cake (Pope) and eat it (depose him) too.
It doesn't work, without falling into heresy.
Quote from: Julio on May 06, 2023, 03:20:46 PMI agree on the matters of jurisdiction by the Pope. However, we are talking of a situation where the heresy of the Pope has made him suffered from excommunication latae sententiae.
If he is excommunicated latae sententiae, then he would no longer be pope. And this would be prior to any declaration by the cardinals.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 06, 2023, 04:46:55 PMJulio,
If the Pope does not lose his office automatically as St. Bellarmine stated, then the Cardinals or Bishops or a Council that would pronounce the Pope as fallen from office would be pronouncing sentence upon the Pope and deposing him, and therefore the Cardinals/Bishops or Council would be superior to the Pope, and this is the error of Conciliarism. You are attempting to "have your cake (Pope) and eat it (depose him) too.
It doesn't work, without falling into heresy.
Nothing is heretic in not accepting the sins of the Pope. A Catholic is only in unity of the Pope as far as the truth of the Traditions and the Holy Scripture are concerned. His authority does not exceed over anything that has been revealed by God.
Look at this rule Mike:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
Even if the Pope has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith there must be gathering of proofs and the concil must convene to declare the dismissal and establish it judicially.
That is in conjunction with this rule:
QuoteCan. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.
Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
If there is impedement on the part of the Pope such as in case of manifest heresy nothing is to be altered in the governance of the unversal Church. Meaning he shall remain a pope unless the special law has been issued for that specific circumstance.
No one is above the law and not even the pontiff.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 06, 2023, 06:02:41 PMQuote from: Julio on May 06, 2023, 03:20:46 PMI agree on the matters of jurisdiction by the Pope. However, we are talking of a situation where the heresy of the Pope has made him suffered from excommunication latae sententiae.
If he is excommunicated latae sententiae, then he would no longer be pope. And this would be prior to any declaration by the cardinals.
To formally effectuate that there must be
judicial declaration. (Can. 694 in keeping with Can. 335. Without the formal and judicial declation nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universl Church becasue there is a need for the special law to be issued under that circumstance.
Please read on my retort to Michael.
Stubborn, you presented an argument that to me is highly problematic:
QuoteBecause it is there on purpose, imo it dictates that there is absolutely no possible legitimate or legal way that anyone can do anything about his status, in spite of all our protestations and resulting divisions.
When the pontiff commits heretical act or pronouncement there must be duty on the part of the Cardinals to render the corresponding attention to correct that. It does not mean that there shall be no possible legitimate or legal way to resolve such crisis otherwise it shall result unto a chaotic condition the way Catholics manifest extreme division on this issue. This forum is an exhibition of the same.
The duty to convene and discuss serious issues like that is not something that is authentic in our present crisis. It happened before:
QuoteAnd the rest of the Jews* [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"*
(Emphasis supplied)
(Galatians 2:13 and 14)
That is an exhibition of the fact that the pontiff is not above the law. His jurisdictional primacy is only up to the extent that he is complying with the Laws of God and the truth that was revealed by Jesus. When he croses that line, the authorities like Paul and in our time, the Cardinals must act accordingly.
Likewise, this power of the council to resolve controversies in the process of administering the community and the Church of God, was also shown in this situation:
QuoteAt that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, "It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table.*
(Emphasis supplied)
(Acts of the Apostles 6: 1&2)
In the situation today, the council of the Cardinals is the office or the authority that must be together by their inherent and solemn power of subrogation to the duties of the community of disciples as stated in the Holy Bible. So, I see that there must be manifestation of the virtue of fortitude among the college of Cardinals because really this act shall be painful and difficult but it is the correct path to enforce the truth.
Those people who believe that the Pope is acting way out of the Catholic Traditions cannot unilaterally declare that the office is vacant. We know that by defecting notoriously from the Catholic faith by latae sententiae, the member of the clergy who is a public heretic is ipso facto dismissed. However, this dismissal needs confirmation and declaration by the authority. Under the situation, the Cardinals must act on that. They are not filing any case against the Pope, but should form their council in relation to the confirmation of the collected evidences.
Without that official declaration, he is still the Pope for the latae sententiae was never implemented against his office in keeping with the requirement of judicial declaration. Therefore, considering that no judicial declaration was made, it follows that
nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church. (Can. 335)
Thus the truth, that all must be in unity with the pope as the pontiff but should not bound themselves with his sins. This is the cross that Catholics should carry right now regarding the actual situation of the leadership of our Church.
