Sedevacantism and PIUS IX

[mgrfin]

I really don’t know why you keep bringing up Mystici Corporis Christi, as if it is the only document that says a heretic is not a member of the Church. There are many quotes from Popes that say the same thing.

.

Really, and what popes were they? Can you cite examples, with referenced texts?

And what Code version do it matter when any of the Popes were elected?

Pius XII, Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI.

What’s the difference?

What I am getting to is that some act of some of these were described by some of you as ‘heretical’ acts, like kissing the ground of the USA, or some other symbolic act.

Your message is getting very worn. It is time to notify the Forum Administrator to close the thread. All you have left are personal barbs at me, and it is time to call an end to all of it.

peace

 

[SFD]

The Church has a body and a soul. A secret heretic is cut off from the soul of the Church, but not the body. He is cut off from the body of the Church when he is excommunicated or leaves publicly and willingly.

Pat et Caritas,

This is very imprecise and open to misintrepretation and abuse. The occult or secret heretic is a heretic…but he still is an external member of the Church because of the occult nature of his heresy. He is still a member of the Church because the Church (as you and I do) can only judge externals. His heresy is hidden.

"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

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Really, and what popes were they? Can you cite examples, with referenced texts?

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
(# 9): “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Innocent III: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”(Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

All those quotes confirm that heretics are not part of the Church.

And what Code version do it matter when any of the Popes were elected?

Because that is the code that governed at the time.

It is time to notify the Forum Administrator to close the thread. All you have left are personal barbs at me, and it is time to call an end to all of it.

peace

I find it interesting that you are so sensitive to what you perceive as personal attacks agaisnt you, when you have launched some of the vicious personal attacks on others, such as Four_Marks. Read what you said to him and compare it to what others have said to you. There is no comparrison.

 

[mgrfin]

Pat et Caritas,

This is very imprecise and open to misintrepretation and abuse. The occult or secret heretic is a heretic…but he still is an external member of the Church because of the occult nature of his heresy. He is still a member of the Church because the Church (as you and I do) can only judge externals. His heresy is hidden.

SFD

No, you are not correct. An ‘secret heretic’ is outside the Body of the Church.

The Church cannot judge but a few formal heretics. The vast majority of them do not write or preach. Hersey, apostacy, and schism puts one outside of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The vast majority of heretics and such are outside the power of the Church’s laws, since these laws apply only to Catholics.

I am still waiting for the proponents on this site to show me popes who state people are outside of the church, (before the time of 'mystici corporis"

Protestants, for example, are outside the Mystical Body of Christ. If you don’t think so, please provide your documentation.

I am waiting for a report of those heretical sins of the various popes that the Vacant Seat people like to accuse.

I guess I will have to wait a long time, cause they don’t seem to want to respond.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pat et Caritas,

This is very imprecise and open to misintrepretation and abuse. The occult or secret heretic is a heretic…but he still is an external member of the Church because of the occult nature of his heresy. He is still a member of the Church because the Church (as you and I do) can only judge externals. His heresy is hidden.

SFD

I’m not doubting you, but I am curious how what I wrote could be interepreted incorrectly? It was clear to me (since I wrote it), and it agreed with the quote from Bellarmine. What is another interpretation that could be understood?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

No, you are not correct. An ‘secret heretic’ is outside the Body of the Church.

The Church cannot judge but a few formal heretics. The vast majority of them do not write or preach. Hersey, apostacy, and schism puts one outside of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The vast majority of heretics and such are outside the power of the Church’s laws, since these laws apply only to Catholics.

OK, I think I understand where you are confused. When you say “most heretics are outside the power of the Church”, I think you are referring to Protestants and others who belong to heretical sects. These are not secret heretics. These are public heretics in the external forum, and are indeed cut off from the body of the Church.

What we have been talking about are occult heretics that are within the body of the Church. In other words, a member of the visible Catholics Church (who attends Mass every Sunday with his family), but who interiorly denies a dogma of the faith. Such a person remains a member of the body of the Church (externally), but not a member of the soul.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I am still waiting for the proponents on this site to show me popes who state people are outside of the church, (before the time of 'mystici corporis")

I guess I will have to wait a long time, cause they don’t seem to want to respond.

peace

It took me a grand total of 4 minutes to locate and post several quotes. They are above your last post.

