Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact??

I've heard some Benedict XVI defenders claim that even though he has made statements that apparently are not in line with Catholic teaching, that its OK because its his own "personal opinion".

So, is sedevacantism in regards to the last 5 papal claimants allowed as long as it remains one's "personal opinion" as a possibility, but not as a fact? In other words, if a Catholic doesn't claim as a fact that Benedict XVI is an anti-pope, but instead only holds a personal theological opinion that there is a possibility that he may not be a true Catholic Pope, then is that allowed?

By the way, I am not a sedevacantist. I accept Benedict XVI as the true Pope.

Missouri Mark wrote:
By the way, I am not a sedevacantist. I accept Benedict XVI as the true Pope.

And what do you base your certainty on?

I would guess that in order for it to be legitimate to hold an opinion of doubt as to the legitimacy of a claimant to the chair of Peter, it would first have to be proved that having a false pope is within the realms of possibility as in, not being contrary to the mind of the Church on the matter. As there indeed have been such false popes in the past, I think the question of "being within the realms of possibility" has been answered.

I would also consider it logical that before any certainty could be ascertained as to the illegitimacy of any given claimant to the chair, there would first have to be some reasonable doubts entertained by at least some people in order to start the ball rolling towards an investigation of the facts (or lack of) surrounding these doubts.

I for one have doubts as to the legitimacy of the current occupant of the chair in consideration of some of his unrecanted, pre-occupancy theological views contained in his writings.
Of course, my doubts don't equal certainty and I lack the competency and authority to promote my doubts as certainty. My doubts are personal though IMO compatible with the current state of the evidence.
Do I make my doubts known to others? Yes. but only to those I consider wiser and more astute than me (members of this form included). As to date, none of those in the mentioned category have succeeded in refuting the evidence and thus alleviating my doubts. Of those who have considered the evidence, a certain minority have preferred to make accusations of heresy rather than confront me with credible counter arguments.
My current position then (subject to change of course) is that in order to stand the best chance of saving my sin-prone soul, I keep a healthy scepticism regarding what proceeds from ANY modern-day mouth and prefer to entrust myself to the superior linguistic skills of the pre-Vat II Church.
All in a days work though.

Columba, I guess you refer to the anti-popes on which you base your doubts as to the legitimacy of the current occupant of the chair. But was it not always the case that all the anti-popes were typically supported by a fairly significant faction of religious cardinals and secular kings and kingdoms and that persons who claim to be the Pope but have few followers, such as the modern sedevacantists, are not even generally classified as antipopes?

This then poses for us the same question that Jesus asked his apostles, ''What about you, do you want to go away too?''
and thus requires the same response as given by Peter, ''Lord, who shall we go to?''

Who then are we to go to? I don't think that the SSPX nor even the Dimond brothers claim or seek title-ship to the chair.

So Columba, who then do we go to for the leadership that Christ invested in Peter and assured us by saying, ''That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it''.

If however, there is someone out there who believes that he (or she) has been appointed by God to lead the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, let him (or her) put up or shut up.


If you are disappointed in the current Pope or the previous Pope, it is well worth bearing in mind that Jesus still chose Peter despite all his well documented faults.

Missouri Mark wrote:I've heard some Benedict XVI defenders claim that even though he has made statements that apparently are not in line with Catholic teaching, that its OK because its his own "personal opinion".

So, is sedevacantism in regards to the last 5 papal claimants allowed as long as it remains one's "personal opinion" as a possibility, but not as a fact? In other words, if a Catholic doesn't claim as a fact that Benedict XVI is an anti-pope, but instead only holds a personal theological opinion that there is a possibility that he may not be a true Catholic Pope, then is that allowed?

By the way, I am not a sedevacantist. I accept Benedict XVI as the true Pope.

I discussed this with a priest a while back and was told that, yes, it is permissible to hold that doubt privately.

simple faith wrote:
Columba, I guess you refer to the anti-popes on which you base your doubts as to the legitimacy of the current occupant of the chair. But was it not always the case that all the anti-popes were typically supported by a fairly significant faction of religious cardinals and secular kings and kingdoms and that persons who claim to be the Pope but have few followers, such as the modern sedevacantists, are not even generally classified as antipopes?

Simple faith, Could you rephrase that paragraph. I don't get what your saying or if there's a question being asked that you wish me to answer.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think my doubts concerning the current Pontiff are associated with the fact that anti-popes have reigned before in the Church?
No. My doubts concern the fact that someone who promoted heretical viewpoints (and who's name once appeared on list of suspected heretics) has, -despite a church ruling to the contrary- been elected Pope.

This then poses for us the same question that Jesus asked his apostles, ''What about you, do you want to go away too?''
and thus requires the same response as given by Peter, ''Lord, who shall we go to?''

Totally different context.
Our Lord had just presented to His disciples a supernatural truth ("Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man etc..") that required a response of faith in His infallible word. i.e, God has said it, therefore it is true.
Our Lord did not say that from this time forth all bread would now become His Flesh. For all the disciples knew, He could have meant that they were to eat His Flesh in its current form.
When However, it was revealed at the Last Supper that His Flesh was to be consumed in the form of bread. and also the rite by which it was to be transformed, the apostles understood that the validity of this rite was central to the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

The same applies to the rite by which a candidate is elevated to the Chair of Peter. Certain conditions are attached. One such condition is that the candidate must not have in the past been guilty of professing doctrines contrary to the teachings of the Church. For example; the Lord would require that we should flee from an obviously invalid mass. St Thomas Aquinas would require that we stay away even from a doubtful mass; (a doubtful sacrament being no sacrament at all).
Therefore if there be unresolved and unaddressed doubts as to the validity of the occupant of the Chair of Peter, it would seem that one should at least proceed with caution while those doubts persist. This is my current stance and probably the unadmitted stance of many a Traditionalist Catholic.

Who then are we to go to? I don't think that the SSPX nor even the Dimond brothers claim or seek title-ship to the chair.

Regarding the SSPX, it would be rediculous for them to seek to elect one of their members to the position of supreme Pontiff while they acknowledge the current occupant to be legitimate.

As for sedevacantists, all as they can ascertain to their own satisfaction is that the present (and some previous) claimants to the Chair of Peter is/was illegitimate.
To require of them to solve the resulting problem as to where the next legitimate Pope should arise from, would be like asking the janitor of a multimillion dollar corporation to find a new director when the current one has gone AWOL.
As most of sedes adhere rigidly to the teachings and precepts of the Church, they could not elect a pope without contravening those precepts. They do however give their allegiance to those Popes prior to those who they believe are illegitimate. Thankfully many of these prior popes are still alive and well in the Church Triumphant and their writings (for our edification) outlive the days they spent as members of the Church Militant.

So Columba, who then do we go to for the leadership that Christ invested in Peter and assured us by saying, ''That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it''.

And who pray tell us simple faith who you would go to for leadership if you happened to find yourself unexpectedly marooned on a desert island? Hopefully you would have rescued your bible and a book or two of the writings of the saints. These I'm sure (along with prayer) would provide you with enough spiritual nourishment to keep your soul alive to such time as you were discovered by the rescue boat.

The doctors of the Church have attributed the "Gates of hell" as being the "tongues of heretics." We certainly should not then look towards heretics for leadership lest we should follow the leader down to the pit. One thing though for sure; the word of God is infallible and the heretics will not prevail.

If however, there is someone out there who believes that he (or she) has been appointed by God to lead the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, let him (or her) put up or shut up.

Again simple faith, you suggest that if the chair of Peter be vacant it is the job of someone out there to snatch the opportunity and impose themselves into the empty chair. For example, if a Pope were to die and his position remained vacant for (lets say) 50 yrs, and (lets say) for the want of a qualifying candidate or the indecision of the cardinals entrusted with electing a successor, would that automatically mean that the Lord had defaulted on His word? The Chair of Peter would still be there awaiting the next occupant, as would be the case if a particular occupant was there illegitimately.

If you are disappointed in the current Pope or the previous Pope, it is well worth bearing in mind that Jesus still chose Peter despite all his well documented faults.

I am not at all disappointed in the current occupant of the Chair. No Pope or no person has a duty to live up to my expectations. They have however a duty to live up to God's expectations and His requirements which He Himself -through His Church- has revealed to be necessary for the valid election of a Pope.

The fact that Jesus chose Peter even despite Peter's sinfulness, is reflected down through the ages in so far as every single Pope without exception was a sinner and at times, even grossly cowardly. What we do know for sure is that God does not choose heretics to occupy the high position of head of His Church. Any such heretic, even if he occupy the chair, would do so illegally.

Simple faith, I could, like you, by the use of generalization and refusal to get into any specifics, put up a good case against those who harbor such doubts as I. I do however, prefer to search for resolutions to the presently known facts that will permit me to abandon my doubts but I'll always prefer an unpalatable truth to a comfortable lie. Thus far I have not had a single point answered in anything coming close to a satisfactorily, and believe me, I keep the bar fairly low.
I don't imagine God having a duty to reveal to me the truth but I've learnt a lot about the faith in my search for it.

columba wrote:No. My doubts concern the fact that someone who promoted heretical viewpoints (and who's name once appeared on list of suspected heretics) has, -despite a church ruling to the contrary- been elected Pope.

...and has never clearly and unambiguously repudiated or clarified said viewpoints either, which justice alone would demand if he no longer held them, or if they could be clarified; and has in fact come out with even more, at least troubling, viewpoints, some even handily published in book form to go on to become international bestsellers...

Not even the anti-popes or the legitimate but personally immoral popes said anything remotely doctrinally unsound, as far as I understand the matter. St. Peter's faults were merely human weaknesses.

Thus far I have not had a single point answered in anything coming close to a satisfactorily, and believe me, I keep the bar fairly low.

Neither have I. All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all.

So let me get this clear,
Columba wrote,

My doubts concern the fact that someone who promoted heretical viewpoints (and who's name once appeared on list of suspected heretics) has, -despite a church ruling to the contrary- been elected Pope.

and also,

What we do know for sure is that God does not choose heretics to occupy the high position of head of His Church. Any such heretic, even if he occupy the chair, would do so illegally.

Yet then you go on to say,

I am not at all disappointed in the current occupant of the Chair.

[quote]

Have I missed something???


Now if the SSPX are accepting of the present Pope and the poor sedes can't be expected to suggest a new replacement what are we to do???

Is it the case then that the Lord has abandoned His Church and left it without an earthly head and we should all sit around lamenting about how good all those Popes of times long gone by used to be.

No, I think that even if you are just a 'janitor' (at least one with outspoken opinions on what is wrong with the 'director' who has gone 'AWOL') then your opinion could stretch as far as suggesting a suitable replacement.
Even the armchair football fan is never short on suggestions for a new manager.

So back to my original question, who should we follow if not the present Pope??

Great opportunity here now for any 'closet sedevacantists' on this forum to 'come out' and make a nomination.

Simple faith ,
I feel I have answered all of those questions you posed in my previous reply.
You're simply asking the exact same questions again as if I hadn't responded at all.

Anyway, here goes again.
I am NOT at all disappointed in the current occupier of the Chair of Peter in the same way that I am NOT disappointed in the fact that some souls go to heaven and some go to hell. To be so would mean that I'd be disappointed in the just judgments of God.
My only disappointment would be that my own personal sin would have contributed to the state where God would permit what always has been possible. If God has allowed such confusion as a punishment then I'm not disappointed; I accept it, and work all the harder to keep the Faith as always and everywhere believed.

If you have missed something, then maybe you haven't read my previous post correctly.

Now if the SSPX are accepting of the present Pope and the poor sedes can't be expected to suggest a new replacement what are we to do???

Is it the case then that the Lord has abandoned His Church and left it without an earthly head and we should all sit around lamenting about how good all those Popes of times long gone by used to be.

Again I would refer you to the answer I gave in my previous post.

Those poor sede's (as you term them) have reached their conclusions according to the evidence currently available.
Simple faith, may I ask you tha same question that I asked Missouri Mark; On what do you base your certainty?
I have based my doubts on the actual words and actions of BXVI. If you don't have problems with these then you're probably the only person I know who does not. I'm talking here of those who have actually taken the trouble to study them. And yes, it is a very Catholic thing to read the words of a Pope.

