Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

It’s not my intention to help the cause of the sedevacantists here, but I have to disagree with what you’re saying. One letter from the bishops specifically uses the term ipso facto, and the letter from John Paul II doesn’t say one way or the other whether Lefebvre is excommunicated ipso facto or because of a formal excommunicaton. The link you posted doesn’t seem to me to be a formal excommunication (although, of course, the pope does refer to the excommunication). It seems to me to imply that from the moment Lefebvre performed the illegal ceremony he was excommunicated.

Okay, Quote: Drumroll:
Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. Unquote: end drumroll

What more do you want Pope John Paul II to say than he said in Ecclesia Dei???

peace:

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Okay, Quote: Drumroll:
Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. Unquote: end drumroll

What more do you want Pope John Paul II to say than he said in Ecclesia Dei???

peace:

The pope, in my understanding, is referring to the fact that they incurred excommunication ipso facto when Lefebvre consecrated the new bishops.

Is your understanding that the phrase “… have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law” is what excommunicated them?

Otherwise I would expect something like “I hereby … as the pontiff… excommunicate…”. The way John Paul II refers to their excommunication is as if he is a third party reporting it to us, not declaring it.

I’m trying to do a web search to find the formal speech that is given when someone is excommunicated… I saw it in a movie before. I wonder if that was just something from hollywood

But more seriously, when a judge gives a sentence, he GIVES the sentence, he declares it, he doesn’t refer to it in the third person. John Paul II’s statement is past tense, its not a declaration.

Edit: While my formal training is not in canon law, I have training and experience in the reading and interpretation of English words and sentences, which I feel allows me to make such claims

Edit again:
Can. 1314 A penalty is for the most part ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence, if a law or precept expressly lays this down.

According to this, a penalty is incurred automatically, but not BINDING until it has been imposed. According to John Paul II’s quote, the penalty was incurred, but it says nothing about imposing or binding the penalty.

 

[mgrfin]

Heresy is not a “penalty”…you are so loose with your terms…it’s almost unbelievable.

I’ll let this stand as is…it needs no comment from me.

It does not resolve the issue. Robert held personally that a pope could not be excommunicated.

If I can’t get an answer on line, I will go to Loyola Marymount University in LA and check out the Jesuit library to get the answer.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

The pope, in my understanding, is referring to the fact that they incurred excommunication ipso facto when Lefebvre consecrated the new bishops.

Is your understanding that the phrase “… have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law” is what excommunicated them?

Otherwise I would expect something like “I hereby … as the pontiff… excommunicate…”. The way John Paul II refers to their excommunication is as if he is a third party reporting it to us, not declaring it.

I’m trying to do a web search to find the formal speech that is given when someone is excommunicated… I saw it in a movie before. I wonder if that was just something from hollywood

But more seriously, when a judge gives a sentence, he GIVES the sentence, he declares it, he doesn’t refer to it in the third person. John Paul II’s statement is past tense, its not a declaration.

Edit: While my formal training is not in canon law, I have training and experience in the reading and interpretation of English words and sentences, which I feel allows me to make such claims

Do you deny the group was excommunicated?

If they were, when and by whom. ?

Was the pope declaring that the law had been fulfilled, “latae sententiae” and that as a result of their actions they were excommunicated? or he was laying it on them “ferendendae sententiae”. The law foresees the former. But the Pope as lawgiver can do the latter.

peace

 

[bobzills]

Do you deny the group was excommunicated?

First of all, I don’t think that it was the whole group of SSPX. It appears to be issued only against the bishops. And secondly, it has been argued that in a case of necessity, one is allowed to take extraordinary measures, as for example, we hear about the ordination of Catholic bishops in secret in certain countries with political systems unfriendly to Catholicism.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

All I’m saying is that I believe Lefebvre incurred excommunication ipso facto. I think this happened before the pope ever wrote that letter.

