To rephrase Juvenal's question, "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who judges the judges? That's the central problem that your latest copy-pasta dump neatly avoids. The Heavy Bold Italic Underlines tactic is a cheap ruse to affect a faux-legitimacy not supplied by any the quotes you provide.
"A pope who falls into heresy--- as a private individual--- automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law."
Your opinion. ..and who determines when that occurs? Who arbitrates when Divine Law applies or how it applies?
Where in the Laws of the Church does it impanel the laity as qualified experts? Divine Law, by its very nomenclature establishes God as the Judge, not mankind.
God appointed the Pope as His official earthly representative on earth and the head of His Church, He did not appoint the laity.to sit as the Pope's judges whenever they feel like doing so.
The mistake you're making is an adjunct to the flawed reasoning behind the Lutherans' "Sola Scriptura". Citing the word of God as an absolute authority may sound pious, but in practice it's subject to the individual interpretation of every reader who picks up the Good Book and starts flipping through it.
"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy,..." - St. Alphonsus Liguori
Same issue... who decides when that occurs? On the basis of what? Which court adjudicates a verdict of heresy? Who appoints the judges and attorneys and the jury?
More importantly, where does St. Alphonsus Ligouri recognize an individual lay-person's ability to correctly make any of those decisions?
You didn't quote that part, probably because St. Alphonsus Ligouri never granted the laity such authority. Further, even if he had on his own say-so, you're still down to a fallacious appeal to authority. Saints are not infallible, even they are capable of sin and error.
"by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power..." -Wernz-Vidal.
...is deemed by whom? On what grounds? As determined by whom? Passive verb use bypasses an explicitly stated subject but again... same problem.
"A pope who falls into public heresy..." and who decides when that officially occurs? You? Me? Wernz-Vidal? Not by the Church's laws.
Your authors are discussing the conditions of a hypothetical scenario. You sedevacantists then misuse it to usurp authority the Church simply does not grant you either in Church law, or in precedent, much less in actual practice.
"A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy."
You are not the arbiter or the official interpreter of Divine Law.
Even in secular law, one is required first to pass the bar exam even to practice law. Further, the State reserves for itself the right to appoint the judges to interpret its laws.
Christ, through the Papal sucession, has already established an official earthly representative, a final temporal arbiter for His Church.. It is not Wernz-Vidal, nor is it the theologian Baldii. It isn't the canonist Coronata or the theologian Szal or you.
...which raises yet another problem. All of these scholars are simply presenting their own views of what would constitute a valid or invalid Papacy. Again, even Saints are not infallible.
You aren't citing Canon Law, nor even the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Neither are your authors.
Your self-appointed authority to judge the validity of the Pope is based entirely on their self-appointed authority to judge the validity of the Pope.
Your opinion that you have such a legal capacity is based on their opinion that they do.
"If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order."
Sot, according to your claim, the pope isn't pope anymore the moment anyone claims they suspect he's been invalidly elected.
How convenient. Those suspicions will always be voiced the first time the Pope does or says something someone doesn't like. And when someone else disagrees with that suspicion? Why should anyone assume the nay-sayer's mere suspicions are correct? Burden of proof is on the nay-sayer making the accusation.
The Church doesn't work that way. Nether does the Papacy.
A "reasonable suspicion"??? Again... who determines which suspicions are reasonable and which are baseless? The person holding those suspicions? The prosecutor and the judge are now one and the same? Not even in secular law.
"Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION."
Last time I checked, the basic principles of law say just the opposite.
---
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal standard the prosecutor must satisfy to obtain a guilty verdict against a criminal defendant, as well as the highest standard of proof that needs to be met at any criminal trial."
---
www.shanephelpslaw.com/…/what-does-proof…
Accusing the Pope of heresy would describe a deliberate rejection of some of the Church's teachings (at least in part). Literally a crime in purposefully (and knowingly) contradicting the teachings of the Church.
Meaning, simply for argument's sake, theoretically the proscutor will have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not just SUSPICION, italicized and in all caps.
