By: Cornelia R. Ferreira
As has become obvious, the Message of Fatima is undergoing a new re-write in this centenary year to make it conform to the ecumenical agenda and Ostpolitik undertaken at Vatican II.
A new voice amongst the usual peddlers of a fake Fatima message is that of the pro-life hero Raymond Cardinal Burke, beginning with his speech on Fatima at the Rome Life Forum in May 2017, as discussed in a previous article, “Fatima Through the Lens of Vatican II: as Illustrated by Raymond Cardinal Burke.”
Following the dubia Cardinal’s speech, the Vatican’s mouthpiece, the Blue Army, now called World Apostolate of Fatima (WAF), posted an appreciative article on its website in which it made a very curious suggestion:
“Perhaps now is the time to invite our Russian Orthodox brothers to join in a consecration in order to please Our Lord who told Sr. Lucia, ‘I want my whole Church [WAF’s emphasis] to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary….'”
Not surprisingly, the Blue Army considers the schismatic and heretical Russian Orthodox “brothers” with Catholics in a “whole” pan-Christian Church. This follows Lumen Gentium’s heretical teaching – now a “dogma” of the post-conciliar Church – that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church,” meaning the Church of Christ is actually bigger than the Catholic Church, and includes schismatic and heretical sects.
Another consideration arises from the WAF suggestion: since the Consecration itself will be recognized as the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, then the participation of the Russian Orthodox will be the triumph of ecumenism – supposedly desired and brought about by Our Lord Himself!
Now, in 1930, Sister Lucy explicitly told her confessor, Father Gonçalves, that Our Lord wanted all the bishops of the Catholic world to make the Consecration together with the Pope. If God had wanted the Russian Orthodox bishops to participate, He would have said so; but even the fake messages later attributed to Sr. Lucia never mentioned them.
Ecumenism, which seeks unity (i.e., compromise) with false religions, not their conversion to Catholicism, is a grave sin against the First Commandment.
Pope Pius XI summarized the Church’s condemnation of ecumenism in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, in which he stated it was unlawful for Catholics, and the Apostolic See itself, to support this enterprise. “For if they did so, they would be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”
What is called “dialogue” today he condemned as “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.”
Further, as The Baltimore Catechism teaches, a Catholic sins against Faith by religious indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship, i.e., by praying with members of false religions. It is therefore inconceivable that God would consider the ecumenical – i.e., blasphemous – act of consecrating Russia with the Orthodox as the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. This is diabolical double-think.
It will be yet another invalid consecration and will not bring about the conversion of Russia, nor the period of peace promised by Our Lady.
Of course, the Vatican Party Line which justifies all the invalid consecrations of Russia is that the dismantling of the Soviet Empire was the “conversion” of Russia. This is because, to the modern Churchman, “conversion” simply means “change.” According to the Blue Army, this un-Catholic definition was held by Sr. Lucy herself.
The corollary of the Vatican’s position has therefore been: no more need to consecrate Russia; it is the de-Christianized world, especially the West – and even the Church – that now needs conversion.
This corollary came to life under the Obama presidency, when Christian media, and even traditionalist Catholics, were led to blindly contrast a “more Christian” Putin and Russia with an increasingly degenerate West. Such belief has been directed in no small part by Medjugorje promoters, as well as by the sermonizing and propaganda of President Putin and top Russian Orthodox leaders.
In August 2017, the Russian state news agency TASS, interviewing Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Cardinal Parolin, went so far as boldly stating to his face that Russia (which spawned the family-destroying feminist movement) “is widely regarded as the last stronghold” of “traditional family values.”
The implication of these claims is that Our Lady of Fatima, and the Holy Trinity Itself, did not need to command the Collegial Consecration of Russia; the Popes have miraculously succeeded in converting Russia by doing consecrations their way!
Furthermore, the claims of a “more-Christian” Russia have given an opening to Churchmen to now promote Russia as the generator of world peace!
It’s the next dialectical step in the communization of the Catholic Church in order to merge her into the Masonic/Communist one-world religion of the New World Order, a religion foretold by Pope St. Pius X in Our Apostolic Mandate.
Now, the Blue Army/WAF, the Vatican mouthpiece on Fatima, claims it’s “the only Fatima organization in the world which speaks ‘in the name of the Church’ and ‘with the authority of the Church’ on Fatima.” Its audacious suggestion to do the Consecration with the Russian Orthodox was thus not made in a vacuum. Recent events indicate an ecumenical consecration may very well be in the works.
In his talk to the Rome Life Forum, after lamenting the sorry state of the world and the Church, Cardinal Burke said the following about why he’s asking for the Consecration of Russia to be done again:
“The requested consecration is at once a recognition of the importance which Russia continues to have in God’s plan for peace and a sign of profound love for our brothers and sisters in Russia.”
Our Lady warned if Her requests were not heeded, Russia would be an instrument of chastisement; but the Cardinal implies Russia is a chosen instrument of peace!
So why does he want the “explicit” Consecration of Russia, even though he believes the 1984 Consecration fulfilled Our Lady’s request? In an interview with The Wanderer on August 7, 2017, he claimed it’s in order to overcome Western materialism and relativism, which are “connected with” atheistic Communism.
Notice his double-think: Russsia is converted and Communism is dead, but the communistic errors of Russia live on in materialism and relativism, which have even infected the Church.
So let’s strike the rock again like Moses, and hope for a better result; but whilst we’re about it, let’s recruit Russia to help clean up the debris resulting from its (past) Communist ideology.
As Cardinal Burke elaborated, “… given the situation in which we find ourselves today,” and “in response to the present time which is so grave,” the explicit consecration of Russia, “expresses also the respect for their nation which could now lead to a repudiation of Godless thinking. In this way, Russia could return to her noble past in which it was one of the most God-fearing nations in the world, and where there was a tremendous devotion to Our Blessed Mother.”
Um…, unfortunately, this is more disinformation from Cardinal Burke, because actually, there was no such noble past. Almost from the start, Christianity in Russia was of the schismatic variety, and the country has persecuted Catholicism all through the centuries, right down to this day.
But the Cardinal seems to believe that respectfully giving a missionary role to a purportedly new, virtuous (though unconverted) Russia will generate peace, which presumably even Russia wants.
Backing him are hearsay reports alleging that Russians (not Russian Catholics) and Putin himself have enquired about the Consecration at the highest levels of the Church (reminiscent of Herod enquiring after the Christ-Child of Bethlehem).
The Cardinal also justifies his request for the Consecration to be repeated by reminding us that John Paul II said Our Lady wanted the Consecration to be done in every generation, “in accordance with the ever new ‘signs of the times.’”
Of course, Our Lady never said any such thing.
But moving on – in this Francis generation, the “signs of the times” include not just the increasing evil in the world and Church, but also an increasing “rapprochement” (latest buzz word) with Russia; so why not do a consecration to reflect this new situation?
The election of Francis certainly opened a new Act in the ongoing play one could title The Holy See and the Consecration of Russia. As the Russian website pravda.ru stated on August 11, 2017, “the situation changed dramatically.”
How so? Well, elaborated pravda.ru,
“Immediately after his election, Pope Francis called for the elimination of age-old dogmas, including negative stereotypes against Orthodox believers. The great reconciliation of the two churches [note the implied equality here] started soon afterwards. The epoch-making meeting of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill and Pope Francis was held on February 12, 2016 in the … Airport in … Havana.”
This meeting, hosted on Communist soil, gave a clear signal: the Red Flag flies over the Vatican.
According to Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of Romanian intelligence in West Germany, who defected to the U.S. in 1978, Cuba was the chosen springboard for the launching of the KGB-devised religion of Liberation Theology into Latin America as a means of expanding the Communist revolution.
Both President Putin and his right-hand man Patriarch Kirill (a billionaire oligarch), are KGB men. And Putin, who is busy resurrecting the KGB and its secret police under new names, himself has stated, “There is no such thing as a former KGB man.” (Emphasis added.)
Kirill (KGB code name Mikhaylov), as representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the World Council of Churches, worked for the KGB to spread Liberation Theology and Russian influence worldwide through the WCC. The World Council of Churches, to which the Russian Orthodox Church belongs, is the pioneer organizer of the ecumenical movement.
The KGB also built global ecumenical organizations for “peace” to further its agenda. The symbiotic relationship between the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox church (whose priests form a secret army of agents) still continues. As recently as 2009, Gen. Pacepa, who worked for the KGB for 27 years, warned: “The old KGB manipulation of religion has now become a lethal foreign policy.”
This manipulation was actually devised back in the 19th century to bring to completion the Illuminati’s World Revolution. Communism would be the major instrument, and Moscow the seat of the Revolution. Lenin himself revealed Russia was “the road to a World Revolution.”
The 19th-century revolutionary Russian Illuminist and satanist, Bakunin, stated the plan:
“Russia is the goal of the revolution; … there it will achieve its perfection … in Moscow from a sea of blood and fire, the star of the revolution will rise high and nobly to become the guiding star for the salvation of liberated humanity.”
Notice that word “liberated.” Liberated from what or whom? Liberated from God and His true Church.
Hence, the KGB, under Kruschev, called its religion – set up in opposition to Catholicism – Liberation Theology, with Moscow its Unholy See. This is why the conversion of Russia is so important to God and Our Lady of Fatima.
The Argentinian Pope Francis is an adherent of Moscow’s religion of liberation. He has admitted to being influenced by Communists and equates Communism with Christianity. He has rehabilitated liberation theologians and socialists Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. He is so Marxist that he has been touted as head of the atheistic one-world religion of the Masonic/Communist New World Order.
The Havana “Summit” was thus a meeting of fellow-travellers, as pravda.ru hinted.
The “historic joint declaration,” as Vatican Radio termed it, issued by Francis and Kirill after their meeting, contained the now-standard mantra that we must live “in harmony with one another” without “any form of proselytism,” and we must work together to solve the world’s problems.
A few months later, on October 1, 2016, Francis called the attempt to convert the Orthodox a “sin.” He told Catholics in Tbilisi, Georgia, “There is a big sin against ecumenism: proselytism.” “You must never proselytize the Orthodox. They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”
On October 13, 2016, the 99th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, in his comments at an ecumenical audience with about 1,000 Lutherans from Germany, Francis extended this “sin” to all attempts at converting anyone: “It is not licit to convince [others] of [one’s] faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path.” Let’s just “know one another better, pray together and offer help for one another and all those in need.”
Now, Our Lord, through Sr. Lucy, requested the Five First Saturdays’ Devotion in order to make reparation for five blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These blasphemies, which He enumerated in 1930, are nothing else but the heresies of Protestantism and the Orthodox Church. Hence ecumenism, which seeks unity with these false religions, is itself blasphemous.
But the ecumenical-minded hierarchy, which probably includes all the Catholic bishops today, would have no quarrel with Francis’ message.
For instance, the late Joachim Cardinal Meisner, another of the dubia Cardinals, stated in 2016 that both Catholic and Orthodox leaders should “consecrate us all to the Mother of God in the midst of the current difficulties, just as the seer children of Fatima proposed it.”
Of course, the children of Fatima never proposed any such thing, but, as with Cardinal Burke, no one wants to counter a fake Fatima message coming from a “courageous” dubia Cardinal.
The important thing is that here we have a conservative hero suggesting a joint Consecration with the Russian Orthodox bishops – and not a peep out of Traditionalist leaders (except for akaCatholic, of course – see here).
Against this backdrop, we have the next scene in our play The Holy See and the Consecration of Russia: Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin’s visit to Russia from August 20-24, 2017, at the invitation of both State and Church.
Still-persecuted Russian Catholics saw nothing in the visit to give them hope of an improvement in their situation. Msgr. Igor Kovalevsky, secretary-general of Russia’s Catholic Bishops’ Conference, “clearly bitter, refused comment at the end of the visit,” stating only that it had been “a purely official event, with no effect on the local church.”
Greek Catholics in Ukraine were also upset. First, the Havana Declaration had been critical of them. Then, in his meeting with Cardinal Parolin in Moscow, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, attacked the Ukrainian Greek Catholics as well.
But Francis was “pleased” with the “positive results” of Cardinal Parolin’s “dialogue” with Russian officials.
Besides Hilarion and other officials, Cardinal Parolin also met with President Putin and Patriarch Kirill.
On his return from Russia, the Cardinal reported that the “main point” he had made in his talk with Putin was “the desire to transmit the important role Russia has to play in promoting peace.”
He told the Vatican media, “Russia … has an important role to play … in the world. Therefore, it has a particular responsibility regarding peace: both the country and its leaders have a great responsibility to build peace….”
This is completely upside-down! Our Lady put the responsibility for world peace in the hands of the Pope and Catholic bishops – but the Vatican, instead, tells Russia that Russia is responsible for peace. Talk of passing the buck…
It seems the new Vatican Party Line portrays Russia as the savior of the world.
Given Russia’s newly-delegated role in generating peace, we return to the question: Will the “Consecration” of Russia be done in a blasphemous ecumenical ceremony with Russian Orthodox bishops?
This would be a smart dialectical move to bring the post-conciliar Catholic Church one step further towards the one-world religion.
The signposts are pointing in that direction.
“Given Russia’s newly-delegated role in generating peace, we return to the question: Will the “Consecration” of Russia be done in a blasphemous ecumenical ceremony with Russian Orthodox bishops? This would be a smart dialectical move to bring the post-conciliar Catholic Church one step further towards the one-world religion.”
What? She is opposed to the explicit Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (as requested by Our Lady of Fatima), if Bishops of Russia are invited to participate? She thinks this would result, not in the conversion of Russia and the promised period of peace, but in a “further step toward the one-world religion”? This is insane!
Anyone who opposes the explicit Consecration of Russia, whether or not the Orthodox bishops are invited to participate, is without question a False Friend of Fatima. Fr. Gruner must be rolling over in his headstoneless grave witnessing such diabolical disorientation from a so-called Traditional Catholic.
Cornelia:
Thank you for a most interesting article. I do have a concern, however, that I would like to express. I think we all have to get out of the old Cold War mentality and continue to look at Russia as the world’s greatest enemy. The realities of today simply do not support that view any longer – even if the mainstream media likes to keep it going. It would be folly not to notice the changes that are occurring in Russia today which are readily detailed on the internet if one cares to do a bit of research.
Now that poor nation cannot completely heal instantly after nearly a century of Communism but Russia is trying. For example, Abortion is down nearly 50% from a decade ago (can the USA make the same claim?), museums are opening detailing the horrors of the Red regime (one was just built on the site of an old KGB building!), their economy is growing, Vladimir Putin continues to denounce the brutalities of the Reds and even now, this year, a major historical review of the Communist years is underway with Mr Putin’s total support. I could go on but I strongly recommend you investigate the other side of the story and not rely on neocon propaganda.
Regarding the Orthodox schism I certainly share your observations about how far away they are from the One, True Faith. But if you will allow me to say so I think you are over-simplifying the issue. It is more complicated than we all think. If you hit some of the Russian websites you will generally find two things: some that continue their ignorant, anti-Catholic views and others which are beginning to be much more sympathetic to the Church. One such website, Russian Faith, even allows Catholic priest to write articles for them. Another one, Russia Insider, while being a cheer leader for Russia mostly, does include the Catholic viewpoint more and more. So this is no longer a Cold War black and white issue any longer; there is more than meets the eye.
Let us keep far away from the pro-war, anti-Christian and neocon mainstream media and try to see better how things really are. God bless you and yours.
During the Cold War, Russia was our enemy due to its communist ideology. Today, Russia is the enemy of the New World Order for her adoption of Nationalism. Communism by and large won the Cold War much like a virus spreads. It detached itself from Russia and implanted itself in a new host, the West. Any hint of Nationalism is met with cries of hysteria from the established order. Putin is KGB and as such will always use his KGB tactics to advance Russia’s national interests. What Putin lacks is an ideology other than power politics. That makes it easy to understand him and deal with him diplomatically.
Cornelia R. Ferreira vs. Fr. Gruner.
.
Cornelia R. Ferreira: On his return from Russia, the Cardinal reported that the “main point” he had made in his talk with Putin was “the desire to transmit the important role Russia has to play in promoting peace.” He told the Vatican media, “Russia … has an important role to play … in the world. Therefore, it has a particular responsibility regarding peace: both the country and its leaders have a great responsibility to build peace….” This is completely upside-down! Our Lady put the responsibility for world peace in the hands of the Pope and Catholic bishops – but the Vatican, instead, tells Russia that Russia is responsible for peace. Talk of passing the buck… It seems the new Vatican Party Line portrays Russia as the savior of the world.
.
Fr. Gruner: Russia has been given a special gift from Heaven … God has entrusted Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. … It’s not about Russia needing it. It’s not because Russia is bad or worse [than the West] or whatever. … It is about a choice of God. … if I was a Russian citizen, I would say, I am very honored to be chosen by heaven to have my country consecrated. … A consecration. What does it mean? It means to set something aside for a holy purpose. IT MEANS GOD WANTS RUSSIA TO BE SET ASIDE, TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY, FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE, FOR A HOLY PURPOSE. THAT’S A VESSEL OF ELECTION. … St. Paul was a sinner. He persecuted the Church, but it was preordained from all eternity that he be set aside for a holy purpose. … Well God has elected Russia, from all eternity, at this time, to be consecrated to God’s service, particularly for the service of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is not an insult. This is a great thing. It’s an honor, but it’s much more than an honor. It’s almost a free ticket to heaven once they get this consecration. See the entire video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIEQ3XEhdB4
.
Fr. Gruner says Russia has been chosen by God as a vessel of election, like St. Paul, to be set aside for a Holy purpose at this time in history. Since a period of peace is promised when the Pope Consecrates Russia, it is logical to conclude that the holy purpose is linked to peace in the world. But Cornilia Ferriera thinks it is “completely upside-down” to claim that Russia has an important part to play in world peace. I would suggest she read more of Fr. Gruner’s writings in order to gain a better grasp of the true Message of Fatima. Doing so should also help her clear up the diabolical disorientation she has succumbed to.
Be careful JPeters. Even some of the elect will be deceived. The Shismatic Eastern so called Orthodox Rite clearly embrace divorce and remarriage, reject perfect and perpetual continence for married clergy and do not accept the hierarchy of the Church and the one chair of Peter as being the head of the church. Then again many neocons and many Trads embrace many if not some of their heresies and views too so maybe it is no wonder comments like yours reflect a perplexity as why anyone should be so shocked that they are asked to help consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate heart. I wouldn’t touch the Schismatic Eastern Orthodox with a ten foot pole.
Re: the none celibacy of the Orthodox Priesthood.
It is all in the Scriptures. When Priests were called to serve for a few months in the Temple in Jerusalem, during the time of the Old Covenant, it was necessary for the Tempe Priests WHILST SERVING to remain apart from their wives for the entire duration as the Father’s law insisted on total celibacy. During the time of the Old Covenant there were many more Priests, and as can be seen in the Gospels regarding Zacharias, John the Baptists Father, the time he spent actually serving in the Temple attending the Daily Sacrifices was very rare indeed due to the large number of Priests who all were allotted time on a rota basis over a three year period to serve the Lord in the Temple
Therefore, Priestly celibacy was NOT needed, there were so many Priests that the time each Priest served in the Temple was a rare occurrence. They chose to marry – however with full consent that celibacy would be necessary when the duration of their Temple service evolved.
Since the alteration from the Old Temple times to these present times, There is a completely different set of circumstances. Every Ordained Priest is given a Parish where he is called to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every day (when the ideal is adhered to) Therefore, the call for Priestly celibacy is now a permanent necessity.
Basically, no Priest throughout the entire History of Judaism to today, was EVER serving in the Temple without adhering to Priestly celibacy. This is why it is so frightening to hear that the Schismatic Priesthood believe it is alright to be Ordained when Married. It was alright for the Old Covenant Priesthood, due to the fact that their period of actual service in the Temple was very rare, due to the very many Priests who dwelled in Jerusalem at the time.
Any Priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass TODAY is called to celibacy as a permanent state. Whereas the Old style Priesthood was called n a rota basis to serve the occasional two months as a rare occurrence, Our Lord Jesus Christ’s New Covenant Priesthood is standing before the Lord offering Him the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on a daily basis
I’m a bit tired, hope this makes sense.
God Bless!
JPeters
It is you who has it upside down and are quoting Fr. Gruner out of context.
When Fr. Gruner speaks of Russia as an agent of peace, he obviously means AFTER the Consecration. NOT BEFORE. He is speaking of the future Russia post-conversion.
The Russia pre-conversion is an agent of chastisement.
Cardinal Burke in his disorientation and in calls by modernists for the Russian Orthodox to join in the Consecration are actually DEFYING GOD’S REASONS for the Consecration.
The Consecration of Russia is not just a call for unity and conversion, it is to be made as AN ACT OF REPARATION FOR RUSSIA’S SINS AND ERRORS!
What do these sins and errors include???
1. SCHISM – REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF PETER.
2. ADULTERY, DIVORCE UP TO 3 TIMES & HOLY COMMUNION FOR THESE ADULTERERS.
Those are first and foremost the ERRORS of RUSSIA before we even get into Communism and Atheism.
Now look at every stupid thing Francis says – wishing for more decentralization towards Bishops local conferences, wanting to give Communion to adulterers.
So HOW? Pray tell… can Burke and co invite the Russian Orthodox to any kind of ecumenical consecration attempt without CONDEMNING PUBLICLY the ERRORS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX??? Is Francis going to condemn Russia’ adultery when he’s adopting that error into the Church itself?
The Consecration is to be done by the Bishops of the World who are IN UNION WITH THE POPE!
Why is it necessary to have Schismatic Bishops there? What signal does that send? And when Burke and co are being so ecumenical, how can they fulfill the Consecration Criteria that requires the Errors of Russian Orthodoxy to be condemned and made reparation for?
Do you really think the Russian Orthodox would go to such a ceremony that calls them out?
Or course not!
That means, any invitation extended to them would therefore have to necessitate dropping GOD’S OWN INTENTIONS for the Consecration, which OBVIOUSLY LEADS TO CONVERSION TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND SUBMISSION TO THE HOLY FATHER.
That’s why God demands BISHOPS IN UNION WITH THE POPE as a Public Demonstration against the Orthodox!
Instead Burke and co run the risk of turning this into an empty Ecumenical event that will only further anger God.
And it should be stated that yes, Russia today as a secular nation and its leaders are head and shoulders above the stupidity of Europe and North America in many ways, BUT RUSSIA IN 2017 IS STILL A TOTALLY IMMORAL NATION COMPARED TO RUSSIA IN 1917!!! Homosexuality is restrained in public but still allowed. As is abortion still high despite public campaigns to curb it. If God was displeased with Russia 100 years ago, why would God be more inclined to Russia today? Russia today is STILL WORSE that before when God still was displeased? So are we to imagine that the false consecrations that supposedly converted Russia to democracy around 1984 are more pleasing to God???
