Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of Trad, Inc.’s most prolific content providers, recently penned an editorial (available at Lifesite News) wherein he urges faithful Catholics to dismiss the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, in favor of his own.
Here, I will highlight certain of his most noteworthy points.
Bishop Schneider begins:
The hypothesis of the possibility of a heretical pope derives from the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, cap. 6, col. 146) from the 12th century. According to the opinion expressed in this decree, the pope cannot be judged by any human authority, except if he has fallen into heresy (a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).
Basing themselves on this spurious decree erroneously attributed to St. Boniface (+754) and accepted by Gratian, the Medieval theologians and theologians of the subsequent centuries maintained as possible the hypothesis – but not the certitude – of a heretical pope.
In this, Bishop Schneider appears to be casting doubt on whether or not a pope can ever fall into heresy. The purpose of his editorial, however, is ordered more properly toward what takes place, and how Catholics are to behave, when a pope falls into heresy.
He went on to suggest that St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion concerning a heretical pope should be dismissed since the poor Doctor was duped:
St. Robert Bellarmine’s 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” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30). [Emphasis added]
The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and other similar opinions on the loss of the papal office for heresy are based on the spurious decree of Gratian in the Corpus Iuris Canonici.
NB: It is one thing to find support for a theological opinion in a “decree erroneously attributed to St. Boniface” (as Bishop Schneider writes of Gratian); the Catholicity of that theological opinion is another matter altogether.
This being so, it is misleading in the extreme to imply, as Bishop Schneider does, that Bellarmine’s opinion is “based” on a false claim; as if to imply that the erroneous attribution mentioned somehow renders his theological opinion suspect.
In reality, as we will see, Bellarmine’s opinion is founded upon nothing less reliable than Sacred Scripture itself. We’ll return to this point momentarily.
It is clear that, in Bellarmine’s mind, the reason a pope who is a manifest heretic can be judged is due to the man’s state; namely, he has ceased to be pope! Note that he is not saying that the manifest heretic is subject to judgment because he is a non-member of the Church, rather, he is saying that the man is subject to judgment because he is no longer pope.
There is nothing whatsoever doubtful in this statement. Suggest, however, that this very same principle applies to a man who claims to be pope, and heads explode!
Not content with besmirching the credibility of St. Robert Bellarmine, Bishop Schneider set his sights on popes who held a similar view:
And even if some few popes seemed to support such an opinion (as e.g. Innocent III or Paul IV), this does not constitute a proof for the constant teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.
Readers may interested in knowing that among the statements credited to Pope Innocent III, who the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia calls “One of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages,” are:
Faith is so necessary to me that, being so, only God may judge me of all other sins, but if I commit a sin against faith, I could be judged by the Church … The heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged. – Pope Innocent III
In other words, the heretical pope has judged himself by virtue of his manifest heresy (as opposed to occult or secret heresy).
Q: Where did St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Innocent III ever get that idea?
A: From Almighty God Himself!
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that such a one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. (Titus 3:10-11)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
Note that there are no exceptions given for would-be popes in either exhortation.
Let him be anathema…
Not only are St. Paul’s words clearly applicable to Francis, the subject of Bishop Schneider’s treatment, so too are the solemn decrees issued by the Council of Trent that also serve to anathematize him as noted HERE.
So, what does it mean for one to be “anathema”?
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)
It is reasonable and eminently Catholic to consider Francis as one “excluded from the society of the faithful” by virtue of his well-known (i.e., manifest, notorious) blasphemies and heresies. As such, how are we to consider him, as Bishop Schneider insists we must, as head of said society? Indeed, we cannot.
If St. Paul’s exhortations do not suffice to convince the reader of the necessity of recognizing Jorge Bergoglio as one outside the Church (for one’s own good, as a means of preserving one’s own faith) perhaps the words of Our Lord will help:
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Mt. 18:15-17)
Francis’ heresies and blasphemies are an offense first and foremost against Christ. They are also an offense against infallible Catholic doctrine and against every member of Our Lord’s Mystical Body.
In light of these offenses, numerous “rebukes” of Francis have been made; in particular as it concerns the heresies enshrined in Amoris Laetitia, some even prior to its publication. [NOTE: A “rebuke” in the case of an offending pope will not resemble the whip of cords that Our Lord took to the money changers in the Temple; rather, it should more properly appear as a fraternal correction.]
In response to these rebukes, Francis will not hear them.
Most notably in the case of the dubia, the Church (albeit the conciliar church) as represented by members of the College of Cardinals has also rebuked him.
In response to this and similar rebukes, Francis will not hear the Church.
As such, according to Our Lord’s own instructions, we are to treat him as a heathen and publican; that is, as one outside the Church. (Once again, there are no exemptions.)
Bishop Schneider seems to think he has a better idea:
Faithful Catholics can morally (but not canonically) distance themselves from erroneous or evil teachings and acts of a pope.
The great general councils of the Church, by contrast, often state, “Let him be anathema.” In other words, while the evil teaching is plainly condemned, it is the heretic himself who is to be avoided; that is, treated according to his actual condition, as one excluded from the society of the faithful.
Furthermore, the exhortations of Our Lord and St. Paul (as noted) concern the way in which the faithful are to treat the heretic, not simply his false doctrines.
Even so, Bishop Schneider doubles-down on counseling the faithful to do otherwise:
Catholics should also consider the correct teachings of the pope as part of the Magisterium of the Church, his correct decisions as part of the Church’s legislation…
Bishop Schneider may just as well instruct the faithful to become protestant! After all, isn’t this precisely what the protestants do; namely, sift through the various teachings offered by the pope, only to decide for themselves which ones are correct and which ones are not?
I would challenge Bishop Schneider, who in many circles enjoys a reputation for being grounded in Catholic tradition, to provide evidence of the Magisterium ever encouraging the faithful to take such an approach to the Holy Roman Pontiff.
Bishop Schneider continues:
Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy — the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced by the heretical pope upon himself, and he automatically falls from office without any judgment by the Church, such an opinion contains a contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism.
Elsewhere in the text, Schneider defines conciliarism for readers, stating:
The heretical thesis of Conciliarism holds that a Council is superior to the pope.
In no way can it be said that Bellarmine favored this thesis. So why does Schneider suggest as much? He tells us:
For according to this opinion [the one held by Bellarmine and others], the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops would have to issue an official declaration about the fact of the automatic loss of the papal office.
Evidently, Bishop Schneider is either unable or unwilling to comprehend a simple distinction; namely, between the act of declaring that the pope (former pope, in this case) has pronounced judgment upon himself and has thus incurred automatic loss of office, and an act of superiority over a reigning pope that separates him from the office. The latter cannot happen.
The declaration in such a case is merely an announcement of what has already taken place – the man has ceased in himself to be pope. To the extent that such a declaration may also include (or not) any condemnatory statements, the latter must be understood as pertaining to the man who was formerly pope; that is, to the man who is, of his own volition, a fallen away Catholic.
Adding to the confusion of his readers, Schneider states:
Even if one supports the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy, in the case of Pope Francis, the College of Cardinals or of a representative group of bishops has not issued a declaration regarding the automatic loss of papal office, specifying the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened …
For even if one subscribes to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, the necessary declaration of the automatic loss of the papal office has still not be issued.
Let’s examine these statements beginning with the latter.
To be clear, the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine as cited by Bishop Schneider does not state that a declaration is “necessary,” as if apart from this the loss of office has yet to occur. This is Schneider’s opinion.
In reality, Bellarmine’s opinion is that “a Pope who is a manifest heretic ceases in himself to be pope,” with no declaration being necessary.
That is not to say that an official declaration is unnecessary in every respect. On this note, Fr. Pietro Ballerini, the eminent 18th century theologian often cited by those who insist that Francis is a true pope, stated:
So that he [the pope who has lost his office due to heresy] might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him.
It is in this sense that a declaration is necessary. It is obvious that, in speaking of the rest, and so that all might be on guard, Ballerini imagines that some among the faithful will already be well aware that the manifest heretic has ceased to be pope, even before a declaration is made.
