It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:44 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
 Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments 
Author Message

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Thought this might be a helful drill for all of us. Robert Sungenis is trying to talk sedevcantists out of holding this position.

If anyone would like to take part in this drill your most welcome.

1. Sungenis: First, let me say that I understand and sympathize with your situation. All things considered, we live in the most tumultuous time in Church history. Never before have we seen such wholesale departures from the faith as we have seen in our day. What we are experiencing today is far beyond the “Arian” crisis of the fourth century when most of the bishops of the world were heretics. ("This sentence [or these sentences] have been removed by request of R. Sungenis"), but it is not surprising, because Scripture, LaSalette, Fatima, and an whole host of Fathers, medievals, saints and doctors predicted such times would eventually come upon the Church. Unless our next pope is strong and orthodox, then it is only going to get worse. As Apocalypse 11:1-14 states, someday the two witnesses (who represent the Church in her proclamation of the Gospel) will be killed and the whole world will gloat over their demise thinking they have finally vanquished the Gospel, but after three and a half days (a symbolic time period) they will rise and then the end will come.

2.One of the Beast’s greatest deceptions is to lead men to think that they are the true Church of God in place of the existing Church Christ established. Our Church is defined by the office of the papacy. Whether the person occupying the throne of Peter is good or bad, makes no difference. As long as the office of the papacy has its heir, then the Church survives. This does not mean, however, that someone could not appear to ascend to the throne of Peter and be an imposter. It has happened many times in our history. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that it happened at least about forty times in Christian history.

3.The problem for us, however, is that if we suspect a certain pope is not legitimate, we, as laypeople, have no authority to declare him so. We can have our suspicions and act accordingly by protecting ourselves, our children and all in our influence, but we have no authWe have two precedents in our history to establish this procedure. First is the case of Pope Honorius who, after declaring a heresy concerning Christ, was subsequently condemned for that heresy by two subsequent popes, three councils, and with agreement of the emperor of that day. This case is important because it tells us that a pope can be in error in his teaching, but it also tells us that the error does not mean that he loses his office, ipso facto, since neither of the two subsequent popes or the three councils who condemned Honorius ever stated that Honorius lost his office as pope. The worst thing they said about him was that he polluted the office of the papacy.

4.The second case concerns the time in our Catholic history when there were three men all claiming to be the true pope. It got so bad, that one pope would use his army to run the other pope out of Rome, and vice-versa. This situation was eventually remedied when the college of cardinals held a trial and determined who of the three popes was the legitimate pope. Once restored to his office, that legitimate pope would then banish the imposters.

5.In order to determine that a pope is heretical and either is an imposter or deserves to lose his office, it is required, canonically, that he be a manifest heretic. That is, he must hold to a belief that is directly contrary to a canonically established dogma of the Church. For example, if the pope said in one of his speeches: “I believe that Mary was not Assumed into heaven,” this would be a manifest heresy, since it is directly contrary to an established, ex cathedra, dogma of the Church. His statement should immediately rouse the college of cardinals (if they are being faithful) to pursue whether or not his declaration was, indeed, what he truly believed, and whether he intended to persist in that error, without repentance. If they find that both are true, then they would be obligated immediately to bring the pope to trial in order to persuade him to step down, and if he refuses, proceed with electing another pope, which pope will then complete the dethronement and banish the previous pope.

6.Contrary to what some sedevacantists have stated, the pope does not immediately lose his office if he teaches an error. St. Robert Bellarmine, as good a man as he was, was not the magisterium of the Church, and therefore, he cannot be used as an authority on this issue, and neither can any other single individual. No magisterial statement of the Church has ever stated that a pope immediately, ipso facto, loses his office if he teaches an error. This is precisely why the Church, at Vatican I, stated quite clearly that the only time the pope is fully protected from error is if he speaks ex cathedra, and tells us prior to his teaching that he is, indeed, speaking ex cathedra (See 1983 Code of Canon Law 749.3). It is no wonder that all the clerics of the Church, including Robert Bellarmine, who were holding that a pope in error immediately loses his office were stated prior to Vatican I’s clarification on papal infallibility. If the pope can err in statements that are not under the ex cathedra umbrella, then it stands to reason that he would not lose his office when he made such statements.
In any case, none of us, whether we be a cardinal, bishop, priest, nun or common lay person, can act as a vigilante court and determine, by ourselves, that a pope is either a manifest heretic or is an illegitimate pope. We can have our suspicions and take the proper precautions, but we have no authority to act on those suspicions by declaring the pope a heretic or illegitimate. The pope would only lose his office if it can be proven in a canonical court that he holds to the error in question without equivocation and refuses to repent of the error if confronted by the canonical court (which was not true in Honorius’ case since he did equivocate in his teaching; and his condemnation came about posthumously).
Please note: Everything must be done legally and by the proper authorities. Anyone acting outside of the legal/canonical domain, or anyone who has no authority to make such declarations or enforce them, but acts as if he does, is himself acting illegitimately, and he will suffer the consequences.

