Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

columba wrote:Mike,

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

I have never disputed this, but are you saying that this promise would apply in the case of an invalidly elected or heretical pope?

"Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy." And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by "the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows."

He continues:

"God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required." (http://catholicism.org/modern-popes.html#5)

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?

MRyan wrote:Duckbill,

No need to apologize; no problem whatsoever.

These are tough economic times.

I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?.

columba wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

If the Pope would come-out tomorrow and say, "Jesus of Nazareth never even existed; he was just a legend and a myth..." perhaps after reading Dr. Robert Price, would you still follow him, or, would you begin to read more sede literature? Here's Price's website, by the way:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

He does have credentials. See, everyone has "his/her limits." Okay, the Pope has not yet made such a claim, but what if he did. Then what? You could say that he was possessed or even mentally ill, but what if a cadre of psychiatrists would affirm his complete sanity and soundness of mind. Then what?

My suspician is that the psychiatrists opinion would be considered infallible and be accepted by todays Church leaders as such; even if it be opposed to Church doctrine on the reality of sin and the fallen nature of Man.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
My suspician is that the psychiatrists opinion would be considered infallible and be accepted by todays Church leaders as such; even if it be opposed to Church doctrine on the reality of sin and the fallen nature of Man.

Is that supposed to be funny?

simple Faith wrote:Columba wrote,

I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?.

I would doubt very much if your quotes from the Saints, doctors and theologians were directed towards or intended for the individual layperson to determine the legitimacy of the Pope and to support an individual's disobedience to the Holy father.

columba wrote:Mike ,
From your reply thus far I take it you do not believe Pope Paul IV when he stated in his Bull "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, "That if ever it should appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be null, legally invalid and void, and all the subsequent acts, laws and appointments of such an invalidly elected pope, would be lacking in force, and would grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. Moreover, that all those who would be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by such a pope would, “by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

And you do the very thing you accuse me of doing, -putting the words of a handful of theologians over and above those of the teaching authority of the Church- in this case, a certain Cardinal Billot, overrides the words of Pope Paul IV.
You can't keep having it both ways Mike.

columba wrote:I take it too that you believe St. Robert Bellarmine, Fr. Francisco Suarez, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, Rev Ignatius Szal, where all fostering heretical ideas in the minds of the faithful when they offered their opinions on the courses of action that could legitimately be followed in times of crises.

"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Bellarmine)

In debates among traditional Catholics regarding the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar popes, the following quote from St. Robert Bellarmine has been repeatedly recycled:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

I have seen it employed this way no less that three times in the past four months-once in The Remnant (Edwin Faust, Signa Temporum,15 April 1994, eight), once in The Catholic (Michael Farrell, Letter to Editor, Simple Answer to the Sede-Vacantists, April 1994, 10), and once by a Society of St. Pius X priest.

Traditional Catholics who reject the New Mass and the post-Vatican II changes .... also see in this passage some sort of justification for recognizing someone as pope but rejecting his commands.

...Alas, it has been taken out of context and completely misapplied. In its original context, Bellarmine's statement neither condemns the principle behind the sedevacantist position, nor justifies resisting laws promulgated by a validly-elected pope...

The passage cited is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor, king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism). The general context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-à-vis the pope...

Those who would recognize John Paul II as pope while disregarding all his commands, therefore, can take no consolation whatsoever in the passage from Bellarmine. (Rev. Anthony Cekada: Did Bellarmine Condemn Sedevacantism?, (c. 1994); taken from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/983672/posts

columba wrote:"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense." (Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J)

Pope John XII was "a scandal to the whole Church...John conducted himself in the manner of a layman, preferring hunting to church ceremonies, and largely indifferent to Church matters....It was said that he was struck with a paralysis while visiting his mistress. He died on 14 May 964, without confession or receiving the Sacraments."

Pope Boniface IX (1389-1404): ...increased the taxation of the Church and sold provisions and expectatives for ready cash. Indulgences were multiplied, to be gained by an offering of money with little regard paid to the essential spiritual conditions. In the year 1400 the Pope proclaimed a Holy Year and allowed would-be pilgrims to the shrines of Rome to forego the arduous journey for a sum roughly equivalent to what they would otherwise have spent. The bankers of Europe were called in to collect the offerings which they divided equally with the Pope. There can be little doubt that Boniface IX, who treated the whole business simply as a political problem, was guilty of simony on a massive scale.

Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) had one dominating idea, "the desire to advance his family and obtain for it a leading position in Italy. Other popes had engaged in nepotism, some out of family loyalty and others from political considerations: but under him it became the chief influence in papal policy."

Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) was: ...a kindly and genial man [but] he lacked the personality and intellectual capacity for the office of pope. His morals were equally unsuitable, and he openly avowed his illegitimate children....To the open scandals caused by the pope's morals and policies - the advancement of his bastard Francesschotto, and his collaboration with the heathen - were added the results of corruption in the Curia. Administrative incompetence and the expenses of foreign policy in the early years of his pontificate led both to an increase in the sale of offices and to the creation of new posts in order that they might be sold. The number of papal secretaries was increased to twenty-six and the new posts sold for 62,400 ducats, while fifty-two Plumbatores were appointed to seal bulls, each of whom paid 2,500 ducats for his appointment.

“A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?" His answer is: "He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. (Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P.

columba wrote:I have the opinions of Saints, doctors and theologians to help me out on this. Am I to substitute their opinions for the opinions of a certain well-read layman?

MRyan wrote:
Our Lord would not let it happen, at least not to where the false pope was accepted by the universal Church.

Tell me, Columba, have you ever read the relevant chapters or entire passages from De Romano Pontifice, or any of the other sources for your copy and pasted “proofs”?

I think not.

The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].

Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu," united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu," for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.

Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope (ad bene esse papae). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter," but only ad bene esse.

To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter," but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.

Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary ad bene esse, and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.

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

Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: "It is evident that he [excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of his office by of Nestorius] anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence."

And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: "The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."

St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.

But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.

The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church."

Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” A Catholic Controversy, 1596)

“… he does tend to quote his sources accurately. He also tends to recognize the general context of sources correctly - even though his arguments suffer from unproven presuppositions. And in light of how the overwhelming majority of so-called "trads" do not reference sources with the care that they should, this writer challenges them to disprove Fr. Cekada's assertion viz the manifested intention of this passage. For as anyone who has read the context of the text can plainly see for themselves, Fr. Cedaka's assertion is on the money as far as those who appropriate this passage in misrepresenting its true sense.” (Squelching Fr. Gruner's "Squawking Squire", by I. Shawn McElhinney)

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. (Council of Florence)

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

columba wrote:
Compare those statements above with any single one of the Vatican II documents, papal encyclicals, or teachings which you tell me I am bound to observe under threat of schism, and tell me am I not bound to believe that "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is an authoritive and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith.

If I am not bound by this, then neither am I bound by anything arising from Council Vast II.

In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.

Dr. Schulte proceeds with another Bull of Pope Paul IV., issued in the year 1559 which is rightly described in the collection of Papal Bulls under the title of ‘Renewal of previous censures and punishments against heretics and schismatics, with the addition of further penalties.’ Why, the very title, which gives a true account of its contents, is of itself alone enough to show every one who reads it, that this Papal delivery is not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an utterance ex cathedra. And yet Dr. Schulte, in the most decided way, asserts that it is, saying that ‘it is directed to the whole Church, signed by the Cardinals in the most solemn form, so that it is certainly delivered ex cathedra (Dr. Schulte’s Pamphlet, p. 34). One can hardly believe one’s eyes when one sees such manifestly erroneous assertions set forth with such an affectation of demonstrated certainty. One really feels sorry for Dr. Schulte [and Columba] that he should have made such an enormous blunder in the sight of every one who knows anything at all about such matters. To us it is beyond all question certain, that this Bull, is not a definition of faith or morals, not an utterance ex cathedra. It is simply an outcome of the supreme Papal authority as legislator, and an instance of his exercising his power of punishing; it is not done in the exercise of his power as supreme teacher. I should abuse the patience of my readers if I were to attempt to prove in detail what is manifest to all mankind in every line of the Bull. Who ever imagined before Dr. Schulte that the Pope was infallible in the province of declaring legal pains and penalties.?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You never answered my question, other than to say that you'd think that my scenario was impossible.

