FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What the sedes failed to do
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4

In order for the Seate of St Peter to be vacant the Pope must be declared unfit for office and must be ask to resign or to be deposed if he refuses to resign. This has not happen with the last 5 Popes. The Pope has not been declare unfit for office because of heresy, by the college of cardinals or the faithful. Anyone can read the history of the anti-popes and find many examples of “popes”  being deposed or asked to resign. The sedes do not have history as a guide nor any church father/doctor to support a “vacant seate” .Read the following from John of Paris

 


 

 

 

 

 

John of Paris d1306  On  Royal and Papal Power

Bk. 24 para. 6,7,8 & 9

 

No one is elected pope except for the common good of the church and the Lord’s flock.  Indeed, it is to promote this purpose that he governs.  If, therefore, he found himself to be or was found to be totally inept and useless after he had taken office, or an impediment such as insanity or something similar interfered, he ought to seek a release from his office from the people or from the assembly of cardinals, who act in place of the whole clergy and the whole people in such a case. And he is bound to yield his office whether or not he obtains permission.  For if otherwise, and the person who presides uselessly or for evil and confusion in the church and the damnation of his own soul cannot resign, what was instituted out of charity militates against charity. It is generally true in fact that no obligation made voluntarily can prejudice either charity or an obilgation by which anyone is bound to be solicitous for the salvation of his own soul. So, too, a religious who has taken vows to follow a certain rule can leave it freely, if it seems suitable for him and for his soul to adopt a stricter rule, whether or not permission has been sought for and obtained from his superior: Decretum 19.2, “Duae sunt leges.”  And there is no reason for restricting in public law what is carried on in private law.  Therefore, if weakness of soul or ineptitude or scandal to the Church or disturbance to the Church or division among  the Lord’s flock comes under investigation, and the pope raises divisions and excites scandals and does not stop when admonished to do so, he can even be compelled to yield: Extra, De renunciatione, Quidem cedendi and Cum in postulatione.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assert that the pope can be deposed and can resign when invited to and prevailed upon by the people, as St. Cyriacus did, and that in such cases even someone who is unwilling can by popular agreement be deposed and compelled to resign.  This is so because, like every other prelate, the pope himself does not hold office on his own account but for the people, this being the purpose for which he governs.  Accordingly, agreement of the people is a more operative factor in this case for deposing an unwilling man if he is seen to be completely ineffective and for electing another than is the man’s own willingness to resign, with the people willing the same.

Nevertheless, in the case of a deposition by the people of someone who does not wish it or is unwilling to be deposed, action must be taken with greater care than is needed for a voluntary yielding or resignation. All that is need for a resination is to allege a reason before the college of cardinal, which represents the whole church in such circumstances. It is fitting for a deposition, however, that it be carried out by a general council, as is proved in Decretum 21, “Nunc autem,” where it is asserted that a general council was called to depose Marcellinus.

I believe, however, that the college or cardinals would be absolutely sufficient for a deposition of this kind, because insofar as their consensus makes a pope to occupy his position in the Church, similary it seems that it can depose him. And if indeed there were a reasonable and sufficient cause, they would depose him meritoriously.  If, on the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason, then they do wrong.  But to say that what has been adduced here does not hold ion the case of a pope because he has no superior but God is not correct, as will be proven in the replies to the arguments.”

warning Wrote:In order for the Seate of St Peter to be vacant the Pope must be declared unfit for office and must be ask to resign or to be deposed if he refuses to resign. This has not happen with the last 5 Popes. The Pope has not been declare unfit for office because of heresy by the college of cardinals or the faithful. Anyone can read the history of the anti-popes and find many examples of “popes”  being deposed or asked to resign. The sedes do not have history as a guide nor any church father/doctor to support a “vacant seate” .Read the following from John of Paris

 
I guess the words "ipso facto" don't mean anything to you?
 
Main Entry: ip·so fac·to [Image: audio.gif]
Pronunciation: 'ip-(")sO-'fak-(")tO
Function: adverb
Etymology: New Latin, literally, by the fact itself
: by that very fact or act : as an inevitable result 
 
Quote:
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943)
"Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church.…
A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church." Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.

 
Or perhaps the words "per se"
 
Main Entry: 1per se [Image: audio.gif]
Pronunciation: (")p&r-'sA also per-'sA or (")p&r-'sE
Function: adverb
Etymology: Latin
: by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves : as such
 
Main Entry: 2per se
Function: adjective
: being such inherently, clearly, or as a matter of law per se conflict of interest>
 
Or you could also try the word automatically, but I need not break Websters dictionary out for that one.
 
 
Quote:
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610)
 
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." De Romano Pontifice. II.30.

 
 
 
 
By the way no sedevacantist I know of claims the right the legally declare that the See of Peter is vacant. Why, because they have no authority to do so.
warning Wrote:In order for the Seat of St Peter to be vacant the Pope must be declared unfit for office and must be ask to resign or to be deposed if he refuses to resign.
What you should say is, "In order for the See of Peter to be authoritatively declared vacant..."
 
In order for a true and legitimate claimant to be juridically declared (de jure) no longer the Pope, what you mention would be (and is) necessary.
 
Two points:
 
1. No sede is claiming to have the authority to juridically declare anything - and so cannot have 'failed' to do so.
 
2. You are presuming that each of the recent claimants did, in fact, possess the Holy See, which point would be argued by many sedes (regarding at least some of the claimants in question - particularly the present one).
 
Quote:The sedes do not have history as a guide nor any church father/doctor to support a “vacant seate”.
 