Again, this fanciful quasi-legal theorizing has no direct parallel within the Church and secular law is not even directly applicable.
Who appointed the prosecutor? Himself? By virture he runs a popular sedevacantist blog? Whre did he file the charges? On his own blog? Where is the trial being held? The same virtual venue? Can a motion be filed for a change of venue? Which court rules on that motion?
Who appointed the judges in any of these courts? What credentials do they have even to be judges? Who picked the jurors? Is the jury pool getting drawn from the echo-box of sedevacantists posting in the comments section of sedevacantist prosecutor-cum-judge's blog-cum-courtroom? Are they being selected only by the prosecutor?
Even in secular law, the legal process simply does not work this way.
You sedevacantists are creating a kangaroo court affecting the pretenses of "law" and pointedly stripping out all the protections, checks and balances genuine law provides..
"A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. "
Even in civil law, suspicion is not proof. Nor is it evidence. In criminal law, reasonable suspicion isn't even grounds for an arrest much less criminal charges. But I understand your motivation.
You're trying to use secular civil law because you seek the advantages from lower standards of evidence allowed in civil trials. However, you're accusing the Pope of deliberate wrong-doing i.e. heresy... breaking the Church's laws and contradicting the Church's teachings. That would mandate a criminal trial.
...and again, this is a flawed (likely deliberately so on your part) conflation. Apples and oranges applied to bananas.
More importantly, The Church has its own internal "court" system.
The Church does not grant any such judicial authority to members of the laity, no matter how many books they write, how many visitors they get on their blog, how many authors they cite, or how many Heavy Bold Italic Underlines they employ on GTV with ALL CAPS ITALICIZED..
A post-script...
You might enjoy this... ;-) Buiding on what I mentioned elsewhere...
Canon Law 751 states "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Making a claim such as "there is no valid Pope" or "the current Pope is a heretic" are, in themselves, intrinsic refusals of submission to the Supreme Pontiff. Canon law does not list an exception for those claiming a devout love for the institutrion of the Papacy, or the principles establishing it. The Supreme Pontiff is an individual. One either submits to him or one does not.
Refusing to do so is schism.
Worse, Canon Law 1364 §1.states: Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; (i.e. automatic -UV)
In summary, by refusing to submit to the Supreme Pontiff's authority, one becomes a schismatic.
Arguing the Supreme Pontiff is not even a valid Pope naturally includes the supposition he does not have such authority in the first place.
By doing so, the schismatic separates himself from the communion of the Church. The Church then goes one step further and automatically excommunicates the schismatic.
Now, perhaps, you understand why it is both "pious and prudent" (borrowing the phrase from Umberto Eco) to disapprove of what the Pope does, to criticize his policies and their effects, rather than directly challenge his Papal legitmacy.
The Pope has the full support of the Church behind him and the full force of Church law on his side.
The laws of the Church may seem harsh but they are just and good riddance to the whole sorry lot of you.
Not by my authority. Manifest is manifest. What you propose is that the Church insists on the faithful in continuing in error. A dead person doesn't need an official declaration for people to know they are dead. Official declarations exist for the sake of law. You can't sell the house until you have an official declaration of death. A new pope cannot assume the chair until an official declaration of vacancy. That does not mean that the seat is not vacant. Most of argumentation seems to hinge on the idea that it is possible for a heretic, schismatic or apostate to be a Catholic. They are expressly outside of the Church. If they are outside of the Church, they can not be Catholic, ergo, not possible to be popes. You recognize this, but apply it to Sedes, and yet you manifest a glaring blindspot when it comes to applying it to the "pope."
Those who promote Bergoglio as pope and yet oppose what he teaches and decrees are the worst kind of Catholics, doing great violence against the Holy See. Pope Piux IX, in Intermultiplices (1853) in writing to the people of France expressed what kind of "filial affection and obedience to the Apostolic See" is expected of the faithful (#7):
"Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees."