Here's another question for you Simple Faith; From where did you get the knowledge that permits you to believe that it is impossible for a Pope to be invalidly elected?
If it did transpire at some future date that in fact we did have an invalid Pope, where would that put the poor sesde's? It would put them in the category of those who discerned this by reference to the all-time teachings of the Church. Where would it put those who hung onto every word that proceeded from the mouth of an invalid pope and followed him in his errors? The best scenario would be that they swallow their pride and reject the invalid Pope and any erroneous teachings they had been infected with and adopt again true Church teachings and thus save their souls. The worst scenario; having placed themselves on the wrong road, they could find themselves too engrossed in a one-world-church to return to the truths of the Faith.

No, I think that even if you are just a 'janitor' (at least one with outspoken opinions on what is wrong with the 'director' who has gone 'AWOL') then your opinion could stretch as far as suggesting a suitable replacement.
Even the armchair football fan is never short on suggestions for a new manager.

I don't know whether I'm meant to take you seriously on this point but I'll proceed by assuming you are serious.
The armchair football fan, even if he did suggest a replacement would have absolutely no power to impose this suggested replacement on anyone.

So back to my original question, who should we follow if not the present Pope??

Your question suggests that there is no doubt at all that he is Pope. Fair enough; I'll also assume this position and ask you, In what way are you currently following the Pope?
Will you be attending Assisi in October?
Are you currently of the mind that Jews do not need to be converted to Christ?
Do you accept that the Muslim faith is a respectable faith and worthy of esteem? Do you accept that Holy Communion can be received by non-Catholics?
Do you believe that those outside the Catholic Church can be saved?
Do you believe that the sacraments are efficacious when administered outside the Catholic Church?

These are valid questions (a small sample only). I'd appreciate you answering them.

Great opportunity here now for any 'closet sedevacantists' on this forum to 'come out' and make a nomination.

And a great opportunity to debate the issues.
Having an open mind on the matter I can present the sedevante arguments for your refutation if you feel up to it.
It will mean of course getting down to specifics and using reason rather than ad hominem. I haven't seen this happen as yet but still worth the trying. Smug political-correctness can be a merciless opponent but a poor substitute for truth.

Columba wrote,
[quote]I feel I have answered all of those questions you posed in my previous reply.
You're simply asking the exact same questions again as if I hadn't responded at all.
[quote]
OK, maybe I rambled of course and posed too many points, but I feel you still have not answered my main question, so I'll simplify it and ask it again so as we have a clear starting point for any future debate.
Here it is again, in its simplist form, do you accept Pope Benedict XVI as the true and legitimate head of the Catholic Church?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice for the purpose of future debate.
However if you wish to sit on the fence, and answer that you are uncertain, well that is also fine but will focus the direction of future debate. (but remember, if you sit on the fence too long you can get splinters in your backside).

My starting position is that the Catholic Church does have a legimate Pope who should be fully accepted as the true successor of Peter.

I would also welcome the direct opinion of other forum members on this basic question.

Simple Faith wrote:
Here it is again, in its simplist form, do you accept Pope Benedict XVI as the true and legitimate head of the Catholic Church?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice for the purpose of future debate.
However if you wish to sit on the fence, and answer that you are uncertain, well that is also fine but will focus the direction of future debate. (but remember, if you sit on the fence too long you can get splinters in your backside).

I've already stated my position in my first post. I keep an open mind. My question to you was., On what do you base the certainty of your position?
Hopefully this will be revealed in our discussion.

I fail to see how my position could focus the direction of any further discussion. If there were no debatable issues there'd be no fence to sit on. My sitting on the fence on this issue is due solely to the extra degree of certainty I impose on myself relevant to the nature of the subject. If it were merely of a secular nature I would have already come down on the side of "beyond reasonable doubt."
In this case though I've deleted the word "Reasonable." Thus, I can live with the splinters at this particular point. They can always be removed later. Planks are more of a pain. Big as they are, they have a certain knack of avoiding detection.

In the absence of any self-declared 100% sedes currently active on this forum, I don't mind representing them as I am aware of all the arguments for their position. I could just as easily argue from your position too as I have also heard all the arguments against, and, like I mentioned, none of them IMO satisfactory to the point of resolution. Hopefully Simple Faith, you will have something new to bring to the table or a least present the familiar arguments in a more credible way.
Starting from the position of an already closed mind (I detect this from your posts) could make it impossible for you to change your view no matter what the evidence. My position however, is subject to change according to the evidence presented. A good starting point then may be to discuss the possibility/impossibility of an illegal claimant occupying the Chair of Peter. If we can establish this much there may be a good hope of progressing further. Here's Hoping.

Columba wrote,

I've already stated my position in my first post. I keep an open mind.

Now, I must say that I didn't detect too much of 'an open mind' in your previous post. In fact IMO you came dangerously close to implying that the pope is a heretic without much balance on the other side ie that the Pope has been divinely appointed as the successor of St. Peter.

You ask on what do I base my certainty that Pope Benedict XVI is the true and legitimate head of the Catholic Church.
My answer might seem a bit radical, but here goes and fingers crossed that it is not too naive.
I was baptised a Catholic and part of the expectation of being a Catholic is that one accepts the Pope as the divinely appointed head of that Church. Despite the fact that that might sound naive and radical today, it has actually been widely accepted as a necessary belief for around 2000 years. I guess you could call it 'traditional' and therefore maybe I could be classified as a 'traditiolist' in that respect.

So forgive me for already having a 'closed mind' and not sitting on the fence with you on this one but hope this won't prevent discussion that will lead to you eventually jumping off the fence.

I will certainly accept your suggestion to discuss the possibility/impossibility of an illegal claimant occupying the Chair of Peter but I have to leave rigth now but will get back shortly.

In the mean time 'keep the faith'.

Now, I must say that I didn't detect too much of 'an open mind' in your previous post. In fact IMO you came dangerously close to implying that the pope is a heretic without much balance on the other side ie that the Pope has been divinely appointed as the successor of St. Peter.

That's because I already stated I would be representing the sede side. If I were called on to be a moderator in a debate between both sides I would then of course be taking the neutral stance. I have much more practice being the neutral on-looker than the debater. In fact I started as a anti-sede with a tightly closed mind; the only thing capable of opening it being the actual debates themselves where I found myself giving the victory 95% of the time to the sede. The other 5 percent I would have given a draw. That 5% draw is why I still sit on the fence while leaning in favor of the evidence thus far.

You ask on what do I base my certainty that Pope Benedict XVI is the true and legitimate head of the Catholic Church.
My answer might seem a bit radical, but here goes and fingers crossed that it is not too naive.
I was baptised a Catholic and part of the expectation of being a Catholic is that one accepts the Pope as the divinely appointed head of that Church. Despite the fact that that might sound naive and radical today, it has actually been widely accepted as a necessary belief for around 2000 years. I guess you could call it 'traditional' and therefore maybe I could be classified as a 'traditiolist' in that respect.

I agree with the above. I too am a baptized Catholic and I too hold that allegiance must be given to a validly elected Pope. I do not think however that an invalidly elected Pope is of Divine appointment and therefore I would do the Catholic thing (as I believe you would) in such a case and not give him any allegiance at all. In a doubtful case I proceed with caution until it can be verified one way or the other.
Anyway, for the sake of this discussion I will be taking the sede side.

So forgive me for already having a 'closed mind' and not sitting on the fence with you on this one but hope this won't prevent discussion that will lead to you eventually jumping off the fence.

Of course this won't prevent discussion. What would prevent discussion would be if you were to take the same stance as me; in that case it would merely be a mutual back-patting fiasco.
The closed-mind refers to an inability to go where the facts lead and can be associated with one's own bias, pride, human respect or, the fear of facing uncomfortable facts. It can also come from a fear of offending God and this to me is a good closed-mind and the type which I will accredit to you for the duration of these discussions. I posses this closed mind myself in regards to the dogmatic proclamations of the Church.

I will certainly accept your suggestion to discuss the possibility/impossibility of an illegal claimant occupying the Chair of Peter but I have to leave rigth now but will get back shortly.

Ok. Preliminaries over. Would you like to commence or shall I?

Columba, I just sent a reply but it doesnt seem to have arrived. So much for all my collected thoughts which I'm sure would have converted you had you received them.
But I will reply again tomorrow. Good to see you taking the side of the sedes as nothing gets my blood boiling like those guys do. Anyway I'll try and be charitable because they may in fact eventually be saved by a rescue life-boat sent from the true mother-ship. Maybe then they will be thankful God didn't limit his salvation and mercy to the narrowness of their little corrupted minds.

A word to the wise...

Your first mistake:

Maybe then they will be thankful God didn't limit his salvation and mercy to the narrowness of their little corrupted minds.

Do you really expect a sedevacantist, closeted or otherwise, would even listen to anything you would have to say when you insult them right at the beginning?

Carry on.

This should be interesting.

simple Faith wrote:Columba, I just sent a reply but it doesnt seem to have arrived. So much for all my collected thoughts which I'm sure would have converted you had you received them.
But I will reply again tomorrow. Good to see you taking the side of the sedes as nothing gets my blood boiling like those guys do. Anyway I'll try and be charitable because they may in fact eventually be saved by a rescue life-boat sent from the true mother-ship. Maybe then they will be thankful God didn't limit his salvation and mercy to the narrowness of their little corrupted minds.

Great start Simple Faith.
If this is you being charitable then what can we expect when the debate begins?
Really though, you should contain yourself and give your side at least some semblance of credibility. You are already interfering with my chances of a possible conversion. Who would want to be taken up into a new-age mother-ship?

Anyway, I'll put this little outburst behind me and charitably attribute it to the fact that your prepared post disappeared into cyberspace. It happened to me a couple of times and could try even the patience of a saint.

Ok, I'm just back from my Reiki class and have had some crystal healing so I now feel a whole lot more positive and energetic, (just kidding by the way).
So just to begin where I last left off,
if I upset any sede by my previous comments, well good, they certainly need to be upset because by holding rigidly to their own terms of salvation they ironically hang themselves with their own hand-woven rope. For if there is no salvation OUTSIDE the bosum of the Catholic church (which I believe, but more of that later) and the Pope is the legitimate head on earth (as I propose) then they by their very own belief or rather disbelief, are not in conmunnion with the Pope and therefore not within the Church and are on the road to damnation. So in my opinion the sedes do have a narrow corrupted mind in the true sense and definition of the words, narrow, corrupted and 'mind'. In fact I feel I was being charitable to them by giving them the hope of being saved by the very Church who's legitimate head they would condemn.

Lourdes, if the 'out-in-the open' sedes or 'closet' sedes were to feel insulted by my blunt remarks then that too would be ironic as I have not known any sedes who were anything other than down-right insulting and disrespectful in their remarks against the recent Popes.

Now anyway back to the conversion of Columba (the aspiring sede or true Catholic) who I'm sure will be able to endure the arrows and spears of truth which I still have to fire (hopefully the ongoing assualt by Mryan will, by now, have him weak and vunerable). Any thin-skinned sedes out there should now take cover.

Columba, despite what you might imagine, I do not have a problem with the 'possibility' of a Pope straying from the truth or having erred in personal theology (even if done in public) but they would not formally and unequivocally teach error in the name of the Church. Therefore, for example, you are not denied the right to hold to the interpretation of a dogma as understood from the time it was declared even though it may later be expanded upon by future Popes as with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The extent of and numbers of those saved within the' bosum' of the church is not specifically defined so there is room to opinionate on who this includes or excludes. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, and a few Popes, have given personal opinions on this, and although the central truth of the dogma will always hold true, ie. anyone who is saved, is saved through the Church. The actual limit or extent of this salvation is for God alone to decide regardless of what either you, I or the Pope personally think (unless of course the Pope speaks on this matter through the chair).
The same also holds true for the Latin Mass, it seems a popular notion by the sedes that the Pope got rid of it. But we know, that although it is a lot less common since the intoduction of the 'new' mass we are not denied the right to attend the Traditional Latin Mass.
But the most important thing that any sede should keep constantly on his mind is to know that none of the Pope's subjects (neither you, I nor the Dimond brothers) has the right to pass judgment on the Pope with respect to his office (Canon 1556), since he cannot be authoritatively admonished (Canon 1558), and thus deprived by a superior (since he has none) nor by any Law since "the Pope is Superior to Canon Law and because of this no Bishop Exists who is not his inferior" (Pope Benedict XLV. Constitution Magnae Nobis. 1748).
No doubt you would cite the case of Pope Honorius who was excommunicated and condemned but this was only after his death as the only authority competent to judge Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI (the successors of Peter) is a future Pope.
So we should tread very gently with accusations of heresy or wilful disobedience to the Pope as we skate on very thin ice. In fact I would suggest that far from condemning a Pope or denying our allegiance to him because he might err we should in fact love him all the more.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is often referred to on this forum, yet despite his personal diificulties he stated, " The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen?''
One final thought for now, just like the sedes who might hang themselves with their own rope by putting their owm limits on God's salvation, could not someone accusing the pope of being a heretic actually be committing the actual act of heresy himself?

