Sedevacantism

[doe-jo]

Ive been reading a lot about these schismatics and their argument is starting to kind of make sense in my head.
Correct me if I'm wrong here: If the Pope is a heretic he loses his office. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger taught heresy in many of his books for example in one of his books (I think it is Principles of Catholic Theology but I'm not sure) he wrote that the Jews don't have to convert to Catholicism for them to be saved. This would be a heresy because the Jews' covenant has been broken when Jesus made a new and everlasting covenant. There are more but I can't remember all of them. Anyway, So if Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger didn't apologize or retract his "heresies" before he was elected Pope, would this mean his election was invalid or he is an invalid Pope?

Are all councils infallible? and was the Vatican II council infallible?

I would appreciate all the help I could get. I haven't been this confused for a long time.

[StColette]

[quote name='doe-jo' post='1589195' date='Jul 2 2008, 01:36 PM']Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger taught heresy in many of his books for example in one of his books (I think it is Principles of Catholic Theology but I'm not sure) he wrote that the Jews don't have to convert to Catholicism for them to be saved. This would be a heresy because the Jews' covenant has been broken when Jesus made a new and everlasting covenant. There are more but I can't remember all of them[/quote]

Could you give a more direct quote of this in context of what the Cardinal was speaking about? Germans often have difficult language or structure to their works and are often misunderstood. Also any other possible "heresies" that you can remember would be greatly appreciated. It's a serious charge to say that the Pope is possibly a heretic. You can send me a Private Message and I will post your response on here so that others can see the quote.

If that is what he wrote it is still not a heresy. There is something known as invensible ignorance which is understood as meaning that those Jews did not fully understand nor did they fully have the faith fully explained to them. They would only be culpable if they absolutely knew, for themselves not because someone just said so, but that they believed that Catholicism was the true faith and then refused it. The same goes for our Protestant brothers and sisters. They have the ability to be saved even though they do not have the fullness of faith. If they believed that Catholicism was the true Church of Christ and refuse to become Catholic then they are most definitely in danger when it comes to their Salvation. The Jews still worship and believe in the same God that we as Christians believe in, but they don't have the fullness of the revelation of the Holy Trinity. In addition, the Old Testament covenant was not broken, but fulfilled with the coming of Christ, there's a difference.

[quote]Anyway, So if Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger didn't apologize or retract his "heresies" before he was elected Pope, would this mean his election was invalid or he is an invalid Pope?[/quote]

Now remember how the Pope is elected, there are a great number of Cardinals, if one of them had been spoutting heresy its very unlikely that they would elect someone who was considered a heretic. Also it's not just the Cardinals who elect the new Pope, the Holy Spirit is the guiding spirit (hehe) throughout the entire process. I'm pretty sure Scripture tells us that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against Christ's Church. There cannot be a heretical Pope, nor has there ever been one.

God Bless,
Jennie

[StColette]

Other Church Scholars

I will be very busy with the rededication of the Church where I work. The following is a response of doe-jo to my response here. I'm posting this because doe-jo of course is unable to respond to this thread.

---------------------------------------------

Hey StColette,

Thanks for responding to my post. I will message you the direct quotes that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said in his book when I get the chance. I don't have the book with me.

Doesn't invincible ignorance mean ignorance that you can't overcome? I mean for example, if a protestant guy lives 2 blocks from a Catholic church, doesn't he have the chance to look into catholicism and figure out it's the truth compared to someone who lives in the middle of nowhere in Africa where it is almost impossible for him to learn about catholicism? Wouldn't the guy from Africa be invincibly ignorant because he has no way of knowing the church while the Protestant guy has the chance to learn about it? I don't know if that makes any sense.

I can agree with the statement that the Jews' covenant was not broken but fulfilled. That would still mean it is done away with and is no longer in existence. I'm sure you would agree that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church hence Jews need to convert for them to be saved.

About the last paragraph, is it really impossible for the Cardinals to elect someone who was a heretic? It's true that Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church but He also said to beware of false prophets who come in sheep's clothing but are ravening wolves.