7.Our only recourse when the pope says or does something wrong is to follow the prerogatives of canon law, which, under the pope’s own vigilance, allows us to register our complaints and criticisms, in a respectful manner, to him and to all the Christian faithful. We do this in hopes that God will use us to provide the pope with the gifted thinking of his flock that God has provided to us for his benefit.
We must show our respect both to the papal office and to the pope who presently reigns upon it. We must obey him in all things lawful, and we must gratefully acknowledge the good things he has said and done. We must never relinquish the fact that God has given the pope supreme power over all men in order to lead them to salvation through a unique, irreplaceable role as His vicar.
There is no other human being on earth given this kind of authority in matters of discipline, as well as infallible protection in dogmatic matters of faith and morals. Moreover, one must be deeply vigilant so as to not allow disagreement with the pope on pastoral and/or non-binding matters to mutate into rebellion. We must always maintain proper filial bonds with him. There is a balance that must be maintained, especially if one is called to address the interior battles of the Church (as CAI is called to do). If you read our mission statement (Sensus Catholicus link), you will see these kinds of concerns clearly echoed.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:20 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Hi method's all wrong, Vince. He's got his own theology built upon his reading of history, plus a string of ipse dixits. This is clear all through, but it's spectacular in his dismissal of Bellarmine (as good a man as he was!). What this amounts to is the assertion that we ought not to follow Bellarmine, or any theologian, no matter how approved his doctrine is by the Church, but rather we should follow Sungenis. Could anything be more preposterous?

He sympathises with our position. That's kind of him. That's what we're looking for, after all. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Hi John,

Quote:
Hi method's all wrong, Vince. He's got his own theology built upon his reading of history, plus a string of ipse dixits.


Indeed, I thought it would be a good exercise for new members to work at refuting his comments. This is the type of arguments one runs into from the Novus Ordo types.



In Xto,


Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Sungenis wrote:
The problem for us, however, is that if we suspect a certain pope [i.e., bishop of Rome] is not legitimate, we, as laypeople, have no authority to declare him so.


I note that the layman Eusebius took upon himself the authority to declare the Patriarch of Constantinople deposed for preaching against the faith one time even though his teaching was not specifically condemned by any ex cathedra or Conciliar teaching or anathema. Yet, he could clearly see that the Patriarch's teaching that Mary was the Mother of Christ but not the Mother of God was merely another manifestation (albeit one that had not yet been directly and specifically condemned) of the heresies that the great Saint Athanasius fought.

This layman knew the Faith, and a bishop, be he a patriarch or not, did not trump the Faith. The Patriarch of the West can expect no more. He does not trumph the Faith and when he teaches, over and over again, by his words and actions, propositions that are contrary to the Faith, he is no longer the bishop. What's more, we need not concern ourselves with knowing a largely undefined faith as Eusebius had to contend with, for through the centuries, the Truths of the Faith have been defined quite clearly and are taught in catechisms that we all have access to. Too often can we find teachings of (at least) the last two papal claimants that any 10 year old could recognize as contrary to the Faith. (I don't go back further than John Paul 2 because I really don't know much about John 23, Paul 6, or John Paul 1.)

The Church has already given us the precedent in the case of Nestorius. We need not look further.


Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Yes, and importantly, this was confirmed specifically by the pope.

Bellarmine gives us the quotes:

Quote:
Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'

And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Thought this might be a helful drill for all of us. Robert Sungenis is trying to talk sedevcantists out of holding this position.

If anyone would like to take part in this drill your most welcome.