Jehanne wrote:
I think that you need to have a "second look" at Columba's post from a week ago where Pope Benedict quotes favorably from those "exegetes" who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection.

Jehanne wrote:

In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)

Note the part in bold and note the part in italics; the later is clearly modifying the former, which means that it is not talking about the Pope prior to his election to the Throne but after. It is Christ who is the Head of His Church and not His Vicar, which means that this section of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is reaffirming a divine law and not merely some "discipline". You yourself have quoted this many times:

To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. (Council of Florence)

“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:

To set this supposed case in its proper light the following remarks may be useful. Pope Paul IV., no doubt, supposes the case possible (however improbable it might be) that a man who clings to an heretical doctrine might be chosen Pope, and also that after he has mounted the Papal throne, he might still hold heretical doctrine, or, even it may be, express it in his intercourse with others; not, however, that he would teach the whole Church this heretical doctrine in an utterance of his supreme teaching office (ex cathedrâ). From making such an utterance God Himself, through His special assistance, preserves the Pope and the Church. If, then, as has been suggested, a man were elected Pope who might uphold heretical doctrine to the whole Church formally as Catholic doctrine de fide, or prescribe it to be held as such), then we should have the case before us for which Pope Paul IV., in the above-named Bull, § 6, provides, by quashing the election of such a man to the Papacy, and declaring it ‘null and void.’ This is one of the cases which theologians mean when they say the Pope (homo privates), as a private individual, may err in a matter of faith; that is, when he is considered simply as a man, with merely his own human conception of a doctrine of the faith. As Pope, as supreme teaching of the Catholic Church, he cannot err, when, by virtue of the assistance of God, promised and vouchsafed to him, he solemnly defines a truth revealed by God, and prescribes it to be held by the Universal Church. It is clear that there are in the one person of the Pope two different active powers (έυεδγείαί): first, the ordinary power of thinking and viewing things; and, secondly, the solemn defining power for the whole Church. I might illustrate this point by the parallel case of a judge who has to decide upon a suit. In his own private life he may, perhaps, hold and express his opinion, and that on very various occasions, but in the suit nothing passes for law but his solemn judicial utterance, which, however, will suffice to show that a man who is invested with an official position can be readily conceived as thinking and speaking as a man, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, as an official personage in his forensic utterances and acts.

After making this distinction, plain enough as I conceive it to be, the introductory words of this Bull will be quite intelligible; why, that is, the Pope expresses his conviction how perilous it would be if, even his private life, a Pope were to admit an error in doctrine, and what sad confusion would arise if the said Pope, as a private individual, were to be guilty of heresy, and yet had to put into force penalties against heretics, he as Pope having no judge higher than himself.[51]

[51] The question, ‘an Papa, si in hæresim incidit (i.e.as homo privates) deponi posit!’ has been investigated and answered in different ways in former times. The introductory words of the Bull point to a solution of the difficulty in the sense of Pope Paul IV.; the real meaning of the words, however, depends on the right understanding of the word redargui.

“in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”

Jehanne wrote:Likewise, you've agreed that,

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Jehanne wrote:what we do not agree upon is the fact that,

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Jehanne wrote:Well, there has been some error, as Columba posted a week ago. When a sitting Pope fails to affirm the complete historicity of all the Gospels, that's an error. Let's hope that he corrects it and soon, as he corrected his little diatribe on condoms from a few years ago.

The above eight-point analysis should make it clear enough that, contrary to what we might have expected a priori, it is not immediately obvious what exactly the traditional magisterium meant by being ‘outside the Church’. Our enquiry has shown that the position assumed tacitly by the Council of Florence in regard to catechumens is a chink, as it were, in Fr. Feeney’s armor. It punctures a hole in his iron-clad dichotomy, namely, his claim that, according to the traditional magisterium, all who are not members of the Church – i.e., baptized Roman Catholics in good standing – are ipso facto outside of her fold (and, for that reason, on the road to damnation). And once it is recognized that Tradition admits, at least implicitly, the existence of an intermediate condition that is neither ‘inside’ nor ‘outside’ the Church, the way has been opened logically for the more recent doctrinal development – legitimate (we would argue) and in substantial continuity with Tradition – which allows us to assign not only catechumens, but certain other non-members of the Church as well, to this theological locality we are calling the ‘portico’ of the Church. In short, the seed that has grown into Vatican II’s category of persons in “partial communion” with the Church had already been sown quietly at Florence.