This directly refutes Bishop Schneider’s suggestion that the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops must specify the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened in order for the loss of office to take place.
That said, with regard to Amoris Laetitia, cardinals and bishops (as well as priests, theologians and others) have indeed specified numerous heretical pronouncements, these being sufficient for Bergoglio to sever himself from the Body of the Church and thus the papacy.
Bishop Schneider goes on:
According to another opinion, the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy would be tantamount to a renunciation of the papal office. However, one has to bear in mind the inevitable possibility of disagreement among members of the College of Cardinals or the episcopacy regarding whether or not a pope is guilty of heresy. Hence, there will always be doubts regarding the automatic loss of the papal office.
This is totally irrelevant. That doubt and disagreement are likely to be present in such a case in no way alters the objective truth concerning the heretic’s condition – a condition, it bears repeating, well described by both Our Lord and St. Paul as cited above.
Heaping confusion upon confusion, Schneider states:
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 29).
For the sake of brevity, suffice it to say that Bellarmine is being quoted out of context. He is not speaking of a pope who teaches grave doctrinal error. His opinion concerning a pope who shows himself to be a manifest heretic is very clear – he ceases in himself to be pope. Period.
Bishop Schneider goes on:
Warning people about the danger of a pope’s wrong teachings and actions does not require convincing people that he is not the true pope.
Again, I challenge Bishop Schnieder to provide evidence of the Magisterium encouraging the faithful to sift through papal teachings for error and to warn others about a pope’s “wrong teachings.”
The reality is that warning others of the plainly observable fact that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, by virtue of the nature of manifest heresy itself, is simply another way of saying that he is not the true pope. These two realities simply go together.
Bishop Schneider then resorts to one of his favorite ploys in discussing the present situation in Rome; namely, pretending that there is precedent in Church history for a pope mired in manifest heresy.
He writes:
St. Bridged of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena, both of whom admonished the popes of their times, are fine examples of such respect.
In reality, neither St. Bridged nor St Catherine were faced with anything even remotely resembling the manifest heretic and anti-pope Bergoglio!
Believing that he is scoring points against those who favor the opinion concerning the automatic loss of office, Bishop Schneider actually does the opposite, stating:
The Pope and the Church are indeed not totally identical. The Pope is the visible head of the Militant Church on earth, but at the same time he is also a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.
No kidding! As a member of the Church, the pope, as much as anyone else, is bound by the doctrine of the Church, and when he enters into manifest heresy, he ceases in himself to be a member.
The word “opinion” appears in Bishop Schneider’s editorial more than two-dozen times, and for good reason. Given that the Magisterium of the Church has not prescribed a canonical procedure that definitively addresses the possibility of a so-called heretical pope, it is true that we are largely left to weigh disparate theological opinions.
And yet, Bishop Schneider has no problem putting forth his own opinion as if it is the only one worthy of consideration; even more so than that of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church! He even goes so far as to accuse those who place more weight in the latter of dabbling in Pelagianism.
Bishop Schneider then moves on to addressing those who doubt the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation. I will leave it to others to address this portion of his editorial in more detail. Even so, the following merits mention.
Bishop Schneider, in an attempt to confirm that BXVI acted freely, quotes his Last General Audience, given on February 27, 2013. Benedict stated:
I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity.
Two things stand out here:
One, if (as I believe there is good reason to suspect) the resignation was forced, certainly Benedict wasn’t going to announce as much publicly. On the contrary, he would publicly affirm the exact opposite.
Secondly, one notes that Benedict mentions the novelty of his resignation. This should raise a red flag.
There is nothing novel about a pope resigning; it is rare, but certainly not unprecedented. Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize that Benedict was affirming, for those with ears to hear, that his act of resignation is not to be understood like the others.
And yet, the majority of self-assured commentators who cannot even bear to admit that there is more to this story than meets the eye, look down their noses at those who believe the resignation is questionable, as if to assert – Hey, popes resign, get over it!
Drawing toward the end of his editorial, Bishop Schneider states:
Such situations [publicly identifying an anti-pope] caused more confusion for the Church than did tolerating a heretical or doubtfully elected pope with the supernatural vision of the Church and trust in Divine Providence.
I challenge Bishop Schneider, or anyone for that matter, to point to a moment in Church history when a doubtful resignation resulted in a doubtful conclave, and more so a time when the Church suffered and tolerated a claimant to the papacy that even remotely resembled the blasphemous heretic Bergoglio.
Furthermore, Bishop Schneider writes as if Almighty God was having an off day when He inspired St. Paul to exhort the faithful against tolerating a heretic in their midst.
It seems to me that, in evaluating the present situation, far too little attention is paid to the exhortations provided in Sacred Scripture as noted above; these alone tell us that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t Catholic, much less is he the pope.
Ending this examination on the bright note:
It looks as though Bishop Schneider is conceding the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is indeed a manifest heretic; i.e., he no longer seems intent upon pointing out “ambiguities” in his teaching, rather, he is moving on to discussing how we should treat the heretic.
Make no mistake, in urging tolerance, Bishop Schneider is taking a stand against no less than the inspired word of God, but at least he seems to be moving in the right direction.
You are on the same page as NOW, or vice versa.
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/03/comedy-hour-schneider-bails-out-francis/
Thank you Louie. I know you don’t publicly consider yourself a Sede, and I imagine you are still struggling with the idea that the previous popes were “manifest” heretics. Today, you are paying very close attention and are very tuned in to Church happenings, thus you are aware of the manifest heresy of Francis. Were you this way say 20-50 years ago? Probably not. Were others tuned in then? Yes. There were others before you who challenged the teachings of Vatican II and those anti-popes. They issued their dubia and questions only to be told to get in line or be gone. The entire SSPX is built on those challenges, along with other groups who separated themselves from the Whore. I imagine if the means of communication were the same back then as they are now, more people would have come to the truth sooner. All the “popes” in question were challenged and all moved forward with their heresies. You know the history.
“Pope francis” did not fall into heresy. He was already a heretic when the heretic cardinals cast their ballot.
Dear Pigg,
Louie and I were part of the “Whore” as you call Her, for decades. I can’t speak for Louie. I was not reading esoterica about what was happening in the Church. My reading did not go beyond the diocesan rag. At some level I guess I knew there was something amiss with super-star JPII, and the garbage spewed weekly from the sanctuary by Father Light-in-the-Loafers. Eventually I red-pilled and recognize all the malice and depravities that were inflicted upon the Bride. However, there was NOTHING promulgated as magisterium that was of the magnitude of the heresies of Amoris Laetitia. Nothing comes even close. The New Mass is defective but that does not make the post conciliar popes bogus. The Church did not go underground. The SSPX are not sedevacantists.
The Church remains visible. The situation with Francis is unprecedented. I pray it is resolved soon.
Bishop Schneider is a big disappointment. I pray he recognizes his error.
Everytime one of you calls the heretic Bergoglio the “Holy Father” or the “Roman Pontiff,” you blaspheme the title given by Holy Mother Church to true Roman Pontiffs. The fact that you consider the pretender Jorge the equal of St Peter and the other martyr Popes makes my blood boil. It is blasphemy. You also make a liar out of Jesus Christ Himself by suggesting that His promise to St Peter is fulfilled with the likes of the Argentinian Apostate.
Well said Mr. Verrecchio,
In one sense this seems to boil down to, if the “Soldiers of Christ” were the USA going into WWII they would have insulted a few Brits maybe engaged in some friendly fire by killing a few Brits, and then declared only God can defeat Germany! How is bishop Schneider not emboldening the enemies of Christ? I look forward to the day when as much effort is put into foiling the modernists and enemies of Christ as is put into friendly fire! There seems to be a belief that obedience to heretics can atone for the sins man committed against the virtue of faith and that such obedience is necessary to move God to save the Church by a miracle that excludes the use of the faithful as His instruments particularly His soldiers. Wasn’t such a belief refuted by Judas Maccabees? Or if we give the reverence to heretics that we give to the faithful prelates, it will move them to repent and do penance. Saints consider themselves unworthy of reverence and like St. Pius X receive it as a cross only because we all know we are not reverencing anyone, but Persona Christi anyway! We are reverencing Christ because that is who they are supposed to represent, how dare they want what does not belong to them!
