Cantarella,

Heresy in and of itself does not separate anyone from the Church any more than any mortal sin does.  S&Sers admit that if the pope were a occult heretic he would not lose his office.  This is true and necessarily so or the faithful would never know if the pope was really the pope.  What separates a heretic from the Church is manifest heresy that is harmful to others.  This is treated as a canonical crime and prosecuted as such.  Ipso facto penalties still require a canonical determination of guilt.  The problem is that the pope is "judged by no one," canon law is the human law of the Church, the pope is above the legal penalty of the law although not above the moral penalty.

In the parable of the Cockle, every Church Father commenting on the passage taught that, among other things, the cockle primarily represents heretics.  Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Harvest, commands that the cockle remain until the harvest for one reason, that removing it may do more harm to the wheat.  However, when the Magisterium of the Church determines that the heretic is doing greater harm to the faithful by not being uprooted, she in her wisdom may remove the cockle before the harvest.  That she has repeatedly done through history.  But with each heresy, relatively few heretics are formally excommunicated.  

Caiaphas, the high priest, sitting on the "chair of Moses," was a heretic, and not only was he recognized as such by Jesus Christ and later the Apostles, he was able to prophecy the truth in virtue of his office.  What was established by God can only be overthrown by God and what happened to the Jєωιѕн high priest in 70 AD will, in an analogous manner, happen to our heretical popes in Rome just as it happened in 1527.  

The mercenary armies of the Catholic emperor Charles V were Protestants.  He marched on Rome in 1527 because of Rome entered into a political alliance with king of France.  The sack of Rome was far exceeding in brutality and duration than even the sacks by the Vandals in 455 or the Visigoths in 410.  

Roberto de Mattei wrote:

This cleansing of Rome by God was necessary for its purification leading to the Council of Trent.  A cleansing of the same nature but of greater intensity is coming to Rome soon enough.  You don't have to do anything but keep the faith, use dogma as your rule, pray and do penance.  God will take care of the rest.

I do not understand your point of posting the condemned proposition of the heretic Hus so I will not comment.  

Drew

Nonsense. Again note the bait-and switch:
He claims that being a heretic universally does no eo ipso separate one from the Church, but only argues for the special case of the Pope! Quod erat demonstrandum? 
In their hypotheticals, assuming the possibility of a heretic pope, the famed theologians concluded that occult heresy would not sever a pope from the Church for the reason you cite; what you fail to mention is that these same men, like Bellarmine, Cajetan, etc., considered it impossible for a pope to become a heretic in the first place.
The conclusion, in other words, begins from a false premise and leads to a reductio ad absurdum in which personal faith is necessary for membership of the Church, but that membership remains for a loss of personal faith that remains private for otherwise we could have no knowledge that any man is truly Pope! The contrived nature of this ad hoc hypothesis is so evident, yet you would rather accept this bit if sophistry than accept the actual opinion of these theologians you implicitly reference, which is that a pope cannot lose his faith in the first place. As if it made an ontological difference whether or not ones loss of faith were known to other men!

But to get to the root of things:

What we see here is the precise same underlying theology that leads the R&R/SSPX types to claim that persons can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ, contra Trent, contra the Athanasian Creed, and contra the entire New Testament. The Catholic FAITH is essential to us being members of the Church; it is not just what brings us into Her, in a once-odd causative sense, but is the ontological foundation of that membership. The Supernatural faith received in the Sacrament of Baptism is the ESSENCE of membership of Christ’s mystical body - there IS no membership without that faith in the same sense that there is no will without its freedom, no bachelorhood without unmarriedness, and no circle without a circuмference.

Not true. Manifest heresy severs a man from the Church materially. If not, then the ipso facto excommunication has no meaning.

A non-heretical mortal sinner has the means to be reconciled to God through confession but the heretic has lost membership and the means to be reconciled.

A Catholic does not need to wait around to be told by the Church that so and so was a heretic in order to break communion with said heretic. A Catholic also knows that a Pope cannot teach heresy and commit public apostasy. Therefore the only conclusion to come to is that these men are not Popes. They cannot be or Our Lord lied. Since there is no teaching or evidence that a Pope can actually become a heretic, and strong evidence that he cannot, we must conclude that these men were never elected; whether by prior manifest heresy/apostasy or invalid elections themselves.

You do not agree with Pope Vigilius. You are saying the individual needs to be condemned first, the anathema must come prior to the exit, thereby denying that he has cut himself off.

An Even Seven,

The belief that in the external forum any one is free to impose an ipso facto penalty is a serious error and grave injustice.  You want to be Lord of the Harvest and should stop pretending otherwise.
 
There are plenty of examples in criminal law of ipso facto penalities, such as, a robbery committed with a gun may impose a mandatory sentence of 10 years.  Regardless of the ipso facto penalty, a charge and conviction is required before any ipso facto penalty in the external forum can be imposed.

God imposes ipso facto penalties in the internal forum and sometimes He does in the external forum as well, but man must judge by external facts and you are not authorized by God to be the judge.  Those who usurp judgment will bring judgment upon themselves.