Would I be correct in stating that whatever we say here has no effect whatever on Sungenis? I.e., that he will never see anything we say here? And I ask this, not because I would not want Mr. Sungenis to read what I have written here, but simply because if he doesn't see this, then it is an exercise in futility. I.e., wasted effort.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
1. Sungenis: As Apocalypse 11:1-14 states, someday the two witnesses (who represent the Church in her proclamation of the Gospel) will be killed and the whole world will gloat over their demise thinking they have finally vanquished the Gospel, but after three and a half days (a symbolic time period) they will rise and then the end will come.


This is his own interpretation: many clerics, all who have far more authority, at least with me, than Mr. Sungenis interpret this differently...and less "symbolically".

Vince Sheridan wrote:
2.This does not mean, however, that someone could not appear to ascend to the throne of Peter and be an imposter. It has happened many times in our history. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that it happened at least about forty times in Christian history.


In point of fact, this works out to two imposters per century on average. And we are supposed to believe that we have had no imposters in three centuries in a row? This is not logical. In the book, "The Christian Trumpet" written by Fr. Gaudentius Rossi in 1878, and available on our website in PDF format, Fr. Rossi says that in his time there was a serious discussion taking place in Rome about how those I term "the nefarious forces" were planning to install in the See of Peter at least one, and hopefully (for them), a whole series of anti-popes!

Vince Sheridan wrote:
3.The problem for us, however, is that if we suspect a certain pope is not legitimate, we, as laypeople, have no authority to declare him so.


This is false. Sungenis is, again, substituting his own interpretation of Church history and Church doctrine for the true interpretation. As TKGS mentions, what about Eusebius, who immediately declared Nestorius an heretic. What is the truth, is the truth, and requires no "declaration" by "legitimate authority" to prove it so.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
We have two precedents in our history to establish this procedure. First is the case of Pope Honorius who, after declaring a heresy concerning Christ, was subsequently condemned for that heresy by two subsequent popes, three councils, and with agreement of the emperor of that day. This case is important because it tells us that a pope can be in error in his teaching, but it also tells us that the error does not mean that he loses his office, ipso facto, since neither of the two subsequent popes or the three councils who condemned Honorius ever stated that Honorius lost his office as pope. The worst thing they said about him was that he polluted the office of the papacy.


Bingo! This is that specious, anti-Catholic argument both I, and St. Robert Bellarmine, have been fighting against for (combined) centuries! And, from the above, we see very clearly WHY all those opposed to the idea of sedevacantism use this specious argument! Total rot!

Vince Sheridan wrote:
4.The second case concerns the time in our Catholic history when there were three men all claiming to be the true pope. It got so bad, that one pope would use his army to run the other pope out of Rome, and vice-versa. This situation was eventually remedied when the college of cardinals held a trial and determined who of the three popes was the legitimate pope. Once restored to his office, that legitimate pope would then banish the imposters.


Again, his own interpretation of the events. What actually happened is that ALL claimants (except one antipope), even the true pope, VOLUNTARILY abdicated their offices for the good of the Church and allowed a legitimate election to take place. As is usual with Mr. Sungenis, he lies by half-truth.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
5.In order to determine that a pope is heretical and either is an imposter or deserves to lose his office, it is required, canonically, that he be a manifest heretic. That is, he must hold to a belief that is directly contrary to a canonically established dogma of the Church. For example, if the pope said in one of his speeches: “I believe that Mary was not Assumed into heaven,” this would be a manifest heresy, since it is directly contrary to an established, ex cathedra, dogma of the Church. His statement should immediately rouse the college of cardinals (if they are being faithful) to pursue whether or not his declaration was, indeed, what he truly believed, and whether he intended to persist in that error, without repentance. If they find that both are true, then they would be obligated immediately to bring the pope to trial in order to persuade him to step down, and if he refuses, proceed with electing another pope, which pope will then complete the dethronement and banish the previous pope.


Totally false. If a "pope" becomes a manifest heretic, he AUTOMATICALLY excommunicates HIMSELF by his very action (cf. Canon Law) and no "declaration" is necessary, or even warranted. NO ONE may judge the pope, as pope, not even an entire College of Cardinals. Mr. Sungenis shows by the statements above that he either knows next to nothing about Church Law, or plain logic, or is, again, lying by half-truth...as usual.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
6.Contrary to what some sedevacantists have stated, the pope does not immediately lose his office if he teaches an error.