I think it came up in the conversation because you were discussing the possibility of a pope being excommunicated without a formal proceeding. Someone incorrectly said that Lefebvre’s excommunicated was not ipso facto, and I wanted to point out that mistake. That’s all

Do you deny the group was excommunicated?

If they were, when and by whom. ?

Was the pope declaring that the law had been fulfilled, “latae sententiae” and that as a result of their actions they were excommunicated? or he was laying it on them “ferendendae sententiae”. The law foresees the former. But the Pope as lawgiver can do the latter.

peace

 

[catharina]

The pope, in my understanding, is referring to the fact that they incurred excommunication ipso facto when Lefebvre consecrated the new bishops.

Is your understanding that the phrase “… have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law” is what excommunicated them?

Otherwise I would expect something like “I hereby … as the pontiff… excommunicate…”. The way John Paul II refers to their excommunication is as if he is a third party reporting it to us, not declaring it.

I’m trying to do a web search to find the formal speech that is given when someone is excommunicated… I saw it in a movie before. I wonder if that was just something from hollywood

But more seriously, when a judge gives a sentence, he GIVES the sentence, he declares it, he doesn’t refer to it in the third person. John Paul II’s statement is past tense, its not a declaration.

Edit: While my formal training is not in canon law, I have training and experience in the reading and interpretation of English words and sentences, which I feel allows me to make such claims

Edit again:
Can. 1314 A penalty is for the most part ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence, if a law or precept expressly lays this down.

According to this, a penalty is incurred automatically, but not BINDING until it has been imposed. According to John Paul II’s quote, the penalty was incurred, but it says nothing about imposing or binding the penalty.

I agree with your understanding of this. It’s as if the Holy Father is calling our attention to an established fact, to something that has indeed occured. They did what they did and by the very doing of it, they chose the penalty of excommunication. So to the benefit of all who needed to know, Rome announced the fact.

 

[SFD]

It does not resolve the issue. Robert held personally that a pope could not be excommunicated.

Again, this is so inexact as to be impossible to understand.

“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.”

"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 * 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.’*

If I can’t get an answer on line, I will go to Loyola Marymount University in LA and check out the Jesuit library to get the answer.

Fine. Do that and report back to us with your sources.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Fine. Do that and report back to us with your sources.

SFD

You are an expert on Robert Bellarmine. You can contribute to our knowledge by telling us why the Church has not recognized his position, and it has been removed more or less from his teaching.

SSPX is a schismatic sect. All their ordinations are illicit, and their acts of worship are also illicit.

They are deserving of our prayers.

peace

 

[SFD]

You are an expert on Robert Bellarmine. You can contribute to our knowledge by telling us why the Church has not recognized his position, and it has been removed more or less from his teaching.

And you have “more or less” not given any source for this assertion…until you do this…stop repeating it as if it is true.

Everyone should be able to see that you don’t really know anything about Bellarmine…how does the Church “more or less” remove something from his teaching?

All due respect…but maybe you should head to the library…instead of the hockey game.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

And you have “more or less” not given any source for this assertion…until you do this…stop repeating it as if it is true.

Everyone should be able to see that you don’t really know anything about Bellarmine…how does the Church “more or less” remove something from his teaching?

All due respect…but maybe you should head to the library…instead of the hockey game.

SFD

Somebody who seems to know something of Bellarmine has stated this on another site.

I am looking for someone to support, verify, or deny it.

My faith is not affected one iota by Bellarmine’s apparent stance. It is you who have defended this theory of Bellarmine. I have not seen anyone on this site except you defend it.

You tell us that Bellarmine personally stated that he personally did not hold to this theory, that it was not theologically certain, and then you go on to quote that Bellarmine did. You have not ever explained away this contradiction.

St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. It doesn’t mean that it wasn’t so. Theologians are not infallible.

It was Bellarmine who dealt with Galileo.

Please stay away from personal attacks. Let’s just keep on the point, and charitably so. Thank you.

peace

 

[SFD]

Somebody who seems to know something of Bellarmine has stated this\ on another site.