If you can find better sources that can destroy my argument, I shall appreciate. God bless brother.
Quote from: Julio on May 07, 2023, 04:12:14 AMStubborn, you presented an argument that to me is highly problematic:
QuoteBecause it is there on purpose, imo it dictates that there is absolutely no possible legitimate or legal way that anyone can do anything about his status, in spite of all our protestations and resulting divisions.
When the pontiff commits heretical act or pronouncement there must be duty on the part of the Cardinals to render the corresponding attention to correct that. It does not mean that there shall be no possible legitimate or legal way to resolve such crisis otherwise it shall result unto a chaotic condition the way Catholics manifest extreme division on this issue. This forum is an exhibition of the same.
The duty to convene and discuss serious issues like that is not something that is authentic in our present crisis. It happened before:
Yes, the entire hierarchy went along with the errors and did not do their duty to reprimand the pope 60 years ago, from there it only got progressively worse so that today, the idea of cardinals doing their duty has long since all but vanished. But the extent of their duty is to attempt to correct the popes' errors. Beyond that there is nothing they can do.
The fact remains that the popes' subjects, alone or altogether have no authority to judge his status. There is no way around this.
Thank you for that response, Stubborn.
Now, let us push the issue of Cardinals' duty. Lets hypothetically consider that they did rebuke Pope Francis, and they convined and pronounced their stand against the heretical words and deeds of him. This present pope rejected the public declaration of the college of Cardinals. I see that this shall prompt the Cardinals to call a council for the evaluation of the impedement of the Pope (Can. 335)
If in the process viewing from that rejection to correct himself of those manifest errors that they presented, the Cardinals convened and elected another pontiff, can that serve as judicial notice against Pope Francis that he is no longer the pope being a public heretic. Take note, they did not file a case against him, they did not judge him but merely acted in keeping with that public rebuke which was not heeded by the pontiff, in compliance with the actions that was taken by St. Paul, as I pointed out. What is your take on that?
QuoteNothing is heretic in not accepting the sins of the Pope. A Catholic is only in unity of the Pope as far as the truth of the Traditions and the Holy Scripture are concerned. His authority does not exceed over anything that has been revealed by God. [/size
This is an evasion; It is not a matter of "accepting the sins of the Pope", but whether a Pope that would fall into public heresy would remain the Pope; if he remains the Pope, then there is no authority that can judge him; neither the Cardinals, the bishops or a Council. To state otherwise is the heresy of Conciliarism.
To site a code from the section on "Institutes of consecrated life" has nothing to do with the question about "Membership in the Church" or the "Power and authority of the Pope". You are mixing up issues.
Quote Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
Which has nothing to do with the case of "What are the causes of the loss of office"?
Quote
If there is impedement on the part of the Pope such as in case of manifest heresy nothing is to be altered in the governance of the unversal Church. Meaning he shall remain a pope unless the special law has been issued for that specific circumstance.
Is "Manifest heresy" an "impediment" to the exercise or possession of the office or does it bar one automatically from the Papacy? If the former, then the Pope cannot be "deposed", since he has no superior; if the latter, then he is no longer the Pope.
QuoteNo one is above the law and not even the pontiff.
No one is above the divine law, agreed, no one is above ecclesiastical law, denied.
Julio,
in the case of St. Peter's dissimulation; St. Paul was reacting, because St. Peter's behavior was scandalous to the non-Jewish Christians, because he would not eat with them. It does not prove the point that "no-one is above the law"; St. Paul himself dissimulated practicing Jewish rituals, when he had St. Timothy circumcised before going among to Jews so that they would not be scandalized with his associating with a non-Jew.
QuoteIf in the process viewing from that rejection to correct himself of those manifest errors that they presented, the Cardinals convened and elected another pontiff, can that serve as judicial notice against Pope Francis that he is no longer the pope being a public heretic. Take note, they did not file a case against him, they did not judge him but merely acted in keeping with that public rebuke which was not heeded by the pontiff, in compliance with the actions that was taken by St. Paul, as I pointed out. What is your take on that?
Great! Now we are getting somewhere; So the Cardinals only served notice that Pope Francis was a public heretic and was no longer the Pope; they did not judge him or depose him. So when did he cease to be Pope? When he became a public heretic or when they took note of the fact and served notice to him?