So says, Mr. Sungenis... obviously on his own authority...

Vince Sheridan wrote:
St. Robert Bellarmine, as good a man as he was, was not the magisterium of the Church, and therefore, he cannot be used as an authority on this issue, and neither can any other single individual. No magisterial statement of the Church has ever stated that a pope immediately, ipso facto, loses his office if he teaches an error. This is precisely why the Church, at Vatican I, stated quite clearly that the only time the pope is fully protected from error is if he speaks ex cathedra, and tells us prior to his teaching that he is, indeed, speaking ex cathedra (See 1983 Code of Canon Law 749.3). It is no wonder that all the clerics of the Church, including Robert Bellarmine, who were holding that a pope in error immediately loses his office were stated prior to Vatican I’s clarification on papal infallibility. If the pope can err in statements that are not under the ex cathedra umbrella, then it stands to reason that he would not lose his office when he made such statements.
In any case, none of us, whether we be a cardinal, bishop, priest, nun or common lay person, can act as a vigilante court and determine, by ourselves, that a pope is either a manifest heretic or is an illegitimate pope. We can have our suspicions and take the proper precautions, but we have no authority to act on those suspicions by declaring the pope a heretic or illegitimate. The pope would only lose his office if it can be proven in a canonical court that he holds to the error in question without equivocation and refuses to repent of the error if confronted by the canonical court (which was not true in Honorius’ case since he did equivocate in his teaching; and his condemnation came about posthumously).
Please note: Everything must be done legally and by the proper authorities. Anyone acting outside of the legal/canonical domain, or anyone who has no authority to make such declarations or enforce them, but acts as if he does, is himself acting illegitimately, and he will suffer the consequences.


Total horse-hockey! Ignore St. Robert Bellarmine and countless other theologians and doctors of the Church and only believe Mr. Sungenis. Sorry. I prefer the teachings of a canonized Doctor of the Church to one who was for many years a Protestant of the absolutely worst kind, and who still exhibits many of their cursed ideas on fundamental matters of Church doctrine.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
7.Our only recourse when the pope says or does something wrong is to follow the prerogatives of canon law, which, under the pope’s own vigilance, allows us to register our complaints and criticisms, in a respectful manner, to him and to all the Christian faithful. We do this in hopes that God will use us to provide the pope with the gifted thinking of his flock that God has provided to us for his benefit.
We must show our respect both to the papal office and to the pope who presently reigns upon it. We must obey him in all things lawful, and we must gratefully acknowledge the good things he has said and done. We must never relinquish the fact that God has given the pope supreme power over all men in order to lead them to salvation through a unique, irreplaceable role as His vicar.
There is no other human being on earth given this kind of authority in matters of discipline, as well as infallible protection in dogmatic matters of faith and morals. Moreover, one must be deeply vigilant so as to not allow disagreement with the pope on pastoral and/or non-binding matters to mutate into rebellion. We must always maintain proper filial bonds with him. There is a balance that must be maintained, especially if one is called to address the interior battles of the Church (as CAI is called to do). If you read our mission statement (Sensus Catholicus link), you will see these kinds of concerns clearly echoed.


Dear God in Heaven! There is an old saying, which we in the technical field have found to be very true, and which in Mr. Sungenis' case most emphatically applies: "If you can't convince them with facts, snow them with truck-loads of fertilizer."

His excess verbiage is very impressive, but, at least in my case, only "convinces" me that he has not one iota of proof for his egregious statements other than his own fevered brain.

Besides, as many of us know, Mr. Sungenis has a very strong private reason to remain within the Novus Ordo, and nothing he can say outside of that is convincing.

After watching and listening to his tactics during the debate in Spokane, Washington with Mr. Lane several years ago, I was so disgusted with Mr. Sungenis, I would not believe him if he told me the sun was shining on a sunny day in July unless I had seen it myself. In my humble opinion, he is a practiced and subtle liar, who is so far gone, he probably doesn't even realize he is lying. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing, yet another minion of the devil, yet another of those used by him to divide good Catholics, one from another. I have absolutely zero respect for such an one.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Ken, the worst part of this is that it is in response to a young man who is a sedevacantist and was wondering whether he had made the right move in being one. He turned to Sungenis for help.