[quote]There cannot be a heretical Pope, nor has there ever been one.[/quote]
This would be just an assumption. The sedevacantist would disagree. They would say John XXIII was a heretic and the Popes after him. I don't know what John XXIII did that was so heretical though. That's one thing I have to look into. However, it is not possible for the seat to be vacant. Popes, Saints, Canonists, Theologians, in the past, including Vatican I, stated that if a Pope was a heretic before he was elected or becomes a heretic as the Pope, he then would lose his office.
-----------------------------------------
Pope Paul IV - "Further, if ever it should ever appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch, or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election to be Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, [We enact, decree, determine and define]: ...such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void." Bull[i]Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.[/i]

Vatican I - "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head." [i]Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae[/i]

St. Robert Bellarmine - "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..." [i]De Romano Pontifice[/i]

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal - "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 judgment by the Church." [i]Ius Canonicum.[/i]
-----------------------------------------
Even though these are very strong words and I would agree that if the Pope is a heretic, he would lose his office because a heretic can't be a Catholic and non-Catholics can't become the pope, I am in no way a sedevacantist or SSPX but my faith has never been challenged like this. All these quotes would be pointless for now because we haven't proven that the pope is a heretic or was a heretic. However, it is not impossible for a pope to be a heretic. We don't know God's plans. He might allow this kind of evil to be in His Church. But just because the seat is empty, it wouldn't mean the Church has been destroyed because from the death of a pope to an election of a new pope, the seat is empty even though for a short amount of time. Why can't it be stretched out to 40-50 years?

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to read all this shenanigans. I appreciate it. I will message you the direct quotes from the book and more quotes by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. God Bless!

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Jo

--------------------------------------------

If any of you gentlemen would have the time or chance to help out with this, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Jennie

[StColette]

[quote]I can agree with the statement that the Jews' covenant was not broken but fulfilled. That would still mean it is done away with and is no longer in existence. I'm sure you would agree that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church hence Jews need to convert for them to be saved.[/quote]

First we find that the Church insists many times over that those who
through no fault of their own do not find the Church, but keep the moral
law with the help of grace, can be saved:

<Lumen gentium> #16 says: "For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation." John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in #10
says the same [underline added]: "For such people [those who do not
formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ is accessible
by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the
Church, does not make them <formally> part of the Church." We underline the
word "formally" to indicated that there may be something less than formal
membership, which yet suffices for salvation. A similar thought is found in
LG #14 which says "they are fully incorporated" who accept all its
organization. . . . ." We will show presently that there can be a lesser,
or substantial membership, which suffices for salvation.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT[/url]

[quote]Doesn't invincible ignorance mean ignorance that you can't overcome? I mean for example, if a protestant guy lives 2 blocks from a Catholic church, doesn't he have the chance to look into catholicism and figure out it's the truth compared to someone who lives in the middle of nowhere in Africa where it is almost impossible for him to learn about catholicism? Wouldn't the guy from Africa be invincibly ignorant because he has no way of knowing the church while the Protestant guy has the chance to learn about it? I don't know if that makes any sense.[/quote]

Invincible ignorance probably wasn't the best thing to use. But Jews during the time of the death of Christ could, I guess fall into invincible ignorance because they did not have the knowledge of the Church or of Christ as easily accessible as we do today, which makes it more difficult to have invincible ignorance.

"A person who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (or, by extension, through his merely venial fault) can be saved—if he otherwise does what is required for salvation, according to the level of opportunity, enlightenment, and grace God gives him (CCC 847, 1260)."

"In such cases, people are not saved apart from the true Church. Though they are not "fully incorporated" into the mystical Body of Christ, they are "joined" or "related" to the Church Vatican II's language) by the elements of saving grace God has given them. One might thus speak of them as having been "partially incorporated," though not obtaining membership in the proper sense (Pius XII, Mysitici Corporis 22)."

"Fifth, Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him."

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203"]http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203[/url]

[quote]This would be just an assumption. The sedevacantist would disagree. They would say John XXIII was a heretic and the Popes after him. I don't know what John XXIII did that was so heretical though. That's one thing I have to look into. However, it is not possible for the seat to be vacant. Popes, Saints, Canonists, Theologians, in the past, including Vatican I, stated that if a Pope was a heretic before he was elected or becomes a heretic as the Pope, he then would lose his office.[/quote]

The sedevacanists are schismatics, and have been recognized by the Church as such, so I would take anything they say about Popes past Paul VI with a grain of salt.

[quote]About the last paragraph, is it really impossible for the Cardinals to elect someone who was a heretic?[/quote]

It is not only the Cardinals who are electing the Pope, the Holy Spirit guides the conclave, which I can't imagine the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity to allow the election of a heretic as the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff.

I wish I had more time to respond to all of this in more detail. lol