Our analysis has also shown that there are two sufficient conditions for being extra Ecclesiam: 1) a lack (whether culpable or inculpable) of supernatural faith; and 2) an explicit and culpable will not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Each of these two dispositions can exist either independently or together with the other.) Also, we have seen that there is one (and only one) necessary condition for being extra Ecclesiam, namely, lack of supernatural charity. A logically equivalent way of stating these conclusions is to say that all who are outside the Church lack charity, while all who lack theological faith, along with all schismatics who retain faith while culpably refusing subjection to the Roman Pontiff, are outside the Church.37

tornpage wrote:
I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.

MRyan wrote:

Ay Caramba,

I asked if you had read the relevant sections of De Romano Pontifice that you took your citations from; and you say you have, and then proceed to cite another section from De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, chapter 30 on a related but different subject concerning what may or may not happen in the entirely hypothetical situation of an openly heretical pope, when your original citation is from “lib. 2, chap. 29”.

As we say in America, “close” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Btw, with regard to chapter 30, perhaps you should also cite from his “A Catholic Controversy”, 1596, where Bellarmine says:
Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” A Catholic Controversy, 1596)
I've no need to. You've already done so, and in so doing have proved what I've written above.

Do you or do any of your sede friends claim to be “the Church” with the authority to “doubt” his legitimacy or “declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See”?

If Pope BXVI, or any of his validly elected predecessors have not been deprived of their Apostolic See by “the Church”, which, hypothetically, can (soon after his election -before he is universally accepted) only deprive a usurper and an anti-Pope to his false claim to the Apostolic See (for no one can judge a valid Pope), then how is it that God has allowed a false Pope to visibly reign over His visible Church for 54 years and counting?

Oh, let me guess, the not so visible “true Church” is in “eclipse”, and you can cite some bogus "prophesy" to justify such a heretical absurdity. Sure, that’s what VCI teaches, all right.

Are you going to place the non-unanimous and varied opinions of theologians over that of an infallible dogmatic Council?

St. Bellarmine did not for a minute believe that the hypothetical exercise he conducted could ever happen, for the very same reasons that were infallibly declared by VCI.

I’m taking your little barb about Fr. Cekada in stride ~

Fr. Cekada is wrong about many things, but:“… he does tend to quote his sources accurately. He also tends to recognize the general context of sources correctly - even though his arguments suffer from unproven presuppositions.

Regarding your “at least seven examples of the language used in promulgating the contents of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, I don’t know how to break the news to you, but you’ve proven nothing except how confused you really are.

The strong “binding” papal rescripts of “by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew … by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We also enact, determine, define and decree..", etc. etc., is certainly binding on the faithful in perpetuity, right up to the moment the next Pope enacts his own disciplinary rescripts, and/or ignores the penalties, changes the law, or deep sixes the more ambiguous and dangerous prescriptions that spell anarchy for the Church with every layman acting as his own pope.

Subsequent canon law would make reference to Cum ex, but only in one context, and not the arbitrary and chaotic “should he appear to have deviated from the faith prior to his elevation” private judgments.

In matters of discipline, the pope can “bind in perpetuity” and “define” all they want; and we are obliged to obey - but he cannot bind his successors to disciplines and maters of positive law, but only to dogmatic truths and divine law; to which all popes are bound without exception.

Please do take the time to read TRUE AND THE FALSE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES, By Bishop Josef Fessler, he’ll explain it all; and he even address Cum ex and the erroneous accusations of the Protestant Professor Dr. Schulte who makes the same errant arguments as you.

Imagine that!

MRyan wrote:
"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is NOT an authoritative and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith ... it is a disciplinary document codifying and explicating ecclesiastical law. From its introduction:

Gee, columba, what silly rabbit will you pull out of the hat now?

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:
I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.