Thank you for your amusing reply to his advice. And I agree. After what he pulled at the CMRI/Fatima Conference debate in Spokane, I don't have much use for him.


Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Lorraine wrote:
Ken, the worst part of this is that it is in response to a young man who is a sedevacantist and was wondering whether he had made the right move in being one. He turned to Sungenis for help.


Humph! That is somewhat akin to asking the devil for help with a careful conscience.

Lorraine wrote:
Thank you for your amusing reply to his advice. And I agree. After what he pulled at the CMRI/Fatima Conference debate in Spokane, I don't have much use for him.


Thank YOU, Lorraine. Some day, you and we will be able to meet and talk in Spokane. God Bless you and yours.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
God bless you and yours as well, Ken! Someday when you are in the area, if I am able, and you have the time, I would love to meet you and your wife!


Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:16 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Sungenis wrote:
All things considered, we live in the most tumultuous time in Church history. Never before have we seen such wholesale departures from the faith as we have seen in our day. What we are experiencing today is far beyond the “Arian” crisis of the fourth century when most of the bishops of the world were heretics. ("This sentence [or these sentences] have been removed by request of R. Sungenis"), but it is not surprising, because Scripture, LaSalette, Fatima, and an whole host of Fathers, medievals, saints and doctors predicted such times would eventually come upon the Church. Unless our next pope is strong and orthodox, then it is only going to get worse.


I wonder which part was deleted. When we debated, it was clear that he wasn't a traditional Catholic. He seems to have shifted position somewhat since. But saying that Ratzinger presides over a crisis worse than the Arian crisis is obviously not going to be acceptable to most non-trads, if any, and it won't endear him to his friends in the lowerarchy of the Novus Ordo. Adding that comment about the "next pope" adds salt to the wound, surely!

Sungenis wrote:
As Apocalypse 11:1-14 states, someday the two witnesses (who represent the Church in her proclamation of the Gospel) will be killed and the whole world will gloat over their demise thinking they have finally vanquished the Gospel, but after three and a half days (a symbolic time period) they will rise and then the end will come.


I'm with Ken. Where does this interpretation of the "two witnesses" comes from?

Sungenis wrote:
Our Church is defined by the office of the papacy.


There's a true sense of that statement, and there's a host of entirely unorthodox senses of it. It seems clear that Sungenis means it in a way that is unorthodox. The Church is primarily the congregatio, the "assembly", of those who profess the true faith outwardly. That's why a non-Catholic cannot be pope. Unless he grasps this reality nothing else will ever make sense.

Sungenis wrote:
3.The problem for us, however, is that if we suspect a certain pope is not legitimate, we, as laypeople, have no authority to declare him so.


Here's Pietro Ballerini on the question:
Quote:
A peril for the faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported for long. Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). "That is to say, he who has been corrected once or twice and does not change his mind, but is pertinacious in an opinion opposed to a manifest or defined dogma: by this public pertinacity of his, he not only cannot by any means be excused from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity; but also openly declares himself a heretic, that is, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic Faith, and from the Church, by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church. In this matter the argument given by Saint Jerome in connection with the cited words of Saint Paul is very clear: “Therefore it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: for the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: this exclusion which is their condemnation by their own conscience.

(Ballerini, Pietro. De potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificum et conciliorum generalium liber. Una cum vindiciis auctoritatis pontificiae contra opus Justini Febronii. Augustae Vindelicorum [Augsburg] : Veith, 1770. (translation of title: Book of the ecclesiastical power of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the general councils. Together with vindications of the pontifical authority against the work of Justinus Febronius). Chapter 9, sec. 2, p. 128. Translated by James Larrabee.)


Sungenis wrote:
We have two precedents in our history to establish this procedure. First is the case of Pope Honorius who, after declaring a heresy concerning Christ, was subsequently condemned for that heresy by two subsequent popes, three councils, and with agreement of the emperor of that day.


Honorius was not accused of teaching heresy, but only of refusing to condemn it, and his actions were not public, they were private. His condemnation is questionable as to fact also. In other words, we don't have certitude that he was condemned at all.


Sungenis wrote:
This case is important because it tells us that a pope can be in error in his teaching

But the whole point about Honorius is that he didn't teach. He counseled silence.