Also let’s put something in context. When God said Russia would punish the world, that doesn’t mean Russia has to necessarily be the most evil nation on Earth. After all God informed the Israelites that they too would be conquered and exiled for the sins, and He was happy enough to use non-Jewish nations and leaders who did not have the faith to do it.
So Russia is still very much capable of destroying the Earth as a military force, despite arguably being the ‘good guy’ in the conflict with the New World Order of Washington DC. That threat still exists and fulfills the prophecy.
Furthermore, anyone who’s paying any attention to details will notice that Russia and China are themselves busy NOT CONVERTING TO A BETTER WORLD ORDER. But rather ESTABLISHING A RIVAL WORLD ORDER TO WASHINGTON’S! They will still utilize all the tools of the NWO – central banks, fiat currency, Surveillance, Secularism, Socialism and Communist philosophies etc. It’s just a little more decentralized and stable than the American version. But Satan doesn’t need you to go the whole way, any compromise will do!
Excellent point Caroline. I’ve been trying to explain this to many liberal Catholics arguing for a married priesthood.
God demanded Celibacy, not only from his Temple priests, but also from laity. See when David and his men were fleeing from Saul whilst still fighting Israel’s enemies. In order to eat the Sacred Bread offered to God in the Temple, the priest first asked if they had been celibate.
Because David and his men were conducting warfare, they were observing discipline to abstain from sexual relations, and therefore could partake of the sacred bread set aside for God.
This is also why Uriah refused to go sleep with his wife Bathsheba when David was telling him to in order to cover up his adultery. Uriah was a soldier observing this discipline and knew he would have to return to the battlefield soon. Therefore he didn’t because he was committed to his duty, and this is why David had him put on the front lines and abandoned to be killed.
Abstinence from sex was a discipline in Israel that would go for weeks or months depending on what one was doing, prior to doing it.
But Catholic priests must administer to the Sacrament, the actual body and blood of Christ EVERY DAY!
Even those early priests who were married were men who would afterwards remain celibate once they received holy orders. So while they had wives, they were to cease relations with them after the fact.
Priests in the Church are also acting in Persona Christe, therefore this discipline emphasizes that they represent Christ always, and it is scandalous to imagine Christ laying with a woman, a creature He created.
All of it makes sense. Also considering the priesthood is now spiritual, the reasons for the Levite priesthood to marry and have sons who would continue the priesthood through biological succession is now longer relevant. We have priests under the order to Melchidezek, who had no offspring!
Yet what do we hear today, other than it seems Francis wants to reinstitute married priests who engage in sexual relations in the Amazon.
But we all know it’s more likely the homosexuals in the priesthood are going to argue that their turn is next. Now imagine those sodomites offering Mass after a bout in the night. They already do that, but soon they’ll be doing so openly if the current regime has its way.
That’s really what this is about.
Has not the time passed? The errors are spread. I do not claim to follow all the details of Fatima as closely as others. I would like to know why so many are so sure that a period of great peace awaits if a Pope and all the Bishops in union with him consecrate Russia. It seems the time has passed and the world is now infected with her errors. The message was for Pius XI and XII, no? The fools in the NO V2 sect can only “bless” and “consecrate” sodomite unions and other blasphemies. Fatima has demonstrated once again that God has kept His Holy Word. Our Lady’s request was ignored and we are now paying the price with a false council a false mass and a false pope (and false priests, bishops, and sacraments).
“Peters, It is you who has it upside down and are quoting Fr. Gruner out of context. When Fr. Gruner speaks of Russia as an agent of peace, he obviously means AFTER the Consecration. NOT BEFORE. He is speaking of the future Russia post-conversion.”
.
Of course he is referring to Russia’s role AFTER the consecration. That much is obvious and never never implied the contrary. Before the consecration, Russia is the instrument of chastisement for the world, but that doesn’t mean we should be against the Pope Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, if the Russian Orthodox participate. Allowing them to participate would not be “one step further towards the one-world religion,” but the act that would bring about their conversion and the period of peace..
“Cardinal Burke in his disorientation and in calls by modernists for the Russian Orthodox to join in the Consecration are actually DEFYING GOD’S REASONS for the Consecration.”
That is ridiculous. Only someone who was subject to a diabolical disorientation would believe that allowing the Russian bishops to participate in the act that will being about their conversion is “defying God’s reason for the Consecration.”
Fatima also lends credence to the Church’s condemnation of Heliocentrism as a heresy.
In which case following the sede logic the Church, papacy, priests, bishops and sacraments disappeared a much much longer time ago.
JPeters
Please answer this question –
How does one fulfill the Consecration’s criteria for it being an act of reparation for Russia’s sins and errors, whilst also simultaneously inviting those very sinful and erroneous Russian Orthodox who are obstinate in their sins and errors to partake?
Because what you are arguing for is no different from stating that people in an repentant state of mortal sin can receive Holy Communion in a state of grace.
The Consecration of Russia is –
– An act of Reparation
– An act of Exorcism
– An act of Anointing
Unless the Russian Orthodox have suddenly converted prior to the consecration and accept the Pope as their head, how can they be considered Bishops IN UNION with the Pope?
Please explain your contradiction.
Also Communism is not just a threat from Leftists. Islam too is more sympathetic towards Communism. Some argue that Iran pulls it off well. Look up a good article about that – IS COMMUNISM REALLY DEAD? by The Saker for UNZ Review. Also RUSSIA AND ISLAM CONNECTING THE DOTS AND DISCERNING THE FUTURE, byt the same author.
As the author argues, Communism is alive and well, and even functional in many ways, and with both Leftists and Muslims preferring it, along with belief that the American Empire has been a big obstacle to sabotaging it deliberately with illegal sanctions and false flag terrorism operations like GLADIO, in many cases an authoritarian Communist system has been the only way for some nations to survive – see North Korea for instance.
Also the ‘converted’ Vladimir Putin also considers the Muslims closer to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism.
—-
“I need to say that, as I have repeated many times before, from its beginning Russia had formed as a multiconfessional and multiethnic state. You are aware that we practice Eastern Christianity called Orthodoxy. And some theorists of religion say that Orthodoxy is in many ways closer to Islam than to Catholicism. I don’t want to evaluate how true this statement is, but in general the coexistence of these main religions was carried out in Russia for many centuries. Over the centuries we have developed a specific culture of interaction, that might be somewhat forgotten in the last few decades. We should now recall those our national roots.”
—
American/Israeli actions have only pushed the Muslim World closer to Russia. And as far as Putin is concerned, this ecumenism is all well and good. Though this is partly the fault of the modernist Catholics. As when I inquired with Saker as to why Putin would think this he’d told me it was that Muslims and the Orthodox share a common ‘language’ and thus understand each other. Whereas with the Romans whenever engaging in any dialogue between them, one always had to be wary of the difference in words and definitions used which made understanding and trust difficult. I don’t believe he was merely referring to a difference in language, but that he was referring to the double-speak vagueries. They wanted clarity and precision, which Muslims and the Orthodox seem to have a better relationship over but instead receive only ambiguity from the Latins. At least this is what I took away from him.
If a devastating war should destroy the world and upset her finances and markets, one could easily see the world arguing to implement a system of total control over human life to pull it back from the brink. Problem/Reaction/Solution. The people responsible for it will also be the same ones called upon to solve it. And one should never underestimate a desperate population caving in.
And with America digging it own grave with Israel goading them on, it seems more certain that the future belongs to Russia, China and Islam. An axis of Schismatics, atheist Communists and a false religion.
So it’s no wonder Our Lady is seen as the solution to all three of these and why Fatima is tied up with these 3 ideologies at every level in order to bring all 3 of them to an end.
So all in all, no, pretending Russia pre-consecration is some magical arbiter of peace when clearly America wants to instigate war and refuses to negotiate, or that Russia is somehow better because it’s secularism is kinder towards Orthodoxy and traditional morality, and to pretend ecumenism between the True Church and a Schismatic Church is suitable enough to consider them as part of a collegial Consecration is actually very wrong on every level.
Thank you, Cornelia, for a very thoughtful — and even frightening — heads up — on what is probably within Francis’ playbook for next moves! Well done!
I also want to continue the words of caution properly noted by Anastasia to those who want to glibly slip into the “new Russia” is not like the “USSR” mentality. What makes any of us think that any of this so-called new Nationalism on the part of Putin is anything more than a disguise to put many too sleep, as regards his true intentions – such that his and others’ long-smoldering agressive desires might catch us like a thief in the night? Additionally, if the “new Russia” is such a harbinger of good things to come, why are the Polish people still so concerned and distrustful of them? We would be wise to trust the Poles’ sensibilities in this regards, over any glowing press reports or favorable treatment of Russia on the internet! Finally, if there are “good” things going on in Russia, they will not bear SUPERNATURAL fruit that will last until Our Lady has been obeyed and Russia has been consecrated to Her, by a truly Catholic Holy Father, in union with the Catholic Bishops of the world – which may be very few by the time this is actually done, according to Catholic prophecy about the times through which we are living.
Now, this last statement points to the real problem regarding the Consecration of Russia’s being done, jointly, at this point in ecclesial history. Namely, we are living in a time of “false ecumenism” due to Vatican II. There can be no true union of the churches until the dogmas of the Catholic Faith are firmly upheld and all agree to embrace and safeguard these dogmas, regardless of what shape their ecclesial polity might take. Right now, because of Vatican II, we have a warped sense of “religious liberty” – which has even led Francis to say we may not/should not proselytize anyone regarding the dogmas of the Catholic Faith! This is not surprising coming from him, since he is daily showing us that he does not believe them anyway. The New World Order – One World Religion will be that of Free Masonry — a dogma-less Christianity — which will be/is the work of the devil. Francis is playing right into the hands of such, either unwittingly or intentionally. For Catholics to come together for a joint venture of consecrating Russia to Our Lady right now, with this warped idea of religious liberty and false ecumenism would be a farce! Which version of Our Lady would Russia be consecrated to? Would it be Our Lady without the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which is what the Orthodox hold?! A dogma-less consecration in these times of false ecumenism might find this totally acceptable, especially under Francis and the hierarchy he has amassed as his court. However, it is doubtful that Our Lady and Her Divine Son would find this to be anything but blasphemous and a grave sacrilege offered to the IMMACULATE Heart of Mary! Come on — how can one consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart if Her Immaculate Conception is not honored and upheld at the same time!
Now, this takes us to the root of the problem. What we first need is the release of the contents of the FULL 3rd Secret of Fatima, wherein most authentic sources tell us that Our Lady warned of a “bad Council and a bad Mass.” Until the truth of Vatican II’s wrong turning is acknowledged, repented of and reversed – such that the Catholic Faith is upheld again by Rome – any joint efforts with other Christian groups will indeed remain a mere human effort with no supernatural value & end up furthering the One World Religion and the work of the devil. In short, such a mock consecration to the Immaculate Mother of God, at this point in the downfall and outright loss of the Catholic Faith by the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy, will put us further in the hole – and drive us far from Her, Who is our only Refuge and Strength — and the only sure Hope we have of getting out of the mess both the Church and the world are in. Pray the Rosary daily for the official release of the full 3rd Secret of Fatima. That should be our first concern! Salve Regina!
Dear Johnno,
Can you please provide those Church teachings adopting Heliocentrism prior to JohnXXIII. Which council? Which bull, encyclical, apostolic exhortation, or note? Which Pope? Which catechism?
I don’t deny the Church grew more tolerant of those with opposing views but that is a far cry from what you are claiming.
God bless.
See the Sept 23 AKA Catholic article about Francis plainly accused about Heresy. You tell me if Johnno ever answered your question or not.
Dear Tom A,
Johnno makes so many good points in those comments back in the Sept 23rd article but he does fail to make his case. I read those comments in the past and usually follow his comments closely since I am edified by them most of the time. I just ran through them again and can’t help but to be disappointed in Johnno’s calumny towards Holy Mother Church especially when one can see how much he loves Her and defends Her so well in other areas. He accuses Her of heresy while offering no proof, at least I could not find any offered. He cites a lot of history but never once did he cite the Church teaching such error or even a Pope in his personal teachings. Just as Pope Honorius is mistakenly treated equally with the heretics of his time by the R&R crowd, following the path laid by the enemies of the Church, the Orthodox and Protestants, so too are those Popes who failed to uphold the truth concerning Geocentrism as well as Johnno would have liked. Were those Popes wrong in not defending the truth as they should have? I don’t know. Even the quotes Johnno provides leaves room for the Popes being deceived or mislead. We know from history that Honorius was not a material or manifest heretic but was condemned for his silence in the face of heresy. At best, the same can be said for those Popes dealing with the opponents of Geocentrism. Surely they were not heretics though. Johnno fails in establishing heresy in any Pope he is accusing.
If St. Bellarmine were alive today, I imagine he would have a new chapter dedicated to the errors of Johnno, Salza, Siscoe, and the entire R&R camp.
God bless.
Johnno: “JPeters, Please answer this question – How does one fulfill the Consecration’s criteria for it being an act of reparation for Russia’s sins and errors…”
.
JPeters: First establish what is implicit in your question: When did Our Lady ever say “reparation for Russia’s sins and errors” is a criteria for the Consecration?
.
What she said is she will come to ask for the Consecration of Russia “and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays.” The five first Saturdays are in reparation for the five sins committed against the Blessed Mother, not the sins and errors of Russia. Explain what you are talking about.
Johnno: “what you are arguing for is no different from stating that people in an repentant state of mortal sin can receive Holy Communion in a state of grace.”
JPeters: That is absurd. Saying a heretic or schismatics can be permitted to participate in a prayer is not equivalent to saying an unrepentant sinner in mortal sin is in the state of grace, and therefore can receive communion. On the contrary, what you are saying is that an unrepentant sinner should not be permitted to attend Mass (without receiving communion) since Mass itself is a prayer.
Johnno: Unless the Russian Orthodox have suddenly converted prior to the consecration and accept the Pope as their head, how can they be considered Bishops IN UNION with the Pope?”
JPeters: First of all, our Lady never said all the bishops “IN UNION WITH THE POPE. Those are your words, not hers. What she said is this: “The moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia.”
The last post sent before I was finished writing.
Notice that Our Lady requested that the Consecration be made with the Pope “and all the bishops of the world.” She didn’t limit it to ONLY those in union with the Pope, as you did. Hence, inviting the Orthodox bishops is not contrary to the explicit words of Our Lady.
“If St. Bellarmine were alive today, I imagine he would have a new chapter dedicated to the errors of Johnno, Salza, Siscoe, and the entire R&R camp.”
.
No, he would have a chapter dedicated to the errors of the sede-vacantists.
.
Regarding your question to Johnno about heliocentrism, the two following propositions were condemned by the Church.
.
I The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion. (condemned as formally heretical)
.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
.
Both of those propositions were condemned by the Holy Office in 1616. I believe the Pope at the time was Urban VIII. The doctrine had nothing to do with Pope John XXIII. He denied a different doctrine, which was infallibly defined by his immediate successor.
JPeters,
Thank you for providing me with proof that the Church teaches Geocentrism. However, I asked for teachings of the Church that show She teaches Heliocentrism. If you can provide me with those teachings, that would be great.
On your second comment, I was trying to draw a parallel between how the enemies of the Church treated Pope Honorius and how the R&R treats every Pope they can possibly use in order to hold to the false belief that a Pope can be a manifest heretic and still be Pope, simply to justify their allegiance to the heretics of our own times. You see, they need historical precedence and without aligning themselves with enemies of the Church in the past and adopting their lies and errors, they can’t find such precedence. That is why they are constantly arguing against Bellarmine or misinterpreting him. Bellarmine has already argued against their positions. All Sedes need to do is quote Bellarmine and more importantly the Church teachings he references. This also applies to you when you accuse Pope John XXII (you listed John XXIII, a possible slip of the truth) of “denying a doctrine” though you then admit it was defined after he died. Bellarmine deals with this, as with the other accusations levied against the Roman Pontiffs by the enemies of Christ.
God bless.
Pigg: JPeters, Thank you for providing me with proof that the Church teaches Geocentrism. However, I asked for teachings of the Church that show She teaches Heliocentrism. If you can provide me with those teachings, that would be great.”
.
JPeters, I don’t know of the Church ever officially teaching it Heliocentrism, although if you read the writings of the Church’s theologians for the past 100 years or so, they almost all imply a belief and Heliocentrism. They defend it by arguing that Geocentrism was never taught infallibly. I actually think you and I are on the same page regarding this issue.
.
Pigg: “This also applies to you when you accuse Pope John XXII (you listed John XXIII, a possible slip of the truth) of “denying a doctrine” though you then admit it was defined after he died.”
.
No, I was referring to John XXII (22nd). I misread your comment and thought you referred to him, when you actually wrote John XXIII (23rd). My mistake.
.
Pigg: “That is why they are constantly arguing against Bellarmine or misinterpreting him. Bellarmine has already argued against their positions. All Sedes need to do is quote Bellarmine and more importantly the Church teachings he references.”
.
Bellarmine in no way supports the SV position, nor does any teaching of the Church. They all support the R&R position. The SVs have completely misrepresented Bellarmine. Salza and Siscoe interpret him correctly. There is a lot more that Bellarmine has written on the subject than most know. It all confirms what Salza and Siscoe wrote, yet they don’t include most of this material in their book, nor will you find it on any SV website.
.
I’ll provide a few citations here.
.
Bellarmine teaches that if a Pope is suspected of heresy, a council can judge him and depose him. He also teaches that if a Pope or bishop has not been declared deposed by the Church, he must be obeyed. That is basically what Salza and Sisco argue in their book, except they don’t say the Church can “judge” the Pope, whereas Bellarmine does. Read what Bellarmine wrote in his book “On Councils”.
.
“The fourth reason [that a council can be called] is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff … for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic; or certainly to admonish him if he seemed to be incorrigible in morals … As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. canon 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly.” (Bellarmine, On Councils).
.
You see that a council can be called to judge a pope, even if he is only suspected of heresy (not yet a manifest heretic).
.
In the same book he teaches that inferiors must remain subject to their superior, unless the superior is deposed, or declared deposed (as in the case of a Pope). Read it for yourself.
“[I]nferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior (…) that oath [of fidelity to the Pope] does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope [i.e., has not been legitimately declared deposed], and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.” (Bellarmine On Councils).
Here Bellarmine teaches that a council is permitted to determine if a Pope is a heretic. If it can “clearly prove” that he is, it can deposed him. Yet he also teaches that if he has not been declared deposed by a council, he must continue to be obeyed by his superiors. You won’t find that on an SV website, since it is what Salza and Siscoe argue in their book. Salza and Siscoe do not cite these passages in their book, yet they confirm their itnerpretation of Bellarmine perfectly.
.
In De Romano Pontifice, Bellarmine clearly teaches that God does not deprive a Pope of jurisdiction unless men first judge him to be a heretic. Here is what he wrote:
“A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case. I respond: there are five opinions on this matter. (…)
“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
As you can see, Bellarmine teaches that a heretical Pope is not removed by God (“deposed by God”) unless it is through men, who must “clearly prove” that he is a heretic, as he taught in his book on Councils.
When Bellarmine teaches that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office “by his own act,” what he means is that the Church does not truly depose him (like it does other bishops) but only declares him deposed. It is only when he is declared deposed by the council that God removes his Papal jurisdiction. It is only then that he man is no longer to be obeyed as Pope, as he affirmed in the earlier teaching.
.
St. Alphonsus teaches the same. You can read what St. Alphonsus taught in an article on the website belonging to the Dominicans of Avrille found here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/tag/sedevacantism/ They studied him at length.
.
The point is, nothing in Bellarmine supports the SV position. The sedes-vacantists have completely twisted his teaching, either maliciously or out of ignorance. For most it is probably through ignorance. For those who have studied the issue at lenght, it is more than likely out of malice with the intent to deceive. And you’ve got to hand it to SV’s, they are very good a deceiving the ignorant laity.
Would an “ecumenical” consecration of Russia include the schismatic SSPX? Someone should ask Cardinal Burke this question. After all, he is such a wonderful “friend to Tradition”.
Pigg, johnno rattles off many facts and has indeed studied this issue. His fault is in searching for any premise to reach his foregone determined conclusion that heretics can be Pope. So he works backwards in his logic to latch onto any historical incident to justify his conclusion. A more careful review of the Galileo affair will show that the Church did not change any de fide teaching and has never taught either system as a matter of dogma. Johnno tacitly admits this by never providing the evidence that heliocentrism is de fide. He only provides evidence that the early church interpreted scripture in line with the observed universe and held that the earth was the center. As the physical sciences advanced in observation the Church permitted the heliocentric models to be used for prediction purposes but forbade anyone to claim heliocentrism as objectively true. Johnno’s goal in this whole episode is to prove a defectible Church in order to explain the conciliar church revolution. It is sad to see what was Holy and True destroyed in Johnno’s argument, to justify what is unholy and false.
Pigg,
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html?m=1
A very long article that puts into context the whole affair and totally refutes Johnno’s assertions. Also here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Lumen Gentium does not teach that the Church of Jesus Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church. It teaches that the Church of Jesus Christ IS the Catholic Church. Orientalium Ecclesiarum is another of the 16 core Vatican II documents, and was promulgated (issued) on the same day as Lumen Gentium — Nov. 21, 1964. The confusion is cleared up by reading Lumen Gentium paragraph 8 in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum paragraph 2, which specifically says that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Returning to Lumen Gentium #8 you see that it says:
But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.
So the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Catholic Church, and the “society” mentioned above are not two realities — they are one and the same thing. Keep focused on that word, “society.” Then moving ahead to the sentence in LG #8 that is claimed to be promoting a heretical view of the Church, we read:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him . . . .
So the “society” that is one in being with the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum #2), is subsequently said to “subsist” in the Catholic Church. It is a confused idea, indeed, but with the help of paragraph #2 of Orientalium Ecclesiarum we have eliminated the idea that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two different realities — they are one and the same. After simplifying the semantics, we have it that the Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church, a sort of verbose predicate construction.
Humungus.
You did an excellent job explaining it.
Fr Gruner also understood that without the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, she ( Russia ) would spread her errors and God would use her to chaistise the world,
He understood the two outcomes Our Lady clearly pointed out. And as Sr Lucy said, without the consecration done as the Blessed Mother requested n instructed, Russia would not convert. Fr Gruner also understood this very well and spoke often about it.
I think you missed the entire point of her article and that is the church is bending to a schismatic group instead of Doing Gods will. We as Catholics as she pointed out by quoting from Pius XI are forbidden to pray with those outside of the church, the Russian Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church. It will not work rather quite the opposite. The Russian Catholics will not benefit from this act, nor will we, and at this point we need it now just as much as the Russians. You have to keep in mind the Russian orthodox does not believe nor accept that the Mother of God was Immaculatly conceived, ( a belief of the Arian heretics ) practice divorce up to three times , and their priest can be married and serve on the alter. This is not Christian. It’s unchristian.
