New Sungenis vs Dimond debate
#26
What do any of your positions have to do with sedevacantism? They all apply to a valid Pope.

THERE IS NONE. Everything you say applies to a valid Pope. HOWEVER...Read what Pope Paul IV Says...

"Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith...shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future... Roman Pontiff canonically entering)."

This is from Cum Ex by Pope Pual IV. Yes, it was abrogated by the 1917 code of canon laws, but only in terms of ecclesiastical penalties.

THis is DEFINED as the RIGHT of the faithful to withdraw obedience with IMPUNITY from a heretic "pope."

I withdraw my allegiance to JPII and Benedict XVI on account of their overt, and tacit manifest heresy, and on account of their support of a Robber Council (Vatican II) THat EXPLICITLY contradicted the Catholic Faith on at LEAST 10 Distinct points.

Such a thing is not of Christ, therefore, those who hold to it cannot be. And, according to the 1917 code of Canon law, Canon 188, Par. 4 states that any cleric who publicly defects from the faith resigns his office and all the rights associated with it.

I do not judge the POpe. I judge that the man who claims to be pope cannot possibly be so because of tacit and manifest heresy given in his writings and his actions. THerefore, on that basis, I refuse to be in communion with him. And I am ENTITLED to such a course of action:

"“By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether one denying does so ignorantly or innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise exclude from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish.

If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.”

Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology volume II., Christ’s Church, The Members of the Church, 1957, p. 242.

[size=10pt][size=20pt]F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
[/size][/size]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by faith3faith - 08-11-2011, 07:54 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Joshua - 08-12-2011, 05:01 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Sigfrid - 08-14-2011, 05:44 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Sigfrid - 08-14-2011, 05:57 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:14 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:37 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-18-2011, 01:47 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by timoose - 08-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-19-2011, 10:36 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-19-2011, 02:51 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-19-2011, 08:11 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Windmill - 08-20-2011, 03:23 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-20-2011, 05:48 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by nmoerbeek - 08-22-2011, 12:18 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-22-2011, 01:23 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by nmoerbeek - 08-22-2011, 10:37 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-22-2011, 08:03 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-25-2011, 08:09 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-25-2011, 08:31 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-29-2011, 01:13 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-01-2011, 07:11 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-04-2011, 02:59 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-04-2011, 03:13 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 03:40 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 04:04 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-05-2011, 05:21 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-06-2011, 12:46 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-06-2011, 01:11 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-06-2011, 04:19 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-07-2011, 04:27 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-07-2011, 06:24 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by thomas7 - 09-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-07-2011, 08:42 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-08-2011, 08:25 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-08-2011, 08:33 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)