Quite so; and very uncomfortable.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" is NOT an authoritative and binding teaching document of the Church pertaining to matters of faith ... it is a disciplinary document codifying and explicating ecclesiastical law. From its introduction:

You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"

columba wrote:Bishop Fessler in his arrogant dismissal of Dr. Schulte,

".. after the council [Bishop Fessler] replied in a masterly brochure to the attack on the council by Dr. Schulte, professor of canon law and German law at Prague. Dr. Schulte's pamphlet on the power of the Roman popes over princes, countries, peoples, and individuals, in the light of their acts since the reign of Gregory VII, was very similar in character to the Vaticanism pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, and rested on just the same fundamental misunderstanding of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council." (CE)

... We esteem it a very opportune and useful thing to have beaten back the audacity of Professor Schulte, inciting as he does the secular powers against the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. For it is a matter the true meaning of which, no all men, and especially not all laymen, have a thoroughly clear understanding of, and the truth, when lucidly set forth, is wont to expel from properly constituted minds opinions which men perhaps have drunk in with their mother’s milk, to confirm others in a right mind, and fortify them against insidious attacks. Wherefore, if you continue to refute figments of this kind, you will deserve well of our most holy religion, and of all Christian people, in that, like a good pastor, you withdraw them from poisoned pastures. We make known to you, then, the great pleasure you have given Us, both by reason of the book which you have presented to Us, as well as by reason of your most affectionate letters; and We pray that you may receive a rich reward for your deference to Our authority and devotion towards Ourselves. . . . .’

{Signed by the Pope's own hand}

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:
I believe Mike will appreciate that last remark since, if I know him as I think I do, the recent encomia he gets from some here I am sure truly makes him feel a bit uncomfortable.

Quite so; and very uncomfortable.

You are a modest man at heart Mike.

columba wrote:I've no doubt Benedict XVI will adopt the same attitude when I don't indulge in encomia concerning the papacy. I'm sure he knows that respect for the office and worshiping the holder are two different things.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Are you saying that the Pope could tomorrow abolish the Eastern Catholic Church's liturgy and "order" them to use only the English Novus Ordo from now on?

Jehanne wrote:We "traddy Catholics" here in the "West" want the same courtesy.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"

I reject the premise outright.

MRyan wrote:
For the sake of argument, even the divine law requires the application of ecclesiastical laws; meaning that warnings, an interpretation and a judgement confirming whether an ipso facto loss office may or may not apply to a specific alleged occurrence of a “public defection” from the faith -- must follow. And, you are not that authority; sorry.

Your example from the Catechism, for example, as some sort of “public defection” -- is a joke.

First of all, I agree with everything that you state in the above post and all of your citations and quotes.

MRyan wrote:
Why would I do that? What is that supposed to prove … that Pope Benedict XVI “quotes favorably from those ‘exegetes’ who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection”. Are you implying heresy by association? Are you actually suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI has denied the historical and dogmatic fact of our Lord’s resurrection?

Prove it – for such a blatant heresy cannot stand, and we all know it; and we also know he doesn’t believe any such nonsense. Remember, columba is the same person who believes Cum ex is a binding teaching document of the supreme teaching office of the Pope, so excuse me if I don’t pay a lot of attention to his copy and paste inferences, especially from an easily misconstrued non-authoritative book of the pope.

Furthemore, it is certainly true that a pope may be “contradicted” who is found to have “deviated from the faith” for popes may err in their private capacity as doctor and theologian; and we know that popes have erred without ever having fallen into obstinate heresy.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
You do not believe then that a pope who would becaome a publically hersetic would fall from office "ipso facto?"

I reject the premise outright.

I thought you would, and with it you also reject the meaning of the term "ipsi Facto."

”In order that the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted IN him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation”; and

“THAT which our Lord Jesus Christ established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church [the permanent principles of faith and communion], must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.’

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

… and that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
For the sake of argument, even the divine law requires the application of ecclesiastical laws; meaning that warnings, an interpretation and a judgement confirming whether an ipso facto loss office may or may not apply to a specific alleged occurrence of a “public defection” from the faith -- must follow. And, you are not that authority; sorry.