Quote from: Julio on May 06, 2023, 01:45:29 PMIf we think that the Pope must be obeyed at all cost, we are now worshipping the person. The worship must be to God and respect to authorities like them is in view of the love of God. A pontiff as human is not a saint. If he is not leading us in the right path of adoration to God then there should be due process of law that must be done against him because he is not the law. Sans that we are not allowed to create a pope or announce vacancy of his seat at our will. Respect to the authority depite the sinfulness of that person is piety and must be executed in keeping with the love of God.
This is all wrong; we have to look at what the Church teaches concerning her own authority, and see the Church as the sole ark of salvation. If the Church in her magisterium could lead us into error and perdition, then Catholics would be left defenseless against the unceasing attacks of enemies against her faith and morals. We follow and obey the Pope, not because we worship his person, but because we believe that Christ Our Lord has instituted a permanent and indefectible magisterium (teaching authority) and protected it against all error and corruption. He prayed for St. Peter's faith, that it "would not fail"; "to feed His lambs (the bishops) and His sheep (the faithful); Christ's prayers can never fail to be heard or to cease to be effective. The same as His promise to be with His Church until the end of time. I would like to develop this point more fully on another thread, so we don't clutter this one with too many topics.
Quote from: Stubborn on May 07, 2023, 04:23:53 AMYes, the entire hierarchy went along with the errors
What is meant by saying that the Catholic Church has defected? What do we have now (according to SV or Traditional sources, but not according to the contemporary Catholic Church as it exists today)? :
The entire hierarchy goes along with errors and strays from the Catholic faith.
The true Catholic church has morphed into a false counterfeit heretical non-Catholic Church.
A Mass has been imposed which is a danger to the Catholic faith.
The Pope is a heretic (supposedly) and is excommunicated from the Catholic church.
There are about nine different SV Catholic Popes today.
SSPX is una cum Pope Francis, but at the same time they refuse complete submission to him.
The Catholic ordination ceremonies are invalid and some of the priests and bishops are just laypeople. The only reliably valid Sacraments are available from independent Traditional priests or other semi-schismatic Traditional groups that refuse to submit completely to Pope Francis.
To sum up:
The SV and Traditional groups deny that the Catholic church has defected, but what are the consequences or implications of their claims, except just that?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 07, 2023, 11:40:23 AMThis is all wrong; we have to look at what the Church teaches concerning her own authority, and see the Church as the sole ark of salvation. If the Church in her magisterium could lead us into error and perdition, then Catholics would be left defenseless against the unceasing attacks of enemies against her faith and morals. We follow and obey the Pope, not because we worship his person, but because we believe that Christ Our Lord has instituted a permanent and indefectible magisterium (teaching authority) and protected it against all error and corruption. He prayed for St. Peter's faith, that it "would not fail"; "to feed His lambs (the bishops) and His sheep (the faithful); Christ's prayers can never fail to be heard or to cease to be effective. The same as His promise to be with His Church until the end of time. I would like to develop this point more fully on another thread, so we don't clutter this one with too many topics.
Mike, you are creating an object of worship out of the pontiff. In the exercise of that Magisterial authority he cannot teach anything that is out of the truth that Jesus revealed. As human he is not immune from committing sins or errors. The protection against that error is the revelation of God through Jesus being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and that is the reason that the members of the clergy and the every Catholic may commit heresy because of absence of any immunity from sinfulness.
Truly, Christ promised that His Church until the end of time will never fail.
The pontiff is not the Church. So, to expect that he is not going to commit any error is ipso facto an error, I submit.
Again, the Magisterium can only teach the truth of the Catholic Traditions and the Holy Scripture as revealed by Jesus. The fact remains that he pontiff is human, he is not a saint and not an angel. His will is corruptible. We can only unite with him in regard to the truth of
real obedience. The Magisterium is only a teaching authority and not the law for only God is the Law unto Himself. The Magisterium ought to obey the law. You may invite me in the thread that you want to start with or any existing one regarding this specific topic, Mike.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 07, 2023, 09:23:13 AMJulio,
in the case of St. Peter's dissimulation; St. Paul was reacting, because St. Peter's behavior was scandalous to the non-Jewish Christians, because he would not eat with them. It does not prove the point that "no-one is above the law"; St. Paul himself dissimulated practicing Jewish rituals, when he had St. Timothy circumcised before going among to Jews so that they would not be scandalized with his associating with a non-Jew.