Dumpster Diving for our Faith, says Bishop Schneider. Dig around, through the blasphemy, until you find an edible morsel.
No.
The Holy Word teaches us : be ye separate, from the unbelievers… and Almighty God will be a Father to us, and we will be His sons and daughters.
Akita,
Louie’s current public position is transient since it is untenable. If he is not a Sede, then he holds a position that adopts the very cognitive dissonance he despises. He has already gone on record stating that the Novus Ordo is an anti-Church and not the Catholic Church. It is impossible for a true pope to be the head of an anti-Church. The point I made about the SSPX was not to say they were Sedes but to say they have been challenging the so called hierarchy from their beginning, so the manifestation of the popes’ heresies are clear as day. They just refuse to accept the Sede position because they think their spiritual Father and Mother can lead them in error and ultimately to damnation. So much for honoring Father and Mother. Louie has fought against that position for quite some time.
God bless.
Why are so many twisting themselves into pretzels and concocting preposterous, untenable theories to preserve Bergoglio’s “papacy”?
The answer is painfully obvious: Bergoglio wields power–and he has shown that he will use it. He has crushed 200 religious orders that displeased him. He has exiled countless officials from the Vatican.
For over three decades, JPII and BXVI whined that “the bishops do not obey.” Bergoglio has performed ONE service for the Church: He has proven that a “pope” CAN whip the episcopate into line. There is no public dissent among the bishops of Europe and North America about the deadliness of carbon dioxide, the desirability of millions of Muslim invaders, the right of pro-aborts and lesbian Buddhists to receive Communion.
Louie,
Triple applause from me, for your refutation of Schneider’s absurd screed.
Thank you.
Arthur McGowan, what a perceptive comment!
Love of temporal power, money and “respect of men” – enslavement to the tools of the Prince of this World. Lord, God Almighty, forgive our sins, come to our aid!
I have relied on Gal: 1:8 for this entire papacy, as well as the understanding that God gave us spiritual discernment. I can’t speak to Canon law, but I don’t need to, God told us that we would know our shepherd’s voice. I do not recognize Bergoglio as anything but an imposter pope, or a pope that is a heretic, but it is now my understanding that a pope cannot BE a heretic, so he must be an imposter. It is my opinion that BXVI’s abdication is suspect, based on what I have read, and it is also my opinion that Bergoglio has lost the office (assuming he ever had it) by his blasphemous heresies. My opinion is worth zip, but, I must rely on it to inform me as to how to proceed. I want nothing to do with Bergoglio, there is nothing he could say I would find worth thinking about. I don’t listen to heretics. I appreciate Bp. Schneider’s position, but after 7 years of this, I also don’t have any more patience for the men who conveniently ignore reality and leave the sheep and the faith in such chaos. We have had to go it alone, save for the Catholic blogosphere, which is devolving as I type this into a regrettable whirlwind of snark and sniping, another loss for the poor sheep.
Not sure Francis even rises to the level of a heretic….pretty sure he is actually a pagan.
What’s the difference between the SSPX and the Protestants?
You touched on an important issue. What protections were the laity given, as opposed to a true Pope, concerning their ability to distinguish between what is true and what is false as they sift the teachings of “Pope” Francis? Should we the laity feel comfortable in our ability to not only discern the true from the false, but also to resist the false? Didn’t the true pre-conciliar Church have an index of forbidden books that Catholics were to avoid as spiritual dangers? How are the deceptive, misleading and false teachings of a non-Catholic papal usurper any different from the books on the Index? Shouldn’t we avoid them too?
–
Ultimately in a situation like this, if we follow Bishop Schneider’s advice, we are exposing ourselves to potential diabolical deceit as we sift the “teachings” of a usurping non-Catholic who is acting as an agent of the prince of this world. When viewed from that perspective, the “pastoral advice and counseling” given by Schneider couldn’t be worse! Sift the teachings of a usurper who isn’t even Catholic! Expose our faith to corruption! Who gives this sort of advice but a co-conspirator or a fool!
–
In other posts I spoke that the Church can be viewed as having a constitution of sorts. In those posts I described the “constitution” as establishing a Church that is both episcopal and professional (faith based). I think another aspect of the unwritten constitution of the Church is the laity have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to demand that only those who profess the faith whole and inviolate be appointed as Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, and to refuse obedience to any prelate who has demonstrated that he publicly and objectively does not profess the faith whole and inviolate.
–
At this point since Bishop Schneider is effectively speaking for the false entity that is presenting itself as the Catholic Church we should reject his foolish and false counsel and demand that if there are any faithful bishops remaining that they denounce all those in the hierarchy who are public heretics and apostates. Otherwise what are we to conclude but that there isn’t a faithful one among them. If that is the situation, the sooner we find that out the better!
Thank you for mentioning Holy Scripture, which so many debaters on this seem to ignore, burying themselves in Saints’ writings instead.
Two small but important points on the Galatians quote you gave:
1. It is the FIRST written anathema of the Church
2. It is REPEATED immediately for emphasis in verse 9:
As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Poor, poor Cyprian,
–
You muddle in the quagmire of the church of the Antichrist while you have no clue that you do, you poor, poor soul. You had this to say:
–
“In other posts I spoke that the Church can be viewed as having a constitution of sorts. In those posts I described the “constitution” as establishing a Church that is both episcopal and professional (faith based). I think another aspect of the unwritten constitution of the Church is the laity have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to demand that only those who profess the faith whole and inviolate be appointed as Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, and to refuse obedience to any prelate who has demonstrated that he publicly and objectively does not profess the faith whole and inviolate.”
–
Which of the paltry few miserable creatures who live and breath now and since October of 1958, who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith, that supernatural virtue both freely given and completely undeserved, could possibly care what, “Cyprian”, thinks? Really now. Who in Lucifer’s Hell do you think that you are, other than his willing slave, you heretical fool? Know this you heretic, who writes in platitudes of heretical error, as you speak as though these would be, “Bishops”, as Schneider writ large, could actually be the Successors of the Holy Apostles as Shepherds of Holy Mother Church, when, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, commands as deFide, that they cannot possibly be, you non-Catholic, rhetorically understood, heretical fool. A church that is, “professional (faith based)”, so called Cyprian parlays, you bombastic, rhetorical, pseudo-intellectual, as heretical fool. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church gives us a, “professional”, tool, proclaims the non-Catholic charlatan, the bombastic fool, as Cyprian. You utterly heretical, imbecilic moron. The true Catholic Faith is a supernatural virtue, you heretic. You reduce as you profane the sacred, supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith, to an human tool, as an human concept , a paradigmatic reality as, “professional”, you illiterate demi-god. You are a perfect, professional tool for your Prince, you foolish imbecile, Lucifer, who insights your hubris, you idiot.
–
“Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, gives those paltry few who actually hold the supernatural virtue of the divine Faith, as infused by the Holy Ghost into their intellects, then at once freely chosen by them through their fiat, within the operations of their will, the Authoritative teaching and governing commands of the Vicar of Christ, to do what you only glimpse in your rhetorical, creaturely, gibberish, you pseudo-intellectual midget. “Cum Ex…”, allows the Catholic to know with apodictic certitude, as from the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, that NONE of these men hold the divine and Catholic Faith as they assent to the church of Antichrist, and therefore they could NEVER HAVE BEEN, Shepherds of the Catholic Church, and especially to be known, as they were consecrated under the pseudo-jurisdictional, pseudo-authority, of the false popes of the church of Antichrist, you miserable, pseudo-intellectual, heretical fool.