As one who believes that Bergoglio legitimately occupies the Holy See, do you accept with "complete obedience" and willingness to "execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees"? Anyone who would follow Bergoglio's teachings will be walking out of the Catholic Church and into the arms of perdition. But to oppose his teachings and his globalist agenda would be the most unCatholic response, as you would be opposing the pope. No, it is clear his not pope. His actions do not disqualify him from the papacy, hence no need to exercise authority no one has anyways. His heretical words and actions, his schismatic betrayals of the Chinese Catholics, and an endless list that anyone familiar with GTV doesn't need meed to enumerate here, prove that he was never pope to begin with. Otherwise, the gates of hell have indeed prevailed and Peter has lost faith and the Church, contrary to what her stated mission is, insists on the faithful to be led into error for as long as it takes, pending some official declaration from some extraordinary council (which is an idea itself harmful to the Papacy, attempting to validate conciliarism).
What is obvious is that a heretic, schismatic or apostate is not a Catholic. One must be Catholic in order to be pope. That Bergoglio can be shown to have been a public heretic prior to election (by a group of likewise heretical cardinals) means that we aren't even talking about declaring a pope a heretic because he was never legitimately elected in the first place due to canonical and divine impediment. It boggles the mind that Recognize and Resist and other Catholics who criticize Bergoglio as a Modernist and at the same time say that Sedes can't call
Bergoglio a heretic, don't Recognize that by acknowledging Bergoglio as a Modernist, they have accepted that he is a heretic, because modernism has been condemned as the synthesis of all heresies. Anti-Sedes talk out of both sides of their mouth. We are not passing judgment or assuming authority over any pope. The men simply were never popes to begin with.
Pope Paul IV:
Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his person election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void… Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] – Coronata
— “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]
— “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”
@AngelusMaria
Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus[16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
This Church Law that you posted condemns False Francis.
One example of his heresies in S. America was just before he went to the Vatican. He celebrated Hanukkah with Jews and even a pagan attended the ceremony.
False Francis was a blatant, public heretic before he began his act as pope.
We well know of his continued heresies at the Vatican.
Pope Paul lV has spoken, and i obey him.
An antiChrist can not be our Christ's representative, this is an absurd contradiction.
No human can walk north and south at the same time.
.
We have an easy choice, worship our Holy Lord Jesus or worship Paccimooma with Francis.
No problemo!
"Not by my authority." @AngelusMaria
When you start placing yourself as the arbiter of what is or isn't heresy, then yeah, it IS by your authority.
"Manifest is manifest."
...and manifest is determined by whom? ...by whichever sedevacantist claims something -is- manifest?.
"What you propose is that the Church insists on the faithful in continuing in error."
Wrong. Strawman and you should know better. I propose
a.) the Church doesn't grant the laity the right to depose or choose its leaders
b.) nothing in Canon law supports sedevacantists' assumption they have a right do a.)
c.) recognizing somone has lawful authority even when they teach error does not presuppose following their error.
Clinton and Obama were bad presidents but they were still lawfully elected presidents. They didn't stop being president the moment conservatives didn't like their ideas.
d.) The Church is not in error, only certain leaders are. Perhaps.
The Church's laws covering the authority of its leaders is explicit. You don't like 'em? Too bad.
You don't like the current Pope? That makes two of us. Martin Luther wasn't a fan of his either. History's already shown how your approach works out.
Various groups of "Sedes" will start denouncing each and every Pope whenever one vocal group of them decides he's "doin' it wrong."
What's next, eh? Cardinals and the bishops go next? That's not a slippery slope fallacy, either. Why shouldn't they go as well? "Manifest is manifest" amirite? Rebellions have a way of gaining momentum.
"A dead person doesn't need an official declaration for people to know they are dead."
Your kind of reasoning is the cause of untold unfortunates getting buried prematurely. :D What people "know" and what actually "is" aren't automatically the same. True, after a point, the body will begin to decay.
Death is an objective fact.