Hope this is enough for you Columba, or anyone else, to be getting on with for now.

Anyway got to run now, I think that's my new-age friend at the door with her angel cards.

Lourdes, if the 'out-in-the open' sedes or 'closet' sedes were to feel insulted by my blunt remarks then that too would be ironic as I have not known any sedes who were anything other than down-right insulting and disrespectful in their remarks against the recent Popes.

That's very sad, Simple Faith. SInce when do two wrongs make a right?

I thought your objective is to show them the error of their ways? How do you expect to do that when you insult them from the get-go? A Missionary of Charity once told me something - when you lose the heart, you lose all.

If you put someone immediately on the defensive by insulting them, they are not going to listen to anything you have to say.

Simple Faith wrote:
if I upset any sede by my previous comments, well good, they certainly need to be upset because by holding rigidly to their own terms of salvation they ironically hang themselves with their own hand-woven rope. For if there is no salvation OUTSIDE the bosum of the Catholic church (which I believe, but more of that later) and the Pope is the legitimate head on earth (as I propose) then they by their very own belief or rather disbelief, are not in conmunnion with the Pope and therefore not within the Church and are on the road to damnation. So in my opinion the sedes do have a narrow corrupted mind in the true sense and definition of the words, narrow, corrupted and 'mind'. In fact I feel I was being charitable to them by giving them the hope of being saved by the very Church who's legitimate head they would condemn.

No offense taken BTW.
I was more concerned with the fact that you would undermine a possible good debate by pulling the rug from under your own feet by resorting to ad hominem before the discussion even got off the ground. Ad hominem is usually employed when one can't refute the others argument so I was expecting you would reserve this for my next reply.

If by the end of this discussion you have proved that the sede vacante position is devoid of credibility, then by all means call them names if you think that be the best way to convert them, but to begin by rendering your merciful judgment and sparing them damnation, has already placed you above the Pope and exalted you to the even higher position of God. If you are to stay within the limits of your own belief, you best subject yourself to the Pope and cease attempting to outrank him.

Lourdes, if the 'out-in-the open' sedes or 'closet' sedes were to feel insulted by my blunt remarks then that too would be ironic as I have not known any sedes who were anything other than down-right insulting and disrespectful in their remarks against the recent Popes.

This may be due to the fact that the only sedes your familiar with are the brothers Dimonds. There are in fact those among the sede ranks who are quite reserved in their choice of language towards those whom they believe are leading the Church to ruin.

Now anyway back to the conversion of Columba (the aspiring sede or true Catholic) who I'm sure will be able to endure the arrows and spears of truth which I still have to fire (hopefully the ongoing assualt by Mryan will, by now, have him weak and vunerable). Any thin-skinned sedes out there should now take cover.

You happen to be up against a very thick-skinned fence-sitter and Mike knows that I'm not prone to crumble under assault. If however my questions are addressed and answered in accord with the infallible teachings of the Church, I will gladly eat humble pie and adorn myself in sack-cloth and ashes. Seriously!

Columba, despite what you might imagine, I do not have a problem with the 'possibility' of a Pope straying from the truth or having erred in personal theology (even if done in public) but they would not formally and unequivocally teach error in the name of the Church.

Then who's name are they teaching in? I thought that you believed that the Pope spoke in the name of the Church even when not speaking infallibly? When a Pope decides to temporarily resign his office in order to speak privately (as BXVI has done) then you have a point, but, when he teaches under his office as Peter, then you must believe he is teaching in the name of the Church. No?
Specific teachings I'll address later.

Therefore, for example, you are not denied the right to hold to the interpretation of a dogma as understood from the time it was declared

Thanks for conceding me this right to hold to a dogma as once understood. I however class it more as a duty than a right.

even though it may later be expanded upon by future Popes as with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Yes. And you forgot to add, "without change to its original meaning."
more on this later.

The extent of and numbers of those saved within the' bosum' of the church is not specifically defined so there is room to opinionate on who this includes or excludes. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, and a few Popes, have given personal opinions on this, and although the central truth of the dogma will always hold true, ie. anyone who is saved, is saved through the Church. The actual limit or extent of this salvation is for God alone to decide regardless of what either you, I or the Pope personally think (unless of course the Pope speaks on this matter through the chair).

Deary, deary me Simple Faith. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Although the number of the saved has not been specifically defined; the specifics of those who actually can be saved HAS been defined and defined dogmatically. As you say, "Through the chair." And EXCLUDED are, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Heretics, Apostates and Schismatics. Do you agree thus far?
this will be relevant as our discussion progresses.

The same also holds true for the Latin Mass, it seems a popular notion by the sedes that the Pope got rid of it. But we know, that although it is a lot less common since the intoduction of the 'new' mass we are not denied the right to attend the Traditional Latin Mass.

This right has been conceded under mounting pressure from Traditionalists. I for one am denied the right to attend the TLM in my own parish and have to travel 2 hrs journey in order to attend.
This issue of the Mass will be relevant later too.

But the most important thing that any sede should keep constantly on his mind is to know that none of the Pope's subjects (neither you, I nor the Dimond brothers) has the right to pass judgment on the Pope with respect to his office (Canon 1556), since he cannot be authoritatively admonished (Canon 1558), and thus deprived by a superior (since he has none) nor by any Law since "the Pope is Superior to Canon Law and because of this no Bishop Exists who is not his inferior" (Pope Benedict XLV. Constitution Magnae Nobis. 1748).
No doubt you would cite the case of Pope Honorius who was excommunicated and condemned but this was only after his death as the only authority competent to judge Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI (the successors of Peter) is a future Pope.

This is irrelevant to what we are hoping to achieve here. We are meant to be discussing whether it is possible or not, for a candidate who has spoken or written things which are heretical, prior to his election, legitimately attaining the office of Roman Pontiff.
I believe that this is not possible. Not by my own fallible opinion but by the infallible declaration of Pope Paul IV in his Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559; where he declares;

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define; that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(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;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash
presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.



The question then for me is; Did Benedict XIV speak or write that which is heretical before his election to the chair of Peter.? That's what I hope to prove by his own writings.
The more difficult thing to prove is, If a genuine Pope should fall into heresy, does he cease to hold his office? Much divided opinion on this but It would appear that the likelihood is that he does relinquish his office though I wouldn't bet my life on it. However I would be prepared to stake my life on the above quoted declaration of Pope Paul IV, that a heretic CANNOT be elected Pope.

So we should tread very gently with accusations of heresy or wilful disobedience to the Pope as we skate on very thin ice. In fact I would suggest that far from condemning a Pope or denying our allegiance to him because he might err we should in fact love him all the more.

I disagree.. We should seek to determine the validity of a Pope when there are serious doubts as to the lawfulness of his election. Even more-so when the fruits of his pontificate suggests that the majority of the faithful are adhering to previously condemned heresies and using the Pope's own words and actions to give legitimacy to their state of abject faithlessness.
If a Pope should err in a matter of already defined faith. He should be condemned for the sake of the souls that may be lost who ignorantly follow him.
Praying for his conversion would be the most sincere act of love but being critical of obvious heresy is not contrary to charity; it is in fact a requirement of true charity.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is often referred to on this forum, yet despite his personal diificulties he stated, " The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen?''

I disagree with the great Archbishop that the blame for putting the Church into an inextricable situation should lie with those who have fought to save it from such.
The blame lies squarely with those -despising the anathemas of previous Popes- should presume to elevate an invalid candidate to the chair of Peter. And also with he who knowingly accepted the high position while still promoting even more wild theology.

One final thought for now, just like the sedes who might hang themselves with their own rope by putting their own limits on God's salvation, could not someone accusing the pope of being a heretic actually be committing the actual act of heresy himself?

This would be true if the accusations were groundless. You speak as if there is no way of distinguishing heresy from truth. In fact it is quite easy to do so by referring to the already established truths which are most clearly defined in the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church.
Many -unfortunately- today believe that there is no means by which objective truth can be known. This itself is heresy.

The question we should really be endeavouring to answer is,; Did BXVI, before his election, contradict any known dogmas or doctrines of the faith? The rest of my argument or lack of, hinges on the answer to this question.
I will provide the specifics if you wish or would you prefer to reply to this post first?

Unlike your average sedevacantist, I'm confining my arguments solely to the present Pope as it's his pre-election circumstances that bother me more than the heretical statements since his taking office (though these of course bother me too).
Will you let me know then if you agree that a heretic cannot be elected Pope?

Bye for now.

As our old friend JAT once said, “In the discussion of what qualifies as ‘public defection’ qua Canon 188.4, we find ourselves faced with another gaping hole in the sedevacantist position, namely, that acts of jurisdiction posited an excommunicant against whom a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has not been laid down, are VALID.”

Precisely; and here’s why:

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:

Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, especially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required].

In other words, even if John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and BXVI were rip-roaring obstinate heretics, their acts of jurisdiction (as Supreme Pontiff) would be VALID because they were never subject (prior to their elevation) to condemnatory or declaratory sentences for heresy, apostasy or schism.

In other words, the key phrase of Cum ex which says "if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office]... none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid" has been superseded by the 1917 Code which declares quite explicitly that his acts of power or administration are illicit but valid (and may even be licit in certain circumstances), and may not be deemed “invalid” until a “condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down” by the Church.

In fact, in commenting on my article by James Larson and on Tornpage’s comments, columba replied:

MRyan I mistakenly attributed those writing to you. Nevertheless as you posted this I take it your in agreemant with it. So am I.

Tornpage wrote:

I think one must come to one of two possible conclusions: a) the pope's faith could never fail, and he couldn't be a heretic; or, b) even if that were to be the case, his actions would still retain their validity since he would retain his authority and jurisdiction - after all, the actions of priests and bishops who have "lost the faith" and left the Church prior to a Church declaration still possess their force and legal effect, i.e. their actions were valid. Which accords with what Salza was saying (which, for the reasons I discussed in a prior post, do not meet the sede objection), and also accords with Larson as to the Athanasian bishops, etc. - even if they might disagree on the possibility of a heretical pope.

I favor option a), however (like Salza and Larson).

I also favor option a) but I believe option b)

So columba “favors” the conclusion that says “the pope's faith could never fail, and he couldn't be a heretic”, but believes “even if that were to be the case [that he lost his office through manifest heresy], his actions would still retain their validity since he would retain his authority and jurisdiction - after all, the actions of priests and bishops who have ‘lost the faith’ and left the Church prior to a Church declaration still possess their force and legal effect, i.e. their actions were valid".

Will the real columba please stand up?

Ignoring all of this, and even ignoring his prior admission that “It's a rare occasion when I find myself in agreement with you but this is one such instance where I am. I have had vague reservations as to the infallibility of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and as you correctly pointed out that this is purely a disciplinary matter (not faith and morals) then its infallible nature is very questionable”, columba once again jumps on the “Cum ex is infallible” bandwagon by saying:

We are meant to be discussing whether it is possible or not, for a candidate who has spoken or written things which are heretical, prior to his election, legitimately attaining the office of Roman Pontiff.

I believe that this is not possible. Not by my own fallible opinion but by the infallible declaration of Pope Paul IV in his Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559; where he declares;

Canon law “proves” that “a candidate who has spoken or written things which are [objectively] heretical, prior to his election, [may] legitimately attain the office of Roman Pontiff”, and that not only are “his acts of power or administration” valid (but illicit), they may also be licit under certain emergency circumstances. Columba says he "agrees" and even "beleives" this, and now turns right around to challenge that which he said he beleives as true, is actually false.

As I said before, columba's appeal to the “infallibility” of Cum ex without recourse to the subsequent changes and clarifications to the law (no “change” would be possible if the provisions of Cum ex were “infallible”) is a recipe for anarchy and schism. As Pope Pius IX said in Quartus Supra: "every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church”, and yours is no exception.

Of course, this is all an “academic” exercise to “prove” that Pope Benedict XVI is not actually the Vicar of Christ; he is, rather, an imposter who fell from the Catholic faith prior to his illicit elevation to the papacy. And your appeal to the on-again, off-again “infallible” Bull Cum ex as your instrument of choice to justify the removal of the pope from his divinely conferred power and authority is an exercise in futility by an uneducated layman who refuses to be moderated or corrected by the Church.

