Due to the fact that many points I make in articles are being overlooked or forgotten, I’ve decided to highlight them in a series of articles. I will add other points relative to sedevacantism and the attacks against it.
The current position of most all sedevacantists is that none of the Vatican 2 popes have lost the pontificate. They never had it. Therefore, all the arguments about a pope losing his office do not actually apply to sedevacantism.
However, our position is the same about how a pope loses his office by way of heresy, apostasy, or schism. He loses it automatically on his own without a declaration from the Church. It’s called defection of faith and canons 188.4 and 1325 cover it.
According to the Church, no one, not even the whole Church, can judge or declare a true pope as a heretical antipope. No one is needed to say that an antipope is an antipope. Therefore, all arguments advocating judging or declaring a true pope heretical are itself heresy.
Reblogged this on deinvestiture.
“According to the Church, no one, not even the whole Church, can judge or declare a true pope as a heretical antipope. No one is needed to say that an antipope is an antipope. Therefore, all arguments advocating judging or declaring a true pope heretical are itself heresy.”
Let’s say one is a Pope, then commits heresy and becomes an antipope. How would one discern that the man is an antipope without judging the Pope, since the claimant can’t be considered an antipope until it is known he is a heretic?
Think about it for a moment. If he’s a public heretic, he’s not the pope. As soon as his heresy is made public, he is at that moment no longer the pope. By time you see or hear the public heresy, you would not be judging a pope but an antipope, because he ceases to be pope at the moment he preaches (or some other public form) of heresy.
Remember what I said, if he’s the pope, no one can say otherwise.