Posted on 05/10/2016 6:37:51 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Every poster on this thread could likewise publish an exposition employing the same format as St. Thomas Aquinas, and each would carry the exact same magisterial weight as those you have quoted.
The logical weakness in the sedevacantist position remains. Those in the sedevacantist movement, having deserted the Barque of Peter, are left with only their personal judgment or that of their sedevacantist group or leader regarding the validity of a pope. Once they dare to arrogate to their personal judgment matters which properly belong to God (or perhaps to the hierarchy of the Church, although it’s unclear if even cardinals have the authority to depose a pope) it seems quite possible, and even likely, that only the Second Coming of Christ would induce them to return.
And we're not in that situation now, either. As lousy a Pope as Francis is, he is not a formal heretic. Pope Pius X in his Constitution "Vacante Sede Apostolica" says: "By reason or pretext of any kind of excommunication, suspension, or interdict or any other ecclesiastical impediment, no Cardinal can be excluded, in any manner, from an active or passive (papal) election”. Again the same is affirmed by Pope Pius XII in "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis" (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76).
For Bishops and Cardinals to be canonically declared as "heretics" in the first place, it would have had to have been declared by the Pope alone (Canon 1557 & 1558). But this was not the case for Bishops Roncalli, Montini and Wytola. As destructive as their actions were to the true Church, we cannot claim that they are formal heretics based on our private judgment in the matter, anymore than Martin Luther had the right to nail his 91 Theses to the door of Wittenbrug Church. We simply don't have that privilege, however strongly we may feel on the matter.
The Papacy belongs to the Catholic Church, not to the V-2 sect
The Catholic Church as the Sedevacantists in their private sovereign authority define it, evidently.
Some people in trying to be true to Christ are confused and in attempting to be loyal to Him and His Church, falsely equate it with the V-2 sect and blindly accept any atrocity that emanates from it.
To the contrary, many faithful Catholics vehemently reject the doctrinal and spiritual falsehoods produced under recent Popes; but it does not follow that theyshould therefore declare the Papacy of an erring Pontiff null and void. In the words of St. Robert Bellarmine, "Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior."
Not logical? Not nearly as illogical as claiming to recognize a true pope and yet decide which of their liturgies, disciplines and teachings they will obey.
Have a nice day Blather.
“In the words of St. Robert Bellarmine, “Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.””
Sorry, this does not condemn sedevacantism.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=25
Not a novelty, eh?
No answer Prince?
Yes, these Catholics would still blindly follow even if Bergoglio came right out and explicitly (and "clearly") said and taught that Jesus Christ is not God. 'Cuz you can't use your God-given reason and dare make a "private judgment".
Hypocrites at best.
Yes, these Catholics would still blindly follow even if Bergoglio came right out and explicitly (and "clearly") said and taught that Jesus Christ is not God. 'Cuz you can't use your God-given reason and dare make a "private judgment".
Meanwhile they can make private judgments all day long about their true pope's liturgy, discipline/canon law and teachings.
Hypocrites at best.
Ignore 47. It didn’t post properly.
Not a novelty.
"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Gal 2:11
Nice. Is insulting those who disagree a sedevacantist evangelization tool?
Yes, novelty. Cephas was not a manifest heretic. St Paul was not rebuking him for a heretical stance.
Not an insult. An obvious observation. Private judgment is okie dokey when it involves Catholics judging the liturgy, discipline and teachings of true popes, but private judgment of sedevcantists in baaaaad.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
The material point is that he resisted a Pope who was in error. To resist Bergoglio’s writings and utterances contra the Deposit of Faith is merely to imitate the example of St. Paul (and is in complete opposition to reliance on private judgment). Labeling those who strive to follow St. Paul’s example in defending the Faith against papal errors “hypocrites” is, in essence, an attack on the Body of Christ.