If Fr Gruner was alive today he would be agreeing with her in his own words. And yes Russia is showing itself to be more Christian than the west today, but in their schismatic fashion. Don’t be fooled by it.
There is no doubt that Russia holds a special place as the chosen nation , its quite an honour, such an honour that we who understand it, are quite dazzled by such an honour from heaven. but until it’s done to the explicit instructions laid out By Almighty God conveyed by Our Lady, Russia will continue to remain as St Paul, persecuting Jewish converts before his consecration and conversion.
What we are witnessing concerning Russia could very well be her final preparation of this amazing conversion, but in the meantime her errors are still spreading. And God will use her to chaistise the world of not done in time. “Many nations will be annihilated ” words of Our Lady. Fr Gruner took this to mean millions perhaps billions would die.
If you have been following Russia , you would know about how they have updated their nuclear defendense system, Mr Putin explained how it works. Three minuites is all it would take to wipe out nations and turn them to dust. They have developed the satan 2 war head that can take out an area the size of France or the state of Texas, all that in one war head which is part of their nuclear missiles defence system, in just a few minutes France could disappear. Keep in mind they have 100s if them. The Russians have been busy bees the last two decades, they have updated their weapons systems that even the US outdated system is no match for.
Recall what Mr Putin said to Obama ! Quote ” back off or we will turn you to dust.” End quote. Mr Putin who is sitting on a arsenal system that can destroy the world 100 times over, the US 600 times over, the world only needs to be destroyed once over. I believe judging by his actions and common sense is the best leader in the world today , in the sense he still has common sense , while the western leaders have shown a level of insanity like that of the pagan Roman emperors. (Drinking too much bad wine laced with lead ). But as a man who has proven his clever ability to govern can out whip many leaders in the world today and knows this.
Mr Putin also knows the details about Fatima, probably better than most Catholics do today, as Fr Gruner gave them Fatima literature, by Mr Putins request, and knowing Fr Gruner he certainly would not give parts of the Fatima message to the Russian delegates, seeing they are the chosen nation , Fr Gruner would have given them all the details concerning Fatima and would have explained it to them. Fr Gruner met with them a week before Mr Putin visit the Vatican. It certainly was arranged in that fashion. I have no doubt Mr Putin studied Fr Gruners material and discussed his interview with Russian delegates at the embassy, before meeting with the pope, who snuffed him concerning Fatima, we have Fr Kramers word on that.
One thing Fr Gruner was adamant on, and that is Russia will not convert without the consecration done exactly as the Blessed Mother instructed. No compromises. And no man on earth can can over ride Gods will, not even the pope. Without this consecration Gods gift will turn into a punishment such as the world has not seen. So yes it’s on the pope and the bishops to bring this wonderful gift into full blossom that will benefit mankind.
God Bless .
Until you study the message you of Fatima you will never fully understand it.
Lol, now that was funny!
Your quote : Notice that Our Lady requested that the consecration be made with the pope ” and all the bishops of the world ”
This is wrong the correct statement from Our Lady is ” the bishops of the world in union with the pope. ”
Our Lady then said to Sister Lucy:
” The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me, that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.”
Our Lady said in union with the pope. Key words here
( in union ) meaning catholic bishops , orthodox bishops are not in union with the pope a simple fact.
Look it up For yourself, I’m quoting from Fr Gruners web page on the message.
Hello JPeters,
It’s been awhile. It is interesting to observe your obfuscation of pigg0214’s edifying comment about your errant condemnation of Pope John XXII, as having “denied a different doctrine”, according to you, JPeters, while at once you then write, “which was infallibly defined by his immediate successor.”.
You wrote this:
“Both of those propositions were condemned by the Holy Office in 1616. I believe the Pope at the time was Urban VIII. The doctrine had nothing to do with Pope John XXIII (sic). He denied a different doctrine, which was infallibly defined by his immediate successor.”
Pigg0214 pointed out your error, in the fact of your claim that Pope John XXII denied a defined doctrine, and you simply addressed your error in the naming of “Pope John XXIII” in lieu of “Pope John XXII”. You have just given, for all those with eyes which see, the perfect example of a non-sequitur. Please enlighten us JPeters, as to how it is that Pope John XXII could, in your words, deny “a different doctrine”, when at the same time that you claim Pope John XXII denied this so called, “different doctrine”, he was rightfully involved in theological discourse as Pontiff, because this “different doctrine” which you claim he denied, hadn’t even been defined yet and as thus it simply didn’t exist as “doctrine”. So according to you, JPeters, Pope John XXII “denied” something that did not yet exist as defined “doctrine”, in the deposit of the Universal Magisterium? This is not even sophistry, its simply very bad as erroneous logic.
Do you claim that Pope John XXII was an heretic JPeters, because that is what you say when you write, “He denied a different doctrine.”? As you claim this then, what is the basis for your claim, as you deny the very command of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, in Luke 22: 31,32, when he placed into time and space His Word for a time, as for all time, and until the end of time, that Peter’s faith cannot fail, period and end. From the Douay-Rheims copy:
” 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
I pray this helps. In caritas.
JPeters,
–
St. Bellarmine would absolutely support SV based on his teachings. He firmly believed a true Pope could not be a manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine’s position is very simple. If a person is seen to be doing something against the faith or speak something against the faith, then anyone can judge that person, including the Pope, to be a manifest heretic and separate themselves from him and incur no culpability if he happens to be wrong. He firmly taught that no man, nor the Church, can judge the interior forum of another and did not have to take it into consideration since we are only to judge what is manifest or external.
–
JPeters: “The fourth reason [that a council can be called] is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff … for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic; or certainly to admonish him if he seemed to be incorrigible in morals … As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. canon 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly.” (Bellarmine, On Councils).
–
You see that a council can be called to judge a pope, even if he is only suspected of heresy (not yet a manifest heretic).
–
Pigg: The council investigates and declares it’s findings. The declaration is needed only to inform the ignorant. In order for the Church or council to declare the Pope to be a heretic, the members of the council need to come to their own personal belief that the Pope is a heretic. This means that their personal belief precedes the Church’s declaration, which you claim no one can do prior to the declaration from the Church. So which is it?
–
JPeters: In the same book he teaches that inferiors must remain subject to their superior, unless the superior is deposed, or declared deposed (as in the case of a Pope). Read it for yourself.
–
“[I]nferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior (…) that oath [of fidelity to the Pope] does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope [i.e., has not been legitimately declared deposed], and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.” (Bellarmine On Councils).
–
Here Bellarmine teaches that a council is permitted to determine if a Pope is a heretic. If it can “clearly prove” that he is, it can deposed him. Yet he also teaches that if he has not been declared deposed by a council, he must continue to be obeyed by his superiors.
–
Pigg: “which is understood as long as he is Pope.” They are only subject to the Pope if he is still Pope. You keep going back and forth with your language. Does the Church depose the Pope or does God? You said “If it can ‘clearly prove’ that he is, it can deposed him.” Since a Pope is deposed by God due to manifest or formal heresy, then those who are already aware of such heresy do not need to wait for a declaration from the Church. You are basically saying that a man can’t conclude from his own God given reason that a man is not a woman until a doctor tells him so, even though he already damn well knows that a man cannot be a woman. Now it would behoove the doctor to declare such an obvious fact to the ignorant that don’t know better for one reason or another so they don’t mistakenly think that a man can be a woman.
–
JPeters: In De Romano Pontifice, Bellarmine clearly teaches that God does not deprive a Pope of jurisdiction unless men first judge him to be a heretic. Here is what he wrote:
–
“A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case. I respond: there are five opinions on this matter. (…)
–
“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
–
As you can see, Bellarmine teaches that a heretical Pope is not removed by God (“deposed by God”) unless it is through men, who must “clearly prove” that he is a heretic, as he taught in his book on Councils.
–
Pigg: Bellarmine above is speaking about heresy that is only interior or secret and rightly says that man cannot judge such a person since man can only judge externals. I mentioned this above. Bellarmine is very consistent.
–
JPeters: When Bellarmine teaches that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office “by his own act,” what he means is that the Church does not truly depose him (like it does other bishops) but only declares him deposed. It is only when he is declared deposed by the council that God removes his Papal jurisdiction. It is only then that he man is no longer to be obeyed as Pope, as he affirmed in the earlier teaching.
.
Pigg: Here Bellarmine is correct as usual but you take his teaching where it was not meant to go. You acknowledge that a Pope is not deposed by the Church (at least in this section) but that the Church simply makes a declaration of fact, a fact that came prior to the declaration. Bellarmine teaches that a manifest heretic is outside the Church since he no longer holds the Catholic faith. He then rightly teaches that non Catholics cannot retain or hold an office or jurisdiction in the Church. It is lost immediately upon heresy. If you want to argue that those who don’t know about the manifest heresy are morally obliged to remain obedient until informed then that I can go along with that but that does not apply to those who already know.
Please tell me what you think this means.
–
Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. (Quas Primas, para. 22)
–
May God bless you JPeters.
In Caritas: “Please enlighten us JPeters, as to how it is that Pope John XXII could, in your words, deny “a different doctrine”, when at the same time that you claim Pope John XXII denied this so called, “different doctrine”, he was rightfully involved in theological discourse as Pontiff, because THIS “DIFFERENT DOCTRINE” WHICH YOU CLAIM HE DENIED, HADN’T EVEN BEEN DEFINED YET AND AS THUS IT SIMPLY DIDN’T EXIST AS “DOCTRINE”. SO ACCORDING TO YOU, JPETERS, POPE JOHN XXII “DENIED” SOMETHING THAT DID NOT YET EXIST AS DEFINED “DOCTRINE”, in the deposit of the Universal Magisterium? This is not even sophistry, its simply very bad as erroneous logic.”
.
JPeters: The problem is not “bad and erroneous logic” on my part, but erroneous reasoning, due to a failure to properly understand basic Catholic terminology, on your part. Let me explain.
.
Your first error is equating the word “doctrine” with “dogma” as if these terms are exclusively identical. Based on this error, you argue as if only that which has been solemnly defined by the Church can be called a “doctrine”. What you don’t realize is that “doctrines” include teachings that have been defined and teachings that have not been defined. Limbo of the children is one example of a doctrine that has not been defined as a dogma, yet is nevertheless a doctrine. An undefined truth that is contained in the revealed deposit is called a material dogma. When a material dogma is solemnly defined, it becomes a formal dogma. What John XXII denied was a material dogma. It was a truth contained in the revealed deposit that had not yet been solemnly defined.
.
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the teaching that John XXII denied as a “doctrine”.
.
“In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the DOCTRINE that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision.” (Catholic Encyclopedia).
.
In an article written by Fr. Victor Francis O’Daniel, O.P. and published in The Catholic University Bulletin in 1912, he explains that the doctrine John XXII denied was not a matter of dispute before he denied it (just as Limbo was not a matter of dispute before Vatican II), but “had long been considered as practically of divine faith, the denial of which was tantamount to heresy.” He writes:
.
“About the year 1330, disturbing reports began to be circulated abroad through the intellectual centers of Europe that the Pope was teaching or favoring a strange and erroneous doctrine concerning the state of the souls of the just after death. It was said he held that souls departing this life and needing not to pass through the cleansing fires of purgatory, and those that had already been so purified, would not be permitted to cross the threshold of heaven, or admitted to the beatific vision, before the day of the final judgment. (…) At first there were only vague, disquieting rumors, but by the end of 1331 the theological world was rent by the certainty that the Head of the Church was really preaching against a Catholic teaching WHICH HAD LONG BEEN CONSIDERED AS PRACTICALLY OF FAITH DIVINE, THE DENIAL OF WHICH WAS TANTAMOUNT TO HERESY.” (Fr. Victor Francis O’Daniel, O.P)
.
Fr. O’Daniels explains that when Pope John XXII sent Gerard Eudes, the minister general of the Minorites, to King Phillip of France in an attempt to win him over to the Pope’s erroneous doctrine, the King “declared he considered him a heretic, and that, unless he retracted his scandalous assertions, he would have him burned at the stake.” The king also made threats against John XXII.
.
In case you are wondering why would it be heresy, or “tantamount to heresy,” for John XXII to deny an undefined doctrine, the reason is that when a “material dogma” is taught by the entire ordinary Magisterium as a truth of the faith, the doctrine is considered to have been infallibly proposed, and therefore must be accepted by all the member of the Church by faith. According to Fr. O’Daniels this was the case with the doctrine John XXII denied. This explains why the King of France considered the general of the Minorites to be a heretic for spreading John XXII’s erroneous doctrine and threatened to have him burned at the stake. I hope this helps. JPeters.
I am happy to see that I am not a lone wolf in this battle against the promulgation that the huge modern number of married deacons and these newly married priests in the so called ” New VaticanII Church” are not required perfect and perpetual continence”. Anyone interested in this issue should begin by reading Father Christian Cochini’s book, “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy”.
Of course this confusion as to what the Church has always demanded of the married clergy who were never to be ordained before without permission from their wives to renounce the marital act in their marriage is surely linked to the modern times with the redefining, inverting and manipulation over the many recent years of the hierarchy of the purposes of marriage namely that of the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory for the secondary and SUBORDINATE purpose of the unity of the couple. People now reason that since, for well over 60 years, people believe sex is about me and my emotional needs and wants and secondarily, if not even, about procreation anything goes such as contraception, sodomy, abortion, prostitution, divorce, remarriage and so on.
Hi Pigg,
.
Here we go…
Pigg: “Bellarmine would absolutely support SV based on his teachings. He firmly believed a true Pope could not be a manifest heretic.”
.
JPeters. Nope. He didn’t “firmly believe” that a Pope cannot be a manifest heretic. He held it as an opinion, while at the same time admitting that the common opinion was that the Pope could fall into manifest heresy (See De Romano Pontifice, bk 2, ch. 30), which is why he went on to address what would happen if a Pope did fall into heresy. And let us not forget that Bellarmine also held the opinion that a papal resignation would only be valid if it was accepted by the Church. The Church itself teaches the opposite in the 1917 code of canon law, which shows that Bellarmine’s opinions are far from infallible.
.
Pigg: St. Bellarmine’s position is very simple. If a person is seen to be doing something against the faith or speak something against the faith, then anyone can judge that person, including the Pope, to be a manifest heretic and separate themselves from him and incur no culpability if he happens to be wrong.
.
JPeters: Oh really? Then please quote Bellarmine teaching that. You learned that error from the SV’s, or from Fr. Kramer who has been spreading the same error for months. Bellarmine himself never says any such thing, nor does he imply it in the least.
.
I suspect that you are referring to the case of Pope Liberius, which the SV’s use to justify their position. If that is indeed what you are referring to, I have two points to make.
.
First, Bellarmine mistakenly believed that Antipope Felix was Saint Felix the martyr. That was a common historical error of his day, which was clear up centuries ago. Antipope Felix and Saint Felix are two different people. But because of this historical error, Bellarmine had felt compelled to explain something that never happened (i.e., how Liberius was deposed by the clergy of Rome and how Felix could become the true Pope).
.
Second, in his explanation of how Antipope Felix became the true Pope (error #1) nowhere does he say “anyone” can judge a Pope to be a manifest heretic and separate from him. The judgment, in the case of Pope Liberius/Felix, was made by the clergy of Rome, the teaching Church, not by members of the laity, the taught Church. The clergy of Rome are the ones who judged him to be a heretic and, as Bellarmine falsely thought, “stripped him of his Pontifical dignity. Here is Bellarmine’s account:
“Then indeed THE ROMAN CLERGY, STRIPPING LIBERIUS OF HIS PONTIFICAL DIGNITY, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic” (On the Roman Pontiff).
.
Although Bellarmine was wrong in believing the Pontificate was taken from Liberius and given to Felix, he says it was the clergy of Rome who “stripped him of his Pontifical dignity”. They did so by judging him to be a heretic and then “condemn him as a heretic.”
.
The point is that nowhere in his account of the case of Liberius (or anywhere else) does Bellarmine say “anyone” can judge the Pope to be a manifest heretic and then separate from him. That is what the SV’s claim, but it is not what Bellarmine taught.
.
As a related point, let’s consider what Bellarmine wrote about the other bishops of Liberius’ day who subscribed to the Arian heresy, and who further decreed that the orthodox term homoousios (consubstantial) should be abolished.
.
Every SV I have encountered claims that these bishops were “manifest heretics” who automatically lost their office. And they cite Bellarmine’s teaching about manifest heresy as if it supports their claim that they lost their office. What they don’t know is that Bellarmine himself wrote about these bishops, and did not consider them be manifest heretics but instead excused them. Here is what he wrote:
.
“To that passage of Jerome, I respond … he improperly calls ‘Arians’ those who subscribed to heresy through ignorance. HE SPEAKS OF THE MULTITUDE OF BISHOPS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WHO AGREED WITH [THE HERETIC] ARMINIMUS, AND BEING DECEIVED BY THE ARIANS DECREED THAT THE TERM HOMOOUSIOS (I.E., CONSUBSTANTIAL) MUST BE ABOLISHED, even though they did not know what it meant. Certainly, they were not heretics, but only erred materially, just as if some Catholic might advance a blasphemous opinion with the tongue thinking it is a pious prayer.” (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante).
.
Exteriorly these bishops appeared to be heretics, since they subscribed to the heresy, yet Bellarmine excuses them from heresy on the basis that they only erred materially. And if they only erred materially, they certainly retained their office. What this shows is that if a bishop publicly agrees with a heretic and subscribes to his heresy, this does not make him a “manifest heretic,” according to Bellarmine.
.
Pigg: The council investigates and declares it’s findings. The declaration is needed only to inform the ignorant.
.
JPeters: All you are doing is parroting the SV errors. If you deny that accusation, then cite Bellarmine teaching that the only reason for the judgment of the council is “to inform the ignorant”. He never says such a thing.
.
Pigg: In order for the Church or council to declare the Pope to be a heretic, the members of the council need to come to their own personal belief that the Pope is a heretic. This means that their personal belief precedes the Church’s declaration, which you claim no one can do prior to the declaration from the Church. So which is it?
.
JPeters: When did I ever say the bishops at a council are not permitted to determine that a Pope is a heretic BEFORE declaring him deposed. I never said such a thing nor do I believe it. What I said is that, according to Bellarmine, the Pope is not deposed by God until the bishops gather together at a council reach a judgment. That is why Bellarmine teaches that an inferior must obey his superior until he is deposed or declared deposed by the Church, since only then does he lose his authority.
.
And if you believe Bellarmine means that the Pope is deposed by God before he is judged by the bishops, then explain why he taught that during the council it is “inferiors” judging a “superior.” If he is no longer Pope, as you claim, then he is no longer superior to the bishops. Read Bellarmine for yourself. He wrote:
.
“The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, THE ONLY REASON WHERE IT IS LAWFUL FOR INFERIORS TO JUDGE SUPERIORS. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic … we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that IN THE CASE OF HERESY, A ROMAN PONTIFF CAN BE JUDGED. “ (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
.
He says in the case of heresy a Roman Pontiff can be judged, since heresy is the only reason that INFERIORS are permitted to judge SUPERIORS. Again, if he had already ceased to be Pope, it would not a Pope who was being judged, nor would it be inferiors judging their superior. It would be a former Pope who was being judged by his equals. But this is not what Bellarmine teaches, it is what the SV’s claim he teaches.
.
Pigg: They are only subject to the Pope if he is still Pope. You keep going back and forth with your language. Does the Church depose the Pope or does God? You said “If it can ‘clearly prove’ that he is, it can deposed him.” Since a Pope is deposed by God due to manifest or formal heresy, then those who are already aware of such heresy do not need to wait for a declaration from the Church.”
.
JPeters: No, you are missing the point, which is why you think there is a contradiction in what I am saying. The Pope is “deposed by God” during the council. It happens when the Church “declares him deposed.” Unless he has openly left the Church of his own accord, that is when he legally becomes a “manifest heretic” and loses his authority.
.
This fits in perfectly with Bellarmine’s teaching that a heretical Pope loses his authority by an act of God “through men” (the bishops at the council) just as he receives his authority by an act of God “through men” (the Cardinals at the conclave).
.
In the one case the bishops elect him as Pope, and then God makes him Pope by giving him Papal authority. In the other case, the Bishops judge a heretic and declare him deposed, and then God removes his authority. In both cases, God acts in union with the judgment of His Church. This is what Bellarmine teaches.
.
And to reiterate, the Pope is not truly deposed by the Church (even though Bellarmine sometimes uses that terminology), nor is he removed by virtue of any declaration. He deposed by God, but it doesn’t happen until the Church declares him deposed. That is the point that SV’s are completely unable to grasp, but it is clear that this is what Bellarmine held since he explicitly states that inferiors must remain subject to their superiors until the superior is declared deposed by the Church. If Bellarmine believed that anyone could judge for himself if the Pope had lost his office and then separate from him, he would not have taught that.
Pigg: “Bellarmine above is speaking about heresy that is only interior or secret and rightly says that man cannot judge such a person since man can only judge externals. I mentioned this above. Bellarmine is very consistent.”
.
JPeters: Not exactly. He said Opinion Number 2 is wrong because it is BASED on the erroneous teaching that a secret heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and loses his office, but that does not mean a bishop who subscribes to a heresy is a manifest heretic. A materially heretical act can be public without the person being considered a “manifest heretic. Such a person falls into the category referred to in Opinion Number 2.
.
Recall the example of the bishops of the 4th century who subscribed to the Arian heresy. This act was not secret, yet Bellarmine excused them from heresy by saying they only erred materially.
.
Pigg: You are basically saying that a man can’t conclude from his own God given reason that a man is not a woman until a doctor tells him so, even though he already damn well knows that a man cannot be a woman. Now it would behoove the doctor to declare such an obvious fact to the ignorant that don’t know better for one reason or another so they don’t mistakenly think that a man can be a woman.
JPeters: That is an absurd example. Judging a basic biological fact is not the same as judging someone to be a heretic. If you claim the two judgments are just as obvious, how do you explain that SV’s cannot agree on who the first manifestly heretic Pope was who lost his office, or never validly acquired it?
.
Some say Pope Pius IX (9th) was the last true Pope and that those after him (including Pope St Pius X) were all manifestly heretical antipopes. Others say Pius XII was the last true Pope. Some say it was John XXIII, while others judge that Benedict XVI was the last true Pope. Who decides which SV group is correct and which is wrong in their judgment of manifest heresy?
.
This example underscores why God will not depose a Pope until the Church itself renders a judgment. If he did so without the teaching Church first doing so, it would be left to the private judgment of everyone to decide which popes were true popes and which were not. This would undermine the entire foundation of the Church, since a Catholic could never have absolute certitude that a Pope had NOT lost his office before ratifying a council or defining a doctrine. Everything would be left to the private judgment of men and it would end in chaos, just like in Protestantism.
