"Not by my authority." @AngelusMariaWhen 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.
:DIf 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?
:DFirst, 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.
:PI'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..