–
You had this to say: ” In those posts I described the “constitution” as establishing a Church….” You do what, so called Cyprian??? You, Cyprian, describe, “…the ‘ “constitution” ‘ as ESTABLISHING a Church…”. What church precisely was established by a, “constitution”, you imbecilic, pseudo-intellectual, non-Catholic charlatan? The church of the Antichrist, you idiot, which proffers the, “religion of man”, for which you are a perfect exponent, you non-Catholic, bombastic charlatan. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was, “established”, as conceived by the Incarnate Son of God, you miserable Gnostic fool and instituted by His Holy Ghost at Pentecost, you miserable, poor, poor, poor wretched soul, on your sure and certain path to your Prince’s Hell for all eternity, should you remain outside the Catholic Church, deFide, when you draw your final gasp, you heretic. Save your soul Cyprian. Submit your willful assent into the divine, living, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is the divine Person of Jesus the Christ now Teaching and Governing His preciously small flock, as He always has done, now absent His visible Vicar, in this scorched and barren desert of Lucifer’s world. Amen. I pray that you do. In caritas.
St. Cyprian,
Almighty God bless you. True, Schneider exposes the faithful to sacrilege and blasphemy. Telling us to discern for ourselves, False Francis’ deceitful ravings.
And what an insult to the Children of Almighty God. Telling us to go around like swine, biting into everything thrown at us, tasting to tell what is rancid or edible.
Jesus honored us many times, such as calling His own,”the light of the world.”
@the ironically named “In Caritas” FIFY: Apparently you are confused by a few simple concepts I mentioned. I will assist you.
–
The Church, ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, has a “constitution” of a sort. The constitution establishes a Church that is “episcopal”, meaning that the authority inheres in bishops. c. Matt. 18 : 18; Acts 20 : 28. It is “professional” in the sense that membership in the Church is demonstrated by PROFESSING THE FAITH WHOLE AND INVIOLATE. “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum. [Caps and authority added for the concepts that may have confused you]
–
Hope that helps.
–
P.S.: Since there is nothing “unorthodox” in anything I stated, you effectively engaged in calumny in criticizing me. Although I jokingly referred to your boorish and overbearing prolixity in the past as being a “serious fault”of yours (it is), you are multiplying your serious faults at this point by adding calumny to them. It is surprising that someone such as yourself who apparently has more than a passing familiarity with the teachings of the Church has, for example, never familiarized himself with the Ninth Commandment.
Protestants are not disobedient to those they recognize in authority.
You poor, poor, poor heretic Cyprian,
– The Catholic criticism of the heretic Cyprian stands as it remains the reality as it is. Amen. This breakdown of your heresy will be tedious, you imbecilic moron.
You had this to say:
–
“Ultimately in a situation like this, if we follow Bishop Schneider’s advice, we are exposing ourselves to potential diabolical deceit as we sift the “teachings” of a usurping non-Catholic who is acting as an agent of the prince of this world. When viewed from that perspective, the “pastoral advice and counseling” given by Schneider couldn’t be worse! Sift the teachings of a usurper who isn’t even Catholic! Expose our faith to corruption! Who gives this sort of advice but a co-conspirator or a fool!”
–
So Cyprian, the heretic, proclaims the layman, Schneider, to be, “Bishop Schneider”, as if he could be firstly Catholic as in holding the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith freely in his will while assenting to false popes of the false church of Antichrist, as, “you will KNOW them by their fruits”; then have been tonsured a cleric ( a Jurisdictional power and not a power of Order) such that he would have been proper ontological matter to receive the Sacrament of Order, then actually have been the receiver of the true Sacrament of Order, then lastly consecrated Bishop by three truly Catholic Bishops given true Papal Authority (by false popes, which is an ontological absurdity) to consecrate Schneider, all in accordance with the Authority of Trent, you non-Catholic, pseudo-intellectual charlatan. You then have the utterly fantastic audacity to write this about following Mr. Schneider, ” if we follow Bishop Schneider’s advice, we are exposing ourselves to potential diabolical deceit…”. “….we are exposing ourselves to POTENTIAL diabolical deceit…”, posits the non-Catholic charlatan who himself is deceived into believing that he actually holds the divine and Catholic Faith, as he actually writes there is a, “potential”, for falling victim to, “diabolical deceit”, by following a layman’s advice as so called, “Bishop Schneider”, who is an adherent and utter exponent of the church established by the False Prophet for Antichrist, masquerading as a Bishop of the Catholic Church, when a true Catholic and not a non-Catholic charlatan MUST know deFide, that Schneider is a Wolf dressed in Sheep’s Clothing, no different in truth from his false pope Jorge Bergoglio, or Ratzinger, or Wotijyla, et al., as vicars of Antichrist. Amen.
–
And this is your written defense of your Catholicity:
–
“P.S.: Since there is nothing “unorthodox” in anything I stated, you effectively engaged in calumny in criticizing me. ”
–
You utterly non-Catholic, pseudo-intellectual, imbecilic fool, deny yourself, your hubris and your false beliefs, take up your cross, and follow Jesus the Christ to Calvary and then the Resurrection, and not the church of Antichrist, you poor, poor, poor, heretical fool. I do pray that you do Cyprian. In caritas.
Amen and amen.
Protestants do not recognize anyone above themselves as an authority.
Scripture is their only authority, subject to personal interpretation.
SSPX “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” Feel they are above authority and can pick and choose what to believe.
Just as Louie described above: ” Bishop Schneider may just as well instruct the faithful to become protestant! After all, isn’t this precisely what the protestants do; namely, sift through the various teachings offered by the pope, only to decide for themselves which ones are correct and which ones are not?”
Isn’t that just what Archbishop Lefebvre did? Isn’t that what the SSPX continues to do?
That was my point.
Many have been demanding what you say in the last paragraph for decades. I remember in my own immediate experience, since I was a young child in the seventies, Catholics condemning, in the local public arena, repeated attacks on Faith and morals by those apparent bishops, etc. This phenomenon has been repeated in most countries throughout the world. Most of the apparent bishops have had nothing but contempt for the true Faith and the true Faithful all my life. They collide with the rich and powerful against God, the Holy Faith and the true Holy Church. Not many of them in prisons or suffering severe persecution though we are living in a time when the anti-God forces rule the world and have institutionalised persecution of all those who stand for the truth, natural or supernatural, and oppose or refuse to comply with the unspeakable evil being imposed on all (especially the children) in all aspects of life. Lord, have mercy! Forgive our weakness and sinfulness, not suffering as much as we ought to for love of Thee our Creator and Redeemer. Give us strength and perseverance.
@The ironically-named “In Caritas”: When I address you in the future, I am considering adding “calumniator” to your screen name.
–
I already have a basis to do so, because you did not contest the orthodoxy of my statements above when I clarified them for your benefit with a few minor additions and citations to authority. It is noted that you did not retract your accusations that were based on this portion of my writing, so I am still suffering from your calumniation.
–
Since in all things Catholic I desire to conform myself to the mind of the Church, I ask that you specify with precision exactly what heresies I professed. If you fail to do so, I will conclude that you are of bad faith and apparently have no desire to actually help others see the errors they are making. You will then be addressed as the “ironically-named calumniator In Caritas”.
–
See, just because you have decided to call yourself “In Caritas” doesn’t mean you are actually charitable. You remind me of another ironically-named commenter on this blog who called himself “Catholic Thinker”. “Catholic Thinker” turned out to be a neo-Gallican heretic who denied dogmas proclaimed in Pastor Aeternas. So you are in ignoble company at the moment – you are as “charitable” as the ironically-named “Catholic Thinker” was “catholic” – not at all.
And again Cyprian,
Do you seriously not comprehend that which was already clarified for you? Read again that which was already written about you as you identify Mr. Schneider as, “Bishop Schneider”. Are you really that intellectively blind? Seriously? In your identifying Schneider as being a Catholic, a Catholic priest, a Catholic Bishop, you deny the Catholic Faith, as you patently deny as writ large, the teaching and governing Authority of, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”. And so again your question about precisely what your heresy is?