Drew

"DULL"? With almost 36K viewings? Even you, can't stay away it seems.

You need to stop immediately.  It is not the OFFICE that is in potency, but the office-holder.  Bergoglio, for instance, has been designated to be the office-holder, while God imposes the form of the papacy on him.  This is taught clearly by Bellarmine.  Sedeprivationism simply states that this designated man has an impediment to receiving the form from God, despite being put into potency to receive it by the Church's designation.  You have no clue what we're talking about and yet you pontificate about it being heresy and claim that +Guerard was a moron when it comes to philosophy and theology, where he couldn't get the basics right.

Ladislaus,

The papacy is a substantial being composed of form and matter.  To be in "Potency" to the office is not to possess it at all.  That is a fact.  If the papacy is possessed in Act, it is necessarily possessed both formally and materially.  To claim that the office can be possessed in potency formally and in act materially is to divide the form and the matter of the office.   To separate the form and matter of a material being necessarily causes a substantial change in that being.  It no longer is what it was.  We know by divine and Catholic Faith this cannot happen.  We know that the papacy will exist with "perpetual successors" until the "consummation of the world."

Those who keep dogma as their rule of faith will be spared of this gross error.  My best guess is your emoticon means you like to keep your eyes closed to the truth of Catholic dogma.

Drew 

Bergogio is Drew's moral compass.  Vatican II is Drew's Council.  Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio exercise Drew's Magisterium.

Ladialaus,

You have no pope, no magisterium, no dogma, no rule of faith, no moral compass and no means to ever correct this gross defect in "your church."  There is no possibility of salvation in "your church."  This is not really a laughing matter.  The consequences are for eternity.

Those that keep Dogma as the rule of faith have no problems with heretical popes.  The faithful Catholic is no more tainted by a heretical pope than Jesus Christ was by worshiping under the high priest Caiaphas.  Those who make the pope their rule of faith will have problems.  They will either follow the pope into heresy or they will join "your church."  Either way it will not end well. 

Drew  

The temerarious comparison between Caiaphas, the high priest, and the Pope of Rome demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the Roman Catholic Faith, and if not done in ignorance, simply bad will.

Jesus Christ did not give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Caiaphas; but to Peter and his successors.  These "keys" are not a little matter. From the scriptural annotations, they mean "the authority of Chair of doctrine, knowledge, judgement and discretion between true and false doctrine, the height of government, the power of making laws, of calling Councils, of the principal voice in them, of confirming them, of making Canons and wholesome degrees, of abrogating the contrary, of ordaining Bishops and Pastors or deposing and suspending them, finally the power to dispense the goods of the Church both spiritual and temporal which signification and preeminent power and authority by the words keys the Scripture expresseth in many places: namely speaking of Christ, I have the keys of death and Hell, that is, the rule.

...By which words we gather that Peter's authority is marvelous, to whom the keys, that is, the power to open and shut Heaven, is given".

This is the plenitude potentate bestowed only upon Peter (and his legitimate successors).


It does not make any sense that the very keys of Heaven are and remain so, in the hands of a heretic (and in a continuous succession!). The keys of Heaven fell into an enemy of Christ?.

Faith cannot contradict reason.

Cantarella,

The only disagreement with your post is your conclusion. Your assumption that a heretic pope necessarily loses the keys does not follow from your exposition of the papacy.  This is a another question that I won't mind answering in detail but it will take a longer post.  Those that keep Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with a heretical pope.  If you want a detailed answer why a heretical pope does not lose his office by that fact, I will be happy to provide a reply.  But you should remember that Christ Himself fell in the "hands of a heretic."  He was delivered by His own will "into the (power) of an enemy."  You should not be surprised to see that a similar trial is suffered by His Church.

Drew

You are so diabolically perverted that you claim that people who believe in the indefectibility and overall reliability of the Magisterium and the Church's Universal Discipline "practice another religion".  Indeed, you are correct.  We practice Catholicism, and the simple fact that you characterize basic Catholicism as "another religion" proves without a shadow of a doubt that you are heretics who are outside the Church.  You are not recognizable as Catholics.  You're anathema and have in fact been anathematized by various Church decrees over the centuries.

Poor lad, you are the one who went and got yourself formally educated into error, not I. You're the one who must strive to unlearn the errors you have been brainwashed into accepting as truths, not I. We keep trying to help you but you've been indoctrinated into error but good. You give new, NO meanings to the Church's indefectibity, infallibity, Magisterium, discipline and more.

The best rule of thumb for you to always remember is St. Vincent's rule  - He said that any idea (sedeism) that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the faithful, is not Catholic - ergo, sedesim in whatever flavor you want to name it, is not Catholic. So plainly you should agree that it is not I who is the heretic here.

Can we at least agree on that much?

Yeah, because the See has been vacant "through all the generations of the Church".  I guess that St. Robert Bellarmine was a heretic for speculating about this kind of scenario.

See what I mean? Your above reply is a case in point - you give new meanings to the most basic of Catholic truths as explained by the saint and echoed by popes -  just so you can try to weasel into sedeism.