Replies

I never heard of the latter, and never saw the former invalidated, while according to a leading Roman Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis), 1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods. 2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses 3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican. 4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission” 5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said. 6. Suggested that hell might not exist. 7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant 8. Kissed the Koran 9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings 10. Accepted the tenets of evolution. 11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities. 12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles. 13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings. 14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies. 15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican. 16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre) 17. Exonerated Luther 18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.” 19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html And i do understand the difference btwn the claimed papal infallibility versus impeccability, and thus t it is taught, If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. — Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, #20 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm But that you also have the contentious issue of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, in which 6. ...if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;... (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; “(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” This is the basis for the sedevacantist rejection of recent popes, while other Catholics argue that the Pope has no judge, and would reign even as a formal heretic, and is the sole judge of whether the judgment of the Cardinals that one is a formal heretic is correct.

Sorry for the formatting. Seems every time i presume there is no html in there and skip the preview that happens.
Lets try that again:

I never heard of the latter, and never saw the former invalidated, while according to a leading Roman Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis)

1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods.
2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses
3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican.
4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission”
5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.
6. Suggested that hell might not exist.
7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant
8. Kissed the Koran
9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings
10. Accepted the tenets of evolution.
11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.
12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles.
13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.
14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.
15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican.
16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre)
17. Exonerated Luther
18. Allowed the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.”
19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html

And i do understand the difference btwn the claimed papal infallibility versus impeccability, and thus it is taught,

Condemned articles of J. Hus:

20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. — Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

But,

if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;...

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

(Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cumex.html)

This is the basis for the sedevacantist rejection of recent popes, while other Catholics argue that the Pope has no judge, and is the sole judge of whether the judgment of the Cardinal that one is a formal heretic is correct.