An example of true hypocrisy is the sedevacantist habit of trotting out St. Bellarmine as a voice of authority, yet rejecting his opinion that it would be licit to resist, but illicit to “judge, punish or depose” a pontiff, since his only superior is God.
Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel - all the while wringing their hands, gnashing their teeth and rending their garments, wailing woe is me, woe is me.
Just as God has instilled in us the Natural Law of good versus evil, and has given us the reason to discern one from the other, and the added teaching of His Son to the specifics, and the institution of His Church to guide us, we are intended to use all these gifts for the purpose He has given them to us.
Now that the Enemy has not just injected his agents within but has taken over what appears to be the outward structure of the Church, the ONLY recourse is to stay true to Christ and the true Church and reject the V-2 entity for what it is: THE VOMIT OF SATAN!
Saint Paul to the Galations 1:6-10
[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
It can't get any clearer than that.
ANATHEMA SIT!
AHEM. But I'm not touching that one.....
Also note they are on opposite sides of the same sheet of the printed page - while his published Opera Omnia take up over five feet of shelf space.
What you cite deals with one who gives an immoral command who would still remain the pope, that one you resist, the other deals with a HERETIC WHO REMOVES HIMSELF FROM THE OFFICE BY HIS OWN ACT!
GET IT!?
Blather says, “An example of true hypocrisy is the sedevacantist habit of trotting out St. Bellarmine as a voice of authority, yet rejecting his opinion that it would be licit to resist, but illicit to “judge, punish or depose” a pontiff, since his only superior is God.”
The “licit to resist” quote that anti-sedes like to trot out against the sedes refers to resisting a (true) pope who gives immoral commands (as SGNA explained so well). It does not refer to a non-pope who teaches heresy to the Church. Bellarmine teaches that such a “pope” loses his office ipso facto.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Bellarmine-Myth.pdf
To the contrary, it illustrates the proper course of action when faithful Catholics are confronted with an errant Pontiff. We have the right and duty to oppose novelties such a Pontiff attempts to decree, but we absolutely do not have the right to declare him invalid or otherwise pretend he does not exist. If he was elected in the proper manner through the college of Cardinals, we have no licit pretext for claiming he is not the Pope, however much we dislike him.
Not a novelty, eh?
Not at all. As St. Robert Bellarmine explained, we are not bound to follow orders that violate Church teaching. We are however bound to recognize the office of the Pontiff issuing those orders, even if the decrees the issues are illegitimate. We are not the Pope's superiors; we are not given the right to oust him from office or will his Papacy out of existence.
“Prince, tell me who exactly in the post-Vatican II hierarchy will do this when there is yet one prelate to actually condemn AL (versus the ever-so-popular post Vatican II "ambiguous" canard) ? No answer Prince?”
Sorry, I didn't see your post. There are a few. Cardinal Burke, for one. And even if there were none---that does not justify the rest of us refusing to recognize the existence of the Papacy. Bottom line, pius---no matter what they do, that does not justify us indulging in novelties, breaking away because the current Pope is a scourge from hell. There is only one Ark, pius, against which all the devil's efforts are directed. An unworthy captain drilling holes in the bottom of God's ark is not our cue to leap overboard. Francis may be the most unworthy captain since Rodrigo Borgia---but he was elected. We are not invested with the right to invalidate that election.
Private judgment is okie dokey when it involves Catholics judging the liturgy, discipline and teachings of true popes, but private judgment of sedevcantists in baaaaad. Hypocrisy at its finest.
To the contrary, pius. We obey the proscribed limits of the liberty invested in us to resist the teachings of an unworthy Pope. St. Robert Bellarmine delineates them very clearly---we DO have the right to oppose the teachings of a Pope who strays from his proscribed authority; we DO NOT have the right to deprive him of his office, invalidate his Papacy, or punish him, since these are actions only permitted to a superior.
Poor St. Robert. I don't think he even realized he was a hypocrite.
I just want to mention I’m looted in my responses even though it’s been two weeks.
Hmmm, should have read “limited”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.