Determining if and when a person is a heretic is a matter of opinion. Interpreting the law is a matter of opinion. It's why appellate courts exist. It's why the Supreme Court has multiple justices and the nomination hearings for them are so bitterly partisan.
Your opinion doesn't become a fact simply because you express the former as the latter.
"You can't sell the house until you have an official declaration of death."
That analogy didn't work out the way you wanted it, bub. :D
If someone has power of attorney, they can sell the house any time they want.
"A new pope cannot assume the chair until an official declaration of vacancy."
That's an administrative procedure and doesn't apply here.
"That does not mean that the seat is not vacant."
Not if one listens to the same kind of nay-sayers who continue to claim Benedict XVI didn't "really" resign.
The seat could be vacant, the body moldering in the Vatican crypts for a year, and they'll still go on claiming the Pope is "in hiding" or he's "held prisoner."
That's not a hypothetical example either. Benedict's fan-boys have been spouting exactly those claims each and every time a doddering nonagenarian isn't in the public eye on a daily basis.
As Benedict XVI's resignation proves, nay-sayers make the same mistake you do: they believe their opinions are facts, even when their "facts" are directly contradicted by the resignee himself.
"They are expressly outside of the Church. If they are outside of the Church, they can not be Catholic, ergo, not possible to be popes."
The determination of being "expressly outside the Church" is one the Church reserves for itself. You don't get to make it.
"You recognize this, but apply it to Sedes, and yet you manifest a glaring blindspot when it comes to applying it to the "pope."
Ah. I -knew- you were going to present that line of reasoning. Shall we begin? :D
First, Canon law is explcit on schism and the canonical status of schismatics.
You're not quoting Canon law when discussing the Pope. Neither are your authors!
I, however, am.
Second, heresy and error are not the same thing. A Pope may err, everything a Pope states is not automatically infallible. Heresy, as the Church defines it, is "an obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; "
Obstinacy shows a deliberate course of action, i.e. "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion."
In this context, the term shows that
a.) the accused heretic has expressed a view
b.) The Church has disgreed with that view as contrary to its teachings.
c.) The Church has attempted to correct the accused heretic
d.) the accused heretic has opposed that correction by the Church.
Regarding Pope Francis,
a.) has happened.
b.)-d.) have not.
You aren't qualified to represent The Church in doing b.-d., not in law or in fact. Neither is some blogger.
Your opinion that the Pope doubts or denies a truth taught by the Church to be divine is not an objective fact. Likewise, your opinion that his supposed doubt or denial is maintained in an obstinate manner is also an opinion. You haven't shown The Church has attempted to correct it and failed has no support.
You might point to this Cardinal's carefully worded complaint, or that Archbishop's pointed remarks, but they are speaking as private individuals, not as the official voice of the Church. They're very careful how they present those views. Time and again, Enthusiatic users of GTV upload dramatic headlines Archbishop So 'n So Sez Frankie Ain't Pope.
A close reading of Archbishop So 'n So's comments reveals he said no such thing. . Further, those clerics are subordinate to the Pope. This is why I quoted Juvenal. Only one personage is in a position to judge the highest authority in The Church.
This, indirectly, is a common problem among Sedevacanists. You approach the Papacy as though God needs you to do His job for Him, that He can't depose a Pope without your help.
I'll admit I'm prideful, but man...an assumption like that is on a whole different level of ego.
Simply put, you are proceeding on a course of denying the Pope's lawful legitimacy based strictly on your opinion of the Pope's actions/ comments, your opinion he is in error, your opinion he does so deliberately, and then citing all of those opinions as though they were facts, namely the result of lawful verdicts from the Church.
The Church hasn't ruled on the Pope's actions and you're not entitled to do so according to Church law. When you deny the Pope's lawful authority -as- Pope, you do so simply because you have the opinion you're entitled to it.
Great. You and Martin Luther both.