QuoteIf in the process viewing from that rejection to correct himself of those manifest errors that they presented, the Cardinals convened and elected another pontiff, can that serve as judicial notice against Pope Francis that he is no longer the pope being a public heretic. Take note, they did not file a case against him, they did not judge him but merely acted in keeping with that public rebuke which was not heeded by the pontiff, in compliance with the actions that was taken by St. Paul, as I pointed out. What is your take on that?
Great! Now we are getting somewhere; So the Cardinals only served notice that Pope Francis was a public heretic and was no longer the Pope; they did not judge him or depose him. So when did he cease to be Pope? When he became a public heretic or when they took note of the fact and served notice to him?
The rules are these:
QuoteCan. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:
1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.
§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.
The pope is ipso facto dismissed from the institute if he has defected notoriously from the Catholic fatih.
The effectivity of which however shall only be
upon issuance the declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established judicially.
That is because of this provision of the Code of Canon Law:
QuoteCan. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
Thus on your question, the presumption of latae sententiae is from the commission of the act. But for such to effectuate, there should be issuance of the declaration.
Without the issuance of the declaration, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church. Ergo, without the declaration even if the pontiff acted heretically, he remains as the holder of that office or the seat of St. Peter.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 07, 2023, 09:15:14 AMQuoteNothing is heretic in not accepting the sins of the Pope. A Catholic is only in unity of the Pope as far as the truth of the Traditions and the Holy Scripture are concerned. His authority does not exceed over anything that has been revealed by God. [/size
This is an evasion; It is not a matter of "accepting the sins of the Pope", but whether a Pope that would fall into public heresy would remain the Pope; if he remains the Pope, then there is no authority that can judge him; neither the Cardinals, the bishops or a Council. To state otherwise is the heresy of Conciliarism.
To site a code from the section on "Institutes of consecrated life" has nothing to do with the question about "Membership in the Church" or the "Power and authority of the Pope". You are mixing up issues.
Quote Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
Which has nothing to do with the case of "What are the causes of the loss of office"?
Quote
If there is impedement on the part of the Pope such as in case of manifest heresy nothing is to be altered in the governance of the unversal Church. Meaning he shall remain a pope unless the special law has been issued for that specific circumstance.
Is "Manifest heresy" an "impediment" to the exercise or possession of the office or does it bar one automatically from the Papacy? If the former, then the Pope cannot be "deposed", since he has no superior; if the latter, then he is no longer the Pope.
QuoteNo one is above the law and not even the pontiff.
No one is above the divine law, agreed, no one is above ecclesiastical law, denied.
On the basis of the bolded part of your post your are denying that Jesus gave that authority to the holder of the seat of St. Peter. I submit that is anarchy.
The provisions of the Code of Canon Law provides for the process in removing any member of the clergy from the office as I already stated. The Pope having been elected by the Cardinals, then the latter must have the ecclessiastical authority to provide the corresponding remedies towards the heretic pronouncements by the pontiff. I submit that is among the authority given to them for the pope is not God. They can elect a new pontiff if they find an
impedement (Can. 335) on the leader that they elect. Truly, only God can judge the pontiff, but after losing that authority by reason of heresy, upon collection of the facts and judicial declaration then the office can be declared vacant by those who elected him. If a pope can resign from the office, then the impedement can also be pronounced against him by those who chose them.
The "manifest heresy" can only desist the pope from governing the universal church the special laws issued for these circumstances shall be observed and among them is the judicial declaration of that heresy and the selection of the replacement that is within the powers of the Cardinals.
That process is in keeping with their authority that was granted to them by Jesus, I submit.
Now, Mike, assuming that I am incorrect with the process that I discussed, the fact remains that the seat of St. Peter cannot be unilaterally declared as vacant by anyone without that authority.
Julio:
Quote MIke: No one is above the divine law, agreed, no one is above ecclesiastical law, denied.
Julio:On the basis of the bolded part of your post your are denying that Jesus gave that authority to the holder of the seat of St. Peter. I submit that is anarchy.
I don't follow: If Our Lord set St. Peter as the supreme legislator of the Church, he is the final authority on all Ecclesiastical Law. This isn't "anarchy", its a Monarchy.