 

[SFD]

What we have been talking about are occult heretics that are within the body of the Church. In other words, a member of the visible Catholics Church (who attends Mass every Sunday with his family), but who interiorly denies a dogma of the faith. Such a person remains a member of the body of the Church (externally), but not a member of the soul.

Pax et Caritas,

An important thing to remember here…secret (or occult) heretics are UNKNOWN TO ANYONE. They are secret.

Someone who is suspect of heresy cannot be occult.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

OK, I think I understand where you are confused. When you say “most heretics are outside the power of the Church”, I think you are referring to Protestants and others who belong to heretical sects. These are not secret heretics. These are public heretics in the external forum, and are indeed cut off from the body of the Church.

What we have been talking about are occult heretics that are within the body of the Church. In other words, a member of the visible Catholics Church (who attends Mass every Sunday with his family), but who interiorly denies a dogma of the faith. Such a person remains a member of the body of the Church (externally), but not a member of the soul.

You are getting there. However, ‘soul’, ‘body’ of the church? We don’t make that distinction.

If you deny a dogma of the faith you are outside the mystical body of the church, soul and body, if you insist.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
(# 9): “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Innocent III: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”(Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

All those quotes confirm that heretics are not part of the Church.

Because that is the code that governed at the time.

I find it interesting that you are so sensitive to what you perceive as personal attacks agaisnt you, when you have launched some of the vicious personal attacks on others, such as Four_Marks. Read what you said to him and compare it to what others have said to you. There is no comparrison.

A fortiori, then, the thread should be closed. There is no purpose to continue.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You are getting there.

I’ve understood it the entire time. It seems that only one who was talking about those who are members of heretical sects is yourself. We were discussing those who are visible members of the Catholic Church but secrety adhering to an error. That is what an occult heretic is. A member of a heretical sect is not an occult heretic.

If you deny a dogma of the faith you are outside the mystical body of the church, soul and body, if you insist.

If a Catholic (a person who appears to be a member of the Catholic Church) denies a dogma of the faith interiorly only, he remains a member of the body of the Church, even though he is cut off from the soul of the Church.

 

[VARC]

I find it interesting that you are so sensitive to what you perceive as personal attacks agaisnt you, when you have launched some of the vicious personal attacks on others, such as Four_Marks. Read what you said to him and compare it to what others have said to you. There is no comparrison.

Yeah, mgrfin is pretty nasty isn’t he. Hey mgrfin why don’t you go relax, take a walk and calm down. You’re the rudest person on this forum. There’s more to life than insulting strangers.

 

[mgrfin]

Yeah, mgrfin is pretty nasty isn’t he. Hey mgrfin why don’t you go relax, take a walk and calm down. You’re the rudest person on this forum. There’s more to life than insulting strangers.

Every day I take an hour walk on the beach in Long Beach, Ca. Around 5:10, I will sit down and watch the sunset and contemplate how good God has been to our Church to have raised up such great victors, like Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pio Nonom, Archbishop Bugnini, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

I’ll find time to pray for the enemies of the Church.

Time for me to go to the Beach.

peace

 

[SFD]

If you deny a dogma of the faith you are outside the mystical body of the church, soul and body, if you insist.

peace

This is imprecise. What to you call a Catholic who denies a dogma but is either unaware it is a dogma or is not aware they are denying it?

They are simply in error while holding a materially heretical position. When they are seen to be pertinacious in this position…then they are outside the Church.

They must deny a dogma with a pertinacious will.

This does not address those who are baptised members of condemned sects…after the age of 14 they are presumed legally to be heretics. Some might be only material heretics. In either case they are outside the Church by legal presumption.

SFD

 

[VARC]

Every day I take an hour walk on the beach in Long Beach, Ca. Around 5:10, I will sit down and watch the sunset and contemplate how good God has been to our Church to have raised up such great victors, like Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pio Nonom, Archbishop Bugnini, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

I’ll find time to pray for the enemies of the Church.

Time for me to go to the Beach.

peace

How pious of you. Why don’t you pray for the ability to not insult strangers in your posts? Because you could use that prayer.

 

[SemperFidelis]

IFr. Harrison was never asked about the question of Mystici Corporis in the article you cite. He didn’t even have available a current Code.

