Sedevecantism Continued

S

Davidnic said:

What I am saying is that all Papal Bulls have weight but some are disciplinary and that does not mean they are irrevocable or unchangeable. We need to look at the exact document as well as the intent. Was it set up to reaffirm an eternal truth or was it an election document. I have seen it argued both ways. So all of this goes into the conversation.

But what is at issue is that if the Church, before and after Paul IV does not consider Pius II to be anti-pope....then you have to take a very long look at Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

So I think two things are needed. A deeper look at Pius II and a closer look at the intent of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Perhaps as we look for some full copies on Pius II we can discuss this debate that is available:

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...93-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html

It does also articulate my belief (as well as the belief of many others) of the abrogation of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Remember Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was never, as other bulls (though not all), included in any dogmatic handbooks of the Church. The idea that Bull=Divine Law is not entirely correct. You have to look at the history of the Papal Bull as a concept until the 14th century then after.

Click to expand...

So lets say for the sake of the argument that Paul IV's Bull was abrogated, does this mean that a heretic could in fact be pope? I find this hard to believe being that heretics cannot even be considered Catholic.

Rhamiel said:

wait, why would that make him a heretic?

Click to expand...

Who are you referring to?

Davidnic said:

Once we deal with the applicability of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio we can deal with the issue of formal or material heresy as opposed to either propositio theologice erronea (theological error) or a teaching approaching heresy. Then we can deal with the consequences of such things.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's about time for bed here (Australia). I am really enjoying the conversation and appreciate all of the input! I will begin my next post in the morning.

Davidnic said:

Once we deal with the applicability of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio we can deal with the issue of formal or material heresy as opposed to either propositio theologice erronea (theological error) or a teaching approaching heresy. Then we can deal with the consequences of such things.

Click to expand...

I still have not seen sufficient evidence to say that Cum Ex was abrogated. If you are referring to Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis support your claim, then I would say you are mistaken. As far as I am aware, this is the statement that is most often used against Sedevacantists from that document: "None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff."

The Pope makes it clear that he is referring to ecclesiastical punishments inflicted on somebody, so this would deal with heresy as a crime against the Church. Heresy, however, not only deals with ecclesiastical law but divine law. So this brings me to the point that even if it is not clear by the words Pope Pius XII used, it would be clear just by the nature of Divine Law, that Pope Pius XII is not saying that heretics can be pope. Popes are not able to change the natural law, let alone the Divine Law. So that's where one could argue that the abrogation of Cum Ex is irrelevant, for even if it was (as far as the ecclesiastical implications are concerned), heretics would be prevented by Divine Law from being pope.

"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." Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. 1:312, 316. My emphasis.

"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged...In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'." Pope Innocent III Sermo 4.

"Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head." Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.

I could provide many more quotes, but I think it makes the point that it has nothing to do with ecclesiastical law, so not with the abrogation of any document, that a heretic cannot be the pope. So now, as you said, I think we should move on to if the post-Conciliar popes can be shown to be heretics. Would you agree?

Davidnic said:

I don't think we can move on just yet because I don't think you've addressed all the issues concerning can a pope be deemed heretic without being judged and would the Pope cease to be Pope without such a judgment.

What would you reply be to the economy objection to the vacant seat expressed here:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/our-replies-to-fr.html?m=1

Also while we're talking about all this we may want to consider as this conversation goes on structuring our conversation as a formal debate at some point. That would put all the information of both sides in an easy-to-follow format. I couldn't do it immediately since the beginning of the semester is hectic but it is an option that bears consideration.

But until then we can continue replying to each other here as our personal time permits.

At the moment I'm putting my son to bed that's why I didn't write a longer post and just give you a link.

Click to expand...

I believe that I have understood the arguments correctly in the article, if not, please let me know. Here is a link to an article that I think answers the arguments used in the article you posted.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/judging-deposing-true-pope.htm

The article will do a much better job at explaining the points, so I will just give a summary. Essentially, a common error that Mr. Salza commits is only referencing pre-Vatican I documents when it comes to the issue of judging the Pope, when it was still theologically acceptable to hold those views. Vatican I settled a lot of that debate by laying down the principle that the First See is judged by no one, without exception. The only exception (not really an exception though, but altogether a different matter) is the case of heresy because by heresy someone would not even be a pope anymore, so it would not be somebody judging a pope, but a heretic.

In the article you posted, I am not sure how they come to the conclusion that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi was referring to the crime of heresy (ecclesiastical law), and not the sin of heresy (divine law), would you be able to elaborate on that at all?

Would you also be able to elaborate on the view, as stated in the article, that no reference anywhere is made to the loss of office due to heresy being a matter of divine law, using the quotes I provided in my last post as just some of the counter-evidence?

I've never done a formal debate so I'm not sure how it works, but I'd be willing to try it out. I'm freed up for a while so I can wait until the formal debate if you'd like.