I had already given a "for the sake of argument" scenario. The cold-blooded murderer one, remember!

But "ipso facto" means a state of fact which already exixts without any determination having to be made. Can't you understand this?

columba wrote:
The fact of the matter is; a pope could be reigning over the Church and accepted by all, to the last man, as a legitimate pope. However, in reality he would not be a legitimate pope if he had fallen ipso facto from office because of some hersey.

columba wrote:
If the hersey be public then one could have reason to believe that he has, ipso facto, excommunicated himself without ever having received this sentence from Church authorities. Considering that no authority on earth has a God-given right to judge a pope, he could remain indeffinately in office but still not be a legitimate pope.

columba wrote:
The most that anyone could do legitimately, would be to resist those teachings which stand contrary to the dogmas of the faith. Thus, one would not be judging the pope (even if in reality he is not the pope) but judging his teachings as being in accord or not with the universally accepted teachings of the Church throughout her history.

"You can express the desire for a declaration or an explanatory treatment of this or that point, but you cannot affirm the incompatibility of the conciliar texts – which are magisterial texts – with the magisterium and tradition." In other words, the conciliar texts could not be corrected or disavowed, but it was legitimate to ask for complementary explanations that could clarify their meaning or give them a new interpretation. (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350146?eng=y)

columba wrote:
You Mike, have thrown away your only legitimate means of defense if such a state of affairs should ever become a reality. By you stating that this would be an impossibility that could never happen, you have left youself at the mercy of every heresy that could procede from one who is in fact not a true teacher but a wolf in sheeps clothing. In fact in my book you have already accepted heretical teachings which despite all manner of verbal gymnastics, you cannot reconcile with the law of non-contradiction.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Your example from the Catechism, for example, as some sort of “public defection” -- is a joke.

And yet you can't reconcile one with the other in any coherent way and fall ever deeper into a mire of contradictions as one false belief begets another and so on and so on.

I'll ask you again in the hope of proving this piont to you:

How can, "The Church knows of no other means" be reconciled with the its contradiction, "the Church does know of another means." iF you can clear that one up it will be a good start in reconciling the apparent contradictions which have sprung from this one.

Commenting on St. Cyril's phrase in a recent interview with a Time magazine reporter, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, placed the famous words in their important historical context:

We must remember that this expression was formulated by St. Cyprian in the third century in a quite concrete situation. There were those who thought they were better Christians who were unhappy with the Church of bishops and separated themselves from her. In answer to that, Cyprian says: separation from the Church community separates one from salvation. But he did not mean to lay down a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons (quoted in "Ratzinger Speaks," The Catholic World Report, January 1994, p. 23).

One more example of this broad understanding of membership in the partially invisible and mysterious Body of Christ comes from the moving funeral oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, which he offered on the occasion of his father's death in A.D. 374:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, p. 29).

In other words, when the authentic understanding of extra ecclesiam is not taught, or worse, when the error of religious indifferentism is passed off as "modern" church teaching, the young are especially vulnerable to an extreme "solution" like Feeneyism.

Vin Lewis, the aforementioned Feeney apologist of All Roads Ministries, justified in a recent debate his own rejection of church teaching as contained in Redemptoris Missio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "I reject the statements of the pope because, regardless of what Canon Law says, I am number one supreme in my conscience."

George Brenner wrote:

I believe that you have reached the point in your beliefs where you have all but nailed your 95 theses to the church door.

George Brenner wrote:

Maybe only prayer and not posts are the answer for you.

George Brenner wrote:

I love Father Feeney but had I known that he was excommunicated when I visited him, I would have kidnapped Him and taken him to Rome.

George Brenner wrote:

My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against.

George Brenner wrote:

You have left the Catholic Church. Save the crisis of faith subject for a different discussion.

Fatima for our times wrote:
Yea, dead on George. You’re the one who has left the Catholic Church. You subject yourself to a wicked man who dresses up in the Pope’s robes and travels from Jewish synagogue to Muslim mosque, who blasphemes God by holding apostate prayer meetings with the demonic religions of the world, while at the same time, he heaps his profound respect and esteem on them. Get with the program Mr. Brenner.