I am looking for someone to support, verify, or deny it.

Fine. Then do it. What did this “other site” say anyway?

You tell us that Bellarmine personally stated that he personally did not hold to this theory, that it was not theologically certain, and then you go on to quote that Bellarmine did. You have not ever explained away this contradiction.

Bellarmine held the opinion that he thought it impossible for a pope to become a heretic as a private person. He also stated that this opinion was not theologically certain. It was actually an opinion that was the minority opinion at the time. Bellarmine held this minority opinion (the origin of this opinion was Albert Pighuis). Here is that opinion:
St. Robert Bellarmine:

It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.).

“Probable” means that there are sound reasons for the opinion.

The majority opinion of theologians was that it was possible for a pope to fall into heresy AS AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON.

"Since, however, it is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic.”

Bellarmine examined the five opinions on the pope-heretic question:

He holds both the first and the fifth opinion with respect to this question.

1st opinion: The pope can never fall into heresy. Held by Suarez, St. Robert Bellarmine, Matthaeucci, Bouix, Billot.

2nd opinion: The loss of the pontificate would happen the minute the pope falls into an internal heresy, and before it becomes public. Held by Torquemada.

3rd opinion: On account of his heresy, the pope would never lose his pontificate. Held by Bouix.

4th opinion: He would lose his pontificate only upon a declaration of heresy made by a council, or by cardinals or by group of bishops. This is condemned by the Church as heretical.

Such declaration would not be a deposition but a merely act to report the loss of the pontificate by a heretic. Held by Cajetan, Suarez

5th opinion: The pope would lose the pontificate when his heresy becomes manifest. Held by St. Robert Bellarmine, Billot, Cano.

Here is Bellarmine on the 5th opinion:

"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 * 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.’ **

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

“The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics * are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved*.”

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Fine. Then do it. What did this “other site” say anyway?

Bellarmine held the opinion that he thought it impossible for a pope to become a heretic as a private person. He also stated that this opinion was not theologically certain. It was actually an opinion that was the minority opinion at the time. Bellarmine held this minority opinion (the origin of this opinion was Albert Pighuis). Here is that opinion:

“Probable” means that there are sound reasons for the opinion.

The majority opinion of theologians was that it was possible for a pope to fall into heresy AS AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON.

Bellarmine examined the five opinions on the pope-heretic question:

He holds both the first and the fifth opinion with respect to this question.

1st opinion: The pope can never fall into heresy. Held by Suarez, St. Robert Bellarmine, Matthaeucci, Bouix, Billot.

2nd opinion: The loss of the pontificate would happen the minute the pope falls into an internal heresy, and before it becomes public. Held by Torquemada.

3rd opinion: On account of his heresy, the pope would never lose his pontificate. Held by Bouix.

4th opinion: He would lose his pontificate only upon a declaration of heresy made by a council, or by cardinals or by group of bishops. This is condemned by the Church as heretical.

Such declaration would not be a deposition but a merely act to report the loss of the pontificate by a heretic. Held by Cajetan, Suarez

5th opinion: The pope would lose the pontificate when his heresy becomes manifest. Held by St. Robert Bellarmine, Billot, Cano.

Here is Bellarmine on the 5th opinion:

SFD

To me, it is all nonsense. He could hold all five, or none, for all I care. Theologians opinion really matters very little. We are concerned with what the Church teaches. People don’t know who these theologians are.

That Bellarmine holds the 1st and the 5th. - Couldn’t seem to make up his mind. You are saying that Cajetan and Suarez held an heretical position???

The opposite of a probable opinion is also probable, maybe even more probable, or even certain.

Bellarmine’s time has all passed. The Holy Father is not subject to any canon of the Canon Law of the Church. And to repeat further what I have been saying, there is no Cardinal, no Congregation, no synod of Bishops, no General Council that can be called against the Holy Father.