.
Pigg: “If you want to argue that those who don’t know about the manifest heresy are morally obliged to remain obedient until informed then that I can go along with that but that does not apply to those who already know. Please tell me what you think this means.”
.
JPeters: No, I’m saying YOU are obliged to remain subject to the Pope, even if you personally “think” he is a manifest heretic, until the Church issues a declaration, as Bellarmine taught. Just because you, or someone else, personally thinks the Pope is a heretic does not mean he is truly a “manifest heretic.” And you have to concede this point since you disagree with other SV’s about which recent popes were manifest heretics, and which were not. You both can’t be right since you disagree. And if you say any of the recent Popes lost their office due to manifest heresy, your judgment is contradicted by the entire hierarchy, as well as countless canonists and theologians of the Church, who have more training in the sciences than you will ever have. Why do you think your judgment is correct and theirs is not?
.
Pigg: Here Bellarmine is correct as usual but you take his teaching where it was not meant to go. You acknowledge that a Pope is not deposed by the Church (at least in this section) but that the Church simply makes a declaration of fact, a fact that came prior to the declaration. Bellarmine teaches that a manifest heretic is outside the Church since he no longer holds the Catholic faith. He then rightly teaches that non Catholics cannot retain or hold an office or jurisdiction in the Church. It is lost immediately upon heresy.
.
JPeters: He doesn’t say it is lost immediately upon heresy, but upon “manifest heresy.” Please provide Bellarmine’s definition of the term “manifest heretic”. And keep in mind that his definition does not apply to a bishop who subscribes to a heresy, and then decrees that an orthodox term, which refutes the main heresy of the day, should be abolished. As we have seen, he does not consider such a person to be a manifest heretic.
Kellyann,
Of course Russia must be consecrated, as requested by our Lady of Fatima, before it converts. I think everyone realizes that. The point is that only someone suffering from a severe case of diabolical disorientation would OPPOSED the Pope consecrating Russia, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, if the Russian bishops were invited to participate. Our Lady never said inviting the Russian bishops to participate would “invalidate” the Consecration. That is absurd. What she said is the if the Pope Consecrates Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, in union with the other bishops, she would convert Russia and a period of peace would be given to the world.
.
If the bishops of the country that is the object of the consecration take part in it, God could choose to convert them all on the spot, after the consecration, thereby confirming in a miraculous way the beginning of the Promise of Our Lady of Fatima.
.
We now have a Cardinal publicly calling for the Consecration of Russia to be done EXACTLY as requested by Our Lady of Fatima requested, and the False Friends of Fatima are opposing him. This is insane. And why are they opposing his efforts? Because he won’t denounce the fraudulent letter of Sister Lucy II. But if you look at the big picture, it doesn’t matter if he refuses to denounce the fake letter. All that matter is that Russia is consecrated as Our Lady requested, which is what he is calling for. When that happens, it is over – game, set, and match.
.
It is not difficult to see why the devil is using is friends – the false friends of Fatima – to oppose Cardinal Burke’s efforts to have the consecration done as requested. What is difficult to understand, however, is how these false friends of Fatima can be so blind. It is truly frightening to behold.
I can’t disagree with what you are saying. If the Pope and the Orthodox bishops consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary AND all the Catholic Bishops join them, or vice versa and any combination thereof, why would this not be “accepted by heaven” as the consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima? One can see the ineffable wisdom and mercy of God at work here as He is using the ecumenical madness of the modernists in Rome to “hoist them with their petard” and accomplish the consecration for the honor of Immaculate Mary. I would expect the SSPX to join in and Bishops Sanborn and McKenna as well.
Good day JPeters.
–
You keep saying that Pope John XXII “denied” a doctrine of the Church. I have no problem with the subject he dealt with being an undefined doctrine, but you have to show me where he “denied” the doctrine. Even the quotes you show do not say he “denied” the doctrine. And again, you argue against Bellarmine who has dealt with the false accusations against Pope John XXII.
–
It is my opinion there is no way St. Bellarmine would go through the entire process of defending every Pope up till his day if he had any inkling of belief that the Protestants could be correct and that a Pope could formally be a manifest heretic. I added “formally” because for a heretic to be truly a heretic, there must be pertinacity. If a person appears to be a manifest heretic, they can be avoided but that does not mean they are a true/formal manifest heretic since the interior of man cannot be read by another. Bellarmine specifically says that those who see a person in manifest heresy and are actually proven wrong later by further evidence, do not incur culpability for their separation. [NB] Pertinacity is what makes manifest heresy formal, not a declaration from the Church.
–
JPeters: “Then indeed THE ROMAN CLERGY, STRIPPING LIBERIUS OF HIS PONTIFICAL DIGNITY, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic” (On the Roman Pontiff).
–
Pigg: Bellarmine said that the Roman clergy stipped Liberius of his pontifical dignity due to him being perceived as a manifest heretic, though he was not a true manifest heretic. He says the clergy acted “rightly” in doing this even though they were wrong. This would apply to anyone, even the bishops in the Arian controversy who Bellarmine did consider to be only material manifest heretics since they did not have pertinacity.
–
Bellarmine finishes up by saying: “for MEN (he could have easily said Roman clergy here but chose to extend the perfectly rational statement to all MEN, since all MEN are endowed by God with the same intellect and reasoning) are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic”.
–
JPeters: Exteriorly these bishops appeared to be heretics, since they subscribed to the heresy, yet Bellarmine excuses them from heresy on the basis that they only erred materially. And if they only erred materially, they certainly retained their office. What this shows is that if a bishop publicly agrees with a heretic and subscribes to his heresy, this does not make him a “manifest heretic,” according to Bellarmine.
–
Pigg: I agree with you JPeters. We agree. However, you are not addressing the consequences that follow from someone who only appears to be, but not really, a true/formal manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine says above that MEN can only judge externals and cannot incur culpability if the heresy is later proven to be only material. Think about it, what would you do if you were in Mass and the priest gave a sermon on how Jesus was disobedient to his mother and father and sinned against them? Would you approach that priest afterwards to make sure you heard him correctly? If he confirmed what you heard and stood by it, would you go back to a Mass with that priest again? Whether he is only materially or formally a manifest heretic, it would still be good for you to separate from him. But pertaining to the Pope, Bellarmine says that one can’t separate from the principle of unity or the head of the body. No SV I know judges a Pope to have lost his office due to him saying something against the faith in an interview or homily, but rather has manifested his pertinacity, making their manifest heresy formal.
–
JPeters: All you are doing is parroting the SV errors. If you deny that accusation, then cite Bellarmine teaching that the only reason for the judgment of the council is “to inform the ignorant”. He never says such a thing.
–
Pigg: I see a declaration as an outward expression of what has already taken place. The purpose of the declaration in this case is to inform people. Are you trying to say that it is not possible for people to be informed of something prior to the declaration of another?
–
JPeters: “The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy… THE ONLY REASON WHERE IT IS LAWFUL FOR INFERIORS TO JUDGE SUPERIORS. … IN THE CASE OF HERESY, A ROMAN PONTIFF CAN BE JUDGED. “ (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
–
Pigg: A Pope, rather an apparent Pope, can be judge in the case of heresy. The council is convened to investigate the situation. Bellarmine says that a Pope can be judged by the Church for heresy because he is no longer the Pope. The language he uses to explain the above is made under the presumption that one already knows his teaching on true manifest heresy severing one from the Body of the Church. You are making this out to be something when it is not. A person does not die after the cops show up and notice his head missing from his body and it being on the nightly news. No, no. The cops show up to investigate and declare that the person died by having his head severed from his body. Do you see the distinction?
–
JPeters: Unless he has openly left the Church of his own accord, that is when he legally becomes a “manifest heretic” and loses his authority.
–
Pigg: Oh, I see you are treating the sin of heresy as a crime. This is your mistake. A sin needs no declaration from the Church to make it so.
–
JPeters: This fits in perfectly with Bellarmine’s teaching that a heretical Pope loses his authority by an act of God “through men” (the bishops at the council) just as he receives his authority by an act of God “through men” (the Cardinals at the conclave).
–
Pigg: Here you are conflating secret heresy with manifest heresy and apply Bellarmines teaching on the former to the latter.
And one more thing I requested previously. What do you think this means?
–
Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. (Quas Primas, para. 22)
Pigg and Jpeters, please read
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm#II
In this account, Liberius is not stripped by the Roman clergy but exiled by the Emperor.
Pigg: “You keep saying that Pope John XXII “denied” a doctrine of the Church. I have no problem with the subject he dealt with being an undefined doctrine, but you have to show me where he “denied” the doctrine. Even the quotes you show do not say he “denied” the doctrine. And again, you argue against Bellarmine who has dealt with the false accusations against Pope John XXII.”
.
JPeters: Hi Pigg. That John XXII denied the doctrine that the souls of the faithful departed enjoy the face to face vision of God (the beatific vision) before the general judgment is not a matter of dispute. Everyone acknowledges that he did so. Here is what he taught publicly on November 15, 1331:
.
“I say that the souls of the faithful departed DO NOT enjoy that perfect or face to face vision of in which, according to St. Augustine (in Psalm xc, sermon II, No. 13), consists their full reward of justice; nor will they have that happiness until after the general judgment. When, and only when, the soul will be re-united to the body, will this perfect bliss come to man, coming to the whole man composed of body and soul, and perfecting his entire being.” (John XXII, Gaudete in Domino simper)
.
By saying the faithful departed DO NOT enjoy the perfect face to face vision of God before the resurrection of the Body is to deny that they do. I could provide more citations, but this one should suffice. Again, no one argues that John XXII did not deny the doctrine. They way they defend him from heresy is by arguing that the doctrine he denied had not yet solemnly been defined. That is how Bellarmine himself defended him from heresy. Here is what he wrote:
.
I respond: first, to [the accusation of] Adrian [that John XXII was a heretic]. Pope John, at that time, really thought that souls would not see God unless it were after the resurrection: others so reckoned when still it was lawful without danger of heresy, since still no definition of the Church had gone before him.”(Bellarmine, On Papal Error, ch. VII).
.
Bellarmine defends him from heresy by arguing that the doctrine he denied had not been defined, not by arguing that John XXII didn’t deny the doctrine.
.
Pigg: “It is my opinion there is no way St. Bellarmine would go through the entire process of defending every Pope up till his day if he had any inkling of belief that THE PROTESTANTS COULD BE CORRECT and that a Pope could formally be a manifest heretic.”
JPeters: That a pope can fall into heresy is not a Protestant doctrine. It has been taught by countless Catholic theologians long before Luther was even born. Bellarmine himself admits that it was the common opinion of Catholic theologians of his day that a Pope COULD fall into heresy.
.
Here are a few citations from Catholic theologians who affirm that a Pope can fall into formal heresy. The first is from de Soto, who lived in Bellarmine’s day. Like Bellarmine, he explains that it was the common opinion of his day that a Pope can become a heretic.
.
“Though some masters of our time sustain that the Pope cannot be a heretic in any way, THE COMMON OPINION IS HOWEVER THE OPPOSITE ONE. For though he might not be able to err as Pope – that is, HE COULD NOT DEFINE AN ERROR AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, because the Holy Spirit will not permit it – nevertheless AS A PRIVATE PERSON HE CAN ERR IN FAITH, IN THE SAME WAY THAT HE CAN COMMIT OTHER SINS, BECAUSE HE IS NOT IMPECCABLE.”
.
St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, who also lived during Bellarmine’s day, also teaches that a Pope can fall into heresy:
.
Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus WE DO NOT SAY that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; OR BE ALTOGETHER A HERETIC, as perhaps Honorius was.”
.
St. Francis de Sales probably converted more Protestants than anyone else, and he himself says “we do not say that the Pope cannot … be altogether a heretic.” This is not a Protestant doctrine.
Pope Innocent III also held to the possibility that a Pope could become a heretic. Here is what he taught:
.
“Truly, he [the Pope] should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men or rather, can be shown to be already judged, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, HE SHOULD WITHER AWAY INTO HERESY.”
.
I could cite many more authorities, but these suffice to prove the point: the opinion that a Pope can fall into heresy is not a Protestant doctrine, but an opinion that has been held by Popes, Doctors of the Church, and countless theologians.
.
It is the SV heretics who made up the false argument it is a “Protestant Doctrine” that a Pope can fall into heresy. You are making a grave mistake by reading their writings. They are masters of deceit who twist everything to support their false position. This is just one example out of dozens.
.
Pigg: “Bellarmine specifically says that those who see a person in manifest heresy and are actually proven wrong later by further evidence, DO NOT INCUR CULPABILITY FOR THEIR SEPARATION.”
.
JPeters: Please provide the citation from Bellarmine saying that the faithful (the laity) can judge for themselves if a Pope is a manifest heretic who has lost his office, and then separate from him before the Church has judged the matter; and that if they are mistaken, they will not be culpable for their separation. That is what you are arguing. Please show where Bellarmine ever taught such a thing.
.
Pigg: Bellarmine finishes up by saying: “for MEN (he could have easily said Roman clergy here but chose to extend the perfectly rational statement to all MEN, since all MEN are endowed by God with the same intellect and reasoning) are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic”.
.
JPeters. The “men” he was referring to were the Roman Clergy, who, he said ,“stripped” Liberius of his Papal dignity. Please explain how the Roman clergy could strip Liberius of his Papal Dignity if he had already lost it. That is an impossibility. Once again, Bellarmine proves the SV interpretation of his position wrong. If Bellarmine believed Liberius had already lost his office before the Roman Clergy gathered to render a judgment, he would not have said they “stripped” him of his Dignity.
.
And I again remind you that Bellarmine himself explicitly teaches that God will not deprive a heretical Pope of his authority without the cooperation of men. And the “men” he is referring to are clearly the members of the teaching Church who have the competency to judge the matter, just as it is members of the teaching Church who cooperate in making a man pope by electing him. Bellarmine draws a parallel between the two, when he says: “Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope. Ttherefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
.
You see, according to Bellarmine, the Pope is not removed by God until he is “judged by men”. He then continues in the next paragraph by defending the teaching that it is permissible for a Pope to be judged by THE BISHOPS IN COUNCIL when he is suspected of heresy. It is not the laity who judge the Pope, but the bishops.
.
Notice how all of Bellarmine’s teachings harmonize with my explanation of his opinion, whereas you run unto one contradiction after another if you attempt to interpret him through the lens of an SV. For example, when Bellarmine defends the position that a Pope can be judged by bishops at a council, he does so by arguing that heresy is the one case in which inferiors are permitted to and judge their superior. If the Pope had already lost his office, as the SVs claim, he would no longer be the superior. He would be an equal. If he agreed with the SV’s, he would have argued that the reason the bishops are permitted to judge the heretical Pope is because he is not longer Pope, and therefore no longer their superior. But that is not teaches. Like I said, you run into one contradiction after another when you try to interpret Bellarmine through the sede-vacantist lens.
.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comments later. God Bless.
I’ll briefly address another point since you asked me twice.
.
Pigg: And one more thing I requested previously. What do you think this means?
.
“Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. (Quas Primas, para. 22)
.
Very simple, it means the Church cannot err when it teaches DEFINITIVELY. That’s what it means. It does not mean “Catholic truth” will not be “attacked by false doctrines” BY MEN WITHIN THE CHURCH, such as Pope John XXII, who attacked Catholic truth with his false doctrine about the beatific vision. Piss X also means that when the attack is over, the truth will shine with greater splendor, as it did when John XXII’s successor defined the true doctrine, that John XXII denied, as an article of faith.
.
And surely you don’t deny that the false doctrine John XXII taught was an attack on Catholic truth, do you? If you do, then please explain how a Pope, of all people, can teach an error that is DIRECTLY OPPOSED to a material dogma, without it being an attack on Catholic truth.
So, If the Pope, at the request of Mr Putin, performs a consecration 1) OF RUSSIA to, 2) THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY with 3) all the Catholic bishops of the world. then OK, that would be an amazing demonstration of the mercy of God… getting objectively bad men to fulfill His plan. If this turns out to be the case… rejoice!
But…
…What if there was a joint consecration with Kirill & Francis both leading… that would be an objective Mortal sin of praying with protestants, or…
…What if Russia were consecrated to anything other than THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY, or ,,,,
…What if they consecrated anything other than RUSSIA, or…
What if only the Pope and the Orthodox bishops did the consecration…
… how many would then be sucked in?
Hi Tom,
It is not either/or, but both. First he was exiled by the Emperor to Thrace and then he was stripped his is papal dignity by the Roman clergy. Obviously, an Emperor does not strip a Pope of is papal dignity by exiling him.
There is more that can be said about Liberius’ exile, and how it relates to his loss of office, but going in that direction would take us off course.
Woops. “Piss X” should have been “Pius XI”. What a horrible typo 🙂
The context you present your facts leads an uniformed reader to believe that Liberius was stripped of his Pontificate by orthodox Catholic clergy. You selectively phrase it in such a manner to defend your opinion that a Pope can somehow be deposed by other church authorities. This is not what happened. In fact it was quite the opposite as you imply. The emperor exiled Liberius and then pressured the faithless clergy of Rome to abandon Liberius and accept the anti Pope, Felix. It was the faithful of Rome who rejected the imposter. The emperor then suggested that both Liberius and Felix rule and again the faithful objected. Hmmm, two Popes used to be unacceptable to the faithful.
Good Wednesday morning JPeters,
You had this to say in your reply to me above:
“JPeters: The problem is not “bad and erroneous logic” on my part, but erroneous reasoning, due to a failure to properly understand basic Catholic terminology, on your part. Let me explain.
.
Your first error is equating the word “doctrine” with “dogma” as if these terms are exclusively identical. Based on this error, you argue as if only that which has been solemnly defined by the Church can be called a “doctrine”. What you don’t realize is that “doctrines” include teachings that have been defined and teachings that have not been defined. Limbo of the children is one example of a doctrine that has not been defined as a dogma, yet is nevertheless a doctrine. An undefined truth that is contained in the revealed deposit is called a material dogma. When a material dogma is solemnly defined, it becomes a formal dogma. What John XXII denied was a material dogma. It was a truth contained in the revealed deposit that had not yet been solemnly defined.”
You having posited that claim against what I wrote, while at once you placed words into my mouth regarding doctrine and dogma, when you later had this to say to pigg0214:
” By saying the faithful departed DO NOT enjoy the perfect face to face vision of God before the resurrection of the Body is to deny that they do. I could provide more citations, but this one should suffice. Again, no one argues that John XXII did not deny the doctrine. They way they defend him from heresy is by arguing that the doctrine he denied had not yet solemnly been defined. That is how Bellarmine himself defended him from heresy. Here is what he wrote:
.
I respond: first, to [the accusation of] Adrian [that John XXII was a heretic]. Pope John, at that time, really thought that souls would not see God unless it were after the resurrection: others so reckoned when still it was lawful without danger of heresy, since still no definition of the Church had gone before him.”(Bellarmine, On Papal Error, ch. VII).
.
Bellarmine defends him from heresy by arguing that the doctrine he denied had not been defined, not by arguing that John XXII didn’t deny the doctrine.”
Let’s be very clear and concise JPeters. “Doctrine” is inspired by God. “Doctrine” is implicitly understood as “divine revelation”. When that which is divinely revealed, “doctrine”, has not yet been solemnly defined, it is proper then, in the process of developing doctrine as “defined doctrine”, otherwise known at that moment to be “dogma”, to err, as to err is to be human. The theological discourse, which occurs in the development of defining doctrine, as then to be known as dogma in its final conclusion, then and only then as dogma, does it hold the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility. In the human process of reasoning, that same process which develops the doctrine and finally yields the dogma, there is abundance of error and rightly so, as we are indeed fallen and as thus miserable human creatures incapable of perfection. The perfect and infinite difference from the usual process of human reasoning and the abundance of error to be found in same, is that when the true Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his Bishops, finally declares the now refined doctrine as dogma, they cannot err, as then the Holy Ghost protects the deposit of Faith with His charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, or the gates of hell have prevailed, if even one time error enters, period and end. The true Holy Roman Pontiff as theologian, while John XXII was then acting in his capacity as theologian, because the dogma of the Beatific Vision did not yet then exist, is perfectly capable of erring, as he did. This is NOT heresy and to suggest otherwise places an affront to the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church on what heresy is, as it is in opposition to the deposit of Faith.
In the sum then JPeters, what precisely is the point of your intellective acrobatics? John XXII was not an heretic, period and end. Your game of, at times cunning semantics, does not evidence charity, as it is deceptive. You love to cite “theologians” in your discourse. The best purpose of the Catholic theologian is to yield intellective discourse to the true Holy Roman Pontiff and his Bishops, in the process then of the true Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his Bishops, infallibly defining and teaching the One True Faith. That said, it matters not what “this theologian” or “that theologian” opines about a true Holy Roman Pontiff falling into heresy. We have doctrine in that regard JPeters and it is precisely that this particular doctrine has not been solemnly defined as dogma, that any of this discourse about a true Pontiff somehow falling into heresy can even take place, including that by the holy Saint and Doctor of the Church, Robert Bellarmine, who as any Saint, can err in matters that are not deFide. You were informed of this doctrine above and now again, from the Holy Gospel of Luke 22: 31,32, Douay-Rheims copy:
” 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Christ the King, Himself commanded that Peter’s faith CANNOT fail. What that means JPeters is precisely that the Holy Roman Pontiff as Pope simply CANNOT fall into heresy, as to fall into heresy is to have one’s own faith fail, as heresy is in opposition to the Faith. Period and end.
In closing, you must be admonished in charity for your crass and jingoistic screed about the true Holy Roman Pontiff, John XXII. You had this to say in your last comment to pigg0214:
“Very simple, it means the Church cannot err when it teaches DEFINITIVELY. That’s what it means. It does not mean “Catholic truth” will not be “attacked by false doctrines” BY MEN WITHIN THE CHURCH, such as Pope John XXII, who attacked Catholic truth with his false doctrine about the beatific vision. Piss X also means that when the attack is over, the truth will shine with greater splendor, as it did when John XXII’s successor defined the true doctrine, that John XXII denied, as an article of faith.
.
And surely you don’t deny that the false doctrine John XXII taught was an attack on Catholic truth, do you? If you do, then please explain how a Pope, of all people, can teach an error that is DIRECTLY OPPOSED to a material dogma, without it being an attack on Catholic truth.”