–
And again, there is NOTHING orthodox, Roman Catholic about this Gnostic statement of yours: ” The constitution establishes a Church that is “episcopal”, meaning that the authority inheres in bishops.” No where in Catholic Magisterial Teaching does one find such bizarre language which profanes that which is sacred about the nascent genesis of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as this which you write. The Church was conceived ex nihilo by Jesus the Christ, you heretical fool. It was not established by a, “constitution of sorts”, or of any other kind you heretic. It was conceived by the infinite power of the Incarnate Son of God, upon Blessed Peter as the rock, as the foundation of the Holy Church. Christ established His Shepherds, as they were not, “established by some constitution of sorts”, you pseudo-intellectual fool. It is the infinite power of the Incarnate Son of God which makes the Church Episcopal, hierarchical thus, not some, “constitution of sorts”. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is evil”, as commanded by the Son of God. Amen. Get over your self effeminized Cyprian. This is the Church Militant on earth and you are an heretic. Submit to the Church conceived by the Incarnate Son of God and remove yourself from the church of Antichrist, established by preternatural power. You’ll find your, “constitution”, there, not in the Catholic Church. As you falsely accuse me of calumny, you calumniate me, you heretic. Demonstrate the Catholic proof for my objective heretical claims against you as being false. As Jesus the Christ commands: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.” I rest. In caritas.
@The ironically named calumniator In Caritas: My guess is you are partisan of the SSPX. If my suspicion is true – after all, in the past, the only participants that were as dogged in their attacks on the commenters in this blog as you are did turn out to be partisans of the SSPX – my only question is do they PAY you to do what you do, or do you do it for free? This will be my last reply to you in this blog entry. Good luck to you.
The poor, poor heretic Cyprian,
Lefebvre was simply another wolf in Sheep’s clothing, who assented to the false popes of the church of Antichrist, at the pinnacle of deception, the pious blasphemy of “SSPX”, if there could be such a monster, you sophomoric fool. You are utterly darkened to your heresy, as it rests right before your heretically blinded eyes, as a deer in the headlights, as you fully reject, “Cum Ex…”, while you objectively receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”, you poor, poor, miscreant, pseudo-intellectual fool, on your sure as certain path to Hell with your Prince. You poor, poor, miserable wretch, the pseudo-intellectual Cyprian, hurls the ad hominem as that is all he has, as any enemy of Truth. Demonstrate your proof against me, as has been done for you, so called Cyprian. You choose to run, in lieu of submitting to the witness of Truth, you effeminized fool. May Almighty God have mercy on your darkened soul. I pray that He does. In caritas.
@The ironically-named calumniator “In Caritas”: I have to go back on my promise not to reply to you in this blog entry just to correct ONE ERROR I MADE.
–
In accusing you of bearing false witness against me I only made reference to the commandment number which I misidentified as the Ninth Commandment. According to the Catholic numbering system this appears as the Eighth Commandment.
–
I could hardly let that mistake stand when I’m accusing you of doing the very same thing! It is interesting that you apparently did not pick up on this error, so in this instance I have to assume you understood what I meant (I think, although one can never be sure with you). Good Luck!
Excellent point. I bet you are correct. He would have to have believed to have departed from the faith.
Paul, yes, and we know that scripture repeats for emphasis on a point.
I believe God gave all the discernment to know true from false, and one does not have to be a theologian, far from it, He revealed these things to the simple. He does not change, so what is revealed is truth and we can rely on it. Even my limited knowledge of Scripture tells me that what the men in Rome and the church are promoting is not Catholicism, not even Christian, now, overtly pagan.
Good point, Arthur McGowan.
Another thing which Bergoglio’s ostensible papacy demonstrates in gross detail- by the fact that virtually no bishops oppose him to his face- is that the institutional Roman Catholic Church, once widely regarded to be “indefectible” and headed by an “infallible” papacy, seems to have indeed defected from Tradition.
OR, what seems to be a “defectible” institutional Roman Catholic Church headed by a “fallible” papacy IS NOT the Roman Catholic Church, BUT is in fact an imposter and false sect.
Protestantism is the natural conclusion of Gallicanism. Which eventually leads to apostasy.
Tom A.- What you say then begs the question: Where indeed is the “true” indefectible Roman Catholic Church with its infallible papacy?
Eh…I’d argue much more broadly than that, Tom A.: Protestantism is actually an inevitable outcome of Augustinianism. I should add here that I believe Augustine’s overwhelming influence on Western Christianity has been largely negative.
Apropos- in Leszek Kolakowski’s book “God Owes Us Nothing”, he stresses that Calvin was really nothing more than the perfect Augustinian. In other words he took Augustine’s thought to its logical, and I dare say inevitable, conclusions.
Good question. Can’t answer it. However, that fact does not make the apostate NO sect the Roman Catholic Church by default.
The word “Protestant” comes from the word “protest” because all of these sects protest against the Holy, Roman Catholic Church. Their title is honest. The N.O. “church” is also Protestant for the same reason. However, they are not as honest.
Agreed with this:
“The Church can be viewed as having a constitution of sorts. In those posts I described the “constitution” as establishing a Church that is both episcopal and professional (faith based). I think another aspect of the unwritten constitution of the Church is the laity have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to demand that only those who profess the faith whole and inviolate be appointed as Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, and to refuse obedience to any prelate who has demonstrated that he publicly and objectively does not profess the faith whole and inviolate“
The first days:
True Apostles, Peter and Paul faithfully established and nourished our Church in Rome.
The last days:
False Apostles, Benedict and Francis destroy and deceive our Church in Rome.
And:
Jesus our Salvation is with us, even until the end of the age.
“Jesus our Salvation is with us, even until the end of the age.“
Indeed.
As long as we abide in Him, just as He said.
And that means even if the institutions and monuments of faith built up over time are utterly wiped away. That time might very well come to pass.
And the hideous Tom A spews his non-Catholic gibberish yet again,
Of course you cannot, “answer”, the question of where the Roman Catholic Church is you hideous, pseudo-intellectual, non-Catholic, miscreant fool Tom A, as you do not hold the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith, deFide, nor does the blasphemous heretic Nobis….. who queries you. You utterly defy the Apostolic Teaching and Authority of Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, as you objectively cannot hold the Catholic Faith as you do this, deFide. Amen. Anyone who holds the divine and Catholic Faith, that supernatural virtue infused into the intellect and will of the paltry few miserable creatures who hear the Good Shepherd’s Voice and follow Him, now and since Jesus the Christ conceived His Church, do with apodictic certitude know where the Church is, as to save their very souls, you sophomoric, blasphemous, heretical fool. You objectively state as tacitly, that you are on your sure and certain path to Hell with your Prince Tom A, as you objectively state that you do not know where Christ’s Church is, you imbecilic, heretical fool. That, “fact”, that you cannot, “answer it”, is the same fact that objectively affirms the reality as it is for you, that you Tom A simply are NOT CATHOLIC. Amen. As this thing itself speaks as, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”. Your fruits Tom A are blasphemously evil as Jesus the Christ commanded would be known, by those precious few who are among His flock. Amen. Save your putrid soul Tom A. Submit to the living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium or spend your eternity in Hell with your Prince, Lucifer. Amen. I pray that you do. In caritas.
Oh’ you poor, poor, poor, hideous soul Cyprian,
You have not proven a word of your accusation of me, you hideous, heretical, sophomoric fool. Prove your accusation, as you remain in the ad hominem and of course. Your claim of calumny is what you are guilty of, you miserable, pseudo-intellectual, imbecilic fool. Prove your claim, as has been proven for you. You’ve addressed nothing of the claim against you, heretic. You are an utterly implacable fool on your journey to Hell. Save your miserably hideous soul. I pray that you do. In caritas.
The Church cannot be deceived nor destroyed, and it is no longer found in Rome, except perhaps in the hearts and souls of a scant few Romans who actually obey Her.
