Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We?

Gen Z Catholic made a four part video against Sedevacantism : his overview of the history omits Pope Michael I · Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes. · Gen Z Catholic's Video, a Dialogue · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part I, What Would St. Robert Really Say? · Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No · Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We? · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Orders

Same video as in historic overview.

Before going on analysing Gen Z Catholic's video, here is a huge disclaimer:

The position usually called Sedevacantism does not follow from for instance "John Paul II" not being Pope.

While adherents of Pope Michael I and now his successor Pope Michael II are indeed not saying that "John Paul II" is Pope, neither are we saying Sedevacantism is true. Since 1990, with a brief pause between 2022 and 2023, so since 2023 again, habemus papam.

Sedevacantism Refuted w/ Pope Michael
Scholastic Answers | 16 March 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1D3qM0iXIE

17:29, Paris time, 12.I. I may be too much plagued by a severe cold to watch and comment. I am not procrastinating this any more.
19:08, Paris time, 13.I, I have resumed, but it may be incomplete.

58:50 Text on screen — "deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy"

Your reading — "was declared a heretic"

Your misreading of Cum Ex Apostolatus basically mirrors Salza's misreading of St. Robert.

It's a ludicrous one.

1) If "declared a heretic" were what the Pope meant, he could have said it.
2) It is highly improbable that a man openly declared a heretic could make it into the college of Cardinals.

58:58 "This was a disciplinary document, which has been abrogated, as sedevacantists admit"

This doesn't make its theology heretical.

A theology which is basically a Sedevacantist theology. It's even closer to the position of Torquemada than to that of Bellarmine.

How so?

Suppose X is elected Pope in AD 10 678, taking the name Honorius IV.

Suppose he says a fishy thing in AD 10 689, leading to investigation. Yes, in 10 666 he had actually expressed a heresy, the same he expressed again in 10 689.

On the view of Bellarmin, he is auto-deposed in 10 689. On the view of Torquemada, he was a non-Pope as soon after his election in 10 678 as he repeated even in his interior forum the heresy. On the terms of Cum Ex, he was a non-Pope from scratch.

So, if the document ever was a valid canon law, its theology is not heretical, therefore neither is that of Torquemada.

59:18 You are seriously bungling the relation between divine law and discipline.

a) The document in itself is not in effect, unless Pope Michael I said sth else about it.

But the parts that articulate divine law are.

b) The divine law is not about "previously declared a heretic" but about being a heretic while "elected" (previous statements not directly repented of can be seen as proof).

The document goes beyond this divine law, since according to the document, a man who had embraced unwittingly a heresy and then been corrected by the Inquisition would also be ineligible.

1:00:26 Publically and pertinaciously ...
"Catechism of the Catholic Church" is published, hence public, it has stood since 1992
... embraced a heresy
CCC § 283 expresses the heresies of what one could call Evolutionism.

This is how I described it to Rationality Rules:
So, "Big Bang", "Heliocentrism", "Multiples Galaxies", "Multiple stars with optional solar systems per galaxy", "Deep Time", "Biological Evolution from Microbes to Men, Microbes to Mantas, Microbes to Magnolias", "Evolutionary Origin of Man in his specifically Human Aspects" are part of the content, and each of them is apt insofar as they are shared by the Syncretists who combine Christianity with this world view.
... (I obviously forgot "Abiogenesis" and "Discformed gas clouds condensing to when the centre starts to Fusion" in my enumeration of the tenets of this view).

A very minimal case for this being a heresy can be taken from Trent Session V. It makes nothing of the theology about Adam.

You want to defend the last three men you consider pop"es from automatic loss of office by publically and pertinacously embracing a heresy?

a) show how Evolutionism (as I defined it to Rationality Rules) is not contradicting Trent Session V, or
b) show how CCC § 283 is not expressing this view.

I quote it for you:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

End of quote.

1:00:47 I would consider Sedeprivationism a heresy.

I think the man it comes from was advising Pius XII at the time of Humani Generis.

I think he proposed that Adam descended from beings that were "material men, but not formal men" ...

Pope Michael I ceased to be a formal Pope when he ceased to breath and his heart ceased to beat.

A material but not formal man, in scholastic terminology, is a corpse.

Now, when it comes to Popes, the man would perhaps have been considering that the spiritual life has the right matter if it has the right doctrines, but lacks the right form, if it lacks charity.

The problem with the Cassiciacum thesis basically is, it presupposes a Pope who:
a) has the right faith
b) for some unavowable reason, confesses sth radically different from what he himself believes, even if he knows he's deceiving the Church.

I prefer the idea of Karol Wojtyla actually believing CCC§283 and deceiving himself before he deceived others.

1:01:24 "This still violates the principle of perpetual successors"

Two corrections here.

1) For me, there has been a Pope since 1990, with a brief interruption 2022 to 2023, a bit less than a year, this makes the sedevacancy one of 32 years from 1958 to 1990.
2) At least a sedevacancy of 40 years, specifically mentioned by council fathers of Vatican Council, does not violate the principle.

You may have a very good point about the ones who pretend the Sedevacancy is still ongoing.

1:02:08 "universal and peaceful acceptance"

Has not existed since 1950. Pope Michael I had his ordination and consecration from a line leading back to Duarte Costa.

On July 4, 1924, Pope Pius XI nominated Duarte Costa as Bishop of Botucatu.[2] ...

The former Catholic Bishop of Botucatu,[3] he was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII, ultimately for schism, but in culmination of several doctrinal and canonical issues (such as his views on clerical celibacy). Duarte Costa has been canonized as "St. Carlos of Brazil" by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Duarte_Costa

1:03:22 I note with satisfaction you admit that Sedevacantism does not directly fall foul of any actual infallible or canonically binding document.

Who has the authority to decide?

Well, both St. Robert and Pope Paul IV seemed to think that the actual content of the faith is sufficiently clear that it can be a case of "the Emperor has no clothes at all" ... (H.C.Anderson "Emperor's New Clothes") ... which would put Salza into the category of people stating "the Emperor has very fine clothes indeed" .... in order to not seem incompetent.