We have a pope who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the lawgiver, and cannot be convicted of heresy by anyone, more than anyone, a grouping of sedevacantists who disagree with a General Council of the Church presided over by the Vicar of Christ, and by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, we don’t know what heresies Paul VI held that was so manifest. I lived through Vatican 2, and I don’t know what they are talking about.

We are giving it just too much time and attention to this.

peace

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To me, it is all nonsense. He could hold all five, or none, for all I care. Theologians opinion really matters very little. We are concerned with what the Church teaches. People don’t know who these theologians are.

That Bellarmine holds the 1st and the 5th. - Couldn’t seem to make up his mind. You are saying that Cajetan and Suarez held an heretical position???

The opposite of a probable opinion is also probable, maybe even more probable, or even certain.

You said it.

Bellarmine’s time has all passed. The Holy Father is not subject to any canon of the Canon Law of the Church. And to repeat further what I have been saying, there is no Cardinal, no Congregation, no synod of Bishops, no General Council that can be called against the Holy Father.

That’s interesting that no congregation or council can be called against the Holy Father. But could one be called in the [possible] absence of a pope to determine if a claimant to the papacy is the pope or not? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM …

If we don’t know if there’s a pope, who calls the council to determine who the pope is? Or would that be a conclave?

 

[mgrfin]

You said it.

That’s interesting that no congregation or council can be called against the Holy Father. But could one be called in the [possible] absence of a pope to determine if a claimant to the papacy is the pope or not? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM …

If we don’t know if there’s a pope, who calls the council to determine who the pope is? Or would that be a conclave?

Oh, we have had conciliar messes, to be sure, but this is not the 14th, 15th, 16th centuries. Maybe the sedevacantists would like to see a re-take of those confusions.

That the Church survived is itself a proof of the Holy Spirit leading her.

peace

 

[SFD]

To me, it is all nonsense. He could hold all five, or none, for all I care. Theologians opinion really matters very little. We are concerned with what the Church teaches. People don’t know who these theologians are.

You position is duly noted.

That Bellarmine holds the 1st and the 5th. - Couldn’t seem to make up his mind.

No, one can legitimately hold that either the pope can never be a heretic…OR…he can be a heretic. This is an area of free opinion.
Opinion 1 is the former. Opinions 2,3,4,and 5 deal with a heretic pope.

You are saying that Cajetan and Suarez held an heretical position???

No, the idea that a council deposes the pope is heretical.

Cajetan and Suarez held that a council merely declares the fact the pope has lost his office.

"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” , but is one “secundum quid” . For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] 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].

The opposite of a probable opinion is also probable, maybe even more probable, or even certain.

An opinion is probable based on the soundness of the arguments behind it. There can be several probable opinions…none are theologically certain. Theologically certain doctrines are CERTAIN…not merely probable…they are not areas of free opinion.

Bellarmine’s time has all passed.

Pope Pius XI didn’t think so when he declared him a Doctor of the Universal Church. Are you a member of the Universal Church?

The Holy Father is not subject to any canon of the Canon Law of the Church. And to repeat further what I have been saying, there is no Cardinal, no Congregation, no synod of Bishops, no General Council that can be called against the Holy Father.

And if he becomes a heretic…then and only then can he be judged by the Church.

We have a pope who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the lawgiver, and cannot be convicted of heresy by anyone, more than anyone, a grouping of sedevacantists who disagree with a General Council of the Church presided over by the Vicar of Christ, and by the Holy Spirit.

The heretic is self-judged. See the CE section on Heresy and Ecclesiastical Censures again.

Of course, we don’t know what heresies Paul VI held that was so manifest. I lived through Vatican 2, and I don’t know what they are talking about.

You’ve shown us that you like the changes…you like religious liberty…of course you “don’t know what they’re talking about.”

We are giving it just too much time and attention to this.

You were going to refute me…now you just “don’t have time” for this. That’s fine with me.

 

[SFD]

You said it.