Wow! Did you even read the article? Clearly not, or you would have come across this paragraph:

“What I will show is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, together with traditional papal conclave legislation, leaves no room for the view that the commission of heresy or apostasy prevents a man from validly attaining or retaining the papal office. This is equally true of the 1983 Code and current papal conclave legislation, but, since the validity and binding character of these documents is not accepted by sedevacantists, I will not appeal to their authority here.” - Fr. Harrison

You are so lost in the sauce, we can’t even find you in there. Why would Fr. Harrison refer to the 1983 Code in an article aimed at refuting sedevacantism, when the very sedevacantists the article is aimed at, don’t even recognize the paper that the 1983 Code is written on? This would make absolutely no sense.

Some theologian.

Far better than you’ll ever be. He is a well known and prominent theologian, and you should be grateful that he spends his time writing articles that defend the Faith from those outside the Church.

You resort to personal attacks, which only make me look fabulous, and you the more foolish.

Pax has done nothing of the sort. It is you who has been resorting to personal attacks, and as a result you have quickly become the rudest and most obnoxious person on here.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Every day I take an hour walk on the beach in Long Beach, Ca. Around 5:10, I will sit down and watch the sunset and contemplate how good God has been to our Church to have raised up such great victors, like Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pio Nonom, Archbishop Bugnini, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

Can’t say I’ve seen this before: Pope Paul VI and Bugnini in the same sentence with St. Pius X and Bl. Pius IX. You put two of the Church’s most destructive indiviuals in the same sentence with two Popes (one already canonized, the other who probably will be soon) who probably would have regarded the former as modernists at best.

 

[SFD]

“What I will show is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, together with traditional papal conclave legislation, leaves no room for the view that the commission of heresy or apostasy prevents a man from validly attaining or retaining the papal office. This is equally true of the 1983 Code and current papal conclave legislation, but, since the validity and binding character of these documents is not accepted by sedevacantists, I will not appeal to their authority here.” - Fr. Harrison

SemperFidelis,

This is easily refuted. Fr. Harrision is making no distinction between Divine law and Ecclesiastical law.

A public heretic is not a member of the Church. He is also ipso facto excommunicated. The first fact is a matter of divine law. The second fact is a matter of ecclesiastical law. St. Pius X (and afterwards Pius XII) altered only the ecclesiastical law. This is very simple and obvious, and it seems to me that the only way one could be confused about it is if one were familiar with only one or two documents, so that the significance of them was not fully grasped, or if one were incapable of distinguishing between divine and ecclesiastical law.

St. Robert Bellarmine has already answered this objection, as follows:

“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.”

This is proof enough that Fr. Harrison is mistaken.

However, as an additional proof, one could try and find a manualist or canonist who teaches that it is not divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy. It would be particularly interesting to find one who wrote after St. Pius X issued his legislation, with a view to noting any citation of that legislation. It appears that no canonist or theologian thought that St. Pius X (or Pius XII) had made it possible for a public heretic or any other non-Catholic to be validly elected pope. Indeed, all of the ones I have seen state the exact opposite - viz., that it is a matter of divine law that only a Catholic is valid matter for the papacy.

SemperFidelis:

Why would Fr. Harrison refer to the 1983 Code in an article aimed at refuting sedevacantism, when the very sedevacantists the article is aimed at, don’t even recognize the paper that the 1983 Code is written on? This would make absolutely no sense.

He would have to use the 1917 code anyway, since the election of even JPII was prior to 1983. The 1917 code was in force at that time.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

This is imprecise. What to you call a Catholic who denies a dogma but is either unaware it is a dogma or is not aware they are denying it?

They are simply in error while holding a materially heretical position. When they are seen to be pertinacious in this position…then they are outside the Church.

They must deny a dogma with a pertinacious will.

This does not address those who are baptised members of condemned sects…after the age of 14 they are presumed legally to be heretics. Some might be only material heretics. In either case they are outside the Church by legal presumption.

SFD

This is nice you are so precise, but I thought we were doing the obvious here, without having to drag in basic moral theology from the penny catechism: serious matter, sufficient reflection, full consent of the will.

I believe the age is 16 to be guilty of a crime (canon 1324, 1983), not the moral default of heresy, where age of seven is considered sufficient.

Theoretically possible to become a moral heretic at age of 7, and fall out of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I don’t know where “pertinacious will” comes from. Must have been in the old code.
peace

 

[mgrfin]

SemperFidelis;

I don’t know how the Roman Pontiff could commit an ecclesiastical crime of heresy? The Pontiff is over the Church; there is no appeal or recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

That is my view. Lots of luck, Fr. Harrison, or St. Robert Bellarmine to the contrary notwithstanding.

peace