You are, after all, the same person who does not know the difference between a dogmatic definition and general infallibility; so it does not surprise us that you have a hard time distinguishing changeable and fallible disciplinary measures from the infallibility of divine law.

You also ignore the clear implications of what happens when Catholics, while refusing to be moderated and corrected by the living Magisterium (oh wait, there is no “living Magisterium” once the pope is arbitrarily deposed), take it upon themselves to “interpret” and apply Cum ex “as it is written”, for, as it was demonstrated, anyone armed with Cum ex can (and has) make the case that this or that "anti-pope" was a manifest (obstinate) heretic prior to his elevation. While you would like to restrict the present “discussion” to Pope BXVI, the implications of your appeal to Cum ex are far more reaching, as sede’s have accused the likes of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII and every “anti-pope” since then of manifest heresy.

And given the clear literal meaning of the words of Cum ex, “since all the acts of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would have to be considered invalid, there would now exist no valid Cardinals needed to elect a new Pope. The Church, in other words, would have failed, despite the promises of Our Lord, and despite the teaching of Vatican I as quoted above.” (see https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t256-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio)

Furthermore:

This would mean that any bishops who were guilty of Arianism or semi-Arianism would have been deprived of their office, and all their acts, including consecrations of other bishops and ordinations of priest would have been invalid. ... The same automatic deprivation of office and invalidation of all consecrations of bishops and ordination of priests would have applied to any bishop tainted with Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism, the Iconoclastic heresy, Jansenism, or hundreds of other heresies or variations of heresies. There would be absolutely no validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches since they were rooted from the beginning in the rejection of the Roman Primacy.

If you want your cake, you are going to have to eat it too and accept the implications of your rash, uneducated and totally misguided appeal to Cum ex.

columba wrote:

Will you let me know then if you agree that a heretic cannot be elected Pope?

God would not allow a manifest (obstinate) heretic to become His Vicar. The divine institution of the Church is visible and a lawful and valid pope is central to that perpetual visibility.

To even think that you can “prove” that Pope Benedict XVI was a manifest and pertinacious heretic who “lost” the Catholic faith prior to his elevation makes a mockery of the divine institution of the Papacy itself, not to mention the dogma that places Peter’s faith as the foundation of our communion and unity with the Church.

Go ahead, columba, continue with your sede swamp “theology”. It really is quite the spectacle.

While you’re at it, why not go the Jehanne route and level the same charge against Pope Benedict XVI as he did against JPII:

That Pope John Paul II was a heretic for what he stated in Redemptoris Missio does not trouble me in the least, but we've been down that road before. (Just because he may be in Hell is not an invitation to join him there, is it? With respect to his sorry-ass Pontificate, the only thing that I profess is that I am not his judge.)

And yet, he already judged him to be a heretic, just as you are seeking to judge Pope BXVI as an anti-pope and heretic.

And you have the audacity, along with the rest of the angst-laden hand-wringers (“oh dear, what are we to do – the pope may not be the pope – oh, woe is me!”) to accuse Simple Faith of having a bad attitude or of failing in charity?

Yeah, right. You’re just miffed because S-F refuses to take you seriously. But, who can blame her? I don’t take you seriously, either.

I believe Simple Faith asked you a simple question - do we have a valid pope or don't we? I would add to this, how is it possible that the Church can remain who she is (indefectible, visible and perpetual) when she has been without a true Vicar for some 53 years, and thus, if Cum ex is "infallible", the Church is without ordinary jurisdiction, valid sacraments and perpetual Apostolic succession?

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio should be considered not as a justification for considering the Chair of Peter to be empty, but rather as an object-lesson to traditionalists who, like Paul IV, are tempted to intemperate harshness and zeal in the face of crisis in the Church. When anger, bitterness and despair become the soul's invited guest, then charity and intelligence flee. What is most astonishing in all this is that normally intelligent, and even learned, Catholics are entertaining or embracing such foolishness – a foolishness which, if taken seriously, would simply mean the end of the Catholic Church. (James Larson, The War Against The Papacy

You may think that you are just playing "devil's advocate" because the regular sede swampers took leave of this Forum (good riddance), but you are more devil that advocate, and you are not convincing at all.

To those who believe that we have same obligation to "prove" to you that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope, I am not here to "prove" a negative. There are some things that are maters of faith, and this is one of them. No amount of "proof" of our Lords promise of an indefectible Church and our Lords' promise to Peter of a never-failing faith can satisfy those who believe they are smarter then the Church and listen to every sede piece of propaganda that comes down the pike.

That the sede fence-sitters remain "unconvinced" is their problem, not mine; you either trust that the infallible teaching of VCI that declared "our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt ... The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”, OR YOU DON'T.

Quit wallowing in the sede swamp, columba, and come to your senses.

I'm not holding my breath.

You and Simple Faith have had success in reuniting sedes with the Church by insulting them?

I will stay within the unity and bossom of Holy Mother Church and fight for our faith. Also I would not be part of this forum if I could or would not be in agreement with the combined statement which heads all our postings. " No salvation outside the Church forum" along with" The owner of this forum submits to the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, current Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church"

Having said that lets understand where we are in history. We can all agree that we want to get to Heaven. One can only be terrified by the warrnings and words of Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Akita both approved by our Church. We are in very dire times and probably on the cusp of great punishment for our sins and lack of faith. All of our Popes for the last several decades knew what was happening in the Church. Pope Benedict XVI has referred many times to the crisis within the Church. There were countless laments by Pope Paul the VIth on how Vatican Council II was not at all what we had hoped for. Pope Paul VIth said that the smoke of satan has entered the church . How often can we all remmember the deep sad contemplative eyes of Pope John Paul II. He looked like the weight of the world was on his shoulders; and it was. He spoke of satan reaching the highest places in our Church. I am sure that I did my due dillegence and research in saying the dying words of Pope John XXIII was Stop the Council, Stop the Council. St Padre Pio refused to say the Novus Order Mass and sent message back to Rome to stop the council. It was said that a posse of bishops visited him and begged him what was the 3rd secret of Fatima at which he finally told them, Beware of Bishops ,
If need be, I would be happy to provide sources for above information and comments.

So, what does this have to do with Sedevacanist position or membership. I believe if it were not for the guideance of the Holy Spirit we would be in emminent peril of the almost the complete loss of faith worldwide As it is now , there are hardly any true Catholics that I Know. It is the responsibilty of our Church leaders to give us correct moral instruction on our journey into eternity. With the current novelties, abuses and lack of direction along with loss of moral compass, it is no wonder that we have sedevacanist. I empathize with them, I fell their pain and frustration and yearning for Christ Church to be true to His instructions BUT, I pray also for their return to the church and fight the battle with us thru, Prayer, Rosaries, sacrifice love, charity and good example.
We have God's word that the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Lourdes wrote:You and Simple Faith have had success in reuniting sedes with the Church by insulting them?

It is not my "job" to reunite sedes with the Church; and if they feel "insulted" because I refuse to accept or give "respect" to their faith-killing objective heresies, too bad.

The sede fence-sitters on this Forum have no problem insulting the Pope, insulting the Church and insulting the Faith, and if you want to cry a river of tears about the poor misunderstood sedes's, go ahead; but please excuse me if I don't join you in this pathetic hand-wringing display of false charity.

We have a true Pope and he is Christ's Vicar ... if you don't know that; I can't help you. If you want sympathy and empathy for doubting or rejecting this, you won't get it from me.

It's time for some "tough love", and enough of this game where faith-killing sede swamp theories are given equal footing with the dogmatic teachings of the Church pertaining to the visible and indefectible Church, perpetual succession and the Primacy of Peter, upon whom:

our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt ... The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

Place your Catholic faith in THAT, Lourdes, and stop wringing your hands over these so-called "heresies" of the Popes.

In his official Relatio of July 11, 1870, on chapter four of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Bishop Gasser stated the following:

This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.’” (Cf. Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, pp. 24-25)

In point of fact, Bishop Gasser is referring to the inability of the Pope to "fall into heresy or to teach heresy." He even says in the same Relatio that Bellermine referred to this as the "most common and certain opinion." (Cf. Gasser, p. 59)

Columba's appeal to a previous "infallible" disciplinary directive (Cum ex), while ignoring the Church's current directives, was condemned by Pope Leo XIII:

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed." (Epistola tua, June 17, 1885)

Do you have an argument you would like to make, or is it your job to tell us that you are not impressed by the anti-sede arguments?

You sit on the fence waiting for someone to knock you off, and feign great frustration that the sede arguments sure sound convincing to you.

Why don't you begin to accept responsibility for your Faith, and place your Faith in the promises of our Lord, in the indefectibility of the Church and in the dogmatic constitutions of VCI?

For all of its "sincerity" - the sede swamp is just one more heresy, and spells the death of the Catholic Church.

If that is too blunt for you ... oh well; but I can assure you, charity compels me to say it.

Why are you always so angry?

I don't have any charity - false or otherwise. Or humility.

In fact, I'm a pious fraud.

Now that we have my lack of any and all virtue established...

No one's crying a river of tears about the poor misunderstood sedes. Don't put words in my mouth. Or wringing hands.

I happen to attend the local Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome and the Vicar of Christ.

I am not a sedevacantist.

I didn't ask for your help, and you are the last person I would ask for help.

George Brenner wrote:There were countless laments by Pope Paul the VIth on how Vatican Council II was not at all what we had hoped for. Pope Paul VIth said that the smoke of satan has entered the church . How often can we all remmember the deep sad contemplative eyes of Pope John Paul II. He looked like the weight of the world was on his shoulders; and it was. He spoke of satan reaching the highest places in our Church. I am sure that I did my due dillegence and research in saying the dying words of Pope John XXIII was Stop the Council, Stop the Council. St Padre Pio refused to say the Novus Order Mass and sent message back to Rome to stop the council. It was said that a posse of bishops visited him and begged him what was the 3rd secret of Fatima at which he finally told them, Beware of Bishops ,
If need be, I would be happy to provide sources for above information and comments.

Hi George; and a warm welcome.

While I agree with most of what you say, this is at least the second time you made reference to the fact that “Pope Paul VIth said that the smoke of satan has entered the church”; that “the dying words of Pope John XXIII was Stop the Council, Stop the Council” and that “St Padre Pio refused to say the Novus Order Mass and sent message back to Rome to stop the council”.

While you say that you can provide “sources for above information and comments”, I am equally confident that I can demonstrate that Pope Paul VI was taken out of context, that the alleged dying words of Pope John XXIII (who suffered for six months dying from cancer) cannot be corroborated and is more myth than fact; that “St Padre Pio refused to say the Novus Order Mass and sent message back to Rome to stop the council” is an exaggeration of the truth.

In fact, accounts vary depending who you ask (we saw the same behavior by the bickering factions of the St. Benedict Center each vying for Fr. Feeney’s “approval” in his final years). For example, an Italian priest who served as a liaison between the famed Capuchin St. Padre Pio and English-speaking followers says that the saint “strictly adhered to dictates from Rome and sought information on precisely what he needed to do in order to conform with new strictures as the liturgy was changed from the Latin Rite after Vatican II.” His dispensation from saying the New Mass cannot be seen as a “refusal” to say the same (he did in fact say Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular).

If your accounts are true, does it not follow that we should accept without reservation the documented accounts by Frank M. Rega, S.F.O. (As published in Christian Order, December 2006 issue) of Padre Pio affirming his belief that a Baptized Protestant (“because she has faith”), and an “Unbaptized Devout Jew”, (“Julius Fine is saved . . .") were both saved without an external profession of divine and Catholic Faith?

Do you have reason to doubt the veracity of these accounts? If so, you shouldn’t place your “faith” in the second and third-hand accounts of others on what is purported to have been said by certain popes and saints that can be easily misconstrued, exaggerated, embellished, taken out of context; or made up out of whole cloth.

Just saying.

Lourdes wrote:Why are you always so angry?

I'm not.

Lourdes wrote:I don't have any charity - false or otherwise. Or humility.

But you have no problem accusing others of the same.

Lourdes wrote: In fact, I'm a pious fraud.

Can't help you there.

Lourdes wrote:Now that we have my lack of any and all virtue established...

No one's crying a river of tears about the poor misunderstood sedes. Don't put words in my mouth. Or wringing hands.