Julio:
Quote The Pope having been elected by the Cardinals, then the latter must have the ecclessiastical authority to provide the corresponding remedies towards the heretic pronouncements by the pontiff. I submit that is among the authority given to them for the pope is not God..... If a pope can resign from the office, then the impedement can also be pronounced against him by those [the Cardinals] who chose them.
i.e. The Cardinals can depose the Pope.
Again, this is the heresy of "Conciliarism"; if there is an authority that can declare the Pope deposed, then this authority is over the Pope, as St. Bellarmine argued against those of the fourth opinion:
QuoteBesides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope;
St. Bellarmine goes further into the argument of the supposed power of the Cardinals to depose the Pope:
QuoteBut contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.
1. The Pope deposed bishops (& Cardinals), ergo the Pope is above the bishops (& Cardinals).
2. To depose is to punish, the act of punishing is proper to a superior or a judge, ergo if the Cardinals can depose the Pope...Conciliarism.
3.He who can separate the parts i.e. The Pope, from the whole i.e. The office of the Papacy, has authority over the whole i.e. The Pope & the Papacy as in your opinion that the Cardinals can depose the Pope.
Julio:
QuoteTruly, only God can judge the pontiff, but after losing that authority by reason of heresy, upon collection of the facts and judicial declaration then the office can be declared vacant by those who elected him. If a pope can resign from the office, then the impedement can also be pronounced against him by those who chose them.
Julio, you are at a logical "impasse"; either the Pontiff loses his authority because of his public heresy or he is deprived of his office by a "judicial declaration". If the former, then the declaration is only a statement of a fact that has already taken place and is public and notorious.
If he loses his office because of a judicial declaration, the the "judge" or "judges" are the superiors of the Pope (Conciliarism); try as you might, you cannot have it both ways.
Julio:
Quote
The "manifest heresy" can only desist the pope from governing the universal church the special laws issued for these circumstances shall be observed and among them is the judicial declaration of that heresy and the selection of the replacement that is within the powers of the Cardinals.
The "special laws" isn't a judicial declaration by the Cardinals, again (sorry) this is the heresy of Conciliarism.
Julio,
Quote
That process is in keeping with their authority that was granted to them by Jesus, I submit.
The college of Cardinals is an ecclesiastical institution, there were no Cardinals until the Pope created them to assist him in the administration of the Church. So the above fails.
On the contrary, if Our Lord created the College of Cardinals and granted them authority to depose the Pope, then this very College would be the supreme authority in the Church.
Quote
Now, Mike, assuming that I am incorrect with the process that I discussed, the fact remains that the seat of St. Peter cannot be unilaterally declared as vacant by anyone without that authority.
You confuse "unilaterally" declared vacant with "officially". Public heresy separates one from the Church by its very nature; there is no disagreement here that Pope Francis is a public heretic, so we are only discussing what is the effect of being a public heretic.
So if he is a public heretic, we as Catholics cannot submit to his teachings or obey his commands; on the contrary we are obliged by divine law to hold to the Catholic faith, and refuse his heresies.
Quote from: Julio on May 07, 2023, 05:21:52 PMThe pontiff is not the Church.
I thought that the Roman Pontiff was an essential part of the Roman Catholic Church at least according to the following:
" Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name [138] should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community."
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
Mike, thank you for the response and before I aver my answers to you, God bless brother.
The law making power of the pope as a monarch is only up to the point where such do not cross the truth of the revelations of Jesus. I fully agree with you that when Jesus installed St. Peter as the first Popl the Apostles rank was that of the Bishop. The Pope in creating the office of the Cardinals that elects him should submit himself to the voting power of them. That is in keeping with the authority that was given to St. Peter by God.
What is anarchic is not the act of deposing the Pope with impedement for he was the author of the law. He must be aware of the fact that such proceedings must bind him. It does not mean that he was the maker of that law, then he cannot be bounded by what he did, for only God is the Law unto Himself.
So, regarding the process involving the election and selection of the new pontiff, the Cardinals having been empowered to do that, then if they found an impedement (Can. 335) on the pope that they elected, by the power vested in them that was given by the pope himself to select and elect him, he waived his authority to them on matters regarding the judicial declaration. It is not provided in the Code of Canon Law that just because he is the law giver, he is exempted from it.