Conversely, I can apply a term of "schism" to you nd other Sedes because (obviously) you are claiming -what- you claim because you believe it. You've obviously spent a great deal of time formulating these views and scrabbling up whatever you believe will support them. Therefore, you make your claims on purpose, i.e. deliberate.
I don't have to prove your actions are deliberate or the scope of your views, you've already done so. Since you have, it's easy to apply Canon law to your refusal to submit to the current Supreme Pontiff..
"Those who promote Bergoglio as pope and yet oppose what he teaches and decrees are the worst kind of Catholics, doing great violence against the Holy See."
The Holy See is the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
Current Bishop Of Rome is Francis. Sedevacantist arguments repudiate the Holy See's legitmacy. Can't have a "Holy See" without a Bishop Of Rome in the first place.
...and then you have the gall to claim those who submit to that jurisdicton are the ones "doing great violence" to it.
This from the man who accused me of a "glaring blind spot" no less! :D
"As one who believes that Bergoglio legitimately occupies the Holy See, do you accept with "complete obedience" and willingness to "execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees"? "
Inter Multiplices (yeh needed a space in thar) is an Encyclical, not a Papal Bull. As a rule, Encyclicals are not infallible. They are important documents to be sure, but do not require mandatory acceptance in toto from Catholics.
The very doctrine of Papal infallibility wasn't even formally codified until 1870, long after 1853. ;-)
Meaning, Pope Pius IX's Encyclical might contain sound advice but it isn't necessarily mandatory for all Catholics.
Let's suppose Inter Multiplices was a Papal Bull. I'm giving you a concession of infallibility just fer lulz.
The Holy See's teachings, determinations, and decrees are (wait for it) themselves subject to interpretation both in what they mean -and- how they're implemented. They're worded so broadly, there's a vast, vast amount of leeway.
Not by me, of course. If I tried that, I'd be repeating your mistake. But by The Church herself.
In practice, that means the Bishops and, in some cases, even the local Pastor. It's no secret Pope Francis is already displeased by the obstinacy of American bishops in -their- discernment of how his policies should be implemented.
"Anyone who would follow Bergoglio's teachings will be walking out of the Catholic Church and into the arms of perdition."
Please list those teachings of Pope Francis which he has delivered ex cathedra, formally pronounced as infallible as head of The Church.
I'll wait. ;-)
"But to oppose his teachings and his globalist agenda would be the most unCatholic response, as you would be opposing the pope."
According to Canon law, Catholics are "unCatholic" only when they are either schismatics, heretics or apostates. The deciding factor is whether they are disobeying the teachings of the Church, -not- the Pope.
...and that applies ONLY to those teachings the Church holds as Divine truth.
Orrrrrr.... when people refuse to submit to the authority of the Pope
You know.. the way Team Sede does.
"No, it is clear his not pope."
Argumentum ad nauseam.
"His heretical words and actions, his schismatic betrayals of the Chinese Catholics, and an endless list that anyone familiar with GTV doesn't need meed to enumerate here, prove that he was never pope to begin with."
...and you're back to, stubbornly, making the same mistake I've already corrected.
You're not qualified to judge the Pope's statements or his actions as "heretical" and yet you are proceeding on a course of action as though you were. Bad boy. :D
"Otherwise, the gates of hell have indeed prevailed and Peter has lost faith and the Church, contrary to what her stated mission is, insists on the faithful to be led into error for as long as it takes, pending some official declaration from some extraordinary council (which is an idea itself harmful to the Papacy, attempting to validate conciliarism)."
Ranting doesn't suit you.
"That Bergoglio can be shown to have been a public heretic prior to election (by a group of likewise heretical cardinals) means..."
...and you're back to stating your opinion as to what "Bergoglio can be shown to have been" as though it were a fact. This is the central error in your entire argument, and sedevacantism in general..
Again, you're basing your disobedience and disavowal of his Papal legitimacy on only on your opinion that your opinion is a fact. :D
"that we aren't even talking about declaring a pope a heretic because he was never legitimately elected in the first place due to canonical and divine impediment."