I happen to attend the local Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome and the Vicar of Christ.

I am not a sedevacantist.

I didn't ask for your help, and you are the last person I would ask for help.

My visceral response was to your blanket and unjust accusation of having “insulted” the sede’s, when my post you made reference to was a direct challenge to the contradictory and flawed arguments of columba. If columba does not find my counter-arguments “insulting”, why should you care that some sede might take offense? I challenged the arguments of columba … so where do you get off making the accusation that I am “insulting” sede’s?

If sede's are insulted, let them register their complaint with the Forum Complaint Dep't. I don't think they need a spokesperson.

Perhaps I got the idea that you are a fence-sitter by your own constant hand-wringing, not to mention this response to columba who said “Thus far I have not had a single point answered in anything coming close to a satisfactorily, and believe me, I keep the bar fairly low”; to which you replied:

Neither have I. All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all.

I think that says it all. You “insult” all of those who point out the errors of the sede arguments by simply dismissing them with this gross characterization. That is the REAL insult. In other words, you have no response to my many posts on this subject, you just characterize them as “whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all”.

And who are you to make such an assessment without lifting a finger in the form of rebuttal?

If I am “the last person” you “would ask for help” to rebut the sede position or to move you off the fence (after all, a priest you consulted said it was OK to privately doubt that Pope Benedict XVI is a true Pope; not that YOU have any doubts; of course), that’s fine with me, but please refrain from making caustic comments and unjust accusations.

You complain a lot about the alleged lack of charity in others, but offer nothing of substance in return to help the sede, or refute the alleged “whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all” by those who take the time to refute the sede arguments, which you clearly sympathize with.

But thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

More verbose nonsense from you.

All of you cyber-space bullies are alike.

Physican, heal thyself.

DeSelby wrote:

columba wrote:No. My doubts concern the fact that someone who promoted heretical viewpoints (and who's name once appeared on list of suspected heretics) has, -despite a church ruling to the contrary- been elected Pope.

...and has never clearly and unambiguously repudiated or clarified said viewpoints either, which justice alone would demand if he no longer held them, or if they could be clarified; and has in fact come out with even more, at least troubling, viewpoints, some even handily published in book form to go on to become international bestsellers...

Not even the anti-popes or the legitimate but personally immoral popes said anything remotely doctrinally unsound, as far as I understand the matter. St. Peter's faults were merely human weaknesses.

Then you don't understand the matter very well, and are a poor student of history.

Tell us why justice demands Pope Benedict XVI's controversial or misunderstood musings as a theologian need to be "clarified"? Did he not clarify his "viewpoints" on transubstantiation and original sin, and many other subjects, for example, as Christ's true Vicar? Shouldn't that be the only measure by which the Pope is "judged" - his official magisterial teachings?

Must the Pope be put on the defensive by responding to those who accuse him of heresy, "suspicion of heresy", etc? Do you really believe that anything he says by way of clarification will satisfy these same naysayers?

That's being a bit naive, don't you think?

MRyan...why do find it necessary to insult others? Can't you make your point otherwise? You may as well just go ahead and crown yourself pope since you're never wrong.

bernadette wrote:MRyan...why do find it necessary to insult others? Can't you make your point otherwise? You may as well just go ahead and crown yourself pope since you're never wrong.

Nice first post there, "bernadette".

Tell you what, just who have I "insulted", and how? DeSelby said something factually incorrect, and I said that he has in fact misunderstood the matter, as he himself suggests he might have. Why is that insulting? Are my three follow-up questions "insulting"?

Was my response to George "insulting"?

I challenged columba's flawed arguments with facts and Church teaching, and demonstrated his inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions; how is that "insulting"?

Or do you refer to poor Lourdes who doesn't have the time or the wherewithal to refute the sede position, but does have the time to insult and mock those who do so by saying "All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all."

Or, did you find my reference to the following response from Jehanne to be "insulting":

That Pope John Paul II was a heretic for what he stated in Redemptoris Missio does not trouble me in the least, but we've been down that road before. (Just because he may be in Hell is not an invitation to join him there, is it? With respect to his sorry-ass Pontificate, the only thing that I profess is that I am not his judge.)

Tell us, Bernadette, do you find it insulting that the "sorry-ass Pontificate" in the person of Bl. Pope John Paul II can be accused of being a heretic for a teaching on a matter of faith that is included in his Papal Encyclical to the universal Church?

Tell us Bernadette, would you find it insulting if your rigorously researched arguments against a certain controversial (and faith-killing) position was characterized as "whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all"; when not a single rebuttal is offered by the person making such an accusation?

In other words, bernadette, if that is your contribution to this forum, I can't wait to hear more.

Tell us, who are you, again?

But please don't insult me with with your petty and gratuitous generalizations, speak your mind and get to the point.

If you don't have anything to contribute by way of argumentation or rebuttal, then why are you here - to pass judgement on others?

Swell.

Oh goody... I was waiting for your obnoxious reply...I just didn't think it would be that obnoxious...tell you what...let me ponder on your insults awhile and I'll get back to you.

But in the meantime, chew on this...no, I didn't appreciate the way you handled your response to Lourdes alright...tell me, now, am I right to assume you are a man? If so, you need to act like a gentleman not a boor. Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

Or do you refer to poor Lourdes who doesn't have the time or the wherewithal to refute the sede position, but does have the time to insult and mock those who do so by saying "All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all."

Why do I have to refute a position that I do not hold?

Even if I did hold it, I do not have your "wherewithal" to discuss it in depth. God did not gift me to do so. Speaking of which, do you ever thank God for it? Your "wherewithal" I mean? He gave you your intelligence. Don't be a fool and take the credit for it.

WOW!! Columba, a lot has been said in the past 24 hours.
Did someone kick a hornets nest?
Well, so far, not too many of the sede fence-sitters prepared to hoist their flag to full mast and stand 'proudly' under it, so I guess you might be out on a limb here Columba.
A little bit of sympathy shown towards the sedes 'feelings' from Lourdes but nothing as yet in the form of solid support for you Columba, not even from the member who has previousy stated that Pope JPII is a heretic and probably in hell.
Mryan has managed to answer most of the points that you raised in a manner that provided more evidence than I could have done.
However, there are still many points that I would like to raise and a few questions that you need to answer.
To prevent the post from getting too long I will confine myself at the moment to some basics.
Columba wrote,

The question then for me is; Did Benedict XIV speak or write that which is heretical before his election to the chair of Peter.? That's what I hope to prove by his own writings.

But Columba you seem to miss the point, it is not within your authority nor ability to 'prove' that Benedict XIV wrote anything heretical. For if a formal accusation of heresy was to be made then a canonical conclusion would be required, not just the guilty pronouncement of "Heretic" by Columba. To reach a canocical conclusion logically requires canonical terms and definitions. A heretic is not merely one who rejects anything related to the Catholic faith but one who "pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth of divine and Catholic faith" (Canon 1325 § 2). Further pertinacity must be proven and not simply supposed, since for this reason does the church often has recourse to monitions (Canon 2223 § 4) and inquiries (Canon 1939) in order to admonish those suspected of heresy.
So Columba, as clearly can be seen, you simply supposing that Benedict XIV spoke or wrote something that sounded heretical to you does not make it so. It is the Church through the competent authority alone that can issue a declaratory sentence.

Now I am not aware of any formal (or even informal) investigation by the Church regarding what the Pope has said or done prior to or after his election. Are you?

I await your response.

bernadette wrote:Oh goody... I was waiting for your obnoxious reply...I just didn't think it would be that obnoxious...tell you what...let me ponder on your insults awhile and I'll get back to you.

But in the meantime, chew on this...no, I didn't appreciate the way you handled your response to Lourdes alright...tell me, now, am I right to assume you are a man? If so, you need to act like a gentleman not a boor. Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

Chew on this ... no, I don't appreciate your gratuitous insults when you don't know who I am or the arguments I have made.

Lourdes can take care of herself and doesn't need you to come to her defense.

Not only am I a man, everyone on this Forum knows my name. And if you consider my behavior to be "boorish", too bad. You'd better get used to the dripping sarcasm, levity, and stinging rebukes as I defend the rights, authority and doctrines of the Church; just as you'd better get used to the substance of what I believe are well-researched arguments.

But never have I implied or suggested that I am always right, or that I am the pope; and such a childish and boorish accusation is dismissed for the gratuitous nonsense that it is.

I asked you if you have anything to contribute to this discussion, and so far you are batting zero.

I've already found your first two posts to be incredibly insulting, entirely presumptuous and quite boorish, and I assume you are a woman (I had to throw that in -- as if only men can be "boorish").

And you just had to suggest that I am a "coward". You really are on a roll, aren't you? Not bad for two whole posts, but I suspect you won't be hanging around for too much longer; your type always seems to get in their gratuitous and insulting jabs, and then slinks off into the night to go insult someone else on another forum.

Just what we need, another insulting "mother manners" on this forum ... though the pope is free game; insult the Vicar of Christ at will; but please don't suggest that sedeism is a fetid swamp (someone might be offended).

Lourdes wrote:

Or do you refer to poor Lourdes who doesn't have the time or the wherewithal to refute the sede position, but does have the time to insult and mock those who do so by saying "All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all."

Why do I have to refute a position that I do not hold?

Even if I did hold it, I do not have your "wherewithal" to discuss it in depth. God did not gift me to do so. Speaking of which, do you ever thank God for it? Your "wherewithal" I mean? He gave you your intelligence. Don't be a fool and take the credit for it.

You don't have to refute a position you do not hold, but you complain that those who do refute this position "have not had a single point answered in anything coming close to a satisfactorily".

Columba was making a direct reference to the sede arguments about the illegitimacy of the Pope, you know, the position you do not hold; and you not only agreed with columba's assessment of the arguments to the contrary, you also added:

All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all.

So you are not qualified “to discuss it in depth” but you are qualified to judge the arguments demonstrating that the Pope is indeed Christ’s true Vicar to be “whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all”?

Perhaps you can explain this ability to assess the arguments put forth on this forum against the sede position on the illegitimacy of the pope as being, in your opinion, worthless and no answer at all, while you admit that you do not have the “wherewithal” to “discuss it in depth”.

What am I missing here?

I don’t take the credit for any intelligence (as meager as it is) that God gave me. Don’t kid yourself, whatever I have learned has been the result of hard work, much sweat and many tears. I can be a slow learner …. I deserve zero credit when I actually get it right; and I have permanent bruises from having fallen so many times. In fact, Lourdes, it was only when I resigned myself to accept the teaching authority of the Church, and not to trust “private interpretations”, that I can say the Church’s doctrines have taken on (in many instances) a whole new light – the light of authority and truth. Not everything is understood perfectly, but I refuse to lay the blame for my incomprehension at the feet of Mother Church.

It does not take “intelligence” to trust that our Lord will not let Peter fail in the Faith, or to let his Church fail; it only takes the gift of faith.

I know I still have other posts to respond to (DeSelby and the Adam & Eve thread- sorry DS I'm gonna get to it. I appreciated your last post and thought it was really interesting), but I really don't have time to be on here too much. However, I check in and read a little here and there and saw this thread.

There seems to be a lot of bull-sniffing and snorting and kicking up dust and no actual bullfight ocurring. Maybe a little of this is because of the damsels in distress who want to keep jumping in and calling foul before the "fight" has even begun...without realizing the biggest foul is the fact that you are willing to accept someone (sedes) calling out the Holy Father as a heretic and/or an anti-Pope; all while being offended for sedes feelings (& Columba's feelings- although Columba has proven to be able to care of himself, he is a big boy). Meanwhile having no problem insulting and making rash judgements and assumptions on the thoughts, intentions and character of Mike (and Simple Faith). This has the all the makings of a soap opera...

btw, I disagree with you on something Mike, I thought Simple Faith was a man, but it really doesn't matter either way.

Anyways, now that I've done my best to offend everyone on here I wanted to post a reply to the original point of the thread, whether you can hold the sede position as an opinion but not a fact (which seems like a strange proposition in the first place, but I'm operating on limited brain cells these days, forgive me). I happened to listen to a homily on AudioSancto where the particular priest would strongly beg to differ that it is ok. So actually, my reply is his homily.

Listen to the audio http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Document-on-Limbo.html (it is a long homily but he talks about this in the first 6 minutes, then moves onto Limbo) Actually, this homily may also be able to add to the discussion Tornpage was having on baptism of babies and/or 1 Timothy thread. But in any event, I rather enjoyed the homily and I hope you all will as well.