How do we “abide” in Him in our day? Instead of wasting precious time spouting useless opinions in this here quagmire of utter confusion, beg God’s mercy on your soul and for the Truth of these present circumstances, as time grows increasingly short as we speak. Enough already. Everyone needs to set aside ego and pride, stop attacking certain “personalities”, and instead start humbly considering the message, which is simply that which Christ instructs us to do through the Holy, Living, and Perpetual Magisterium. We cannot figure this out on our own or through human reason alone, and there is no need because the answers have mercifully been left in plain sight in our most wretched day and age. Time is almost up and of course there will be no second chances. Very soon, you likely won’t be able to attend any of your wretched “masses” or “sacraments” anyway, oddly enough. Fall on your face and beg God for mercy and for Truth before He summons you.
NESCIVI
VERITAS DOMINI MANET IN AETERNUM
@The ironically-named calumniator “In caritas”: You have shown you true colors. Although you have been pretending to be (larping as) a sedevacantist, you went back to the “proof text” that all SSPX partisans like John Salza, Robert Siscoe, and Paul Folbrecht rely on.
–
Your method of operation is to ask a sedevacantist where the visible Church is, and when he says that due to the great confusion in the current time, he can’t say where exactly, accuse him of heresy, since it is Catholic teaching that Our Lord established a VISIBLE CHURCH. Tom A. isn’t denying that the Church is visible in principle, he is just saying that he can’t identify where it is due to the current factual situation.
–
In case there is any doubt of the accuracy of my accusation against you, you wrote this “In Caritas”:
–
“You [Tom A.] objectively state as tacitly, that you are on your sure and certain path to Hell with your Prince Tom A, as you objectively state that you do not know where Christ’s Church is, you imbecilic, heretical fool. That, ”fact’, that you cannot, ‘answer it’, is the same fact that objectively affirms the reality as it is for you, that you Tom A simply are NOT CATHOLIC.”
–
I would like to bring to your attention what Pope Pius XII had to say about these matters in Mystici Corporis Christi:
–
“For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it VISIBLY, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its VISIBLE foundation stone. THAT CHRIST AND HIS VICAR CONSTITUTE ONE ONLY HEAD is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
–
41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the VISIBLE head, broken the VISIBLE bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, that THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HEAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT”. [Capitalization added for emphasis].
–
In this particular instance, Pope Pius XII is speaking about schismatics who sin against the bonds of unity, and lead the faithful astray, by advertising THEIR SCHISMATIC ENTITY AS THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST. The schismatic entity OBSCURES THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST FROM THOSE SEEKING IT BY ITS MERE EXISTENCE. It is a stumbling block.
–
It is noted that many heretics and apostates have also sinned against the bonds of unity of the Church in a manner similar to schismatics FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH BY ”FOUNDING” FALSE CHURCHES THAT LEAD THE SEEKING FAITHFUL AWAY FROM THE TRUE CHURCH OF OUR LORD. Pope Pius XII teaches that those who sin in this manner OBSCURE THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER [The Church] from the seeking faithful. With the Great Schism of 1054 occurring nearly a thousand years ago, the obscuring of Our Lord’s Church from the seeking faithful is hardly a new phenomenon.
–
How are we to understand this passage from Mystici Corporis Christi as applied to the current situation and Tom A.’s problem of not being able to identify where the Church is?
–
According to your own LARPING on this blog, you have assumed an identity apparently pretending to believe that “Pope Francis” is an apostate from the faith who is usurping the office of Pope. (As a likely adherent of the SSPX it is probable that you reject this conclusion and consider “Pope Francis” a true Pope.) Nonetheless, under your assumed identity you argue that the reality of a Papal usurper has come about because the hierarchy who elevated this fraudulent usurper have themselves sinned against the bonds of unity of the Church – most particularly the bond of faith – in their own persons. The hierarchy of the once Catholic Church don’t have the faith, and according to your own rantings have blasphemously raised one of their own to the Papal Seat.
–
But Pope Leo XIII, Pope Paul IV and Pope Innocent III all state that this is an impossibility. To paraphrase Pope Leo XIII, one outside the Church cannot rule the Church.
–
What is the net effect of the actions of the faithless hierarchy? I don’t have to ponder, guess or speculate about what the result is. The faithless hierarchy have DENIED THE FAITHFUL A TRUE VICAR OF THE CHURCH. According to Pope Pius XII and Pope Boniface VIII the VISIBLE head of the Church is Our Lord’s Vicar on Earth. Without a true Pope, there is no Vicar, and no visible Head of the Church.
–
So has Pope Pius XII described what happens when those in the hierarchy who sin against the bonds of the unity of the Church by trying to elevate a faithless usurper to the Papacy? Yes, Pope Pius XII describes exactly the consequences:
=
“They have taken away the VISIBLE head, broken the VISIBLE bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, that THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HEAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT”.
–
With a faithless apostate usurping the Papal seat, it is hardly surprising that Tom A. has difficulty identifying where the True Church of Our Lord is because dare I say a papal usurper achieves the eclipse of the True Church of Our Lord.
–
Now, knowing that you are a likely partisan of the SSPX, you will both continue to pretend that you have never been exposed to this teaching of Pope Pius XII, and to ask unsuspecting sedevacantists your visibility question. I despise you.
–
Just to add one more teaching of a faithful father of the Church, St. Ignatius of Antioch said this:
–
“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop.”
–
This has often been paraphrased as where the Bishop is, there is the Church.
–
Where is the Church, when there is no Bishop of Rome?
ASB, you write: “ We cannot figure this out on our own…” and then off you go “figuring it out on your own. And please do not assert that they are not your personal interpretations, but those of the “Church.” Without a Pope, you have nothing but “personal” interpretations.
Tom A. has a point, ASB. What does that even mean: “we cannot figure this out on our own.”. Figure out what?
That being said, Tom A., I’d suggest rather “Without a Pope who upholds (Apostolic) Tradition…”.
The reason why I add that is because without that Tradition, there’s no pope in any Catholic sense of the word, no church in that sense either, and no legitimate faith (reasoned belief) in Jesus.
Put this way: faith in Jesus degenerates into “personal interpretation”, some Augustinian notion of “infused supernatural virtue”, “theologization”, “religious experience”, “signs and wonders”, etc., etc., without an ultimate foundation in a real, public historical basis: that Tradition.
…and, I might add, when this degeneration of faith occurs at large, the church in turn degenerates into a sort of gnostic sect with an oracle/sage dressed in papal attire at the helm who pronounces “magisterium” ad hoc.
Sounds familiar, no?
ASB,
After Vatican 2, numerous Altars were destroyed.
False Francis has defiled Churches and land in Rome, with his pagan rituals.
True, false popes can not destroy the faithful Church remnant, yet their destruction of wonderful things such as Altars, is significant.
The false popes have deceived numerous Catholics in with numerous subtle and blatant false teachings.
.
Jesus Is The Singular Way For Life.
And the heretic Cyprian writes heresy yet again,
Poor, poor Cyprian. You write in meaningless pseudo-intellectual, quasi-Catholic platitudes, however, meaningless platitudes nonetheless. You wrote this:
“The faithless hierarchy have DENIED THE FAITHFUL A TRUE VICAR OF THE CHURCH. According to Pope Pius XII and Pope Boniface VIII the VISIBLE head of the Church is Our Lord’s Vicar on Earth. Without a true Pope, there is no Vicar, and no visible Head of the Church.”
–
You utterly heretical imbecile uttering these words, “The faithless hierarchy….”. Your intellect is so implacably darkened that you objectively affront the divine, living, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, even in those words, you poor, poor, pseudo-intellectual, heretical fool, as you once again deny then the Authoritative teaching of, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, written by one of the true Catholic Popes, Paul IV, that you the heretic have the audacity to site in your meaningless screed.
–
Who Cyprian are, “faithless hierarchy”? Whose church are they hierarchical members of as, “faithless”, you sophomoric idiot? How can, “faithless hierarchy”, deny true Catholics anything that is authentically Catholic when they are, “faithless”, and therefore by definition they do not themselves hold the divine and Catholic Faith, to then deny the teaching of that same Faith, which they do not first hold as, “faithless”, to the laity? How can they deny someone what they do not first hold themselves, in order to then deny it to someone else, you utterly, imbecilic, juvenile, fool? You hold contradiction that rattles the cosmos, heretic.
