The Church Supplies for Formalities of Church Law Not Adhered To

For those who think that we cannot have another valid pope until the case of Pope Benedict XVI’s invalid renunciation is addressed, I’ve got news for you. See below.

As I have written many times, what prevents Jorge Bergoglio, since the death of Pope Benedict XVI, from acquiring the papacy through universal and peaceful acceptance is the fact that he is a public manifest formal heretic. This is a Divine impediment (like, for example, being a woman), and thus cannot be supplied for by the Church.

9 thoughts on “The Church Supplies for Formalities of Church Law Not Adhered To”

  1. So you’re saying we don’t need the heresy argument upon his “election” in 2013, as B16’s didn’t resign validly. However, we do need the heresy argument as of 2023, (in order to take the position that BergOgliO presently is not the pope) because in theory he could be pope because of universal acceptance?
    Well, wouldn’t the fact that he accepted the existence of an ‘expanded papacy’, (like B16 did) not be enough?
    This may only be important as proving heresy may be more difficult than establishing an invalid election. (I’m thinking of ia Bp. Schneider who would only accept invalidating heresy if it would be ex cathedra declared).

    Reply
      • “Public heresy is a crime that by its nature separates the heretic from the Church.”

        The above quote of Dr. John Lamont is not accurate. It should state, rather:

        Public heresy is a SIN that by its nature separates the heretic from the Church.

        The crime of heresy is a human construct, and therefore, properly speaking, does not have a nature.

        Reply
          • Okay, but it is important here to be accurate because some claim that even IF (for the sake of argument) it were possible that a true pope could fall into heresy, he could not be judged for the crime of heresy because no one is above the pope, who is the supreme legislator and judge. By specifying the “sin” of heresy (Divine Law), the true pope would consequently be separated from the Church, fall from office, and then, being no longer pope, could be judged for the crime of heresy.

            Reply
            • The counter argument is that Can. 188 (4) (194 in the 1983 CIC) requires the declaration before the office is lost, and Can. 1364 which discusses the penalty for the sin of heresy refers back to it. Tgat is why I say tge Church seems to have ratified Billuart.

              Reply
              • Neither Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code or Canon 194.1.2 of the 1983 Code requires a declaration of the competent authority for the office to be “lost”. In both cases, the office is “lost” by the law itself. Canon 194.2 of the 1983 Code requires a declaration of the competent authority in order for the already lost office to be “enforced”. Canon 1364 of the 1983 Code states “without prejudice” to Canon 194.1.2.

                Reply

Leave a Comment