And being that I too have been "mother manners" -particularly on Pasc's forum- I just want to add that I can understand the female point of view of wanting to jump in and stop anything that seems below the belt (I particularly hate to see Catholic men or women divided and fighting against each other instead of against the devil and his children).

However, this thread isn't really just about people's feelings, it is about something as important as whether or not Pope Benedict is REALLY our Pope. And the implications of what exactly you are really saying when you entertain the idea that he is not. You put yourself outside of the only visible Church that I see standing (albeit wounded, but still standing).

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us all.

MRyan wrote:

bernadette wrote:Oh goody... I was waiting for your obnoxious reply...I just didn't think it would be that obnoxious...tell you what...let me ponder on your insults awhile and I'll get back to you.

But in the meantime, chew on this...no, I didn't appreciate the way you handled your response to Lourdes alright...tell me, now, am I right to assume you are a man? If so, you need to act like a gentleman not a boor. Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

Chew on this ... no, I don't appreciate your gratuitous insults when you don't know who I am or the arguments I have made.

Lourdes can take care of herself and doesn't need you to come to her defense.

Not only am I a man, everyone on this Forum knows my name. And if you consider my behavior to be "boorish", too bad. You'd better get used to the dripping sarcasm, levity, and stinging rebukes as I defend the rights, authority and doctrines of the Church; just as you'd better get used to the substance of what I believe are well-researched arguments.

But never have I implied or suggested that I am always right, or that I am the pope; and such a childish and boorish accusation is dismissed for the gratuitous nonsense that it is.

I asked you if you have anything to contribute to this discussion, and so far you are batting zero.

I've already found your first two posts to be incredibly insulting, entirely presumptuous and quite boorish, and I assume you are a woman (I had to throw that in -- as if only men can be "boorish").

And you just had to suggest that I am a "coward". You really are on a roll, aren't you? Not bad for two whole posts, but I suspect you won't be hanging around for too much longer; your type always seems to get in their gratuitous and insulting jabs, and then slinks off into the night to go insult someone else on another forum.

Just what we need, another insulting "mother manners" on this forum ... though the pope is free game; insult the Vicar of Christ at will; but please don't suggest that sedeism is a fetid swamp (someone might be offended).

Thank you Mr. Ryan.....let it go on the record that you have greeted me with the same disdain and rude conduct that I objected to in my initial post. You say everyone on this forum knows your name...well, I'm on this forum, and I don't.

You may think that you defend the rights, authority and doctrines of the Church, but in actuality, you come across as someone who is an unwitting victim of papolotry...It appears to me that you have a real need to feel in total control of a particular thread, or that your opinion should prevail above all others...so be it....that will work out just fine with bernadette, I have seen your type often enough and I now see quite clearly what I can expect from you....by the way, isn't it rather interesting that bernadette would defend Lourdes? I thought so.

Listen here, a bit of advice....Lourdes was right on the mark in calling you on your uncharitable treatment....if you would be so kind as to stop talking down to others, you might prosper in your arguments. Rudeness really isn't necessary all the time, you know.

I went over the thread, and I didn't see one thing that Lourdes said that should of ticked you off the way it did...am I missing something? Perhaps you have a grudge over some past debate on the forum? If so, then could you kindly either fill me in or get over it in the manner of a more civil person?

Getting to the point of the thread...I find myself in agreement with Columba.

The pope may be the woefully elected pope, but he is a bad pope, and hopefully someday he'll be labeled what he is...a heretic. Where is it written that a Catholic must submit and obey a heretic? And if anyone thinks he is a true Vicar of Christ (and I include all of the conciliar popes) then I hope they are consistent by rejoicing over the Assissi prayer meetings, over the beatification of JPII, over the Koran kissing, the Mosque praying, the Jew praising, the new mass, the communion in the hand, the pedophile scandals, the destruction of traditional churches, the loss of faith among Catholics, the millions of aborted babies and the millions of lost souls, the persecution of the traditionalists, the loss of religious from convents and seminaries, the ecumenism, religious liberty and the glorification of man.

That's right...one can know in his heart that this man can't be a true pope without yelling it from the roof tops...but one also refuses to follow the heretic...

You asked who I am? I'm a traditional Roman Catholic named bernadette...now, who the hell are you?

Sorry...no use stooping to a lower level...I'll rephrase that last question....
Who are you?

I was hoping you'd show up Mike and you haven't disappointed. All guns blazing as usual; so lets see if it's all smoke and no fire. Mind you, as a fence sitter I'm here to be converted. If you are right in your assessment (and are interpreting Church teaching correctly) then my salvation isn't in as much jeopardy as you imply even if you fail to convince me; unless of course the only people who cant be saved are those who have doubts about the validity of the current Pope but then, that would be contrary to present Church teaching as to who can be saved.

If my interpretation of Church teaching is correct then many souls who believe themselves Catholic are in fact not, and this (according to my understanding) places their souls in grave danger. So if I stay on the fence (or even eventually come down on the opposite side as you), in the Vatican II understanding of things I can still be saved through my explicit/implicit desire to adhere to the truth even if hampered by my poor understanding of Church teaching. No matter where I pitch my tent it will be like, heads I win, tails I win.
If you consider my ignorance culpable, then I would ask you to give this mere layman the same benefit of doubt as you do the theologian and intellectual Benedict the XVI.

As our old friend JAT once said, “In the discussion of what qualifies as ‘public defection’ qua Canon 188.4, we find ourselves faced with another gaping hole in the sedevacantist position, namely, that acts of jurisdiction posited an excommunicant against whom a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has not been laid down, are VALID.”

Precisely; and here’s why:

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:

Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, especially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required].

Mike, this is all fine and well when it concerns a validly elected Pope. If a Pope be invalidly elected then he had no jurisdiction to begin with in the first place and therefore that which never existed could not be suspended or reinstated (as in the case of emergency) when all prior requirements were not even met in his election.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264, does not override Pope Paul IV in Bull, "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" but actually compliments it. The prime purpose of canon law (which in nature is disciplinary) is to provide for the smooth running of the Church and not to hamper the salvation of souls, therefore they can be suspended in cases of emergency (as with supplied jurisdiction) for the welfare of souls in immediate danger or dire need.

As for "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio," the very reason for its provision was to safeguard the salvation of souls and protect the Church from non-Catholic leadership, as is it states;

6. In addition, Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define; that if ever at any time [color=cyan]it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(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;

Why then would any future decree of the Church abolish this safeguard (placed in perpetua) while ignoring the solemn Language by which it was proclaimed, and permit a deviant candidate to ascend the Chair of Peter? Totally illogical!
It is obvious that Canon 2264 was for the purpose of providing for the faithful in times of necessity by supplying jurisdiction to one who previously held it legally but lost it by an act of enforcement of Church disciplinary law.

Coumba wrote:
MRyan I mistakenly attributed those writing to you. Nevertheless as you posted this I take it your in agreemant with it. So am I.

Tornpage wrote:

I think one must come to one of two possible conclusions: a) the pope's faith could never fail, and he couldn't be a heretic; or, b) even if that were to be the case, his actions would still retain their validity since he would retain his authority and jurisdiction - after all, the actions of priests and bishops who have "lost the faith" and left the Church prior to a Church declaration still possess their force and legal effect, i.e. their actions were valid. Which accords with what Salza was saying (which, for the reasons I discussed in a prior post, do not meet the sede objection), and also accords with Larson as to the Athanasian bishops, etc. - even if they might disagree on the possibility of a heretical pope.

I favor option a), however (like Salza and Larson).

I also favor option a) but I believe option b)

MRyan wrote:
So columba “favors” the conclusion that says “the pope's faith could never fail, and he couldn't be a heretic”, but believes “even if that were to be the case [that he lost his office through manifest heresy], his actions would still retain their validity since he would retain his authority and jurisdiction - after all, the actions of priests and bishops who have ‘lost the faith’ and left the Church prior to a Church declaration still possess their force and legal effect, i.e. their actions were valid".

Will the real columba please stand up?

Mike I think your misrepresenting me even if not deliberately.
I do in fact favor that option in the case of a validly elected pope. I've already stated earlier that a validly elected Pope who had fallen into heresy would not bother me so much as one who had been invalidly elected. In the latter case the Church could provide by implementing some emergency measure.

MRyan wrote:
Ignoring all of this, and even ignoring his prior admission that “It's a rare occasion when I find myself in agreement with you but this is one such instance where I am. I have had vague reservations as to the infallibility of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and as you correctly pointed out that this is purely a disciplinary matter (not faith and morals) then its infallible nature is very questionable”, columba once again jumps on the “Cum ex is infallible” bandwagon by saying:

No.. It is of Divine law that a heretic cannot be Pope. It was never "of the faith" that a Pope cannot become a heretic. You've taken a part of my earlier reply and left out your own admission to me (where I clarified that even though this is disciplinary it contains a recognition of Divine law in that a heretic cannot legally be Pope).
If it were impossible (by Divine law) for a heretic to be elected Pope there would have been no need for this Bull and Pope Paul IV would have been occupying himself in a complete waste of time.
If I have modified my position on this in any away, you can put it down to a development of doctrine (or clearer thinking) on my part.

As I said before, columba's appeal to the “infallibility” of Cum ex without recourse to the subsequent changes and clarifications to the law (no “change” would be possible if the provisions of Cum ex were “infallible”) is a recipe for anarchy and schism. As Pope Pius IX said in Quartus Supra: "every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church”, and yours is no exception.

The subsequent changes you refer to are not changes at all but additional provisions for the welfare of souls. If you believe that canon law has overturned that which was hitherto essential for the protection of the faithful and you now believe that the Church has instead provided for the election of an heretical Pope, then you are more out of touch with reality than Simple Faith.

"Every Schism fabricates its own heresy." Can you define heresy and then we can get to the nitty grit, i.e, the heresies of Father, Bishop and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I would much rather you show me that he is not in heresy as it won't then really matter to me whether a Pope can be a heretic or not.

Of course, this is all an “academic” exercise to “prove” that Pope Benedict XVI is not actually the Vicar of Christ; he is, rather, an imposter who fell from the Catholic faith prior to his illicit elevation to the papacy. And your appeal to the on-again, off-again “infallible” Bull Cum ex as your instrument of choice to justify the removal of the pope from his divinely conferred power and authority is an exercise in futility by an uneducated layman who refuses to be moderated or corrected by the Church.

Bull Cum ex is not my sole instrument of choice. It is the Church's decree on what validity a heretic would have as Pope.
My instrument of choice would be the actual words of BXIV before he ascended the chair of Peter. If you don't want to discuss these then let me deal with someone who will.

You are, after all, the same person who does not know the difference between a dogmatic definition and general infallibility; so it does not surprise us that you have a hard time distinguishing changeable and fallible disciplinary measures from the infallibility of divine law.

Sorry Mike, but you do not know the binding force of an infallibly pronounced dogma. You cannot seem to separate discipline from dogma and then accuse me of what you yourself are guilty. As an act of charity to yourself, why not unravel those many crossed wires and begin to think logically. Truth isn't that difficult.
Contrary to what you say, I allow myself to be moderated by the Church an that's why I don't follow heresy when I hear it, no matter who's mouth it comes from.

Furthermore:

This would mean that any bishops who were guilty of Arianism or semi-Arianism would have been deprived of their office, and all their acts, including consecrations of other bishops and ordinations of priest would have been invalid. ... The same automatic deprivation of office and invalidation of all consecrations of bishops and ordination of priests would have applied to any bishop tainted with Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism, the Iconoclastic heresy, Jansenism, or hundreds of other heresies or variations of heresies. There would be absolutely no validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches since they were rooted from the beginning in the rejection of the Roman Primacy

.

Enough of the nonsense Mike. Once these were declared to be heresies, those who still held to them would fall from office.
The validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches can profit them nothing while they deny the chair of Peter. The best they can hope for is to receive the grace to return.

God would not allow a manifest (obstinate) heretic to become His Vicar. The divine institution of the Church is visible and a lawful and valid pope is central to that perpetual visibility.

To even think that you can “prove” that Pope Benedict XVI was a manifest and pertinacious heretic who “lost” the Catholic faith prior to his elevation makes a mockery of the divine institution of the Papacy itself, not to mention the dogma that places Peter’s faith as the foundation of our communion and unity with the Church.