–
You still have not addressed your previous heresy in addressing one Mr. Schneider as, “Bishop Athanasius Schneider”. Whose church is Athanasius Schneider a bishop of, you utterly heretical fool? Prove his Apostolic Succession in accordance with the Church and Her Council Trent, as has been laid out for you in the proof of your heresy, you pseudo-intellectual fool. Your objective heresy was laid out for you and you simply ignore it, as you deny it, with utterly no response in defense of yourself, as though you cannot read and comprehend.
–
You now tacitly accuse me of being a liar when I spelled out for you exactly what the so called, “SSPX”, is, you imbecilic, pseudo-intellectual miscreant. Again, for your implacably darkened intellect. Lefebvre was a “wolf in Sheep’s clothing”, as an apostate from the Faith, purely, pristinely, and simply. He assented to FALSE POPES of the church of Antichrist, you blinded, heretical, sophomoric fool. He was NEVER, EVER a true Bishop thus, in accordance with the Authoritative teaching of, “Cum Ex…”, in like kind to your, “Bishop Schneider”, you heretical, imbecilic moron. Lefebvre and Schneider are both lay members of the church of Antichrist. They were/are simply dressed in the metaphysical accidental forms of the Catholic Church, while utterly devoid the metaphysical Substantial form of the Church, established by the Incarnate Son of God, once visible in Her true hierarchy for 1958 years, that aspect now fallen to the powers of Hell, as taught infallibly in, “Satis Cognitum”, could and has happened. Amen. Just as you are a member of that same church of Antichrist, while they as you, do not even know that you are, while you objectively receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”, as the Apostle prophesied would be in this time, and as God commanded, “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.”. Amen.
–
You closed your quasi-Catholic, pseudo-intellectual screed with this question: “Where is the Church, when there is no Bishop of Rome?” The answer heretic, is that the Church is now where She has always been, since her inception, when She was conceived by the Incarnate Son of God, and instituted by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. The Church is where those precious, paltry few souls are, who live and breath and actually hold the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith, as freely within the operation of their wills. They know who they are and with apodictic certitude, as only the reception of the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith can yield, but heretics as you are perfectly blind to them. You do not know who they are as you are deceived into believing that you are one of them, but they also know with apodictic certitude that you are not one of them, as commanded by their Good Shepherd, Jesus the Christ, Who said, “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” Amen. All within the infinite Beatitude of Almighty God, the Holy Ghost, Who INFUSES this supernatural virtue into the soul of the perfectly miserable human creature who freely receives the Faith, by disposing himself to receive It, in accordance with God’s Will. Amen. This is the divine and Catholic Faith. Deny it as you do and you are an heretic, outside the Holy Church where no salvation can be found, deFide, as extra ecclesium nulla salus. Amen. Deny yourself Cyprian, you heretic, and take up your cross, suffer then, and follow Jesus the Christ, as the ONLY way to the Beatific Vision, as He commanded: “Ego sum Via, Veritas, et Vita”. I do pray that you do. In caritas.
@The ironically-named calumniator “In Caritas”: Reading comprehension is not your strong suit apparently.
–
Alternatively, you may be adopting John Salza’s underhanded tactic of attributing all Papal teachings cited in a dispute AGAINST HIS POSITION to the contending lay faithful relying on them to bolster his own argument – AS IF THE CONTENDING LAY FAITHFUL MADE UP THE PAPAL TEACHING HIMSELF. John Salza was too cute to attack a Pope directly. You apparently may be as well.
–
Anyways, you state that MY CLAIM that hierarchy who sin against a bond of unity of the Church – e.g., by elevating a false claimant to the Papal Chair – CANNOT POSSIBLY DENY ANYTHING TO THE FAITHFUL. That is not MY CLAIM “In Caritas”, it is POPE PIUS XII’s TEACHING from Mystici Corporis, reproduced here again for your benefit in the expectation that you might finally comprehend it:
–
“They have TAKEN AWAY the VISIBLE HEAD, broken the VISIBLE bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, that THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HEAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT.” [Capitalization added for emphasis].
–
It is Pope Pius XII you disagree with, not me.
The poor, poor, poor heretic Cyprian,
–
The ad hominem is all that you have, you implacably darkened soul, and this thing itself does speak, as res ipsa loquitur, you pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric, miscreant fool. You wrote this idiocy in response:
–
“In this particular instance, Pope Pius XII is speaking about schismatics who sin against the bonds of unity, and lead the faithful astray, by advertising THEIR SCHISMATIC ENTITY AS THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST. The schismatic entity OBSCURES THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST FROM THOSE SEEKING IT BY ITS MERE EXISTENCE. It is a stumbling block.”
–
“Schismatics”, are no longer Catholic you imbecilic moron. “Faithful”, who are led astray are no longer Catholic, as they have utterly and fantastically lost the Faith, in their very free will act of their having been led astray, you sophomoric imbecile; thus they did NOT persevere in the holy Faith. Amen. What do you think apostasy is, you pseudo-intellectual fool??? Apostasy is embracing this thing that you call, “THEIR SCHISMATIC ENTITY AS THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.”. This is the, “Great Apostasy”, which led the formerly Catholic faithful (as they had already lost the holy Faith in apostasy) to then embracing freely within the operations of their will, that which you call, “THEIR SCHISMATIC ENTITY AS [though it is] THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.”.
–
Once and again and again, you hurl the ad hominem at the other, when this lack of comprehension belongs to you, you pseudo-intellectual, implacably darkened heretic. You do not hold the divine and Catholic Faith, deFide, as is self-evident to the paltry few who do, as Jesus the Christ commands: “You will KNOW THEM by their FRUITS and your fruits are poison, as your intellect is darkened and you utterly misread Pope Pius XII in his teaching, and of course you do, as you are not Catholic, and this blindness of the heretic is taught deFide, in, “Satis Cognitum”, as, “Those who are outside [the Catholic Church] are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend”. Amen. Poor, poor, poor Cyprian.
–
Pope Paul IV teaches Authoritatively in 1559, that any would be, “Bishop”, or, “Cardinal”, who even, “deviates from the Faith”, and as determined by the laity, yet alone commits heresy, ipso-facto in that very act of deviation, without any other Ecclesial act needed nor any time limit imposed, proves that he NEVER EVER HELD the ecclesial Office of Bishop, nor the, “elevation”, of Cardinal, you utterly heretical, imbecilic fool. Thus they have no capacity whatsoever to, “lead the faithful”, as they never held a teaching Office to lead nor govern, you heretical, pseudo-intellectual midget. He does this in his singular Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, deFide. Amen.
–
You also wrote this twisted gibberish which is utterly placing words into the mouth of the Vicar of Christ, you blasphemous heretic:
–
“Anyways, you state that MY CLAIM that hierarchy who sin against a bond of unity of the Church – e.g., by elevating a false claimant to the Papal Chair – CANNOT POSSIBLY DENY ANYTHING TO THE FAITHFUL. That is not MY CLAIM “In Caritas”, it is POPE PIUS XII’s TEACHING from Mystici Corporis,…”
–
NOWHERE, not in one single place, does Pope Pius XII teach what you have specifically claimed that he has, as you have written, you sophomoric, infantile, pseudo-intellectual heathen, as to quote you: “e.g., by elevating a false claimant to the Papal Chair.” Pope Pius XII does not teach that, because he could not teach that, “schismatic Cardinals”, could, “elevate a false claimant to the Papal Chair.” PERIOD AND END, as you are utterly infantile in your understanding of Pope Pius XII’s teaching, as you are infantile in your understanding of all Catholic teaching, as you are an heretic in apostasy, you implacably darkened intellectual fool. “You will KNOW THEM by their FRUITS.”, and your fruits are POISON, you darkened heretical fool. Amen.