Sungenis wrote:
4.The second case concerns the time in our Catholic history when there were three men all claiming to be the true pope. It got so bad, that one pope would use his army to run the other pope out of Rome, and vice-versa. This situation was eventually remedied when the college of cardinals held a trial and determined who of the three popes was the legitimate pope. Once restored to his office, that legitimate pope would then banish the imposters.


Oh my. No wonder he provides no references!

Sungenis wrote:
5.In order to determine that a pope is heretical and either is an imposter or deserves to lose his office, it is required, canonically, that he be a manifest heretic.

That's an ipse dixit. The canons are not applicable and in any case the suggestion that they say this is completely false.

Sungenis wrote:
For example, if the pope said in one of his speeches: “I believe that Mary was not Assumed into heaven,” this would be a manifest heresy, since it is directly contrary to an established, ex cathedra, dogma of the Church.

True! OK, I think that's the second truth he has stated so far (the other being the comparison with the Arian Crisis). :)

Sungenis wrote:
If they find that both are true, then they would be obligated immediately to bring the pope to trial in order to persuade him to step down, and if he refuses, proceed with electing another pope, which pope will then complete the dethronement and banish the previous pope.


So we can have two popes at once? One that ought to "step down" and one that is elected to make him do so? Could absurdity reach further than this?

Sungenis wrote:
Contrary to what some sedevacantists have stated, the pope does not immediately lose his office if he teaches an error. St. Robert Bellarmine, as good a man as he was, was not the magisterium of the Church, and therefore, he cannot be used as an authority on this issue, and neither can any other single individual.

So now there are no authorities except the magisterium itself.


Sungenis wrote:
No magisterial statement of the Church has ever stated that a pope immediately, ipso facto, loses his office if he teaches an error. This is precisely why the Church, at Vatican I, stated quite clearly that the only time the pope is fully protected from error is if he speaks ex cathedra, and tells us prior to his teaching that he is, indeed, speaking ex cathedra (See 1983 Code of Canon Law 749.3).

Heresy.

Sungenis wrote:
It is no wonder that all the clerics of the Church, including Robert Bellarmine, who were holding that a pope in error immediately loses his office were stated prior to Vatican I’s clarification on papal infallibility.

It was Bellarmine's formulation of the doctrine of papal infallibility that was defined at the Vatican Council. Now we are to believe that the man who prepared that doctrine didn't understand it?


Sungenis wrote:
a canonical court that he holds to the error in question without equivocation and refuses to repent of the error if confronted by the canonical court (which was not true in Honorius’ case since he did equivocate in his teaching; and his condemnation came about posthumously).

The First See is judged by no-one. If he's a heretic, he isn't pope and can be judged. If he isn't a heretic, he cannot be called before a "canonical court" (whatever that is).

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
John Lane wrote:
The First See is judged by no-one. If he's a heretic, he isn't pope and can be judged. If he isn't a heretic, he cannot be called before a "canonical court" (whatever that is).


Touché ! :lol:

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Rebuting the anti-Sede arguments
Pax Christi!

John Lane posted;
Quote:
I wonder which part was deleted. When we debated, it was clear that he wasn't a traditional Catholic. He seems to have shifted position somewhat since. But saying that Ratzinger presides over a crisis worse than the Arian crisis is obviously not going to be acceptable to most non-trads, if any, and it won't endear him to his friends in the lowerarchy of the Novus Ordo. Adding that comment about the "next pope" adds salt to the wound, surely!


Indeed, and his scare tactics foisted on this young Catholic e.g. the obedience card, is comical. Also, I know of no legitimate Traditional Catholic Clergy (Bp Kelly excluded, I am not up to date on his views) that is setting up a parallel Magisterium .All the legitimate Traditional Bishops (that I am aware off ) are in a holding pattern, seeking only to provide the Mass and Sacraments to the flock.

Robert has admitted a layman can decide as his/her own personnel decision on the claimants, (he admitted this at the John Lane debate in the Q&A) So one would think he would allow the Sede position as a possibility, we do not hold we have authority to inflict the Sede position on others. So why does he attack?

Double speak I guess, he will admit the Novus order is in such grave peril, the worst in history and is about to be judged by God.... then kneels at the feet of Ratzinger, because of the trappings of the papacy he feels are there….

Sounds like a Cardboard Pope, as Fr. Cekada noted “but for display purposes only.”

In Xto,


Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.