That power that the pope vested to the Cardinals is his own work and he cannot be inconsistent against that. In the same vein that he cannot be inconsistent against the provisions of the Code of Canon Law that he wrote.
Mike, I am aware of the Code of Canon Law but please allow me to read your sources by posting here the link for me to be able to provide logical and honest presentation of my take on that. Thank you, brother.
Quote from: AlNg on May 07, 2023, 09:21:18 PMQuote from: Julio on May 07, 2023, 05:21:52 PMThe pontiff is not the Church.
I thought that the Roman Pontiff was an essential part of the Roman Catholic Church at least according to the following:
" Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name [138] should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community."
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
He is an essential part but he is not the Church.
Quote from: Julio on May 07, 2023, 04:35:04 AMThank you for that response, Stubborn.
Now, let us push the issue of Cardinals' duty. Lets hypothetically consider that they did rebuke Pope Francis, and they convined and pronounced their stand against the heretical words and deeds of him. This present pope rejected the public declaration of the college of Cardinals. I see that this shall prompt the Cardinals to call a council for the evaluation of the impedement of the Pope (Can. 335)
If in the process viewing from that rejection to correct himself of those manifest errors that they presented, the Cardinals convened and elected another pontiff, can that serve as judicial notice against Pope Francis that he is no longer the pope being a public heretic. Take note, they did not file a case against him, they did not judge him but merely acted in keeping with that public rebuke which was not heeded by the pontiff, in compliance with the actions that was taken by St. Paul, as I pointed out. What is your take on that?
Here again, if the pope does not repent there is nothing that can be done about it. His subjects cannot "put him on notice," they cannot threaten to or actually elect a new pope.
You must consider that if this were allowable, then (like today) the cardinals are the ones who could be the heretics and (unlike today but possible) the pope the is the one who is *not* guilty of heresy. IOW, the cardinals would have the authority to replace a good pope with a bad pope.
Quote from: AlNg on May 07, 2023, 02:47:36 PMQuote from: Stubborn on May 07, 2023, 04:23:53 AMYes, the entire hierarchy went along with the errors
What is meant by saying that the Catholic Church has defected? What do we have now (according to SV or Traditional sources, but not according to the contemporary Catholic Church as it exists today)? :
The entire hierarchy goes along with errors and strays from the Catholic faith...
By saying the Catholic Church has defected means first of all that Our Lord's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail is a lie, on that account alone we know that the Catholic Church has not, and can never defect. Too often we tend to forget that God is the head of the Church, because of that, everything is in the hands of God, everything, absolutely everything. Deo Gratias for that!
Now that we are certain the Church has not defected, we seek it out, we find it and we live according to the faith in spite of the "false prophets," the heretical hierarchy and their false church and religion, just as we are supposed to do and just as God expects us to do.
Our Lord said it is necessary that scandals come - well here they are. And He warned us to beware of false prophets because what they teach, deceives the faithful into believing heresies, who in turn teach their children and others heresies and so on, which is where we are at now.
We have and must depend on the Church's holy traditions to be our guide in all of this, stick to tradition and don't worry about something altogether impossible like the Church defecting.
Quote from: Julio on May 07, 2023, 12:40:57 AMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 06, 2023, 06:02:41 PMQuote from: Julio on May 06, 2023, 03:20:46 PMI agree on the matters of jurisdiction by the Pope. However, we are talking of a situation where the heresy of the Pope has made him suffered from excommunication latae sententiae.
If he is excommunicated latae sententiae, then he would no longer be pope. And this would be prior to any declaration by the cardinals.
To formally effectuate that there must be judicial declaration. (Can. 694 in keeping with Can. 335. Without the formal and judicial declation nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universl Church becasue there is a need for the special law to be issued under that circumstance.
Please read on my retort to Michael.
To officially depose and forcefully remove the heretic from office, there must be a declaration from the competent authority. I agree with you. However, the heretic loses office at time of the
fact of public manifest formal heresy and prior to any declaration by the competent authority. As such, one can make a private judgment of the loss of office and thereby refuse to submit to the heretic from the time the
fact takes place and prior to any declaration by the competent authority.
QuoteThe SV and Traditional groups deny that the Catholic church has defected, but what are the consequences or implications of their claims, except just that?
Willful blindness. "Except just that?". How about the formal organization calling itself the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church?
As I said I have no ill will to people who hold that heresiarch Bergoglio is the Pope. I just warn holding that position puts you at risk of losing the Faith. And from your writing, it looks like you are far down that road.