The Council of Elvira , A.D. 305: “It has been decreed that those who in adult age after receiving Baptism shall go into the pagan temples to worship idols, which is a deadly crime and the height of wickedness, shall not be admitted to communion even at death.” (Quoted by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Philadelphia, PA: The Dolphin Press, 1935, p. 177.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Open your eyes, stand for the truth for once.

My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against. You have left the Catholic Church.

MRyan wrote:
Your logical fallacy rears its ugly head once again. Why would I reject the term “ipso facto” when I don’t; and when I agreed that AB Lefebvre received a latae sententiae “ipso facto” excommunication as soon as he committed his schismatic act?

I also agree that public acts of outright heresy may be judged in the external form to be exactly that ... but I reject outright the claims of the sede's against the pope.

What I reject is the notion of a validly elected pope (lawfully elected and accepted by the Universal Church) who can wither away into obstinate and pertinacious (formal) heresy.

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

… and that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

Tell us, columba, what is it about these infallible dogmatic prescriptions that you do not understand?

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
I had already given a "for the sake of argument" scenario. The cold-blooded murderer one, remember!

But "ipso facto" means a state of fact which already exixts without any determination having to be made. Can't you understand this?

I understand it perfectly and I reject the notion that the Pope can commit cold-blooded spiritual public murder by falling into public, obstinate and pertinacious heresy.

Can’t you understand this?

Next, you’ll be defining spiritual “public murder” as your fallacious “interpretation” of the CCC on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants where the only ones who see a “defect from the faith” are a handful of Pharisaical doctrinal Neanderthals who wouldn’t recognize a theological distinction if it bit them in the rear end.

Your abuse and evisceration of Cum ex and Canon 188 is nothing more than private interpretation gone amok to where any Catholic Crusader Holy Joe can claim an ipso facto removal from office of any pope in the entire history of the Church who appears to have deviated from the faith.

You scoffed at the real time example of the sedevacantists who, with Cum ex and canon law in hand, dragged down Pope Leo XIII to anti-pope status for having fallen into heresy and to have suffered an ipso facto excommunication, when they are only taking your advice in reading divine and ecclesiastical law precisely as you state it; and acting upon it with all the alleged authority it gives every sede with an ax to grind against this or that pope who "appears to have deviated from the faith".

And you think you have any credibility in this matter when sedevacantists take the law into their own hands and determine who is and who is not a pope? What gives you any credibility or authority to tell them they are wrong because you don’t agree with their assessment of this or that pope? You open wide the barn door and then complain when other sedevacntists don’t behave themselves by following “mainstream” sede propaganda to the letter.

MRtan wrote:

columba wrote:
The fact of the matter is; a pope could be reigning over the Church and accepted by all, to the last man, as a legitimate pope. However, in reality he would not be a legitimate pope if he had fallen ipso facto from office because of some hersey.

Who said so? Not the First Vatican Council.

Even if one accepted your premise, which I don’t, you have failed to address my previous post on “Sedevacantism and the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law” that clearly demonstrates that even the divine law, as with ecclesiastical law, requires the competency of ecclesiastical authorities to interpret the law and to authoritatively determine whether a certain person, and especially the pope, has actually “defected publicly from the Catholic faith”.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
If the hersey be public then one could have reason to believe that he has, ipso facto, excommunicated himself without ever having received this sentence from Church authorities. Considering that no authority on earth has a God-given right to judge a pope, he could remain indeffinately in office but still not be a legitimate pope.

Nonsense; IF a manifest heretic occupied the Chair of Peter, the Church would have every right to depose him, for he would NOT be the pope. This would mean, of course, that sufficient warning and the opportunity for retraction were given, but IF the “pope” persisted in his public, obstinate and pertinacious heresy, he could be deposed as an anti-Pope. Again, I reject outright the notion of a formally heretical pope, but if you are going to press an argument, at least remain consistent and stop making it up as you go along.

This sounds like the Tradition In Action “God has rejected His Vicar; He’s only waiting for the faithful to catch up publicly reject him” specious argument. Hey, in the pope judging business, have Cum ex, will travel ... anything goes.