Fallacy of circular reasoning compounded by adding in a new arbitrary self-determined view regarding Canon law -none cited, either.
Thus far, the only person citing Canon law around here is me. Not you and not your authors. Funny thing about that.
"It boggles the mind that Recognize and Resist and other Catholics who criticize Bergoglio as a Modernist and at the same time say that Sedes can't call
Bergoglio a heretic, don't Recognize that by acknowledging Bergoglio as a Modernist, they have accepted that he is a heretic, because modernism has been condemned as the synthesis of all heresies"
Now you ascribe your error to R& R. Protip: "modernism" and the heresy of modernism aren't always the same. Fallacy of Composition.
...all presented in an epic ranty-rant that had me raising my eyebrows at the bizarre punctuation, spacing, capitalization. U Mad Bro.:P
"Anti-Sedes talk out of both sides of their mouth. We are not passing judgment or assuming authority over any pope. The men simply were never popes to begin with."
...and last sentence is, in itself, a judgement on the Pope's validity as Pope. So, yes, you are assuming the authority to decide he even is Pope. Contradicted yourself there, bub. :D
...and again, you don't get to make that decision annnnnnnd yer repeatin' your opnion on the matter as fact etc. etc. :P
I've already discussed the error you've derived from your last batch of cited authors. Citing moar of them presenting the same theory, doesn't change that error. Argumentum ad Nauseam again. Maybe even a fallacious appeal to authority, too.
One last thing. We're not "anti-Sedes". We're Catholics, loyal and obedient ones, who recognize the chain of command.
I've overestimated you. You're thoughtful, though, scholarly and clever.
That slobbering moron who posted directly beneath you isn't even worthy of a reply..
@Ultraviolet
Figured it would be good to put it out there, but I'm taking the lazy route tonight, cut n paste from Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog:
Preliminary Considerations
1. A pope who falls into heresy--- as a private individual--- automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.
According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).
According to Wernz-Vidal, "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453).
2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy.
According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).
According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)
3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order.
According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).
Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on "specific and articulable facts," "taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances." Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal "elected" could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ.
"It always amazes me how anti-Sedes make so many excuses for schismatic sects but make no room for Roman Catholics who reject the modernist errors leading up to and flowing out of Vatican II." @AngelusMaria
There's a reason for that: Anti-Sedes as you call them, recognize schismatics have taken themselves out of communion with the Church. However, they see no reason to allow Sedes to pretend they're any different. They're not. They're equally schismatics, except they claim otherwise.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…
TL; DR Key Point: (emphasis, mine)
---
As sedevacantist Catholics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Father(s), deciding for themselves that he/ they are not really Pope(s), they are deliberately taking themselves out of full communion with the Church.
---
There's your reason why. You're either Catholic and in full communion with the Church or you ain't. If you ain't, then those of us who are don't want you misrepresenting the rest of us. ;-)
Sedes acknowledge and reverance the papacy. That's why they hold that position. Schismatics do not. But we aren't going to convince each other otherwise.
Canon Law defines schism in terms of action (specifically obedience), not the claims one uses to justify doing just the opposite.
Canon Law 751: "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Arguing "there is no current valid Pope" is, in itself, an intrinsic refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff.
It is impossible for a sedevacantist submit to the Supreme Pontiff's authority when they refuse to acknowledge the current Pontiff even has such authority in the first place.
"But we aren't going to convince each other otherwise."
True, but such is not my intent. ;-)
Tell you what... The chap who runs Canon Law Made Easy is a thoughtful sort. Why not write her a nice long letter explaining your position and see what she says? E-mail addy is in the sidebar.
"on this page" Great link @Be Ye Sloppy Follows your Bible quotes that omit book, chapter and verse.
The American Greek Orthodox Church of Schismatics, did not use "Greek" on this Q and A page.