In your anger, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur JPeters, you suppress your intellective function and you reach into your entrails, the only other place you can go, as you place your passions in the ordinate position, where the intellect alone belongs, as we were created in the divine likeness and image of God, as pure Intellect and Will. You have the unmitigated audacity to suggest that a true Holy Roman Pontiff “attacked”, in your bombastic style and jargon, the Truth of the Church, who is Jesus the Christ, as Truth Himself. Thus, JPeters, you actually as literally, parlay the claim that Pope John XXII attacked Jesus the Christ, as Truth Himself, while in Truth, Pope John XXII in acting in his rightful capacity as theologian, which he must do as in the theological discourse that ultimately leads to the infallible definition of dogma, simply erred which can and does occur. The Pontiff is not infallible in his theological discourse, period and end, nor can he commit heresy in his authentic theological discourse. The Holy Roman Pontiff, John XXII, was not “teaching an error”, as you claim JPeters, as he was not “teaching” in his capacity as theologian, rather he was discerning with his Bishops. That is what theological discourse is in the true Church. You are in profound error. May Almighty God have mercy on you and on me. I pray that you receive His grace and loose thus the operation of error which you hold, as is objectively evident. Amen. In caritas.
I have followed you comments for quite some time. I believe that what you say has value to the reader whether or not they are in full agreement. I have learned that there is no way to reason with those who are unreasonable. Perhaps, these people, if ignored, will simply go away. God bless you.
Message above was for Tom A.
Hi Pigg,
.
Here is my second reply to your earlier post. I’ll begin with the citation from Bellarmine that you are commenting on.
.
Bellarmine: “The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Firstly, because THAT A HERETICAL POPE CAN BE JUDGED IS EXPRESSLY HELD IN THE CANON, SI PAPA, DIST. 40, AND WITH INNOCENT. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7 .. Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of HERESY, THE ONLY REASON WHERE IT IS LAWFUL FOR INFERIORS TO JUDGE SUPERIORS. … IN THE CASE OF HERESY, A ROMAN PONTIFF CAN BE JUDGED. “ (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
.
Pigg: “A Pope, rather an apparent Pope, can be judge in the case of heresy. The council is convened to investigate the situation. BELLARMINE SAYS that a Pope can be judged by the Church for heresy BECAUSE HE IS NO LONGER THE POPE [Does he? JP]. The language he uses to explain the above is made under the presumption that one already knows his teaching on true manifest heresy severing one from the Body of the Church. You are making this out to be something when it is not.”
.
JPeters: Have you noticed that I am the one quoting Bellarmine directly, while you are only telling me what you think he means? And have you noticed that what you claim he means is not what he actually said? And have you further noticed that you have to find a way to get around what he actually taught in order to defend what you think he means?
.
Bellarmine never said a Pope can be judged “because he is no longer Pope,” as you claimed. If he was no longer the Pope he would not be “the Roman Pontiff,” nor would he be “superior” to the bishops at the council. All you are doing is repeating SV talking points and claiming it is what Bellarmine meant.
.
Pigg: A person does not die after the cops show up and notice his head missing from his body and it being on the nightly news. No, no. The cops show up to investigate and declare that the person died by having his head severed from his body. Do you see the distinction?
.
JPeters: Yes I see the distinction but it has nothing to do with when God removes the Pope’s authority, nor does it help you to escape from the clear words of Bellarmine, who said it is “the Roman Pontiff” who is being judged – the superior of the bishops at the council, not a former Pope who is being judged – the equal of the bishops at a council.
.
Pigg: “I agree with you JPeters. We agree. However, you are not addressing the consequences that follow from someone who only appears to be, but not really, a true/formal manifest heretic.”
.
JPeters: No consequence whatsoever follows if a member of the laity personally judges that a Pope is a true/formal manifest heretic. Something does happen, however (or can happen) if THE BISHOPS AT A COUNCIL mistakenly judge that a Pope is a true/formal manifest heretic.
.
This teaching of Bellarmine that you are referring to regarding this point is actually a common teaching of Catholic theologians. Bellarmine is not the only one who says a Pope who appears to be a manifest heretic, but is not really one, can be deposed, or declared deposed, by the Church. Here is what the Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, taught about such a scenario:
.
“I respond that the Pope cannot be deposed or lose the papacy unless two conditions are simultaneously met: namely, that the heresy be public and LEGALLY NOTORIOUS, not occult; and that he be incorrigible and pertinacious in his heresy. When these two conditions are met the Pope can be deposed, but he cannot be deposed without them; and, on the other hand, EVEN IF HE IS NOT AN INFIDEL IN HIS HEART, BUT EXTERIORLY HE BEHAVES LIKE A HERETIC, HE CAN BE DEPOSED, AND THE SENTENCE OF DEPOSITION WILL BE VALID.” (John of St. Thomas)
.
What he is saying is that a Pope who shows himself to be a heretic externally, AND IS JUDGED AS SUCH BY THE CHURCH (legally notorious), he can be deposed – or “stripped of his Papal dignity” to use the words of Bellarmine – even if he is not truly a heretic in his heart.
.
But the “stripping of his Papal dignity” does not happen until he is legally notorious (judge a heretic by the Church) and deposed, or declared deposed. That is the point that SV’s are unable to grasp, but Bellarmine’s explanation of the Liberius case proves this is what he meant, since he states that the clergy of Rome stripped Liberius of his papal dignity. If he had already lost the papal dignity, which is what you claim Bellarmine means, the Roman clergy would not have been able to strip him of it. You can’t strip someone of something they do not possess! Since they stripped him of it, according to Bellarmine, it means he had not already lost it. This point is too obvious to require a defense. If you reject the clear meaning it is because you are trying to interpret Bellarmine through the false lens of sede-vacantist doctrine.
.
Pigg: St. Bellarmine says above that MEN can only judge externals and cannot incur culpability if the heresy is later proven to be only material.”
.
JPeters: Again, he is referring to the Pope being judged and “stripped of his dignity” by the Roman clergy. He never says the laity can judge the Pope to be a heretic and declare that he lost his office. On the contrary, he says inferiors must continue to obey their superiors until the superior is legitimately declared deposed by the Church. You need to break out of the SV mindset and realize that Bellarmine does not teach what you claim he means.
.
Pigg: Think about it, what would you do if you were in Mass and the priest gave a sermon on how Jesus was disobedient to his mother and father and sinned against them? Would you approach that priest afterwards to make sure you heard him correctly? If he confirmed what you heard and stood by it, would you go back to a Mass with that priest again?
.
JPeters: No, I would not attend his Mass again.
.
Pigg: Whether he is only materially or formally a manifest heretic, it would still be good for you to separate from him. But pertaining to the Pope, Bellarmine says that one can’t separate from the principle of unity or the head of the body.
.
JPeters: In an extreme case of a Pope teaching serious errors against the Faith, it would be permitted to separate from him materially (not listen him), but not formally (declare that he is no longer the Pope and head of the Church). To separate materially you would simply not listen to him, which is effectively what 99% of the Catholics did with the Pope of their time, before the modern means of communication were invented.
.
Before the 19th Century, most Catholics who lived at a great distance from Rome would not have even recognized the Pope of their day, much less did they know about his daily events. What this fact shows is that there is no need for Catholics to search out the latest papal scandal. They can go about their life without paying him any attention, just as the vast majority of the Catholics from past ages did with the Pope of their day. But what they can’t do is declare that he has lost his office, on their own authority. Bellarmine himself recommends a “material separation” from heretical bishops, while at the same time teaching that only a council, or the Pope, can declare them deposed. He writes:
.
Bellarmine: “I respond that the people indeed ought to discern a true from a false prophet, but not by any other rule than by diligently attending to whether he that is preaching says things contrary to those which were said by his predecessors, or else contrary to those things which are preached by the other legitimate pastors, and especially the Apostolic See, which is the principal Church. …the people, by the rule which we have laid down, can indeed discern a true prophet from a false one; but they cannot, because of that, depose the false prophet, if he be a bishop, and substitute another in his place. FOR THE LORD AND THE APOSTLE COMMAND ONLY THAT THE PEOPLE NOT HEAR FALSE PROPHETS, AND NOT THAT THEY DEPOSE THEM. AND CERTAINLY THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN THUS, THAT HERETICAL BISHOPS BE DEPOSED BY BISHOPS’ COUNCILS OR BY THE SUPREME PONTIFFS. FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE, THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS DISPROVEN.”
.
We see that Bellarmine himself advocates not listen to one’s bishops if he teaches false doctrine, but then adds that the “false prophet” can only be deposed by the Church. He does not say the laity can declare him a manifest heretic who has lost his office, but only that they should not listen to him. The same principle applies in the case of Pope who is erring in doctrine and commands things that are contrary to God’s law or the canons, as Bellarmine himself teaches:
.
“For they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope AND PROVIDED HE COMMANDS THESE THINGS WHICH, ACCORDING TO GOD AND THE SACRED CANONS HE CAN COMMAND; but they [the bishops] do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.” (Bellarmine On Councils).
.
Bellarmine says a Pope should only be obeyed when he commands things that are “according to God and the sacred Canons.” See, I told you Bellarmine supports the R&R position.
.
And in case you are planning to spotlight the words “as long as he is the Pope,” I will point out that Bellarmine says a Pope can be disobeyed for two reason: 1) because he is no longer Pope (meaning he has been judged declared deposed by the Bishops), and 2) because he is teaching contrary to God and the sacred canons. For either of these reasons can he be disobeyed.
.
Pigg: No SV I know judges a Pope to have lost his office due to him saying something against the faith in an interview or homily, but rather has manifested his pertinacity, making their manifest heresy formal.
.
JPeters: Really? I could name several well-known SV apologists who teach precisely that. I’ll comment further on this point my next post when I address Bellarmine’s meaning of “manifest heresy.”
.
I will end by reminding you that I am the one quoting Bellarmine to support my interpretation of his position. All you are doing is telling me what you think he means, while trying to explain away what he actually says.
Thank you My2cents, what I notice in these forums is a search for truth however our differences lie in the premises we hold as truth. Many start with the premise that Bergolio is Pope and simply rearrange the historical record to reach their conclusion when all they did was justify their premise. Any search for Truth must start with the objective premise of the Incarnation. All Truth starts there. The whole Old Testament makes no sense unless read through the lens of Christ. He is the key to its understanding. From creation to the fall of man to the Prophets. Likewise all of history since the Incarnation starts with the same premise. From there we can objectively observe the Church and its teachings. Knowing the promises of Christ we can know that Liberius and Honorius did not teach heresy. We can see the protestant efforts to malign Christ’s Bride. We can also see the warnings Our Lady gave to the Church at La Salette and Fatima. Coupled with the visions of Pope Leo XIII and 2 Thessolonians, Trent, and other Papal teachings it is only logical that those who gave us V2 and the NO cannot be who they say they are. This is the natural conclusion of starting with a correct premise and making the logical conclusions. The diabolical disorientation and confusion simply does not exist in the minds of those who reject the V2 NO sect as the Catholic Church. We live in mystery but not confusion or contradiction. And all for Francis! That is what baffles me. All to keep that communist imposter on his perch.
My2cents, I was not singling you out. I can tell by your posts that your search for Truth is earnest and not clouded by preconcieved false premises.
I know the history of Liberius, but if you claim the Roman clergy did not “strip him of his papal dignity,” you are disagreeing with the explicit teaching of Bellarmine, who said they did. But since you are a sede-vacantists, that is not at all surprising.
Bellarmine is not the only source on this issue. You know that and therefore again argue not to find truth but to justify your false premise of Bergolio being a Pope. To set the record straight, Liberius was “stripped” but by clergy who defected. He at no time lost his Pontificate.
The question is whether the Orthodox would go along with it.
One of the reasons for the Consecration as explained by the Mother of God is:
– It is a public act of Reparation for Russia’s sins and errors against God. Remember, that this is prior to the Communist Revolution which took place Nov 7th, 1917. The Fatima Apparitions lasted from May-Oct of 1917. Therefore Communism wasn’t in effect at the time of the Apparitions. It was warned of. But the Revolution was also itself a chastisement of the Russian people that would then spread.
– The Consecration is to be a public demonstration by the Pope with Bishops IN UNION with him. This has a VERY OBVIOUS implication against the schismatic Orthodox who are NOT IN UNION with the Pope.
That the Orthodox should be included is a non-issue. That the Catholic Clergy have long delayed the explicit instructions by God until the Orthodox give them the green light is a SCANDAL! It is equivalent to saying the Church needs the permission of the Chinese Government in order to spread the Gospel in their country. It would be nice if they did, but it is NOT REQUIRED, especially when doing so runs counter to the very people whose ecumenical permission we supposedly need.
If anything The Consecration of Russia is by its nature precisely ANTI-ECUMENICAL.
Our Lady of Guadalupe didn’t need permission or ecumenical outreach towards the followers of Quetzalcoatl to convert them. And Our Lady of Fatima doesn’t need the same from the Russian Orthodox to convert them.
If the Pope wants to toss out an invitation to them to join in ‘IN UNION WITH HIM AS THE HEAD’ if they like, that’s one thing. But they are not needed, nor would they even be inclined to obey that invitation since they reject the authority of Peter. What the Pope can’t do is extinguish the necessity of the reparative act nor get rid of the demonstration of bishops in obedience to Peter in order to placate them and call the Consecration following the instructions of the Mother of God.
Let’s face it. If they are intending to turn the Consecration into an ‘ecumenical’ event that the Russian Orthodox is inclined to participate in without any difficulty, then this can only mean it’s because they are dropping the precise requirement that the Act of Reparation for Russia’s sins and errors be part of the intention. If that is so then what are they praying for exactly? What are the Russian Orthodox converting to??? The whole purpose is completely contradicted. So that means they couldn’t possibly be praying and asking God to convert Russia! The whole thing would be a farce that is just an ecumenical joint blessing – without the Act of Reparation, Exorcism or Call to Conversion and Unity with the Pope.
The fact that a Reparation must be made for Russia’s Sins and Errors is implicit in the act of Consecration.
Just as when a Church is used for profane purposes, the Church must be exorcised and building reconsecrated. That process involves atonement and repentance.
That’s included even in the personal prayers we are given to do our own private Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which involves the renunciation of sin and promise of atonement.
Consecrations also set aside something for Holy Purpose. Therefore they single out something individual. Just as the prayer of Consecration we say privately involves stating our name, just as it was David who personally had to be anointed and consecrated as King, just as the name of a Baptized child must be stated as the object, these all involve a cleansing, in the case of Baptism – Original Sin, for other people our own personal sins.
What are Russia’s sins and errors? And remember, God was asking for this PRIOR to the Communist Revolution that would take place shortly after the Apparitions ended. The key is also implicit in that the Pope cannot do the Consecration alone, he MUST do it with the Bishops of the entire world that are IN UNION with him!
Obviously this is a shot directly at the primary sin and error of Russia – Schism.
The Consecration by default requires a cleansing of the object of consecration from sin and error before it is set aside for holy purpose by God.
This naturally means that the sin be publicly addressed and atoned for, in which case the faith, action and prayers of the Pope and Bishops suffice interceding on behalf of the Russian people, even if this is verbally referred to generally. The schism is naturally a part of those sins and errors. And this naturally forms part of the Consecration ceremony, just as the personal prayers of Consecration for ourselves to the Immaculate Heart demand of us individually.
That’s what Consecrations are. You can’t just remain in your sin and error and expect Mary to take you under her mantle.
Now ask yourself if the Orthodox would go along with this obvious necessity, understanding that they too know fully well what Consecrations are. And they know fully well what Fatima is alluding to, though they argue that it may mean something else or that the Catholics don’t understand it and it is the Pope and Catholics who are being called to conversion, or that it just means a conversion of all the Russian people to orthodoxy, which the Pope and Bishops too must follow and set aside the primacy of Peter. Which is the complete opposite of what Our Lady of Fatima intended and implicit in the fact that she demands Bishops IN UNION with the Pope.
You’ve either mistakenly got an incorrect quotation or you’ve carefully omitted and edited out the precise quotation.
“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, and to order that in union with him and at the same time, all the bishops of the world make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart” (Frère Michel, The Whole Truth About Fatima, vol. II, p. 555).
“IN UNION WITH HIM (The Pope)”
Our Lady’s Words. Not mine.
For further information look up the article:
The Conditions for the Consecration of Russia
By Gregorius D. Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D. (Cand.)
Where he goes into canon law as to what constitutes valid Bishops.
And also the fact that the world’s bishops must all do this raises the obvious point –
How does one get the world’s bishops to participate. What if some don’t want to?
Well obviously this means the Pope must use his authority to COMMAND THEM to join him.
But the Russian Orthodox Bishops DO NOT OBEY THE POPE AND DO NOT RECOGNIZE HIS AUTHORITY.
So how then is the Pope expected to fulfil the criteria for the Consecration if the world’s bishops are to include the Orthodox, who do not obey him???
Has Our Lady of Fatima given the Pope an impossible task?
Did she have to wait for ecumenism and Vatican II to come around and provide a long complicated means?
Rubbish!
With regards to pigg0214 and Tom A and In Caritas
I already addressed their points previously.
The only thing I received back from all of you were refusals to answer whether you accepted the Council of Trent’s Dogmatic Teaching that you never interpret Scripture contrary to the Consensus of the Fathers.
Then Tom A revealed something suggesting that he did not accept the Book of Genesis and that he subscribed to Darwinism as well. When I asked him to clarify I did not receive any response.
I have only received a lot of hand-waving from Tom A and In caritas who repeated state a vaguery that “A lot of Facts do not make an Argument” when in fact is is also true that a lot of Facts CAN make a very solid argument and it is up to In Caritas and Tom A to demosntrate why the facts I mentioned did not make an argument.
Both of them continued to merely repeat themselves in a loop.
Oddly enough, while appealing to Marian Apparitions you’ll find Sedes refusing to acknowledge the obvious that in Apapritions from Fatima right up to Akita and Our Lady of Revelation, that the seers in every case still acknowledged the authority and Papacies right up to John Paul II. As Our Lady of Akita prophecied that we’ll see Cardinal opposing Cardinal and Bishop opposing Bishop in the latter times, obviously this implies that heretic factions are facing off against orthodox factions. But they are referred to as Cardinals and Bishops all the same, implying they still hold the office.
Of course the sedes will dismiss these as private revelations which they are not obliged to follow, but they are circumstantial evidence against the sedevacantist thesis that Popes are immune from all error, including material ones.
But whether the Sedes here like it or not, material heresy has been promoted by either the Popes from either 33 AD to 1800 AD or from 1800 AD onwards to 2017 based on the flip flop from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, just as we’re observing the flip flop over Adultery and reception of the Sacraments and the Death Penalty.
So the Sedes then try to get by this by shifting the goal posts to only Articles of Faith that are de Fide. And demand only infallible pronouncements. But by their own hypocritical sede criteria try to impose on us interpretations of sedevacantism that are nowhere articles de Fide or infallibly defined.
Tom A and In Caritas might then appeal to Infallible Councils regarding the authority of Peter and how no-one can oppose the Holy See, but Tom A and In Caritas, when pressed to state whether they accept the Council of Trent when it demands that they do NOT interpret Scripture contrary to the Holy Fathers, who interpreted it as pointing to a Geocentric universe, and on this basis a heresy was defined by Popes and condemned and imposed upon a Catholic layman like Galileo to sign something recanting it publicly, Tom A and In Caritas maintain silence and refuse to answer a question repeated asked of them as to whether they accept a Teaching from a Dogmatic Council and all it implies.
While Sedes like Tom A and In Caritas like to trumpet St. Robert Bellarmine’s OPINIONS about Popes being immune from error. They with the other hand refuse to consider that St. Robert Bellarmine acting in his official capacity as Inquisitor acting directly and under the 1st hand supervision of a Pope within a formal Canonical Trial, DEFINED AS HERESY – Heliocentrism, and imposed it upon not only Galileo, but under the Divine and Supreme Authority of the Holy Pontiff, imposed it throughout the Catholic World.
So understand that it is not Catholic Teaching or Councils or Papal Teachings that animate Tom A and In caritas. It is their own personal adherence to an erroneous understanding of sedevacantism first. Catholicism and factual Church history second.
This is why Tom A presumes that the time has passed for the Consecration of Russia and that it cannot be done. Because it is his sede hypothesis leading him by the nose. He has put the cart before the horse.
In in order to defend his sedevacantist interpretation, notice how he will never actually link you to the actual Teachings of the Popes or the Church who defined Heliocentrism as heresy, but rather he’s happy enough to use sources from the false-VII-modernist-church he opposes in order to make his case. Conveniently ignoring the facts I’ve listed showing him that it was the very attitude of the Galileo Affair and the modernist acceptance of Heliocentrism and that the Church of the past erred in its Papal Actions, Canon Trials, and Dogmatic Councils and finding the Fathers to be unreliable that led directly to Vatican II and the need to reinterpret and restate the Catholic Faith more vaguely… even when one of its chief adherents – John Paul II – attempted to exonerate Galileo, and discovered that he couldn’t, and so instead appealed to the fact that the current Scientific Consensus couldn’t prove its case and said that the fact that the Church grew lax over the issue was sufficient enough for us to get along ecumenistically with the current atheistic establishment of scientists. Which is like saying that Cardinal Dolan appealing to the fact that priests and bishops by and large dropped the ball on contraception is proof that the Church no longer thinks contraception is a sin. Even though some will argue precisely that, which is why Francis wishes we’ll all shut up about all that Traditional Morality stuff for the new Mercy.
I’ll once again repost my previous reply to pigg0214.
I encourage everyone to read it, and particularly read the exact condemnation of Galileo by the Church and then tell me with a straight face that the Church did not define heliocentrism as a heresy. Let the Sedes try and tell us that St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul and Urban had no idea what they were doing. Then note how Sedes have no problem recognizing and resisting certain Popes when it suits their agenda because they consider Darwin and Copernicus and Galileo as higher authorities that the entire Tradition which interpreted Genesis and the Scriptures contrary to modernist scientists.
—-
One need only to reference the Church Fathers who overwhelmingly interpreted the Inerrant Scriptures as leading to a Geocentric Universe. This is gleaned from passages referring to the Earth as the Center of the Universe directly, or implicit from the Creation account where the Earth existed first before everything else. Also the Scriptures refer to the Earth as an immovable object and use it as an analogy to God’s immutability. References to the movements of the Sun and Moon and other heavenly bodies are always with respect to the Earth. Miracles such as those of Joshua and King Hezekiah explicitly state the Sun is moving and this causes changes to the day/night cycle on Earth, and don’t state the Earth itself ceases to move or revolve. The Sun’s movement is equivalent to the same motion as the Moon in Joshua where he directly commands both to cease, but doesn’t state the Earth itself should cease to move or rotate. For these reasons, including the Jewish Tradition, the early Christians and the entire consensus of the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures consistently this way and therefore defended the Geocentric model of the cosmos against the heliocentric pagans who believed the Earth went around the Sun, as well as the geocentric pagans who believed the central Earth was the lowest place and anus of the universe because the gods inhabited the heavens, whereas the Christians saw Earth as the apple of God’s eye, a jewel unique amongst the entire universe, blessed with life upon which the Climactic History of Salvation would take place and upon which God Incarnate would come down and dwell amongst His people and sacrifice Himself for them. The Earth was His inheritance and a seat upon which He, the Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords would rule. It is His Throne and His Footstool. Analogous objects that imply a state of rest and stability.