Fr. Kramer, the brave Fatima priest discussing heresiarch Bergoglio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Po9C0hlMIg
Quote from: james03 on May 08, 2023, 10:53:59 AMFr. Kramer, the brave Fatima priest discussing heresiarch Bergoglio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Po9C0hlMIg
I hold that Joseph Ratzinger was a true pope. I hold that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 08, 2023, 01:05:34 PMQuote from: james03 on May 08, 2023, 10:53:59 AMFr. Kramer, the brave Fatima priest discussing heresiarch Bergoglio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Po9C0hlMIg
I hold that Joseph Ratzinger was a true pope. I hold that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.
Who'd the Pope be now?
Quote from: Stubborn on May 08, 2023, 03:16:01 AMHere again, if the pope does not repent there is nothing that can be done about it. His subjects cannot "put him on notice," they cannot threaten to or actually elect a new pope.
You must consider that if this were allowable, then (like today) the cardinals are the ones who could be the heretics and (unlike today but possible) the pope the is the one who is *not* guilty of heresy. IOW, the cardinals would have the authority to replace a good pope with a bad pope.
However, the Cardinals have solemn duty to inform the Pope of his errors even if he shall not repent which is not in case of the situation of Pope Francis.
I wrote that based on
Can. 335 because much as the Pope is a monarch in terms of governance but having made that law must means
he is bounded by that too. It does not follow that if he is the author of the law he cannot be made subject to it. If he is the highest in the order of the hierarchy of jurisdiction it does not mean that the law shall not apply on him.
Also, the effect of the inaction of the Cardinals shall mean the Church Militant shall have the heretic person for a pope. The power to replace a pope shall mean replacing a good pope with the bad one if they shall use it for political purposes and abandon the truth of their solemn duty.
In the meantime that there is that inaction of the Cardinals then Pope Francis remains a pope.
At any rate Stubborn, in the series of our discussions what is only dangerous is the perception of the Magisterium. If we think that it is an absolute office like we must be bounded by the Pope for all that he is doing we shall think that he should have abandoned that office so that we shall not be part of his heresy. But if we think consciously that he is not God and as human he is a sinnner like us which is the truth, then for whatever he is doing there, he cannot bind anyone of us for his sinfulness because we are only with him on the truth of the Catholic Traditions and the Holy Scripture and his Magisterial powers is only limited to all that Jesus revealed.
I think, I must end all my opinions on this matter. God bless brother.
Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 08, 2023, 08:58:30 AMTo officially depose and forcefully remove the heretic from office, there must be a declaration from the competent authority. I agree with you. However, the heretic loses office at time of the fact of public manifest formal heresy and prior to any declaration by the competent authority. As such, one can make a private judgment of the loss of office and thereby refuse to submit to the heretic from the time the fact takes place and prior to any declaration by the competent authority.
The private judgment is dangerous. Our faith is not private but a public act in unity with God.
I already stated that my opinions must come to an end over this matter, and I stated that in my retort to Stubborn. I just can't help about the private judgment that you mentioned.
Again, thank you.
Quote from: Julio on May 08, 2023, 01:54:56 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 08, 2023, 08:58:30 AMTo officially depose and forcefully remove the heretic from office, there must be a declaration from the competent authority. I agree with you. However, the heretic loses office at time of the fact of public manifest formal heresy and prior to any declaration by the competent authority. As such, one can make a private judgment of the loss of office and thereby refuse to submit to the heretic from the time the fact takes place and prior to any declaration by the competent authority.
The private judgment is dangerous. Our faith is not private but a public act in unity with God.
I already stated that my opinions must come to an end over this matter, and I stated that in my retort to Stubborn. I just can't help about the private judgment that you mentioned.
Again, thank you.
Our Faith is both private and public. Not making a private judgment when the public facts are in your face is dangerous.
Quote from: californiacatholic on May 08, 2023, 01:44:48 PMQuote from: Catholic Knight on May 08, 2023, 01:05:34 PMQuote from: james03 on May 08, 2023, 10:53:59 AMFr. Kramer, the brave Fatima priest discussing heresiarch Bergoglio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Po9C0hlMIg
I hold that Joseph Ratzinger was a true pope. I hold that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.
Who'd the Pope be now?
The Catholic Church is currently in a period of sede vacante.