Well, Neil…you might want to consider a more humble position that would first assume that you might not understand what is taught by a Doctor of the Universal Church…before pronouncing what he teaches as “nonsense”.

That’s interesting that no congregation or council can be called against the Holy Father.

This is what Bellarmine teaches.

But could one be called in the [possible] absence of a pope to determine if a claimant to the papacy is the pope or not?

Yes, it has happened in the history of the Church:

“In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin]
, as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus.” (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

If we don’t know if there’s a pope, who calls the council to determine who the pope is?

Who calls the conclave after a pope dies? The dead pope?

SFD

 

[bobzills]

What boggles my mind is that you don’t even see the absurdity of what it is you are saying here. I’m sorry, I simply don’t know how to respond to this - except to say that you anathemize yourself by the very claim. Sad.

DustinsDad

I don’t beleive that someone can be anathematised for following a teaching of the Pope who has declared as contrary to the truth: the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.
Notice this idea has been declared contrary to the truth and if you don;t agree with it you should be aware that “Therefore [it is in nowise licit] to any man to infringe this page of Our declarations, statements, composition, command, constitutions, judgments, and dispositions, nor it is licit to such a one to oppose this by rash daring: if any one however would presume to attempt this, let him know that he has incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

 

[mgrfin]

Who calls the conclave after a pope dies? The dead pope?

SFD

The pope possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. Even more important, just as St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Holy Father, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles are united among themselves. It is not a grouping, it is a college (‘collegium’). The pope is the Bishop of the Roman Church, he is not just Bishop of the church of Rome. He is the Shepherd of the Universal Church. (canons 330-333)

The Pontiff has supreme power in the Catholic Church. Canon 333 states that no appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them.

The Pope possesses exclusive rights regarding an ecumenical council and other activities of the college of bishops. (c 337-338; c 341)

I have been saying all of this repeatedly, and yet we hear recalls of Robert Bellarmine. With what has been said, and what the Code says of the Pope’s powers., please tell me what Robert Bellarmine would say today about his probable opinion.?

When the See of Peter is vacant, (‘sede vacante nihil innovetur’) there can be no innovations in the governance of the Church (canon 335). In answer to your question, during this time, the tasks and rights of the college of cardinals and of the Roman Curia are regulated by the Apostolic Constitution Universi Domenici gregis. The Conclave is called according to this Apostolic Constitution. When the See of Peter is vacant, the college of cardinals regulate the daily business of the church, but they cannot take upon themselves the power of the pope (canon 359)

It is the Roman Pontiff alone who can convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it, transfer, suspend or dissolve a council (c 338). The Pope even oversees the agenda of a General Council. It is the sole right of the Pontiff to approve the decrees of a general council. Decrees of an ecumenical council does not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Holy Father.

Nothing can knock Peter off his throne but death. The Code of Canon law does not foresee a vacant see except in this case. The case of a ‘heretic’ pope is foolishness, and not foreseen or provided for in the Law of the Church.

You see, it is all controlled by the Code of Canon Law, and the Law gives to the Pope Supreme Power in the Church. Sedevacantists are knocking their heads against the Bark of Peter.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t beleive that someone can be anathematised for following a teaching of the Pope who has declared as contrary to the truth: the idea that that which a Pope had defined persists unchangeable to the extent that it is not lawful for a later pope to call it into doubt or to affirm the contrary.
Notice this idea has been declared contrary to the truth and if you don;t agree with it you should be aware that “Therefore [it is in nowise licit] to any man [to infringe this page of Our declarations, statements, composition, command, constitutions, judgments, and dispositions, nor it is licit to such a one to oppose this by rash daring: if any one however would presume to attempt this, let him know that he has incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

You can’t anathematize yourself. As Catholics, we are controled by the Code of Canon Law, the law of the Catholic Church.

There is no provision in Catholic law, dogmatic or moral theology which encompasses such a concept. Charitably speaking, this is foolishness. Why do we make life so difficult for ourselves and for others?

peace
[/quote]