Because the Church lives by its consistent Tradition, the Church dogmatically states in the Council of Trent and Vatican I that no one could interpret the Scriptures contrary to the Fathers and thus provide an interpretation at rupture with theirs. This is because whenever the Fathers overwhelmingly interpreted portions of Scripture the same way, this was believed to be the only factual interpretation, one that was long standing Tradition and one which comes directly from the Apostles. Therefore if the Fathers consensus could be declared wrong on one thing, it could also be declared wrong on other things.
So if one wished to say the Fathers were wrong about Geocentrism, then one could logically argue that the Fathers could be wrong about many other articles of faith – the Eucharist, Holy Orders, Marriage, The Virgin Birth etc. etc. Therefore Tradition would be unreliable, the Church and the Papacy has no consistent basis, and Protestantism would have a better rationale and the Scriptures and the Faith had to be open to the changing times and subject to the knowledge of the world and of scientific consensus apart from the faith who could scrutinize it.
Likewise, if Scripture itself could be found to be errant on scientific matters, then even its very history and credibility would be at stake. For this reason St. Robert Bellarmine and others stated that Geocentrism is a matter of faith just as if one were to question the Virginity of Mary, or whether or not Jacob had 12 sons, were matters of faith.
So that while it is correct to say that Geocentrism is not a de Fide doctrine necessary for Salvation, amongst numerous other teachings, because neither the Church nor God would expect the common uneducated man to hold scientific or theological degrees on complex topics in order to be saved, it does not mean that Catholics are free to ignore it any more than to ignore and find it necessary for a Pope to define belief in Jacob having 12 sons as necessary dogma, or to make a ruling against modernist archaeologists that the Monarchy of David was a factual historic legitimate Kingdom. Or that Catholics could openly believe otherwise about Mary’s perpetual virginity or her Immaculate Conception until it was formally defined.
For this reason the Holy Office under the direct supervision and authority of the successive Popes ruled in 1616 and restated in 1633 against Galileo –
————————————–
“This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
“The proposition that the sun is the center
of the world and does not move from its place is absurd
and false philosophically and formally heretical,
because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture”
The proposition that the Earth is not the
center of the world and immovable but that it moves,
and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and
false philosophically and theologically considered at
least erroneous in faith”
But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before His Holiness on 25 February 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine and, in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even discuss it; and failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned. And in execution of this decree, on the following day, at the Palace, and in the presence of his Eminence, the said Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was enjoined upon you by the Father Commissary of the Holy Office of that time, before a notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the said false opinion and not in future to hold or defend or teach it in any way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and, upon your promising to obey, you were dismissed.
And, in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out and
not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.
And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Great World Systems: Ptolemy and Copernicus”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards informed that through the publication of the said book the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was daily gaining ground, the said book was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms probable: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to
divine Scripture.
Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy Office, where, being examined upon your oath, you acknowledged the book to be written and published by you. You confessed that you began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago [1621-1623], after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you requested license to print it without, however, intimating to those who granted you this license that you had been commanded not to hold, defend, or teach the doctrine in question in any way whatever.
You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in many places drawn up in such a form that the reader might fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side are calculated by their cogency to compel conviction rather than to be easy of refutation, excusing yourself for having fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue and by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to his own subtleties and in showing himself more clever than the generality of men in devising, even on behalf of false propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments.
And, a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare your defense, you produced a certificate in the handwriting of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal
Bellarmine, procured by you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against the calumnies of your enemies, who charged that you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office, in which certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had not been punished but only that the declaration made by His Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index had been announced to you, wherein it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held. And, as in this certificate there is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely, the order not “to teach” and “in any way,” you represented that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years you had lost all memory of them and that this was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested permission to print your book. And all this you urged not by way of excuse for your error but that it might be set down to a vainglorious ambition rather than to malice. But this certificate produced by you in your defense has only aggravated your delinquency, since, although it is there stated that said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability; nor does the license artfully and cunningly extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify the command imposed upon you.
And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a rigorous examination at which (without prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you and set forth as above with regard to your said intention) you answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and maturely considered the merits of this your case, together with your confessions and excuses above-mentioned, and all that ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the underwritten final sentence against you:
Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of
our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most
glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, by this
our final sentence, which sitting in
judgment, with the counsel and advice of
the Reverend Masters of sacred theology
and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors,
we deliver in these writings, in the cause
and causes at present before us between
the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of
both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy
Office, of the one part, and you Galileo
Galilei, the defendant, here present,
examined, tried, and confessed as shown
above, of the other part –
We say, pronounce, sentence, and
declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and
by you confessed as above, have rendered
yourself in the judgment of this Holy
Office vehemently suspected of heresy,
namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine – which is false and contrary to
the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the
sun is the center of the world and does not
move from east to west and that the Earth
moves and is not the center of the world;
and that an opinion may be held and
defended as probable after it has been
declared and defined to be contrary to the
Holy Scripture; and that consequently
you have incurred all the censures and
penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such
delinquents. From which we are content
that you be absolved, provided that, first,
with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith,
you abjure, curse, and detest before us the
aforesaid errors and heresies and every
other error and heresy contrary to the
Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in
the form to be prescribed by us for you.
And, in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.
We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute, or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance. And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.”
——————————————————-
The Popes then enforced this throughout Christendom by their supreme authority to the Universities, Religious Orders and Royalty. Catholic academics and editors of works such as Newton’s distanced themselves from such ideas out of obedience to the Holy Roman Pontiffs.
Historians states that these rulings by the Popes were not reformable. Even Pope John Paul II’s commission reached the same conclusion and Galileo could not be exonerated. Therefore John Paul II appealed to the current day consensus of Relativity which according to Einstein could not detect the Earth’s motion because it was being ‘masked’ by fluctuations of time and space, and thus science could not prove the Church was wrong, but the Church has since then allowed free inquiry and granted imprimaturs to various works and removed Galileo and Copernicus off the Index so this shows that we are all getting along very ecumenically now and the Church apologizes for any (unspecified) unnecessary things it has done in the past etc. etc.
But this speech by John Paul II in no way overrides the rulings by his predecessors or undoes the results of a Canonical Trial, especially one so strongly worded and enforced and defined as Heresy and enforced by Papal power for over 100+ years. This is simply John Paul II trying to find an ecumenical compromise. Not to mention that even the references to the Church granting imprimaturs and removing works of the Index is documented as occurring under suspicious grounds or under false criteria and blatant deception, no different than the same machinations we observe by Modernists occurring in Vatican II, the Synods on the Family and Amoris Letitia’s implementation and the turning of blind eyes towards every heretic and homosexual in priests’ clothing going about today excusing sin and distorting Tradition. The modernist playbook hasn’t changed.
Galileo was forced to write and sign a formal recantation of his heresies. How many heretics today would be forced to undergo what Galileo did?
——–
“I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals Inquisitors- General against heretical pravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth having before my eyes and touching with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God’s help will in the future believe all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But, whereas – after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth is not the center of the world and moves and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture – I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor without presenting any solution of these, I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all
faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but, should I know any heretic or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening (which God forbid!) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as
above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration and recited it word for word at Rome, in the convent of the Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633. I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.”
——–
How anyone can say the Church and the Popes had no intention of rooting this out as Heresy doesn’t stand to scrutiny. The crop of Catholic Apologists who want to slide this event under the carpet and call the Popes of the past proud and arrogant and overstepping of their bounds into matters that had nothing to do with the faith doesn’t hold water. They absolutely did see it as a matter dangerous to the faith. And indeed it was for the Enlightenment revolutionaries and Protestants used this to reorientate the world. This had enormous psychological consequences on mankind.
But thanks to Pope Urban VIII, Galileo remained with the Church and of his own accord came around and had humbly converted in his heart such that later in life he’d himself admonish other heretics trying to use him to submit themselves to the Fathers and Faithful Teachers of the Church.
That is how the Church exercised true Mercy. With recent scientific findings these Holy Men and Holy Pontiffs have been vindicated, and we are all fools for losing faith in God. This lesson we should take to heart even during the present crisis.
JPeters,
I will respond below but need some time.
God bless.
Dear Johnno,
In reality as Truth, truth is always very simple, as Almighty God is Simplicity Himself. In reality as deception it is always very complex, with lots of facts and angles, permutations and synthesis, as that is the work of Lucifer, who confounds the truth with deception, in the style of Hegel’s dialectic. Holy Mother Church, in Her process of defining doctrine solemnly, which is to ultimately rest as dogma within the Deposit of Faith, causes then as only then, this defined doctrine as dogma, to hold the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility. That same charism which is freely given by the Holy Ghost to preserve His Faith whole and spotless, for His Church. She chooses to do this for the purpose of Truth, who is Her Head, as we know with divine certitude, this Mystery of Faith.
That understood Johnno, now to address your comment about the holy Council of Trent as it relates its teaching as you claim it to be, and as to quote you,
“that you never interpret Scripture contrary to the Consensus of the Fathers.” The Council is stating, and according to you as you are not quoting and citing the source of Trent, that the Church does not interpret and teach the Holy Writ contrary to that of the Father’s of the Church. And your point? The reality as Truth Johnno, remains to be seen, for those with eyes which see, in that reality which you are blinded to, as you receive the operation of error, to believe the lie as the truth.
There has never been a defined doctrine as dogma, which proclaims “geocentrism as geocentrism” as a matter, deFide, period and end. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it proclaim “geocentrism as geocentrism”, just like nowhere does it proclaim specifically the Beatific Vision for the Saints before the Final Judgment. Thus, as the dogma of the Beatific Vision was proclaimed ultimately, there is no longer any question of that dogma that can ever again occur until the end of time, as to do so, is to embrace heresy. That is simply as factually not the case for “geocentrism as geocentrism”, period and end. Because that has not happened, the matter is available for theological discourse, just as the “Beatific Vision” was in the time of the true Pope John XXII. Until it is defined and taught by the true Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his Bishops, there is no charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, and as thus “geocentrism as geocentrism” is available for theological discourse, period and end. Do you see how simply that is? Of course you don’t, as you continue to receive the operation of error, in your attempt to prove that which you cannot, as what you are attempting to prove, defies the commands of Jesus the Christ, that His Church has erred sometime, as anytime, in Her infallible Magisterium, all in your attempt to prove that the false church of the Antichrist, established in 1958, which claims itself to be the Catholic Church, as it indeed does embrace and teach error from its faux magisterium, simply CANNOT BE the Catholic Church. Therefore, its popes CANNOT BE Popes, and it is taking countless souls in error, to hell. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Johnno, I never once advocated Darwin. The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture. It interprets Scripture through Christ and can use the physical sciences to make those interpretations. There is no teaching anywhere that says the Church can not alter those interpretations based on proven science. I have never provided any link to the Church teaching heliocentrism because it never has. In fact, I asked you to provide those sources and you are the one who has failed to find any credible ones. You accused me of using V2 sources. I have no idea when I did that. Given my utter disgust with all things V2, I simply cannot see me using a V2 source to bolster my argument unless it is of course to prove the V2 sect a false religon. I will again sum up your errors. You advocate a defectible Church. This is affront to the Magesterium and to Christ Himself.
PS- you also gravely misrepresent St Bellarmine in what he actually said during the Inquistion of the Galileo affairs.
Bellarmine also wrote:
“[I]f there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the one demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the other, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.” [emph. added] (Letter to Foscarini)
Also Johnno, I never once advocated Heliocentrism (because it cannot be proven and it contradicts Scripture). You simply want to use this example of the Church being in error by adopting Heliocentrism which it never has. Even the heretic JP2, as you correctly noted, came to this comclusion. I also contend as Bellarmine points out, that the Churchs interpretation of Scripture may be altered by physical evidence. Galileo’s crime was twofold. Teaching the Copernican model as objectively true which mathematically it is not, and thus contradicting the Churchs interpretation of Scripture. You imply with all your erroneous facts that the official authoritative de fide teaching of the Church is Geocentrism or namely the Ptolemaic Model. Somewhere in all your posts I noticed you cleared that up by admitting it was not de fide. So I think that leaves us in basic agreement as to the time of Galileo. Afterwards however, if I am reading you correctly, you are implying that the Church has adopted a Heliocentric model as official teaching. I again challenge you to prove that. I would say the Church simply dropped the whole subject after Newtow’s discoveries lent credence to the Kepplerian model. But to this day, no one has been able to prove as objectively true that the earth moves one centimeter. It is unfortunate that the Church stopped defending this but that does not mean it taught error. And that is the heretical point you have been trying to make since all this discussion began.
Regarding Tom A’s posting of ‘The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown’ , which is the default article most people use imagining it refutes Geocentrism, and has been linked to by both neo-Catholics from Patheos, modernists like Mark Shea, to Sedes like Tom A. So Tom A makes his company with them when it comes to attacking the authority of the 1600 -1700 Papacies and Church, because they’ve been indoctrinated in atheistic scientific philosophies. Even one critic David Palm, had to rely on courting an atheist to attempt to refute Geocentrism.
The article lists all the same ‘proofs’ refuted long ago (stellar parallax, aberration, ellipses, Coriolis, Newtonian physics etc.) and even no longer held as evidence by the current establishment. Which is why Einstein and even atheists like Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking openly admit that Ptolemy was not refuted. The article finally concludes with the fact that an imprimatur was granted to Canon Giuseppe Settele, hooray! The same song and dance John Paul II, the sede favourite, used as an excuse before a gathering of establishment atheists…
Except that this alone doesn’t lift the proceedings of a canonical trial and defined heresies by Popes, and that imprimaturs and laxity in the Church towards Setelle no more elevate him than Telihrad De Chardin or Tucho Fernandez or James Martin or Francis’ Scalfari interview collection. Besides which as Sungenis documented, Setelle gained his imprimatur through lies and subterfuge, essentially arguing, like the writer of ‘Ptolemaic Smackdown’, that Galileo was condemned because of ‘scientific arguments’, like the shape of circular versus elliptical orbits, instead of theological grounds having to do with Scripture and the Fathers and dogmatic Council declarations. All while the files of the Inquisition were inaccessible because Napoleon decided to keep them with him and kick the Pope elsewhere.
Sungenis sums up the additional problem with ‘The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown’ by Michael Flynn here from his Rebuttal to Anthony:
—————–
Anthony: There is no space in this article to go into the Galileo Affair in depth, but interested readers can find a wealth of information by reading the works of Dr. William Carroll, a professor of theology at Blackfriars College, Oxford and an expert in the Galileo Affair,
R. Sungenis: With all due respect to Dr. Carroll, since he didn’t know that Bellarmine told Galileo that geocentrism was a matter of faith ex parte decentis, then this discredits much of what he wrote on the subject. Dr. Carroll, like many Catholic historians who are not up to speed on the science, believed that modern academia has proven heliocentrism, and it is from that unalterable premise that they begin and end their Galileo apologetic.
…
Anthony: or by checking out Michael Flynn’s epic The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown. The conclusion to such examinations of the Affair is that the Inquisition made a well‐intentioned but unfortunate mistake (which they could have avoided by better studying their Aquinas, but we’ll get into that in a bit).
R. Sungenis: Flynn’s work makes the same mistakes that both Carroll and Winshel make. But notice that both Flynn and Anthony have not the slightest embarrassment in turning the Inquisition into an inept institution that was not only wrong about Galileo, but was even wrong in thinking that it had the authority to judge the Galileo issue. Interestingly enough, it was Anthony who earlier claimed
that “every time these guys get on their soapbox they link geocentrism to Catholicism, particularly traditional Catholicism. And it makes us look crazy.” Yet it was precisely the Inquisition, not to mention two faithful popes and their college of cardinals, who “linked geocentrism to Catholicism.” In other words, Anthony is embarrassed that the Church of the 1600s condemned Galileo, and to defend them would make Anthony “look crazy.”
———————-
Particularly because the most basic thing to know is that the current Geocentrism as well as that adopted by the Church later on… was not Ptolemy’s.
It was Tycho Brahe’s. There the Earth is the center. The Sun revolves around the Earth and the other planets around the Sun. Tom A’s article dismisses Tycho based on erroneous proofs and basically dismisses Tycho’s model as a ‘kludge’ meaning a conveniently assembled product using anything disposable at hand.
Kepler would later take Brahe’s observations, after his suspiciously convenient death, and plop them into his heliocentric system. So the kludge was just as good for the goose as the gander.
But of course Johann Kepler was a Protestant. And Tycho Brahe was a Catholic, who faithfully developed his system in conformity to the Catholic Faith and obeyed the Popes.
Both their systems were dynamically equivalent and worked. But your children will never learn about Tycho Brahe or his model, they will only be taught about how the backward Catholic Church and its arrogant Popes tried to prevent scientific progress because they believed in this erroneous book called the Bible.
Tom A provides an article that quotes of course many modernist Churchmen, the Kaspers and Muellers of their day, many Jesuits of course, who really liked and honored Galileo just as much as the like and honoured Barack Obama. Today these same Jesuits are musing about whether Christ redeemed aliens on other planets.
The main meat of the article is in Part 5 where it finally get around to the condemnations themselves. Where concerning the ‘Qualifiers’ the author states:
—
“Reminder: The main reasons why the motions of the Earth are “absurd in philosophy” is that if the Earth revolves around the Sun there would be visible stellar parallax, and if the Earth rotated on its axis there would be Coriolis effects. There were none, thus falsifying the theory that the Earth moves. (There were also other reasons that seemed important because no one had formulated a theory of inertia and so forth.) We can hardly blame the theologians for taking the word of the natural philosophers any more than we could blame the lawyers in the Dover case for taking the word of the biologists.”
—–
Here is the problem – At no time during Galileo’s trial, was the scientific arguments of observational or dynamic evidence ever a part of the criteria.
It was SOLELY ONLY ABOUT – the passages of Scripture and the Church Father’s interpretations of it, and what Dogmatic Councils stated.
So when the author is attempting to allude to the ‘philosophically absurd’ statements he is either lying or doesn’t know what he is talking about. This is therefore a gross, perhaps unintentional, distortion. The fact, however, is that St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope and Holy Inquisition never used Scientific Criteria to investigate Galileo, they moved against him solely based on Biblical and Theological criteria, and condemned him and defined as heresy those propositions and injunctions against him on those grounds.
It is modernist revisionism to read into the Galileo Trail that which wasn’t there in order to escape the implications that the Church and the Popes were indeed condemning something WITHIN their sphere of jurisdiction – Interpreting holy Scripture and defending Tradition and Dogmatic Councils. The Science was simply on the peripheries, which was then intruding on Theological and Dogmatic territory.
The author then tries to downplay the significance of the Trial by dismissing it as ‘a board of theologians’ neglecting to mention that the Pope himself and the highest authorities of the Church were directly involved. He even makes mention that
——–
“but the Cardinals Caetani and Maffeo Barbarini withstood the Pope openly and and checked him”
————-
… which for some reason Tom A is now totally okay with? I thought you couldn’t do that…
But even earlier in the article, we get this little gem:
————
“Notice: “may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers” not “may not depart from the Scriptures as literal.” Bellarmino was aware that no text is self-explanatory; it must be interpreted. The Fathers had read things in the light of the rock-solid consensus science. If anyone ever comes up with, like, you know, empirical proof? that the Earth moves, then we’ll take another look at how to understand those passages.”
————-
This sums up modernism’s raison d’etre.
You see everybody… the Church Fathers are only right about interpreting Scripture…
Until some Scientific Establishment and ‘rock-solid’ science says otherwise…
Would Tom A like to apply this to:
– The Virgin Birth
– The Holy Eucharist
– The Resurrection
I wonder what the ‘rock solid’ science has to say…?
What does Tom A think?
Did Tom A even read the article he linked to?
Problem is, the Council of Trent and later Vatican I reiterate that NO ONE SHALL INTERPRET SCRIPTURE CONTRARY TO THE CONSENSUS OF THE HOLY FATHERS.
I fail to notice anything stating… “until another consensus of scientists comes along and tells you otherwise.”
The Fathers were also keenly aware of the other science in their day that adopted heliocentrism, such as the School of Pythagoras.
But what did they do? They condemned it, and defended Geocentrism, because that’s what the Scriptures said.
And when other Greek geocentrists stated that a central Earth was the anus of the universe and thus poo-pooed the idea of God ever incarnating Himself and coming down to undignify Himself to such a level. The Church Fathers didn’t say heliocentrism was an alternative that the Bible could allude to, but that Geocentrism remained true and that a central Earth was not an ‘anus’ but the apple of God’s eye, His footstool at rest and upon whose circle is situated His throne. That God rides in the Heavens like the Sun and rests upon the Earth. You know… because the Bible said those things.
And if the Fathers were wrong and the scientists are right, then it is Science that has a better grasp and the final authority over interpreting the Bible correctly, not the Fathers, and therefore there is no reliable Tradition, and therefore there is no rationale for a Pope. Protestantism therefore is a better more correct form of Christianity – the very reason the Council of Trent was convened and settled dogmatically that the Consensus of the Fathers was Tradition and infallible, and this was the criteria, not scientific musings about stars and motions, used to condemn Galileo, who wanted to interpret the Scriptures, privately, apart from the fathers and the Church.
So does Tom A accept the Consensus of the Fathers and the Council of Trent?
Or does Tom A accept the consensus of Scientists and Heliocentrism and thus would recognize and resist the 1700 Papacies and Dogmatic Councils which state otherwise?
Tom A cannot serve two masters. He must choose. Let us see where his sedevacantism leads…
Sorry Johnno, I meant to write “you erroneously imply with all your facts”. You are well versed in the facts of this case but you have adopted the wrong premise to reach your conclusion. You have begun by trying to disprove sedevcantism false and searching for historical examples to manipulate in order to justify your assertion.
Yes, he is speaking rhetorically and hypothetically for the sake of argument. And reiterates “But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration.” And until such time – “one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.”
Now Tom A. Can you provide that demonstration?
If you can’t, then please refer back to the Fathers.
The letter to Foscarini was written in 1615. The first injunction against Galileo came in 1616. Then formally condemning him suspect of heresy in 1633.
By that time, Bellarmine and the Pope then concluded that the propositions were – Formally Heretical.
Again Johnno, seeing how science cannot prove any motion at all, the Church fathers have interpreted Scripture with a geocentric bias but not as de fide. Many were allowed to study heliocentric models in order to predict motion but none were allowed to proclaim it as a verified truth. This was Galelio’s crime and he was justly punished. Since that time, the Church had never adopted any heliocentric model as a teaching. So I am not sure what you think I am denying with my “sede logic.” I again state that it is you who are actually denying an article of faith as you profess a defectible Church.