I knew it. Bull Cum ex was a complete waste of time and the speculation of the doctors and theologians was reprobate if they were knowingly speculating in contradiction to the MRyan dogma that a heretic could not be Pope.
That's what your saying?

Yeah, right. You’re just miffed because S-F refuses to take you seriously. But, who can blame her? I don’t take you seriously, either.

If my gut feeling is right I think S-F is a he.

I believe Simple Faith asked you a simple question - do we have a valid pope or don't we? I would add to this, how is it possible that the Church can remain who she is (indefectible, visible and perpetual) when she has been without a true Vicar for some 53 years, and thus, if Cum ex is "infallible", the Church is without ordinary jurisdiction, valid sacraments and perpetual Apostolic succession?

I already answered that question for S-F.
The Church can remain indefectible, visible and perpetual as long as there are bodily members here on earth (ask St Athanasius). There is nothing in Church teaching that disallows an indefinate interregnum and valid sacraments will always be there for those who want them. Perpetual Apostolic succession has already been taken care of I believe.

you either trust that the infallible teaching of VCI that declared "our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt ... The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”, OR YOU DON'T.

I do believe this.
And as the throne of David was declared by God to be,"everlasting," It remained vacant for long periods throughout Jewish history without any contradiction to the infallible word of God.
Try and understand it this way. There is no salvation outside the Church. What does that mean? If you admit exceptions to this Dogma by redefining membership of the Church then maybe you're not understanding the infallible teaching of VI as it should be understood. Blessed Peter will not abandon the direction of the Church providing he IS blessed Peter. This is where the problem lies. Direction in the Church today is absent.

Quit wallowing in the sede swamp, columba, and come to your senses.

Faith may supersede reason but it does not contradict it. There are apparent contradictions to reason in the sede camp but not to faith. There are apparent contradictions to both Faith and reason in Vat II camp.
If it weren't for the warnings of St Pope Pius X and the infallible word of God that declared the great apostasy in the end times, I would throw caution to the wind and follow you in your certainty. I may yet do so if the Pope were to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. In the meantime I can't become a martyr by preaching the word of the post-conciliar Church for in such a Church I'm everybody's friend. However, I have a good chance of martyrdom if I preach what was always preached and always believed. That is how it should be and although I don't want to be martyred I also don't want to be damned for cowardice.

Thanks for your post. I appreciate it.

Allie, I want to thank you for bringing the original thread topic back, which was "Can a Catholic remain in good standing if he believes in the possibility of a papal claimant as not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion?"

So what say all of you? What say you Columba? What say you Simple Faith? What say you MRyan ? What say you Bernadette? Yes? No? Maybe? If not, then why is Benedict XVI, in his books, allowed to hold "personal opinions" which are contrary to Church teachings and yet he is said to remain in good standing because he isn't speaking as Pope, but just as a theologian? For example, his comments on the Church not having a role for today's time in pursuing the conversion of "all" souls to the Church, specifically the jews. Also, how could the Church officially recognize who was an anti-pope in it's history if it did not first doubt the legitimacy of a papal claimant? Surely Catholics back then had to first hold to the possibility that those papal claimants were not true Popes in order to even consider removing them, right? So if it was OK back then to have doubt in a Papal claimant, then why would it not be OK to have doubt in the present papal claimant?

Missouri Mark wrote:Allie, I want to thank you for bringing the original thread topic back, which was "Can a Catholic remain in good standing if he believes in the possibility of a papal claimant as not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion?"

So what say all of you? ... What say you MRyan ?

Of course a Catholic can remain a “Catholic in good standing” if he believes in the possibility of a papal claimant as not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion”; an opinion formed as a matter of objective (fallible) certitude.

Missouri Mark wrote:If not, then why is Benedict XVI, in his books, allowed to hold "personal opinions" which are contrary to Church teachings and yet he is said to remain in good standing because he isn't speaking as Pope, but just as a theologian? For example, his comments on the Church not having a role for today's time in pursuing the conversion of "all" souls to the Church, specifically the jews.

Pope BXVI made it abundantly clear that he was not speaking as the Roman Pontiff, but as a private theologian who might be wrong ... and, as far as I am concerned, he was.

His theories on eschatology and the final conversion of the Jews is just that, theories. He did not say, however, that the Jews do not require conversion in Jesus Christ (and is on the record as saying they do), even if what he did say as a matter of practice is scandalous enough.

In 2001, however, Cardinal Ratzinger said the Church is waiting for the moment when Jews will “say yes to Christ.” When asked if Jews should acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, he said, “We believe that. The fact remains, however, that our Christian conviction is that Christ is also the Messiah of Israel.”

Cardinal Ratzinger said this “does not mean that we have to force Christ upon them but that we should try to share in the patience of God. We also have to try to live our life together in Christ in such a way that it no longer stands in opposition to them or would be unacceptable to them but so that it facilitates their own approach to it....They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve salvation in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

This "ecumenical" approach to the conversion of the Jews may be "wishy-washy", but it is not "heretical". And no, Catholics do not have to agree with it.

Missouri Mark wrote:Also, how could the Church officially recognize who was an anti-pope in it's history if it did not first doubt the legitimacy of a papal claimant? Surely Catholics back then had to first hold to the possibility that those papal claimants were not true Popes in order to even consider removing them, right? So if it was OK back then to have doubt in a Papal claimant, then why would it not be OK to have doubt in the present papal claimant?

Your premise is entirely misleading, for, as even Wikipedia recognizes, “An antipope (Latin: antipapa) is a person who opposes a legitimately elected or sitting Pope and makes a significantly accepted competing claim to be the Pope, the Bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Encyclopaedia Britannica: Antipope: "One who opposes the legitimately elected bishop of Rome, endeavours to secure the papal throne, and to some degree succeeds materially in the attempt".

So, to answer your question, the Church can “officially recognize who was an anti-pope in it's history” because in each and every case there was a legitimacy elected or sitting Pope.

The question you haven’t asked, and one more relevant to this discussion, is whether there has ever been a legitimacy elected or sitting Pope who has ever lost his office through manifest heresy (prior, or subsequent to, his elevation).

The answer, as you might have guessed, is no.

Missouri Mark wrote,

"Can a Catholic remain in good standing if he believes in the possibility of a papal claimant as not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion?"

I'm a little confused, do you by 'papal claimant' mean someone 'claiming' to be Pope or do you actually mean the validly elected Pope? If you mean a validly elected Pope, ie. Benedict XVI or Pope JPII, then your question should read:
Can a Catholic remain in good standing if he believes in the possibility of 'the Pope' not being a true pope, but he doesn't hold that belief as a matter of fact, but only personal opinion?"
In other words, can I believe that the Pope isn't the Pope so long as I don't actually say it. Having the actual thought might be ok initially but intentionally harbouring and keeping it, even as a 'personal opinion' would be wrong. For example, if I see a beautiful woman and I 'believe in the possibility' of having a sexual relationship with her (BTW, I am a man and a married one at that), and only hold this belief as a 'personal opinion' and not as a 'matter of fact', then I think that the sin would be not so much as, first having had the thought but willfully maintaining the thought which therefore greatly increases the posibility of acting upon it.
How many of those who begin with holding the 'personal thought' that the pope is a heretic then go on to become a sede? it is a dead end street and we need look no further than this forum to see the results of holding 'personal opinions' about a Pope.
Some like Bernadette, when squeezed a little, quickly loose the pretence of being a 'traditionalist' and spew out their venom for the Holy Father, ...''he is a bad pope, and hopefully someday he'll be labeled what he is...a heretic. Where is it written that a Catholic must submit and obey a heretic? ....''
I rest my case.

MRyan wrote:

Lourdes wrote:

Or do you refer to poor Lourdes who doesn't have the time or the wherewithal to refute the sede position, but does have the time to insult and mock those who do so by saying "All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all."

Why do I have to refute a position that I do not hold?

Even if I did hold it, I do not have your "wherewithal" to discuss it in depth. God did not gift me to do so. Speaking of which, do you ever thank God for it? Your "wherewithal" I mean? He gave you your intelligence. Don't be a fool and take the credit for it.

You don't have to refute a position you do not hold, but you complain that those who do refute this position "have not had a single point answered in anything coming close to a satisfactorily".

Columba was making a direct reference to the sede arguments about the illegitimacy of the Pope, you know, the position you do not hold; and you not only agreed with columba's assessment of the arguments to the contrary, you also added:

All I have gotten is whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all.

So you are not qualified “to discuss it in depth” but you are qualified to judge the arguments demonstrating that the Pope is indeed Christ’s true Vicar to be “whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all”?

Perhaps you can explain this ability to assess the arguments put forth on this forum against the sede position on the illegitimacy of the pope as being, in your opinion, worthless and no answer at all, while you admit that you do not have the “wherewithal” to “discuss it in depth”.

What am I missing here?

I don’t take the credit for any intelligence (as meager as it is) that God gave me. Don’t kid yourself, whatever I have learned has been the result of hard work, much sweat and many tears. I can be a slow learner …. I deserve zero credit when I actually get it right; and I have permanent bruises from having fallen so many times. In fact, Lourdes, it was only when I resigned myself to accept the teaching authority of the Church, and not to trust “private interpretations”, that I can say the Church’s doctrines have taken on (in many instances) a whole new light – the light of authority and truth. Not everything is understood perfectly, but I refuse to lay the blame for my incomprehension at the feet of Mother Church.

It does not take “intelligence” to trust that our Lord will not let Peter fail in the Faith, or to let his Church fail; it only takes the gift of faith.

Gladly.

I can't put my thoughts into words very well (written or oral), but that doesn't mean I have the IQ of an idiot. I can assess arguments well; people even better. It is a gift I have. Fr. Feeney suffered from the same gift - perception.

By the way, MRyan, what makes you think you're qualified to assess the pope(s) and the present condition of our church? You asked me, so now I am asking you.

"Some like Bernadette, when squeezed a little, quickly loose the pretence of being a 'traditionalist' and spew out their venom for the Holy Father, ...''he is a bad pope, and hopefully someday he'll be labeled what he is...a heretic. Where is it written that a Catholic must submit and obey a heretic? ....''
I rest my case.

Greetings whoever you are! Could you explain what you mean by this statement? Specifically the words '...quickly loose the pretence of being a 'traditionalist'....are you saying that a traditionalist is only a Catholic who recognizes a pope as a true pope, regardless of the fact that he's teaching heresy, and participating in the destruction of the Chruch? Are you saying that anyone who holds the SV position is not a traditional Catholic? What case are you resting?

Also..maybe you can justify your opinion that my saying that the pope is a bad pope is "spewing out venom" how is that spewing and how is the truth venom? In other words, how is referring to a heretic as a "heretic" spewing out venom? If you pay homage to heretics, you pay homage to the gates of Hell....you assist in harming the Church.

I wonder...you should have no problem at all, obeying your Holy Father, right? So I'd like to hear from your own mouth that you are just fine with the upcoming Assissi III, you are just fine with communion in the hand, inculturation, ecumenism, the new mass, religious liberty, fast track to sainthood, and the old 'The Jews are our brothers in Christ' lie, etc. etc....otherwise, you are merely a disobedient liar to your misguided opinion of what constitutes true fidelity to Christ and His Church.

In the meantime I can't become a martyr by preaching the word of the post-conciliar Church for in such a Church I'm everybody's friend. However, I have a good chance of martyrdom if I preach what was always preached and always believed. That is how it should be and although I don't want to be martyred I also don't want to be damned for cowardice.

Columba, you may very well be a martyr! If attitudes don't change, they may be burning sedes at the stake ala Savonarola. By the way, did you know that St. Philip Neri and St. Catherine de Ricci thought the world of him?

columba wrote:I was hoping you'd show up Mike and you haven't disappointed. All guns blazing as usual; so lets see if it's all smoke and no fire. Mind you, as a fence sitter I'm here to be converted. If you are right in your assessment (and are interpreting Church teaching correctly) then my salvation isn't in as much jeopardy as you imply even if you fail to convince me; unless of course the only people who cant be saved are those who have doubts about the validity of the current Pope but then, that would be contrary to present Church teaching as to who can be saved.

So now it my job to “convert” you from your complacent and smug fence-sitting atop the fetid sede swamp? Since when? Dive right in … you’ll be right at home … and appear to be quite at home already.

columba wrote:If my interpretation of Church teaching is correct then many souls who believe themselves Catholic are in fact not, and this (according to my understanding) places their souls in grave danger. So if I stay on the fence (or even eventually come down on the opposite side as you), in the Vatican II understanding of things I can still be saved through my explicit/implicit desire to adhere to the truth even if hampered by my poor understanding of Church teaching. No matter where I pitch my tent it will be like, heads I win, tails I win. If you consider my ignorance culpable, then I would ask you to give this mere layman the same benefit of doubt as you do the theologian and intellectual Benedict the XVI.

