Author Topic: Election of a Pope  (Read 624 times)

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2017, 10:14:16 AM »
Anonimous, what I doubted is that S&S translated it.  They're notorious for maligning the credibility of sedevacantists while relying almost exclusively on the translative groundwork that sedevacantists have provided over the last thirty years.

Their book is full of translations they lifted from Bellarmine forums (which are usually the work of J.S. Daly, sometimes of James Larabee and others).  That quote from Billot was translated, at the soonest, more than ten years ago on BF.  That's where NOW got it, and that's where Chips and Salsa got it.

The quote itself is good. 

(Incidentally, I have no problem with people using other people's translations-- do it myself all the time!  It's the combination of using others translations while at the same time treating them as idiots and ne'erdowellers.  A despicable tactic)
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, Nick, Troubled Teen, Anonimus

MyrnaM

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2017, 11:23:43 AM »
Unless someone can explain to me in laymen's terms why Traditional Catholics still consider at some point in time, they claim what may look like the True Church but apostasy has removed them.  Yet, they insist there is found somewhere, someplace a solution to the election of enemies of God to be valid.
 
No wonder the Orthodox have doubts about the Papacy!

What about these words:

Simony can be money, gift, profit or benefit etc. 
Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17 A.D.

SESSION 5
16 February 1513
[Bull renewing and confirming the Constitution against not committing the evil of simony when electing the Roman pontiff]
Inserted constitution
Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. From a consideration that the detestable crime of simony is forbidden by both divine and human law, particularly in spiritual matters, and that it is especially heinous and destructive for the whole church in the election of the Roman pontiff, the vicar of our lord Jesus Christ, we therefore, placed by God in charge of the government of the same universal church, despite being of little merit, desire, so far as we are able with God’s help, to take effective measures for the future with regard to the aforesaid things, as we are bound to, in accordance with the necessity of such an important matter and the greatness of the danger. With the advice and unanimous consent of our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, by means of this our constitution which will have permanent validity, we establish, ordain, decree and define, by apostolic authority and the fulness of our power, that if it happens (which may God avert in his mercy and goodness towards all), after God has released us or our successors from the government of the universal church, that by the efforts of the enemy of the human race and following the urge of ambition or greed, the election of the Roman pontiff is made or effected by the person who is elected, or by one or several members of the college of cardinals, giving their votes in a manner that in any way involves simony being committed — by the gift, promise or receipt of money, goods of any sort, castles, offices, benefices, promises or obligations — by the person elected or by one or several other persons, in any manner or form whatsoever, even if the election resulted in a majority of two-thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman pontiff.
A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal’s rank and of all other honours whatsoever as well as of cathedral churches, even metropolitan and patriarchical ones, monasteries, dignities and all other benefices and pensions of whatever kind which he was then holding by title or in commendam or otherwise; and that the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and, like Simon, a magicianl and a heresiarch, and perpetually debarred from each and all of the above-mentioned things. A simoniacal election of this kind is never at any time to be made valid by a subsequent enthronement or the passage of time, or even by the act of adoration or obedience of all the cardinals. It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals, even those who consented to the simoniacal election or promotion, even after the enthronement and adoration or obedience, as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people, together with those serving as prefects, castellans, captains and other officials at the Castel Sant’ Angelo in Rome and any other strongholds of the Roman church, notwithstanding any submission or oath or pledge given, to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch. To discomfort him still further, if he uses the pretext of the election to interfere in the government of the universal church, the cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him.


Myforever.blog/blog
 

Anonimus

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2017, 12:16:38 PM »
Anonimous, what I doubted is that S&S translated it.  They're notorious for maligning the credibility of sedevacantists while relying almost exclusively on the translative groundwork that sedevacantists have provided over the last thirty years.

Their book is full of translations they lifted from Bellarmine forums (which are usually the work of J.S. Daly, sometimes of James Larabee and others).  That quote from Billot was translated, at the soonest, more than ten years ago on BF.  That's where NOW got it, and that's where Chips and Salsa got it.

The quote itself is good. 

(Incidentally, I have no problem with people using other people's translations-- do it myself all the time!  It's the combination of using others translations while at the same time treating them as idiots and ne'erdowellers.  A despicable tactic)

Mith-

Not sure where NOW or Siscoe/Salza got their Billot citations, but they had to be from different sources (e.g., Siscoe cites the quote on p.o. 612-613, whereas NOW cites p. 623), unless you are implying both had appeared on BF over the years, and NOW chose one, and S/S the other.  But not sure how that would be knowable, barring an admission or something.
 

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2017, 04:03:56 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.
 

Anonimus

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2017, 08:43:13 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?
 

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2017, 08:50:36 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

 

Anonimus

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2017, 09:00:59 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

Translation: "Gee, that's a good point.  Not sure how to respond, so I will maintain my answer without addressing the question." 

Rather habitual.
 

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2017, 09:22:10 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

Translation: "Gee, that's a good point.  Not sure how to respond, so I will maintain my answer without addressing the question." 

Rather habitual.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you now since you cannot comprehend what just happened:   If something compels a response, it does NOT mean it is good just because it compelled a response, since pure error and evil most often compel a response.
 

Anonimus

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2017, 09:36:45 PM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

Translation: "Gee, that's a good point.  Not sure how to respond, so I will maintain my answer without addressing the question." 

Rather habitual.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you now since you cannot comprehend what just happened:   If something compels a response, it does NOT mean it is good just because it compelled a response, since pure error and evil most often compel a response.

That's dodge #2.

At Dodge #3, I will bid adieu.
 

Rubecorks

Re: Election of a Pope
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2017, 02:59:35 AM »
I'm sure this quote hasa been posted here somewhere before, but seems relevant again:

Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”  (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

https://archive.org/stream/tractatusdeeccle01bill#page/612/mode/2up

Note: Translation is by Siscoe/Salza.

This doesn't even matter. The only thing the Church has retained from all the theologians, theologically and by divine law, is that if a pope becomes a manifest heretic while in office, we know from that time he is not a true pope.

It mattered enough to compel a response from you!

PS: Manifest heretic according to who?  You, or the Church?

Do you see how silly it is what you just responded with?  If the Devil tells a lie and I say it doesn't matter, what good is it for the Devil to say that it mattered enough to compel me to respond to him?

Translation: "Gee, that's a good point.  Not sure how to respond, so I will maintain my answer without addressing the question." 

Rather habitual.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you now since you cannot comprehend what just happened:   If something compels a response, it does NOT mean it is good just because it compelled a response, since pure error and evil most often compel a response.

That's dodge #2.

At Dodge #3, I will bid adieu.

Sum up concisely in your own words what question or truth I am avoiding.