Have you read much about the history of the heresiarch Nestorius?  If you had, you would know that recognition of public heresy in the order of fact (de facto) does indeed provide sufficient justification for withdrawing from communion with a prelate (who, by his public heresy, falls from office immediately, without any declaration).  The recognition in the order of law (de jure) is, of course, important - but a man does not have to wait for it, while the de facto heretic/apostate destroys all in his path.  The order of law always lags behind the order of fact, as it must - for some event has to have happened before it can even be considered for examination by the law.
 
The people (and many, many priests) under Nestorius' authority withdrew from communion with him immediately, even though the legal declaration did not come for three years - and they were praised for their actions.  Put that in your historical pipe and smoke it, friend. 
Ourladyofconsolation06 Wrote:St. Robert Bellarmine (1610)
 
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." De Romano Pontifice. II.30.

 
 
 
Again you sedes always do this. You never bold the part you always ignore. Please read the above quote from St Robert Bellarmine, the only part you failed to bold. Here let me do this for you. "Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church."
 
Please read the following on the influence of John of Paris on St Robert Bellarmine.
 
"St Robert Bellarmine  made explicit reference to the De potestate regia et papli [of John of Paris] in his de romano pontifice (1536), and classified John as one of the proponents of the theory of indirect power. He described this group of theologians as holding "sententia media et catholicorum theologorum communis," as did other writers of this period.  While there is some question about whether bellarmine knew Quidort [John of Paris] from a direct reading of the De potestate, and even more question about the significance he attributed to John's views, there is no doubt that Bellarmine's reference to John's position gave impetus to its being referred to by other writers of the period: Aubert de Mire, Oudin, P. Lelond, Boulay, Victoria, Molina." Arthur P Monahan translator of De potestate regia et papli 1974
 
What do you think judged and punished by the church means? Until this is done by a council, the seate of Peter will not be vacant.
 
 
warning Wrote:You never bold the part you always ignore.
It would be rather stupid to do so, eh? [Image: wink.gif]
 
One bolds what he is emphasizing, not what he is not emphasizing.
 
This may sound like an attack or something, but I am sincerely asking - do you understand what I have been saying when I make a distinction between the order of fact and the order of law - de facto versus de jure?  The judgments of which you are speaking are part of the order of law, which all sane sedes realize is not their domain.
gladius_veritatis Wrote:The people (and many, many priests) under Nestorius' authority withdrew from communion with him immediately, even though the legal declaration did not come for three years - and they were praised for their actions.  Put that in your historical pipe and smoke it, friend. 

Nestorius was deposed was he not?
 
Thanks for the history lesson. Now read the following:From the Fourth Council of Constantinople 869-870 Canon 10
 
"No cleric shall separate himself in any way from his bishop, nor a bishop from his metropolitan or patriarch, before a detailed enquiry and a formal decision in synod"
 
      "As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?  Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime pepetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name durning divine mysteries or offices.
     In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to thier own patriarchs.  If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and staus if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meeteings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled."
 
Do sedes also ingore General Church Coucil canons?
Quote:
Again you sedes always do this. You never bold the part you always ignore. Please read the above quote from St Robert Bellarmine, the only part you failed to bold. Here let me do this for you. "Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church."

 
The Church what? It fails to specify what part of the Church. Now if St. Robert meant The Church, that includes the Hierarchy, Laymen, Clerics, etc. These have been posted  before but they're worth reading over again.  
Wernz-Vidal on "judging the pope"
Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope

warning Wrote:Now read the following:From the Fourth Council of Constantinople 869-870 Canon 10  
...
 
Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime pepetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name durning divine mysteries or offices.
 
...
 
Do sedes also ingore General Church Coucil canons?
 
An excellent point, and one with which I hope your sedevacantist opponents interact.
 
The idea that a layman can make a decision as to whether the current Pope is really a pope or not, and then withdraw communion from that Pope based on that decision, opens up a rather large can of worms.
 
By that criteria, I would have to conclude that even Luther was justified (no pun intended) in withdrawing communion from the Pope; after all, he personally found the Pope to be a heretic.  Granted, his personal findings were never confirmed de jure, but then again, neither have any of the sedevacantist findings.
lumengentleman Wrote:The idea that a layman can make a decision as to whether the current Pope is really a pope or not, and then withdraw communion from that Pope based on that decision, opens up a rather large can of worms.
 
What of the Traditional Catholic who, whilst accepting John XXIII et al. as Roman Pontiffs, act as if they never reigned? They choose and pick which of their decrees and pronouncements to follow and virtually condemn them in their writings.
 
At least the "sede-vacantists" are consistent in that they do not recognize any Pontiff since the death of Pope Pius XII, and so for them it is really as if Vatican II and everything else did not happen.
 
According to their logic, they are not passing judgment on any Pontiff or General Council, because, since 1958, there have been no Pontiffs or Council to judge in the first place.
 
So that quote really does not follow if you are going to argue within the "sede-vacantist" paradigm.
 
Quote:By that criteria, I would have to conclude that even Luther was justified (no pun intended) in withdrawing communion from the Pope; after all, he personally found the Pope to be a heretic.  Granted, his personal findings were never confirmed de jure, but then again, neither have any of the sedevacantist findings.
 
I do not really know how this follows at all.
 
Luther was a heretic because he denied fundamentally Christian dogmas.
 
I have still yet to be convinced that the "sede-vacantists" deny any dogma, especially the dogma of the infallibility and primacy of the Roman Pontiff.
Pages: 1 2 3 4