Julio,
I don't know what sources you are referring to.
The Pope can dispense anyone from the law (Ecclesiastical Law), for example the rules on fasting; prohibitive impediments on Matrimony; etc. etc. If he can dispense others, as the supreme legislator, he can dispense himself.
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/02/08/are-there-any-limitations-on-the-power-of-the-pope/
Here is an article:
QuoteThe pope can dispense from canon law in all cases that are not contrary to Divine law – except in the case of vows, espousals and marriages ratum sed non consummatum, or valid and consummated marriages of neophytes before baptism.
Quote from: Julio on May 08, 2023, 01:48:04 PMQuote from: Stubborn on May 08, 2023, 03:16:01 AMHere again, if the pope does not repent there is nothing that can be done about it. His subjects cannot "put him on notice," they cannot threaten to or actually elect a new pope.
You must consider that if this were allowable, then (like today) the cardinals are the ones who could be the heretics and (unlike today but possible) the pope the is the one who is *not* guilty of heresy. IOW, the cardinals would have the authority to replace a good pope with a bad pope.
However, the Cardinals have solemn duty to inform the Pope of his errors even if he shall not repent which is not in case of the situation of Pope Francis.
I wrote that based on Can. 335 because much as the Pope is a monarch in terms of governance but having made that law must means he is bounded by that too. It does not follow that if he is the author of the law he cannot be made subject to it. If he is the highest in the order of the hierarchy of jurisdiction it does not mean that the law shall not apply on him.
Also, the effect of the inaction of the Cardinals shall mean the Church Militant shall have the heretic person for a pope. The power to replace a pope shall mean replacing a good pope with the bad one if they shall use it for political purposes and abandon the truth of their solemn duty.
In the meantime that there is that inaction of the Cardinals then Pope Francis remains a pope.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that the pope is not above canon law. In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse explains this very subject, if I come across it while this thread is still alive, I will post it.
In the year 325 St. Athanasius said that "The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." Which is to say that a corrupt hierarchy is not something unique to the last 60 years.
Quote from: Julio on May 08, 2023, 01:48:04 PMAt any rate Stubborn, in the series of our discussions what is only dangerous is the perception of the Magisterium. If we think that it is an absolute office like we must be bounded by the Pope for all that he is doing we shall think that he should have abandoned that office so that we shall not be part of his heresy. But if we think consciously that he is not God and as human he is a sinnner like us which is the truth, then for whatever he is doing there, he cannot bind anyone of us for his sinfulness because we are only with him on the truth of the Catholic Traditions and the Holy Scripture and his Magisterial powers is only limited to all that Jesus revealed.
I think, I must end all my opinions on this matter. God bless brother.
We are bound to obey the pope in all matters that fall under his authority unless he should command something which is sinful. One of the reasons so many do not accept this principle is because they do not believe that it is possible for a pope to give sinful commands. Regardless of that, this principle remains true even today.
Yes, we are bound to the Church's Magisterium (teachings), but the pope is not the magisterium, neither is the cardinals and bishops. We know this because the teaching of the Church is that the Church's Magisterium enjoys permanent (Pope Leo XIII) immunity from error (PPXI), and is always without danger of error (Pope Gregory XVI), as such, we must remain bound to the Magisterium. This is to say that we cannot remain bound *to the commands* of the pope or to anyone who preaches contrary to it, not even if an angel from heaven were to preach contrary to it (St. Paul the Apostle).
Julio,
God Bless you also!
I wanted to add that if the Pope were to do as you are suggesting i.e. Make up a commission of Cardinals that would have the power to depose him; he would be guilty of the same heresy of Conciliarism, and he would be changing the Constitution of the Church as Our Lord has established it. He would by this very act, cease to be Catholic and therefore Pope. We are seeing a different attempt at the destruction of the Monarchical structure of the Church by Pope Francis in his "Synod of Synodality"; where it is the "ecclesia docens" (teaching Church)that is supposed to "listen" i.e. "Be taught" by the "ecclesia dicens" (learning Church i.e. The faithful).
In keeping with my promise that I am not making any further comments on the topic herein, can you please start a thread about that Mike, involving the Constitution of the Church? It shall be a good discourse I suppose for further enlightening of us Catholics in this time when Catechism is wanting.
Julio,
thanks for your response, I will look up some of my reference books and get back to you.
God Bless.