Scoff Scoff... The fact that nobody has had a practice run to prepare themselves for this crisis means they'll just have to work with what they have been dealt.
There are four possible options: Either Stick with the NO and accept all its inovations both in liturgical practice and matters pertaining to faith itself and risk loosing your soul; stick with tradition and resist all the above while remaing subject to the pope as best one can; extract oneself completely from the NO structure and become a sedevacantist, or, abandon the faith altogether and become an atheist or something.

Take your pick Mike. Ive chosen option number two. Option 3 is still a possibilty but options 1 and four I've totally ruled out.

columba wrote:In response to Mike's quote Jehanne wrote:

First of all, I agree with everything that you state in the above post and all of your citations and quotes.

The problem here Jehanne is that Mike himself doesn't agree with half the things he says in that post.
An example:

MRyan wrote:
Why would I do that? What is that supposed to prove … that Pope Benedict XVI “quotes favorably from those ‘exegetes’ who deny the historicity of St. Luke's account of our Lord's resurrection”. Are you implying heresy by association? Are you actually suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI has denied the historical and dogmatic fact of our Lord’s resurrection?

Prove it – for such a blatant heresy cannot stand, and we all know it; and we also know he doesn’t believe any such nonsense. Remember, columba is the same person who believes Cum ex is a binding teaching document of the supreme teaching office of the Pope, so excuse me if I don’t pay a lot of attention to his copy and paste inferences, especially from an easily misconstrued non-authoritative book of the pope.

You see Mike believes that Cum ex (because in most part deals in disciplinary matters) contains no doctrinal points of fact from which the disciplinary elements are based, but yet, when we do in fact have docuents that we are authoritively told contain no binding teachings bar those that have already been expressed in previous dogmatic Chucrh documents and are reflected in the said documents of VatII Council, he then changes positions and declares that these documents are in fact binding on all the faithful, even in their new understanding of which the previously understood meaning has been changed.

I know, its very confusing and almost defies expression through the medium of language but one can hold at least a conceptual meaning of this in ones mind.

columba wrote:And now, when a pope is actually holding office, we are told that he can put this office on hold and proclaim his own personal theolgical ideas, -even those that are in opposition to already known truths- via books he authors under his reassumed lay title and we are to take these writings as non-authoritative, while the whole Catholic world accepts them as being from the hand of the pope.

columba wrote:If ever one had a way of disseminating contraversial and dangerous ideas with the best hope of them being accepted as true teachings, this is surely the way to go about it.
Do you realize Mike that when these books were being written the chair of Peter was vacant. The pope had (by his own admission) left his office for the duration of the book and was now Joseph Ratzinger. I do not remember him being re ellected as pope again. Dio you?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Furthemore, it is certainly true that a pope may be “contradicted” who is found to have “deviated from the faith” for popes may err in their private capacity as doctor and theologian; and we know that popes have erred without ever having fallen into obstinate heresy.

Mike doesn't really believe this either for when anyone highlights a case of erronious teaching proceding from the mouth or pen of a pope (even in his private capacity), the accusations of schism and heresy immediately begin to fly and every attempt is made to conform the strange teaching to known doctrine, even if that entails the redefinition of standard theological terms.

columba wrote:My point being, that when we're all laboring under shifting definitions of what's meant by Church, Baptism, Necessity and many many more words that were once commonly undertstood as meaning one thing only and of which everyone had the same understanding, its little wonder that no meaningful dialougue can take place between one who holds the traditional meaning and one who holds the post concilliar meaning of any given word.

simple Faith wrote:George wrote,

My greatest fear for you is that you are a victim of exactly of what you claim to be fighting against. You have left the Catholic Church.

George,
Don't be too sore on Columba, it's not his fault, he is currently suffering from a condition known as HACS ('Home Alone' Catholic Syndrome). This is caused by an intolerance of Popes and an inability to properly digest Church documents. This in turn causes a deficiency in humility, inevitably resulting in the patient's self-imposed isolation and separation. Syptoms of this condition include paronoia and a irrational fear of anything written written after 1965. The sufferer may also have delusions of grandeur and believe that he is more knowledgable than the Pope and the Magisterium.

PS, I think 'Fatima for our time' may also suffer from this syndrome.