You’re right. I don’t think the Church ‘adopted Heliocentrism.’
I only state that beginning in the 1800s, the Popes were through direct word or action beginning to undermine their predecessors, until 1920, when a Pope finally expressed verbal doubt about whether the Earth was the center of the universe.
This demonstrates that Popes were sliding into material heresy. Is it not an argument of sedes that Popes are immune from material heresy? And that they will never be led to do anything that would lead the faithful into heresy? Then how does this explain their actions of removing condemned works off the Index, to granting imprimaturs to works promoting what was once condemned, failing to restrain the modernists within the clergy promoting error, and then publicly expressing doubt in encyclicals?
Is this not also what the Vatican II Popes have been guilty of? And do not sedes express doubt about them being true Popes based on such actions?
While indeed the doctrine of Geocentrism is not de Fide, it is as Bellarmine said a matter of faith “ex parte decentis”, from the same letter to Foscarini –
“Ask yourself then how could the Church, in its prudence, support an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one reply that this is not a matter of faith, because even if it is not a matter of faith because of the subject matter [ex parte objecti], it is still a matter of faith because of the speaker [ex parte dicentis]”
In other words, does God make historical or scientific facts errors in His own Inspired Scriptures? Or rather does Tradition and the Fathers and Councils err when they imposed that one cannot interpret the Scriptures apart from them? As in… Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake when it led the Fathers and Dogmatic Councils to impress this demand upon all Catholics?
So the credibility of God or rather the Church is at stake. And thus while it is not categorized as de Fide teachings, it is still of most vital importance. And it would be silly to require a formal de Fide infallible pronouncement of it just as it would be silly to insist on one to declare that believing Jesus taking Mary Magdalene for a wife and having a child with her needs to be condemned and part of de Fide teachings because a growing consensus of historians and Dan Brown readers are growing keen about the idea.
The Church allowed for studies from a heliocentric perspective out of consideration for what was then Galilean relativity, in order to make mathematics easier. Because to say x = 1 is the same as to say 1 = x. And this could make calculations easier when they were busy trying to figure out all the complicated motions in the sky.
And it is not a defectible Church I’m arguing for. But rather that Popes are capable of falling into Material Heresy, and by such laxity have naturally allowed this heresy to fester, leading up to the climate that convened the Vatican II Council. This is demonstrable because Popes in one era interpreted the Scriptures one way. And Popes in another era interpreted the Scriptures in a completely opposite and CONTRADICTORY way. Because one rules out the other, and because the Law of non-Contradiction demands that only one of them can be right. One of these readings is of course heretical. It was not some poetic interpretation which can have multiple meanings simultaneously and harmoniously. These were statements of factual reality, and one is the contradiction and opposite of the other.
I argue that material heresy does not revoke the office of the Papacy form the holder. All the Popes from 1800 down to 1921 where Pope Benedict XV openly doubts it publicly in Praeclara Summorum stating,”and though this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ…” were and remained true Popes.
Let us now apply this to the VII Popes, particularly John Paul II, Benedict XVI and even Francis, who are condemned as false popes because they too openly contradict their predecessors and the faith in various encyclicals.
If the state of sedevacantism exists for them, then logically, it must be applied to their predecessors who did likewise in word or action. This means sedevacantism extends back arguably to the 1800s, if all that’s necessary is Material Heresy.
Therefore if Sedevantism is to be true and applicable to the VII Popes, then Formal Heresy must be established. And it must therefore be established in a formal setting through which we can demonstrate that invincible ignorance does not apply to the suspect Pope and which he is informed about the true Doctrine, and then charitably offered the opportunity to demonstrate his faithfulness or his obstinacy.
Therefore given the facts at our disposable, we either take the route where the Church potentially failed approximately 200 years ago and no true successors exist – a point I REJECT as that would indeed make the Church defectible – or that sedevantism must be established with stronger criteria – therefore Formal Heresy and uncovered by the proper authorities under Council, or canon trial or a declaration by a Papal Successor.
Therefore I argue that Councils and Teachings that no-one can oppose or judge the Pope, must be interpreted, and have been interpreted to mean that the Pope who is not to be opposed or judged is a True Pope suspect of nothing, and does not apply to a Pope suspect of heresy. And who judges the Pope? It would be as Canon Hesse said, his predecessors. One may use the consensus of their declarations and statements to judge one suspect of heresy. And thus it is the word of Popes against suspect-Popes, or Dogmatic Councils and Inerrant Scripture from God and Christ Himself, and not a lower authority setting its own theology against a Pope. And if a verdict be delivered against a Pope, it would only be uncovering the fact that the Pope had denounced himself and thus vacated the seat at an earlier date when the heresy was expressed and held in the same opinion of that time as it was now, and thus the man being judged ceased to be a Pope earlier, and deposed by God, and a sentence can be declared upon him.
So it is not that I am opposed to sedevacantism in theory. I only submit myself to the final verdict coming from the Church, just as it was the case in Galileo’s day with regards to heliocentrism. I have no obligation or emotional attachment to saving the VII Popes from condemnation. I just see the criteria being applied to them as being applicable to the Church much earlier and therefore I find those implications unacceptable.
Other than a few points on what you believe is a contradiction in scriptual interpretation, our positions are not as far off. I also adhere to your first point that the Church did not defect 200-300 years ago but I obviously believe that the bar has been met for every believer to see for themselves that what appears to be the Catholic Church today IS NOT what was the Catholic Church of our forefathers. So we shall leave it at that.
Good evening JPeters.
–
Pope John XXII does not say he “denies” any doctrine but says only what he says and what you quoted. There was nothing defined by the Church at the time that would have forced him to accept or deny it. Thus, he did not “deny” any doctrine but was simply in the minority.
–
Bellarmine says that a person can only be considered a heretic by pertinaciously rejecting or denying a defined truth concerning the faith. So John XXII can in no way be considered a heretic regardless of which side you fall on with what he “denied” (your word) being a truth of faith.
–
St. Bellarmine- De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. II, Book IV, Ch. VII.
I respond to the first: all of those cannons speak on a personal error of the Pope, not a judicial one. For the Pontiff, if he could be a heretic, will only be so by denying some truth that has already been defined; he cannot be a heretic when he defines something new since in that instance he does not understand contrary to something defined by the Church. But the cannons cited speak expressly on heresy, therefor thy do not speak on the judicial error but personal error of the Pontiff. Secondly, I say those cannons do not mean the Pope can err as a private person but only that the Pope cannot be judged; it is still not altogether certain whether the Pontiff could be a heretic or not. Thus, they add the condition ‘if he might become a heretic’ for greater caution.
–
He also eludes to his belief that a Pope does fall from the pontificate ipso facto by an external act against the faith if done so with pertinacity, and he makes it explicit in his arguments in Book II, Ch. XXX where he rejects the second, third, and forth opinions and makes clear that the “fifth true opinion” is, well, the truth.
–
Same book but Ch. VIII.
But Marcelinus neither taught something against faith, nor was a heretic, or unfaithful, except by an external act on account of the fear of death. Now, whether he fell from the pontificate due to that external act or not, little is related; later he abdicated the pontificate and shortly thereafter was crowned with martyrdom. Still, I believe that he would not have fallen from the pontificate ipso facto, because it was certain to all that he sacrificed to idols only out of fear.
–
He also feels quite comfortable in defending the first opinion and says elsewhere that it is “more probable”. “Those Fathers only believed that the Pope could err as a private man, which is a probable opinion, although the contrary seems more probable to us.” It is my opinion that St. Bellarmine truly aligned himself with the first opinion but accepted the fifth opinion since it was certain.
–
About the quote from St. Bellarmine concerning those who separate from an apparent heretic but are actually wrong not incurring culpability. The key word below is “rightly”. If something can rightly be done, then guilt or culpability cannot be ascribed. Also, we disagree on this, but all MEN have this ability, not just Roman clergy.
–
The quote already given mentions, “and from that presumption his pontificate could rightly be abrogated. “For men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.”
–
What I meant by a Pope not being able to be a heretic is that a true Pope cannot be the Pope and a heretic at the same time. I apologize for not making that clear and causing you to take the time to dig up arguments against me. Fortunately for me though, one of the quotes you provided helps prove Bellarmine’s point on when a Pope falls from the papacy ipso facto.
–
“Truly, he [the Pope] should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men or RATHER, CAN BE SHOWN TO BE ALREADY JUDGED, if, for example, he should wither away into heresy.”
–
JPeters: And I again remind you that Bellarmine himself explicitly teaches that God will not deprive a heretical Pope of his authority without the cooperation of men. And the “men” he is referring to are clearly the members of the teaching Church who have the competency to judge the matter, just as it is members of the teaching Church who cooperate in making a man pope by electing him. Bellarmine draws a parallel between the two, when he says: “Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope. Therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).
–
I understand what Bellarmine taught here but he was speaking of secret heretics. He was speaking against the second opinion which he flatly rejected since “the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk1.”
–
The R&R crowd makes camp in opinion four, of Cajetan, where “he teaches that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church”. Bellarmine says, “Now in my judgment, such an opinion CANNOT BE DEFENDED. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this BEFORE excommunication and SENTENCE OF A JUDGE. … heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined? … in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope…he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many of Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”
–
And further Bellarmine teaches, “Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they EVEN LACK ALL ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY IPSO FACTO.” And more, “’If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time AS HE BEGAN TO PREACH SUCH THINGS, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, BECAUSE HE COULD NOT REMOVE ANYONE BY A SENTENCE, WHO HIMSELF HAD ALREADY SHOWNN THAT HE MUST BE REMOVED.’…’The authority of our See has sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, AFTER THE LATTER BEGAN TO PREACH HERESY, shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. FOR HE WHO HAD DEFECTED FROM THE FAITH WITH SUCH PREACHING, CANNOT DEPOSE OR REMOVE ANYONE WHATSOEVER’”.
–
And more, “For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the NATURE OF HERESY. Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the Body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.”
–
And this one destroys your position completely on a Pope being judged by the Church while still being Pope, or an inferior judging his superior in the case of heresy. This will explain, in Bellarmine’s own words, what he himself means by “THE ONLY REASON WHERE IT IS LAWFUL FOR INFERIORS TO JUDGE SUPERIORS. … IN THE CASE OF HERESY, A ROMAN PONTIFF CAN BE JUDGED. “.
–
“Next, what Cajetan says in the second place, that a heretical Pope who is truly Pope can be deposed by the Church, and from its authority seems no less false than the first. For, if the Church deposes a Pope against his will, certainly it is over the Pope. … for one to be deposed from the pontificate against his will is without a doubt a penalty; therefore, the Church deposing a Pope against his will, without a doubt punished him; but to punish is for a superior and a judge. … Furthermore, the example of Cajetan does not avail on electors, who have the power of applying the pontificate to a certain person, and still does not have power of the Pope. For while a thing is made, the action is exercised over the matter of the thing that is going to be, not over a composite which does not yet exist, but while a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over a composite; as is certain from natural things. Therefore, when Cardinals create the Pontiff, they exercise their authority not over the Pontiff, because he does not yet exist; but over the matter, that is, over the person whom they dispose in a certain measure through election, that he might receive the form of the pontificate from God; but if they depose the Pope, they necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person provided with pontifical dignity, which is to say, over the Pontiff.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a POPE WHO IS A MANIFEST HERETIC, CEASES IN HIMSELF TO BE POPE AND HEAD, JUST AS HE CEASES IN HIMSELF TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND MEMBER OF THE BODY OF THE CHURCH: WHEREBY, HE CAN BE JUDGED AND PUNISHED BY THE CHURCH. THIS IS THE OPINION OF ALL THE ANCIENT FATHERS, WHO TEACH THAT MANIFEST HERETICS SOON LOSE ALL JURISDICTION…someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. … The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. … Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.”
–
God bless.
Dear Johnno,
–
I really do appreciate your last post. What I do think we are missing here with so much much talk directed at the Pope alone is that with Vatican II, we actually had the Church teach things, in a General Council, to the Universal Church, with the authority of the Pope, that contradicted previous teachings of the Church. It is my opinion that we can’t just focus on the Pope, though the buck stops with him since no general or ecumenical council teaching is binding without his authority. Ecclesiastical infallibility is ultimately the issue. If we were just dealing with Popes making stupid materially heretical statements here and there in homilies or in letters, then I would be much more inclined towards your position. St. Bellarmine left the door open on whether a Pope could actually be a heretic in his person or not, but he flatly refused, and so has the Church formally in many many teachings, the idea that a true Pope can promulgate error in faith and morals to the Universal Church. This is why I don’t see much of an argument on the side of the R&R when they say that none of the Popes denied a de fide teaching of the Church. To me, this is not even relevant due the issue of Church infallibility already mentioned. The Pope issue is forced on us to be dealt with due to the Church teaching error by his authority.
–
I am not looking for a long drawn out fight here but simply wanted to share this one thought with you.
–
Again, I appreciate your comments and those of others, including JPeters. Many good points are made and I know the truth will ultimately play out. As they say, time will tell. I pray that each of us are found worthy of God’s promises. He can read our hearts and will know if we are just being stubborn or truly doing what we think is pleasing to him, according to his commands and with the desire to remain within the bosom of Holy Mother Church. I am not trying to be subjective or relative here. I believe we are all well-informed and well-intentioned Catholics and are just trying to live our faith out to the best of our ability.
–
God bless.
Hi Pigg,
.
Here is the final reply to your earlier post.
.
Pigg: Oh, I see you are treating the sin of heresy as a crime. This is your mistake. A sin needs no declaration from the Church to make it so.
.
JPeters: Once again, you are parroting SV errors. It is true that the sin of heresy does not require a declaration, but the sin of heresy does not result in the loss of papal office. This is admitted by the more informed SVs (those who actually think about it). And you yourself acknowledge this point, since you admit that a pope who falls into secret heresy retains his office, even though a secret heretic is guilty of the sin of heresy. Therefore, your own position refutes the SV argument that you are repeating.
.
For a pope to lose his office for heresy, his heresy must be public or “manifest,” and public or manifest heresy is a crime, not just a sin. Furthermore, as we have discussed, the pope doesn’t have to be guilty of the sin of heresy at all to lose the pontificate. As long as the heresy is manifest, or legally notorious, he can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if he is not guilty of the sin itself. What this shows is that sin itself actually has nothing to do with it.
.
Hopefully you can now see why it is entirely false to say a Pope only has to fall into the sin of heresy to lose his office, and why it is correct to say it requires the public crime of heresy for him to lose the Pontificate.
___
JPeters (previous comment): This fits in perfectly with Bellarmine’s teaching that a heretical Pope loses his authority by an act of God “through men” (the bishops at the council) just as he receives his authority by an act of God “through men” (the Cardinals at the conclave).
–
Pigg: Here you are conflating secret heresy with manifest heresy and apply Bellarmines teaching on the former to the latter.
.
JPeters: No, that’s not what I am doing and it’s not the problem. The problem is that you don’t realize what is meant by a “manifest heretic” (or notorious heretic), and the decree to which a person can externalize a loss of faith while remaining a “secret heretic”.
Louis Cardinal Billot, who is considered one of the leading Thomists of the early 20th century, wrote extensively on this subject. If you read what he wrote, there is no question that all of the recent popes, including Francis, fall into the category of secret heretics, not notorious heretics. And it is worth noting that, juridically speaking, if a person is not a notorious heretic, he falls into the category of an occult heretic.
.
The cardinal provides many examples of public deviations from the faith, which would only classify the person as a secret heresy. Some of the examples he gives are Catholics who continue to profess being Catholic, yet “sin against the faith EXTERNALLY”, and “manifests their heresy by EXTERNAL SIGNS,” and even those who “positively disbelieve matters of faith,” and “do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life.” He says these remains members of the Church (secret heretics), provided they continue to profess being Catholic and have not publicly rejected the Church. He went on to say that many Catholics of his day fit this description.
.
For a Catholic to be considered a notorious heretic, he would have to be judged a heretic by an ecclesiastical judge following a trial (notorious by law), or else his heresy would have to be so evident that “it could not be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law.” It would have to be so evident and so inexcusable that it an ecclesiastical judge could consider if a fact without requiring a trial (notorious by fact).
.
An example that is given of a person who is “notorious by fact” is a Catholic who openly leaves the Church of his own accord and opposes it. In this case, his heresy would be an established fact, and no legal excuse could excuse. As Fr. Glieze recently wrote, notorious heresy “is not a heresy that everyone knows about. It is the sort of heresy that results from acts that the hierarchical authority of the Church denounces juridically as incompatible with the common good of Catholic society. In a strictly juridical sense, we speak only about occult or notorious heresy, and the notion of public heresy is reduced to that of occult heresy. In this juridical sense (which is sense used in canon law), any external act that has not been noted by the authority is occult.” If Pope Francis were to openly leave the Church and join the sect of his Lutheran brethren, then he would be considered by the Church a notorious heretic, without requiring a trial. Noting he has done so far, and nothing any of the other recent popes did, comes close to rendering them notorious heretics.
.
But what does Bellarmine mean by the term “manifest heretic.” Is he referring to someone who falls into heresy, and then “sin against the faith EXTERNALLY”, or who “manifests their heresy by EXTERNAL SIGNS,” or something more?
.
When Bellarmine says a manifest heretic loses his office without a judgment of the Church, he cites John Dreido as an authority to support his position. First we will read what Bellarmine wrote, and then we will read the actual quotation form Dreido that Bellarmine quotes as support for his position.
.
Bellarmine: “Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian … affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, IF HE SEPARATED HIMSELF FROM THE CHURCH. THE SAME OPINION IS HELD by the doctors of our age, such as John Driedo, who teaches that only those are separated from the Church who have been expelled, OR WHO HAVE LEFT OF THEIR OWN ACCORD AND OPPOSE HER, as heretics and schismatics. He [Driedo]adds in the same work that no spiritual power remains in them, WHO HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE CHURCH, over those who are in the Church.
.
When Bellarmine says manifest heretics automatically lose their authority, he is referring to those who openly leave the Church of their own accord, which none of the recent popes have done. He first cites the teaching of Cyprian, who said if Novatian had been the true Pope, he would have fallen from the Pontificate if he “separated himself from the Church.” He then says this is “the same opinion” as the doctors of his day, such as John Dreido. He then quotes Dreido say there is two ways for a person to be separated from the Church. They can either be excommunicated, or they can leave the Church of their own accord by departing from her. Here is the actual teaching of Dreido that Bellarmine is referring to:
.
“All those who have received the sacrament of faith and are visibly attached to the Church, and associating in a peaceable way with the Christian people, are in the Church until they are EITHER CUT OFF BY THE CHURCH’S JUDGMENT, OR DEPART OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.” (Ioannis Driedonis, De Ecclesiasticis Scripturis & Dogmaticos).
.
Notice that Driedo teaches that a person is either separated from the Church by the judgment of the Church, or they are separated by departing from the Church of their own accord.
.
Now, because Bellarmine says a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his, and since he quotes Dreido as the authority for his position, it shows that when he says a manifestly heretical pope automatically lose his jurisdiction, he is referring to a pope who openly leaves the Church “of his own accord,” which none of the recent Popes have done. He is essentially referring to a Pope who becomes notorious by fact.
.
The teaching of Bellarmine makes complete sense. If a pope were to openly leave the Church he would no longer be a legal member of the Church, and therefore it is logical to conclude that by his act of leaving the Church, he would lose his authority over the Church. But this hypothesis does not apply to any of the recent popes, since none of them departed from the Church of their own accord. Nor were any of them “cut off by the Church’s judgment.” Hence, they retained their office, as Bellarmine himself would be the first to admit.
In Caritas,
.
I don’t have the time to respond to all of your confused comments, but I do want to address one point since it is a perfect example of how SV’s distort history:
.
In Caritas: “The Pontiff is not infallible in his theological discourse, period and end, nor can he commit heresy in his authentic theological discourse. The Holy Roman Pontiff, John XXII, was not “teaching an error”, as you claim JPeters, as HE WAS NOT “TEACHING” IN HIS CAPACITY AS THEOLOGIAN, RATHER HE WAS DISCERNING WITH HIS BISHOPS. That is what theological discourse is in the true Church. You are in profound error.”
.
JPeters: That is a complete distortion of history. John XXII wasn’t simply “discerning with his bishops.” He was publicly teaching an error, as pope. And it wasn’t a minor error: it was directly contrary to a truth contained in the revealed deposit. He did so in multiple sermons before large audiences of distinguished prelates, and he taught it in a book he wrote that he ordered to be published.
.
His false teaching was so scandalous that some during his day declared that he was a false Pope who lost his office for heresy. Sound familiar? Here’s what William of Ockham wrote during the time:
.
William of Ockham: “Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedience of the FALSE POPE [John XXII] and all who were his friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For MEN OF GREAT LEARNING SHOWED ME THAT BECAUSE OF HIS ERRORS AND HERESIES THE SAME PSEUDO-POPE IS HERETICAL, DEPRIVED OF HIS PAPACY, AND EXCOMMUNICATED BY CANON LAW ITSELF, WITHOUT NEED OF FURTHER SENTENCE. . . . In proof thereof several volumes have been published. . . . For against the errors of this pseudo-Pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend him, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reproving his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen, and ink. . . .If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and his friends, let him try to defend HIS CONSTITUTIONS AND SERMONS, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who KNOWS THE POPE TO BE A NOTORIOUS HERETIC is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, nor base his arguments on reproaches, because those who try to arm themselves with great numbers of lies, reproaches, threats, and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason. Therefore let none believe that I mean to turn away from the recognized truth because of the great number of those in favor of the pseudo-Pope, or because of proofs that are common to heretics and to orthodox men, because I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life.”
.
Sounds like a SV website, doesn’t it? Those words were written during the time of the events, and reveal how serious the papal crisis was.
.
But the point is, William of Ockham would not have declared John XXII to be a notorious heretic if the Pope had only erred when he was “discerning with his bishops.” You are distorting history by making such claims.
.
John XXII erred when TEACHING as Pope. He defended his error publicly and those who opposed him were punished, or sent to prison, as Fr. O’Daniels explains in the article I quoted earlier.
.
Because of the gravity of the papal scandal, William of Ockham was just as certain that John XXII was a heretical antipope, as you are about the recent pope’s of our day. And you are just as wrong today as William of Ockham was back then.
Pigg: Good evening JPeters. “Pope John XXII does not say he “denies” any doctrine but says only what he says and what you quoted. There was nothing defined by the Church at the time that would have forced him to accept or deny it. Thus, he did not “deny” any doctrine but was simply in the minority.”
.
Just because a doctrine has not yet been defined does not mean it is not a doctrine. At the time, two different doctrines were being taught about when man would possess the beatific vision.
.