And such mockery and contempt for the teachings of the Church is what I expected. Go ahead and feign “ignorance” as a “win-win” as if this is some sort of game; real funny, that.

I couldn’t care less that you may be “inculpable” in your wallowing in the sede swamp as you seek to “prove” that Pope Benedict XVI was a manifest and obstinate heretic prior to his “illicit” elevation to the papacy (and you will fail), an election recognized by the universal Church as valid (and thus, as theologians teach, an “infallible” sign that his Papacy is accepted by God); my concern is with the protection of the dogmas relative to the divine institution of the Church.

Sedeism, as it is promoted on this forum, is, as far as I am concerned, a specious heresy that in the end, removes not only the visible Pope from the visible Church for half-a century, a century, centuries, half-a millennium, or even longer (depending on the particular sede's propoganda), it destroys the divine institution of the Church by destroying its indefectibility, Apostolic succession, valid sacraments and ordinary jurisdiction. Even if these are placed in “doubt”, doubtful sacraments are no sacraments. The specious heresy you are so adamant in defending removes the divinely instituted means for living the life of grace and for remaining in communion with Christ’s true Vicar whose faith is the foundation of that same communion and unity – such is the infallible declaration of VCI.

Your argument to the contrary is just special pleading.

I could address each and every one of your irrational, contradictory or flawed responses, but, for the sake of brevity, let’s get right to the heart of the matter:

columba wrote:

Furthermore:

This would mean that any bishops who were guilty of Arianism or semi-Arianism would have been deprived of their office, and all their acts, including consecrations of other bishops and ordinations of priest would have been invalid. ... The same automatic deprivation of office and invalidation of all consecrations of bishops and ordination of priests would have applied to any bishop tainted with Donatism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism, the Iconoclastic heresy, Jansenism, or hundreds of other heresies or variations of heresies. There would be absolutely no validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches since they were rooted from the beginning in the rejection of the Roman Primacy

.

Enough of the nonsense Mike. Once these were declared to be heresies, those who still held to them would fall from office.
The validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches can profit them nothing while they deny the chair of Peter. The best they can hope for is to receive the grace to return.

“Nonsense”, you say? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t cite Cum ex and then run from its clear prescriptions that render not only Apostolic succession, but the validity of orders in the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be absolutely null and void, and then tell us it doesn’t matter that they have valid orders, their orders are worthless anyway since they “can profit them nothing while they deny the chair of Peter”.

So with one sweep of your dissenting hand, you contradict Cum ex and then deny the magisterial teaching of the Church that declares that certain of the Eastern Orthodox can in fact benefit from the grace of the sacraments, so long as their ignorance of Papal Primacy is inculpable (as even St. Augustine taught) and they are properly disposed.

Can you profit by the sacraments as you deny the ordinary teachings of the Catholic Church and pit one alleged magisterium against another? No wonder you plead “invincible ignorance”.

Do you know what “invalid” means? “Once these were declared to be heresies, those who still held to them would” not only “fall from office”, but, according to Cum ex:

"6. In addition {by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree and define}: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

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;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force, and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power." (all emphasis mine).

We will begin with the notion proposed by some traditionalists that this is a document whose teaching is infallible. The reader hopefully noticed the word "define" in the first sentence above. The object of infallible teaching is, of course, faith and morals – either those truths directly revealed by God, or truths connected to, or implicit in, revelation. We need to begin, therefore, by asking exactly what truth of faith or morals is being defined here. Unquestionably, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio "defines" in regard to any Bishop (including the Pope) who "prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy", that such a person's promotion to said office is declared "null, void and worthless", that he is deprived of "all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power-, and that "all their words, deeds, actions and enactments ... shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone."

Definitive truth does not change from century to century. If all this is definitive truth, then it would have had to be true at any time in the history of the Church. This would mean that any bishops who were guilty of Arianism or semi-Arianism would have been deprived of their office, and all their acts, including consecrations of other bishops and ordinations of priest would have been invalid.

Nonsense? Let’s forget about the specter of invalid sacraments, invalid orders and invalid Bishops, Cardinals and Popes of ages past when Cum ex is applied by persons such as yourself to any prelate “who to if ever at any time it shall appear … prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy”, and just focus on the common current opinion of sedes’s who maintain that the See of Peter has been vacant as a result of manifest heresy since 1958.

You brush this off as inconsequential when every single consecration to Bishop performed by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and BXVI is invalid (assuming that all of these popes were heretics prior to their elevation), when every single priestly ordination by those same invalidly ordained Bishops is invalid, and ever single sacrament conferred by these same invalid Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests is INVALID.

Oh, what the hell, the majority of Catholics today cannot profit from the sacraments anyway … heretics that they are. Isn’t that right? But you can, by a special dispensation from God who suspends any requirement of ordinary jurisdiction, valid orders, a valid pope and true apostolic succession just so columba and the sede contingent can pretend they represent the "true remnant" of believers in the mold of St. Athanasius who, contrary to columba’s distortion of the truth, remained in complete union with his Pope and never once accused him of heresy.

Tell us, columba, where is this "Church" that "could provide by implementing some emergency measure" when, if we follow sede logic and the prescriptions of Cum ex, there is in all likelihood NO institutional Church that can do any such thing?!

Just who represents this "Church" that you say will provide?

Don't give us this "God will provide" nonsense, God already DID provide, contrary to your specious heresy. I know where the Church is, for where there is Peter, there is the Church.

Too bad you can't say the same. But good luck with your "emergency measure" provided by a Church that does not exist except "in desire" and in your fevered brain.

“Nonsense”, you say? If you think you can restrict the scope of your little exercise by limiting your scandalous “proofs” of manifest heresy to the pre-papal elevation of Fr./Cardinal Ratzinger, think again – I will not let you avoid the deeper implications of the more common sede position and your attachment to the "infallible" Cum ex.

Again, as James Larson writes:

As far as the daily life of any of the faithful is concerned, we have only touched the surface. No Catholic, for instance, could be sure he had ever assisted at a valid Mass, or had ever received Jesus Christ in Holy Communion. He could never be sure that he had been absolved of his sins in Confession. He or she would never be able to know if their marriage was blessed by the Church. There would be no Magisterium, since there would be no certainty in regards to those who had promulgated its teachings. There would, in other words, be no security in anything Catholic.

The fact is that there is no valid precedent for such a teaching in the whole history of the Church. It did not exist before Paul IV, and it was largely ignored after his death, except by those who wished to use it as a means to undermine the truth concerning Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican Council I. In other words, this document was so universally recognized as a "bad case", that if it could be proved that Pope Paul's use of the word "definimus" really involved the charism of infallibility, then it would have been clear to all the bishops at Vatican I that Papal Infallibility had been compromised in the past, and therefore could not be defined as a doctrine. Needless to say, the Fathers at Vatican I rejected this argument on the basis that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was not a document that involved any infallible definitions whatsoever.

The foolishness involved in any attempt to make this document infallible does not end here.. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio actually uses the word "define" four times (at least that is my personal count). It "defines", for instance, that anyone "who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching" of such deprived bishops, Popes, etc. "shall be incapable of making a will", "shall not accede to the succession of heredity", and "if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight." Can anyone seriously believe that such things are proper matter for infallible definition?

Dr. Ludvig Von Pastor in his classic work History of the Popes makes it clear that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has always been considered a disciplinary document, that the word definimus ("defined") occurs in other non-dogmatic documents, and that "there is no question here of a dogmatic pronouncement, but only of a disciplinary act." (Vol XIV, p.303-303 n.2).

The fact is, however, that we are faced with a situation of almost total insecurity even if we take Cum ex Apostolatus Officio seriously as only a disciplinary document. Pope Paul IV states that his Apostolic Constitution "is to remain valid in perpetuity." Even if such disciplinary prescriptions are to be considered binding only since the year 1559, we are in much the same trouble, especially when trying to trace the progress of Modernist heresies through the Epicopate. Nor is the problem just Modernism. Among other relatively recent heresies, we also have Baiansim, Jansenism, and Conciliarism. And again, we would have to conclude the Eastern Orthodox to be entirely without valid Orders. Further, we could also consider such people as Cardinal Gibbons and much of the American hierarchy as being infected from its inception with what has come to be called the Americanist Heresy. Does that mean that the validity of virtually the entire American Episcopacy and preisthood is under question just because of this one heresy?

All this is simply more foolishness. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is, in fact, a matter of acute embarrassment in the history of the Church. This must be said, despite Pope Paul IV's calling down the wrath of God upon anyone who should presume to contradict its teaching.

One last comment: As you desperately scramble to "qualify" your "Cum ex is infallible" mantra, I never said that there are provisions within the Bull that are no longer binding, or that its changeable prescriptions are not based on infallible divine law, such as the law positing that a non-Catholic (anyone who has not the Catholic Faith) can be Christ's Vicar.

The "in perpetuity" part of the Bull you are so infatuated with is no more binding on subsequent popes as any other Papal disciplinary legislation.

More on this later; that's enough for now.

Lourdes wrote:By the way, MRyan, what makes you think you're qualified to assess the pope(s) and the present condition of our church? You asked me, so now I am asking you.

Actually, that is not what I asked you. When you insulted every poster on this forum (who made a rebuttal to the sede argument) by dismissing each and every one of their responses as so much worthless trash, I asked you why you say you are not qualified to make a defense of your position (whatever it is), but you feel qualified to dismiss the arguments of others who refute the very position you say you do not hold.

You answered by basically saying you know BS when you read it, being blessed with a special perception and all ... just like Fr. Feeney.

You're not a sede, but you don't know why. What you do know is that every rebuttal to the sede position amounts to nothing more than "whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all".

But, let's begin again:

Lourdes wrote:By the way, MRyan, what makes you think you're qualified to assess the pope(s) and the present condition of our church? You asked me, so now I am asking you.

Is that supposed to be some tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor? Are you actually asking me what makes me qualified to assess that the pope(s) are actually the pope(s)?

My only qualification is that I am a Catholic who believes that the divine institution of the papacy is permanent, perpetual and visible. I also take VCI, in its FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, at its infallible word when it solemnly declared:

For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood...The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.”

Do you "doubt" any of that? Or is that one of the worthless "whitewashing, posturing, denial and excessive wordiness masking the fact that the alleged answer is no answer at all"?

Assessing the “present condition of the Church” is another question entirely, and very complicated … and I make no pretense at being “qualified” to assess her present condition, except to offer my opinion while affirming without hesitation that she is what she always has been, while I attempt to remain within the boundaries of the authority of the Church.

If you think that I am not troubled by this devastated vineyard, think again. I don’t have all the answers, but I know who and where the Pope is ... and that’s always a good start, don’t you think?

Lourdes wrote:

In the meantime I can't become a martyr by preaching the word of the post-conciliar Church for in such a Church I'm everybody's friend. However, I have a good chance of martyrdom if I preach what was always preached and always believed. That is how it should be and although I don't want to be martyred I also don't want to be damned for cowardice.

Columba, you may very well be a martyr! If attitudes don't change, they may be burning sedes at the stake ala Savonarola. By the way, did you know that St. Philip Neri and St. Catherine de Ricci thought the world of him?

Lourdes good to hear from you again.

Yes. we are currently living in a time when defending the apostolic faith is not only loathed by those outside the Church but even by those within and up to the highest ranks. We all need to pray for the courage of the Maccabees for as forewarned by St Paul, "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."
Is talking of martyrdom far fetched? I don't think so. Just present yourself for Holy Communion at a good liberal NO church and receive on the tongue while kneeling. That look of scorn you get from the priest and the rebuffs from some fellow brothers and sisters for having acted "holier than thou," will serve as a mild fore-taste and warning of what's in store for you when you really do upset them.

Missouri Mark.
My apologies for taking your thread off track from your specific question.
I think though that all who have contributed (with the possible exception of Simple Fath) are in agreement that yes, one can, without sin, hold the private view that a particular reigning Pope is in heretic if that view be based on observable evidence to ones own satisfaction.

I'll start a new thread for discussing other related, unresolved issues.

BTW. Welcome Bernadette, and good to hear from you again too Allie.