Perhaps they believe they are the champions of schismatic orthodoxy. @Ultraviolet
...and today @Be Ye Ignorant assumes "the Orthodox Church" are one group like "the Catholic Church". There are many "Orthodox" groups. e.g. the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (Roca) Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) several others. and any number of similar groups for the Greek Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church In America States on their site: "Orthodox Christians are not permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox communities, including the Roman Catholic. To do so would imply a unity that in fact does not yet exist. Also it implies that we are “united” to the faith community from which we receive the Eucharist.
In brief, while Roman Catholicism sees Orthodoxy as a “sister church”, Orthodoxy sees herself as the fullness of the Church, not the “other half” of the Church, as implied in the notion of a “sister church.”
"Orthodox Christians are not permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox communities, including the Roman Catholic. To do so would imply a unity that in fact does not yet exist. Also it implies that we are “united” to the faith community from which we receive the Eucharist."
If you believe that your Church is true, that is the correct logic.
And so it was taught in the Catholic Church before the Council, correctly, since it is the only Church of Christ. Now there is much confusion in the "post-conciliar Church"
True. I looked it up because there are so many schismatic churches, some with similar names, that i need to be reminded of who is who.
.
Almighty God bless you.
It always amazes me how anti-Sedes make so many excuses for schismatic sects but make no room for Roman Catholics who reject the modernist errors leading up to and flowing out of Vatican II. But it shouldn't, the anti-Sedes themselves unite themselves with a schismatic, even apostate "pope" and conciliar church that has abandoned Eternal Rome for a false one.
The new Orthodox Study Bible omits half of Isaiah 22:22 - the text quoted by Christ in Matthew 16:19' legitimising Peter as Christ's Chief Steward/Prime Minister. (A long standing custom for e Kingdom of Israel) When the King was absent He authorized a representative to govern in His stead.
The King of the House of David (Which Christ is forever ) historically chose a Prime Minister , gave him the Keys to the Kingdom and the Legal power to open/shut or bind/Loose Legislative Laws. This PM (Chief Steward) was given power to rule Israel in the Kings Absence.
Christ said to Peter in Matthew 16
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm
Here is the text in Isaiah 22: that Christ clearly quoted from - thereby instructing Peter that he was to be Ruler in His absence.....
".....he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. [23] And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.
www.drbo.org/chapter/27022.htm
HOWEVER Isaiah 22 appears like THIS in the Orthodox Bible.... clearly missing the legitimate text used by Christ to allot His Chief Steward - the Pope. St Peter.
www.worldhistory.biz/download567/The_Orthodox_St…
20Then it shall be in that day, I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. † 21 I will clothe him with your robe and give your crown to him, and I will commit your power and your stewardship into his hands. He shall be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah. 22I will give him 23 the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. 23I will establish him as a ruler in a trustworthy place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father's house.
Isaiah 22 according to the Dead Sea Scrolls which is known to be an authentic replica of the pre-Christian era Old Testament. It is clear from reading Isaiah 22 : 22 that the ancient Prime Minister text is incomplete in the Orthodox Study Bible -
"he will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will lay the key of David’s house on his shoulder. He will open, and no one will shut. He will shut, and no one will open. 23 I will fasten him like a nail in a sure place. He will be for a throne of glory to his father’s house. 24 They will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, every small vessel, from the cups even to all the pitchers."
dssenglishbible.com/isaiah 22.htm
why has the recent Orthodox Study Bible omitted the complete version of Isaiah 22:22 - historically given as proof that Our Lord picked Peter to be His Chief Minister in charge of ruling over His Church?
The shortened version they use is not an authentic Septuagint translation either - I have a copy of the Greek Septuagint version w. apocrypha on my shelves & that includes the full version of Isaiah 22:22
Figured it would be good to put it out there, but I'm taking the lazy route tonight, cut n paste from Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog:
1. A pope who falls into heresy--- as a private individual--- automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.
According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).
According to Wernz-Vidal, "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453).
2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy.
According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).
According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)
3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order.
According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).
Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on "specific and articulable facts," "taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances." Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal "elected" could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