John XXII taught (and defended) the FALSE DOCTRINE that men DO NOT see God face to face until their body was reunited to the soul, following the Resurrection. The true doctrine, which was held by just about everyone before he was elected Pope (except the Eastern Rite heretics), was that men DO see God face to face before the Resurrection. John XXII denied the true doctrine and taught the false doctrine. Read him again for yourself.
.
John XXII: “I say that the souls of the faithful departed DO NOT enjoy that perfect or face to face vision of in which … consists their full reward of justice; nor will they have that happiness until after the general judgment [that is a denial of the true doctrine]. When, and only when, the soul will be re-united to the body, will this perfect bliss come to man, coming to the whole man composed of body and soul, and perfecting his entire being [that is the profession of the false doctrine].”
.
That is just one of the times he denied the true doctrine and taught.
.
I’ll respond to your other points when I have time.
Pigg: “Bellarmine says that a person can only be considered a heretic by pertinaciously rejecting or denying a defined truth concerning the faith. So John XXII can in no way be considered a heretic regardless of which side you fall on with what he “denied” (your word) being a truth of faith.”
.
JPeters: Agreed. But keep this point in mind when you accuse the recent popes of heresy. To be a heretic, they would have to deny a defined dogma, not simply teach something that is clearly false.
.
You provided several quotations from Bellarmine, but I don’t know the point of the quotations, or what they were intended to prove, so I can’t comment. Next you wrote this:
.
Pigg: “What I meant by a Pope not being able to be a heretic is that a true Pope cannot be the Pope and a heretic at the same time. I apologize for not making that clear and causing you to take the time to dig up arguments against me. Fortunately for me though, ONE OF THE QUOTES YOU PROVIDED HELPS PROVE BELLARMINE’S POINT ON WHEN A POPE FALLS FROM THE PAPACY IPSO FACTO.
–
[This is the quote] “Truly, he [the Pope] should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men or RATHER, CAN BE SHOWN TO BE ALREADY JUDGED, if, for example, he should wither away into heresy.”
.
JPeters: That quotation is from Pope Innocent III, but it does not mean what you and you fellow SV’s think. Saying the Pope is shown to be “already judged” (by God) does not mean “already deposed” (by God). A Pope is not deposed by God at the moment that he is judged by God to be a heretic. This fact is proven from your own position, since you admit that a pope who falls into secret heresy remains pope, even though a secret heretic has already been judged by God.
.
What Pope Innocent is referring to is an indirect judgment. The Church cannot directly judge a pope, nor can the Church punish or coerce him. But if a pope is suspected of heresy, the Church can “judge” him in the sense of “determining” if he is truly a heretic. When it determine that he is a heretic, it is showing him to be “already judged.” I’ll explain how it does this later.
.
You continue by quoting my earlier comment and then responding to it. I’ll begin with my prior post, followed by your comments, and then give my new reply.
.
JPeters: (prior post): “And I again remind you that Bellarmine himself explicitly teaches that God will not deprive a heretical Pope of his authority without the cooperation of men. And the “men” he is referring to are clearly the members of the teaching Church who have the competency to judge the matter, just as it is members of the teaching Church who cooperate in making a man pope by electing him. Bellarmine draws a parallel between the two, when he says: “Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope. Therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men…” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice).”
.
Pigg: “I understand what Bellarmine taught here but he was speaking of secret heretics. He was speaking against the second opinion which he flatly rejected since “the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk1.”
.
JPeters: Think about what you are saying. How can a secret heretic be “judged by men”? He can’t. What Bellarmine said is that “second opinion” is FOUNDED on the idea that a pope is deposed by God the moment he falls into heresy, EVEN IF it is secret. In other words, the erroneous second opinion is that a Pope who has been “already judged” (by God), has also been “already deposed” (by God), which is how you interpreted the quotation from Innocent III.
.
Bellarmine rejects this and teaches that just as God does not give a pope jurisdiction without the judgment of men, neither does he depose a pope unless he is first judged by men.
.
But in order for “men” to render a judgment, the heresy has to be externalized. If not, there is nothing for men to judge. This proves that when Bellarmine says a heretic is not deposed by God without the judgment of men, he is referring to a Pope who has externalized his heresy, not simply to a secret heretic as you thought.
.
A pope only becomes a “manifest heretic” if he leaves the Church of his own accord, or is judged a heretic by the Church. I’ll discuss this in my next post.
Pigg: “The R&R crowd makes camp in opinion four, of Cajetan, where ‘he teaches that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church.’”
.
JPeters: Cajetan’s opinion might be true or it might not (the Church has never said), but it has nothing to do with my rejection of the SV position. The SV position is not supported by Cajetan opinion or Bellarmine’s opinion.
And you clearly don’t understand the difference between the fourth and fifth opinion. Cajetan’s opinion is that a pope who has been judged a heretic by the Church, or who openly leaves the Church, is NOT ipso facto deposed. Cajetan believed that, after the Church judged a pope by warning him two or three times, and even after declaring him a heretic, he would not lose his jurisdiction until the Church deposed him. Bellarmine rejected this by teaching that a Pope who has been judged by the Church, or who has openly lefts the Church of his own accord, automatically ceases to be pope. That is the difference.
.
Pigg: Bellarmine says, “Now in my judgment, such an opinion CANNOT BE DEFENDED. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this BEFORE excommunication and SENTENCE OF A JUDGE
.
What does Bellarmine mean by a manifest heretic? He means one who has openly left the Church of his own accord, or else has been judged a heretic by the Church. If he openly leaves the Church no formal judgment is required for him to be a manifest heretic, just as no judgment is required if a person openly confesses that he knowingly rejects a defined dogma. Openly leaving the Church is equivalent to an admission of guilt and eliminates the need for an ecclesiastical judgment. But if he has not openly left the Church, and still claims to be a Catholic, the Church has to render a judgment before he is to be considered a “manifest heretic,” and before he loses his authority.
.
How does the Church judge that person is a heretic – that is, a “manifestly pertinacious,” to use the words of Bellarmine? Divine law itself has determined how the Church reaches the judgment. It does so by issuing two warnings and giving the suspect a determined amount of time to renounce his heresy and accept what the Church teaches. If he doesn’t do so within the amount of time allotted, he is judged to be a heretic by the Church. That is how divine law itself teaches that a heretic be judged. And that is why Bellarmine quoted the divine law, which is found in St. Paul’s letter to Titus.
.
This teaching of divine law has always been a part of canon law, which likewise requires that a person who is suspected of heresy be warned twice before he is judged to be a heretic by the Church.
.
Pigg: “And further Bellarmine teaches, “Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they EVEN LACK ALL ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY IPSO FACTO.” And more, “’If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time AS HE BEGAN TO PREACH SUCH THINGS, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, BECAUSE HE COULD NOT REMOVE ANYONE BY A SENTENCE, WHO HIMSELF HAD ALREADY SHOWNN THAT HE MUST BE REMOVED.’…
.
JPeters: When did Nestorius begin to teach heresy? Keep in mind that the doctrine he denied had not yet been defined when he first began preaching it, just like the doctrine John XXII denied had not yet been defined when he was defending it. So, when did Nestorius begin teaching heresy and, as a result, lose his jurisdiction? Nestorius can only be accused of preaching *heresy* AFTER his errors were formally condemned by the pope. Earlier you admitted that a heretic is one who denies a defined doctrine with pertinacity, right? To be more precise, a heretic is one who DENIES a defined dogma, or continues to PROFESS a formally condemned heresy, with pertinacity.
.
Nestorius began preaching his error at the end of A.D. 428. At the time the errors he preached had not been condemned and the dogma he denied had not been defined.
.
In the year 430, the Pope called a council and formally condemned is errors. Nestorius was warned and given less than 2 weeks to renounce them. If he refused to do so, he would be expelled from the Church. Instead of renouncing his formally condemned heresies, Nestorius appealed to a general council, against the judgment of the Pope. That is a “no, no”, but the pope permitted it. The council was held a year later, in the year 431. The council upheld the judgment of the pope, defined the dogma that Nestorius denied, and deposed him. Nestorius had already “shown that he must be removed” a year before he was actually removed by the council.
.
That is the history, but the point is, Nestorius cannot be accused of preaching heresy – or of “showing that he must be removed” – until the Pope had judged his doctrines to be heretical and Nestorius had been warned. So, while one is certainly permitted to hold that Nestorius lost his jurisdiction prior to being deposed, he certainly did not lose it before the Church condemned his errors and issued him a formal warning.
.
If a bishops lost his jurisdiction for preaching an error that had not been condemned by the Church, or for denying an undefined doctrine, John XXII would have lost his jurisdiction (ceased to be Pope) the moment he began preaching his error.
.
Pigg: “And this one destroys your position completely on a Pope being judged by the Church while still being Pope, or an inferior judging his superior in the case of heresy. This will explain, in Bellarmine’s own words, what he himself means by “THE ONLY REASON WHERE IT IS LAWFUL FOR INFERIORS TO JUDGE SUPERIORS. … IN THE CASE OF HERESY, A ROMAN PONTIFF CAN BE JUDGED. …
[Bellarmine:] “Now the fifth true opinion, is that a POPE WHO IS A MANIFEST HERETIC, CEASES IN HIMSELF TO BE POPE AND HEAD, JUST AS HE CEASES IN HIMSELF TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND MEMBER OF THE BODY OF THE CHURCH: WHEREBY, HE CAN BE JUDGED AND PUNISHED BY THE CHURCH. THIS IS THE OPINION OF ALL THE ANCIENT FATHERS, WHO TEACH THAT MANIFEST HERETICS SOON LOSE ALL JURISDICTION.”
.
JPeters: First, notice that he says “judged AND PUNISHED by the Church.” As I mention earlier, the Church cannot judge AND PUNISH a pope. It can only judge him indirectly, and can never punish him.
.
Second, what Bellarmine means by “manifest heretic, is one who has either been judged a heretic by the Church, or has openly left the Church “of his own accord.” This is proven by the authority he himself quotes to defend his position. The authority is John Dreido. In the citation that Bellarmine himself quotes, Dreido teaches that a person is severed from the Church either by the Church’s judgment, or by departing from the Church “of their own accord.” That is how one becomes a “manifest heretic”. And if you read the fifth opinion, it seems clear that he is referring to a pope who openly leaves the Church. This is confirmed by the example that Bellarmine uses, which is that of Novatian. Novatian didn’t merely hold a heretical doctrine, he openly separated himself from the Church and then claimed to be true Pope. If a Pope were to openly leave the Church, it is very likely that he would automatically cease to be pope, without requiring a judgment, since leaving the Church is equivalent to an admission of guilt. That is clearly what Bellarmine is referring to.
.
Here is the complete citation:
.
Bellarmine: “Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian … [and] affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, IF HE SEPARATED HIMSELF FROM THE CHURCH. THE SAME OPINION IS HELD by the doctors of our age, such as John Driedo, who teaches that only those are separated from the Church who have been expelled, OR WHO HAVE LEFT OF THEIR OWN ACCORD AND OPPOSE HER, as heretics and schismatics. He [Driedo]adds in the same work that no spiritual power remains in them, WHO HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE CHURCH, over those who are in the Church.”
.
None of the recent pope have been indirectly judged by the Church, and none of them openly left the Church of their own accord, or “departed from the Church”. Therefore, none of the recent popes can be considered as manifest heretics, according to the teaching of Bellarmine.
JPeters: Just because a doctrine has not yet been defined does not mean it is not a doctrine. At the time, two different doctrines were being taught about when man would possess the beatific vision.
–
Pigg0214: But is does mean it is not binding. Let’s let Pope John XXII tell us what he was thinking.
–
In order that those things often said — both by Us and by certain others in Our presence — on the subject of the purified souls separated from the body (whether before the resurrection of the bodies they can see the divine essence with that vision which the apostle calls face to face) — by citing Sacred Scripture and the original sayings of the saints or other modes of reasoning — should not impress the ears of the faithful otherwise than as was said or understood by Us or as is being said and understood [by Us], so We now earnestly declare as follows, in the context of the present [writings] Our opinion that We, together with the holy Catholic Church, have and have had regarding this matter.
We therefore confess and believe that the purified souls separated from the body are gathered together in heaven, in paradise and the kingdom of the heaven [sic], with Christ in the company of the angels, and that they, according to the common precept, clearly see God and the divine essence face to face, insofar as the state and the condition of the separated soul allows.
But if, in any way, other things may have been said, or [said] in another manner, by Us on this subject, We have said them in the disposition of the Catholic faith, and We affirm to have said them thus in discoursing and discussing, and We wish to have said [them] thus. Furthermore, if We, in what pertains to the Catholic faith, Sacred Scripture, or good morals, have said other things in preaching, discoursing, formulating a doctrine, teaching, or in any other way, these, insofar as they are in conformity with the Catholic faith, the Church’s way of thinking, Sacred Scripture, and good morals, We approve; other things, however, We wish to consider as though they were not said, and We do not in any way approve them; rather, insofar as these might not have been in accord with what We have mentioned — the Catholic faith, the Church’s way of thinking, Sacred Scripture, or good morals or any of these — We reject them; and likewise We submit to the judgment of the Church and Our successors all that We have said or written on any subjects wherever and in whatever place and in whatever situation We have or may have had up until now.
(Pope John XXII, Bull Ne Super His; Denzinger-Hünermann 990-991; available online in Latin here.)
–
And some commentary…
–
St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies].
John XXII, the Supreme Pontiff, followed him almost to the letter, and the Friars Minor followed him, as is generally reported. He held that immediately after death some reward is given to the just, like seeing already the humanity of Christ in heaven, and that the wicked are punished in hell in some way; but before the final judgment that neither the face-to-face vision of God is granted to the blessed nor the punishment of fire to the damned.
However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see Denz. 530-531].
(Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. [original Latin published by BAC, 1956; English published by Keep the Faith, 2016], n. 30; italics given; underlining added.)
–
JPeters: That quotation is from Pope Innocent III, but it does not mean what you and you fellow SV’s think. Saying the Pope is shown to be “already judged” (by God) does not mean “already deposed” (by God). A Pope is not deposed by God at the moment that he is judged by God to be a heretic. This fact is proven from your own position, since you admit that a pope who falls into secret heresy remains pope, even though a secret heretic has already been judged by God.
–
What Pope Innocent is referring to is an indirect judgment. The Church cannot directly judge a pope, nor can the Church punish or coerce him. But if a pope is suspected of heresy, the Church can “judge” him in the sense of “determining” if he is truly a heretic. When it determine that he is a heretic, it is showing him to be “already judged.”
–
Pigg0214: The manifest heresy causes God to depose the Pope ipso facto, as St. Bellarmine states. It is a logical consequence. A secret heretic can’t be judged because we can’t judge internals. He remains Pope as far as we are concerned because he is still within the Body of Christ. Once the heresy is manifest, he falls from the Body of Christ, thus he is no longer Pope. The papacy is to our benefit since the Pope is the primary instrument for the unity of faith. No judgment or declaration from the Church is necessary but is helpful.
–
Again, Bellarmine: “Now the fifth true opinion, is that a POPE WHO IS A MANIFEST HERETIC, CEASES IN HIMSELF TO BE POPE AND HEAD, JUST AS HE CEASES IN HIMSELF TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND MEMBER OF THE BODY OF THE CHURCH: WHEREBY, HE CAN BE JUDGED AND PUNISHED BY THE CHURCH. THIS IS THE OPINION OF ALL THE ANCIENT FATHERS, WHO TEACH THAT MANIFEST HERETICS SOON LOSE ALL JURISDICTION…someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. … The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. … Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.”
–
JPeters: Think about what you are saying. How can a secret heretic be “judged by men”? He can’t. What Bellarmine said is that “second opinion” is FOUNDED on the idea that a pope is deposed by God the moment he falls into heresy, EVEN IF it is secret. In other words, the erroneous second opinion is that a Pope who has been “already judged” (by God), has also been “already deposed” (by God), which is how you interpreted the quotation from Innocent III.
–
Pigg0214: No, I do not interpret Innocent III to be talking about secret heresy and ipso facto deposition. I understand Innocent III to be saying that a “Pope” who is found to be a manifest heretic, can be judged since he is no longer a superior since he fell from his office due to manifest heresy.
–
JPeters: Bellarmine rejects this and teaches that just as God does not give a pope jurisdiction without the judgment of men, neither does he depose a pope unless he is first judged by men.
–
But in order for “men” to render a judgment, the heresy has to be externalized. If not, there is nothing for men to judge. This proves that when Bellarmine says a heretic is not deposed by God without the judgment of men, he is referring to a Pope who has externalized his heresy, not simply to a secret heretic as you thought.
–
Pigg0214: I have never said that the Pope is deposed due to secret heresy.
.
JPeters: A pope only becomes a “manifest heretic” if he leaves the Church of his own accord, or is judged a heretic by the Church.
–
Pigg0214: Manifest heresy, obviously with pertinacity, is leaving the Church on one’s own accord.
–
JPeters: And you clearly don’t understand the difference between the fourth and fifth opinion. Cajetan’s opinion is that a pope who has been judged a heretic by the Church, or who openly leaves the Church, is NOT ipso facto deposed. Cajetan believed that, after the Church judged a pope by warning him two or three times, and even after declaring him a heretic, he would not lose his jurisdiction until the Church deposed him. Bellarmine rejected this by teaching that a Pope who has been judged by the Church, or who has openly lefts the Church of his own accord, automatically ceases to be pope. That is the difference.
–
Pigg0214: How can you say above that I don’t understand the difference between opinion four and five when I specifically said prior “The R&R crowd makes camp in opinion four, of Cajetan, where ‘he teaches that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church.”
–
And then quoted Bellarmine saying: “Now in my judgment, such an opinion CANNOT BE DEFENDED. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this BEFORE excommunication and SENTENCE OF A JUDGE
–
JPeters: What does Bellarmine mean by a manifest heretic? He means one who has openly left the Church of his own accord or else has been judged a heretic by the Church. If he openly leaves the Church no formal judgment is required for him to be a manifest heretic, just as no judgment is required if a person openly confesses that he knowingly rejects a defined dogma. Openly leaving the Church is equivalent to an admission of guilt and eliminates the need for an ecclesiastical judgment.
–
Pigg0214: I agree with this part. Manifest heresy, obviously with pertinacity, is leaving the Church on one’s own accord. I suspect you would argue that “openly leaving the Church” is to take residence in a different “church” with a different faith. However, this is simply your opinion and is refuted by moral theologians or canonists.
–
JPeters: But if he has not openly left the Church, and still claims to be a Catholic, the Church has to render a judgment before he is to be considered a “manifest heretic,” and before he loses his authority.
–
Pigg0214: This is completely made up by you and Bellarmine specifically refutes this in opinion five.
JPeters: How does the Church judge that person is a heretic – that is, a “manifestly pertinacious,” to use the words of Bellarmine? Divine law itself has determined how the Church reaches the judgment. It does so by issuing two warnings and giving the suspect a determined amount of time to renounce his heresy and accept what the Church teaches. If he doesn’t do so within the amount of time allotted, he is judged to be a heretic by the Church. That is how divine law itself teaches that a heretic be judged. And that is why Bellarmine quoted the divine law, which is found in St. Paul’s letter to Titus.
–
Pigg0214: I agree but that is only one way Divine Law tells us how to deal with heretics. It does not say it is the only way.
–
JPeters: This teaching of divine law has always been a part of canon law, which likewise requires that a person who is suspected of heresy be warned twice before he is judged to be a heretic by the Church.
–
Pigg0214: Canon Law is dealing with suspected heresy where pertinacity still needs to be determined. Moral theology allows for other ways to determine pertinacity. You acknowledge this when you stated that one who “openly leaves the Church” does not need to be judged by the Church.
–
Pigg: “And further Bellarmine teaches, “Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they EVEN LACK ALL ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY IPSO FACTO.” And more, “’If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time AS HE BEGAN TO PREACH SUCH THINGS, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, BECAUSE HE COULD NOT REMOVE ANYONE BY A SENTENCE, WHO HIMSELF HAD ALREADY SHOWN THAT HE MUST BE REMOVED.’…
.
JPeters: When did Nestorius begin to teach heresy? …
–
Pigg0214: I imagine Bellarmine, speaking about this much later, would not be concerned with this since it was determined by the Church that what Nestorious was teaching was heretical. At the time of Nestorious teaching it, it was simply an error, but was later determined to be heresy. If Nestorius excommunicated anyone because they did not agree with him prior to the Church determining his teachings were heretical, then they would still not be excommunicated because he would have done so while in error. I believe the point you are trying to make is mute since it has nothing to do with the premise of Bellarmine’s point.
–
JPeters: Second, what Bellarmine means by “manifest heretic, is one who has either been judged a heretic by the Church, or has openly left the Church “of his own accord.” This is proven by the authority he himself quotes to defend his position. The authority is John Dreido. In the citation that Bellarmine himself quotes, Dreido teaches that a person is severed from the Church either by the Church’s judgment, or by departing from the Church “of their own accord.” That is how one becomes a “manifest heretic”. And if you read the fifth opinion, it seems clear that he is referring to a pope who openly leaves the Church. This is confirmed by the example that Bellarmine uses, which is that of Novatian. Novatian didn’t merely hold a heretical doctrine, he openly separated himself from the Church and then claimed to be true Pope. If a Pope were to openly leave the Church, it is very likely that he would automatically cease to be pope, without requiring a judgment, since leaving the Church is equivalent to an admission of guilt. That is clearly what Bellarmine is referring to.
–
Pigg0214: This is simply not true. Bellarmine was clear elsewhere that man can judge one to be a heretic if his actions or words are manifest. He says the papacy can be “rightly” taken away just by observing certain actions or words. Just because Novatian physically separated himself and formed his own “church” does not mean that Bellarmine was restricting what he was saying to only his scenario.
–
JPeters: None of the recent popes have been indirectly judged by the Church, and none of them openly left the Church of their own accord, or “departed from the Church”. Therefore, none of the recent popes can be considered manifest heretics, according to the teaching of Bellarmine.
–
Pigg0214: Again, you are limiting the meaning of “departing from the Church”. Bellarmine was very clear that manifest heresy severs one from the Body of the Church and that simply means that the secret heresy one has is made manifest and pertinacity can be determine one way or another. If you want to argue that none of the recent Popes are declared heretics, then I will agree but that does not mean they are not manifest heretics.
–
And I believe we are missing the bigger question. The Church can’t teach error in faith or morals. Forget about the Popes. Forget about infallibility. Did Vatican II teach error to the Universal Church concerning faith or morals that conflict with previously defined doctrine? What about other post Vatican II documents? EG? AL?
–
The Church can’t teach error in faith and morals to the Universal Church. Vatican II and forward taught errors in faith and morals. Thus Vatican II and forward are not the doings of the Catholic Church. I don’t have the answers for what is next but I firmly believe 2+2=4. I know Christ did not give the world the Church in order to lead souls to hell.
–
God bless.