–
Neither Pope Pius XII, nor any Vicar of Christ, could teach your blasphemous distortions of their teachings, which are objectively evidenced in your perverse COMPREHENSION of Catholic teaching, you heretic. You simply, “cannot comprehend”, the divine Magisterium, as Pope Leo XIII Authoritatively taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, as you do not hold the Faith, as you prove this objectively in your heretical COMPREHENSION, of what is taught infallibly. Amen. Your contradictions rock the cosmos, you intellectual midget.
–
You write this non-Catholic gibberish in utter contradiction, as to quote you again:
–
“Anyways, you state that MY CLAIM that hierarchy who sin against a bond of unity of the Church – e.g., by elevating a false claimant to the Papal Chair”
–
“Hierarchy”, “who sin against a bond of unity of the Church”, and are thus ipso-facto schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church and no longer Catholic, yet alone Catholic hierarchy, cannot as deFide, as you heretically proclaim they can, elevate, “a false claimant to the Papal Chair”. A non-Catholic cannot elevate another non-Catholic, as, “Pope of the Catholic Church”, as into the See of Peter, when they themselves are outside the See, as they cannot give what they do not themselves hold freely in their wills to give, as to elevate, “a false claimant to the Papal Chair”, you utterly imbecilic moron. These, “schismatic”, as you refer to them, the would be, “Cardinals”, actually as literally were in their own church, not the Catholic Church, as it was/is only dressed in the metaphysical accidental forms of the Catholic Church, as their own church proffers the, “religion of man”, the false church of Antichrist, which they assisted in the creation of, in October, 1958, and then elevated false popes within their false church, you sophomoric fool. Your reasoning is so errantly distorted that it would be utterly laughable, if it was not objective evidence that you are on your sure as certain path to Hell with you Prince, Lucifer, heretic.
You are now left with this question heretic Cyprian. If you do not answer this question, the argument that you are an heretic stands, as res ipsa loquitur. This question is thus:
–
How do non-Catholic, as schismatic Cardinals, who have sinned against a bond of Unity in the Church, and as thus they have proven to never have held their would be Ecclesial Office as Bishop, nor their elevation as, “Cardinal”, and as definitively taught in, “Cum Ex…”, and in their schism have actually lost the Catholic Faith, as schism itself demonstrates as ipso-facto, HOW DO THESE SAME MEN, elevate, “a FALSE CLAIMANT to the Papal Chair”, as to the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle and Pope??? How does this happen???
–
May Almighty God have mercy on your implacably darkened soul. I do pray that He does. In caritas.
@The ironically-named calumniator “In Caritas”. You are now at the point where you quote my writing and then lie about what it states. My writing here is replete with Catholic authority that a non-Catholic cannot hold office in the Church. What do you accuse me of? Claiming that a non-Catholic can hold office in the Church.
–
It is clear that the someone – possibly the SSPX – is trying to get Mr. V to shut down his com box again by sending you here to pollute the com box with your un-charitable, un-Catholic ranting.
–
Nonetheless, thanks for the opportunity bring the teachings of Pope Pius XII about how sins against the bonds of unity serve to obscure the visible Church to a wider audience. The visibility shtick is one of the favored gambits of the spokesmen of the SSPX – Where is the visible Church? You can’t say? You’re an “imbecilic, sophomoric, miscreant” heretic (to quote your words, not mine). They really love springing that false explanation of the situation on the faithful.
–
One more thing – it appears that even the hierarchy of the SSPX has forgotten that the Church teaches that it is not permitted to do wrong even if the intent is to bring about the good. The spokesmen of the SSPX typically engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and even bold-faced mischaracterizations of Catholic teaching to carry the day. As the corporate entity that sponsors these spokesmen, the SSPX is responsible for their actions.
–
I do not make the accusation that their spokesmen mischaracterize Catholic teaching lightly. John Salza once claimed that Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis that it was THE ECCLESIASTICAL CRIME OF HERESY that severed one from the Church. Anyone curious about this claim need only have read the relevant portion of Mystici Corporis to find out what a howler on the part of Salza this was. The relevant portion stated that heretics, apostates and schismatics who COMMIT THE PUBLIC SIN of heresy, apostasy or schism SEVER THEMSELVES from the Church because that is the nature of the sins they commit. Pope Pius XII distinguished these sins on this basis from other sins. “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
And the heretic Cyprian spews his non-Catholic gibberish yet again, with the ad hominem as his only weapon.
–
Again, heretic, the simple question of you, as copied from above:
–
“How do non-Catholic, as schismatic Cardinals, who have sinned against a bond of Unity in the Church, and as thus they have proven to never have held their would be Ecclesial Office as Bishop, nor their elevation as, “Cardinal”, and as definitively taught in, “Cum Ex…”, and in their schism have actually lost the Catholic Faith, as schism itself demonstrates as ipso-facto, HOW DO THESE SAME MEN, elevate, “a FALSE CLAIMANT to the Papal Chair”, as to the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle and Pope??? How does this happen???
You do only what an heretic can do and that is to objectively evidence your lack of ability to comprehend what the Holy Roman Pontiff teaches infallibly. NOWHERE does Pius XII or any other Vicar of Christ teach what you claim he teaches as this, you pseudo-intellectual sophomoric fool:
–
“Anyways, you state that MY CLAIM that hierarchy who sin against a bond of unity of the Church – e.g., by elevating a false claimant to the Papal Chair – CANNOT POSSIBLY DENY ANYTHING TO THE FAITHFUL. That is not MY CLAIM “In Caritas”, it is POPE PIUS XII’s TEACHING from Mystici Corporis,…”
–
Nowhere does Pope Pius XII teach that schismatic hierarchy, as if such a reality could exist in the Church established by the Incarnate Son of God, as they are schismatic not Catholic hierarchy by definition, and as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect, can, “ELEVATE A FALSE CLAIMANT to the Papal Chair.”
Prove your fallacious opinion you sophomoric fool. The floor is yours. Prove where a Vicar of Christ teaches that a non-Catholic can elevate a false claimant to the Chair of Saint Peter, the Holy See, you imbecilic, infantile, pseudo-intellectual fool. You place contradiction within the divine, living, and perpetual Magisterium you heretical fool. Pope Pius XII cannot contradict Pope Paul IV in his Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, as you the heretic Cyprian posit the claim that he has, and as you do this, you objectively demonstrate that you do not hold the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith with apodictic certitude, as The Christ commands, “You will KNOW THEM by their fruit.”. All who care to know await your response, heretic.
@The ironically-named calumniator “In Caritas”: Your argumentation techniques definitely remind me of commenters from the SSPX that I have contended with in years past. In this last post you have now resorted to mischaracterizing my arguments. You said this:
–
“How do non-Catholic, as schismatic Cardinals, who have sinned against a bond of Unity in the Church, and as thus they have proven to never have held their would be Ecclesial Office as Bishop, nor their elevation as, “Cardinal”, and as definitively taught in, “Cum Ex…”, and in their schism have actually lost the Catholic Faith, as schism itself demonstrates as ipso-facto, HOW DO THESE SAME MEN, elevate, “a FALSE CLAIMANT to the Papal Chair”, as to the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle and Pope??? How does this happen???”
–
You ask this question as if I believe they do, in actuality, elevate a false claimant to the Papal Chair. It should be clear my use of “false claimant” makes this formulation essentially an oxymoron – a false claimant – i.e., a public heretic or apostate – never becomes a true claimant simply because of the elevation. In any case, I don’t believe a false claimant actually occupies the Chair of Peter, and my many citations to authority establish that ONLY ONE OF BAD FAITH would interpret my argument to suggest that I did. For instance, I wrote this:
–
“But Pope Leo XIII, Pope Paul IV and Pope Innocent III all state that this is an impossibility. To paraphrase Pope Leo XIII, one outside the Church cannot rule the Church.”
–
Did you miss that? In any case, I reproduce the relevant portion of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio here:
–
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that . . . the Roman Pontiff, prior to . . . his elevation as
. . . Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
–
the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless . . .”
–
Here Pope Paul IV decrees that the elevation of a false claimant becomes null and void WHEN AFTER THE ELEVATION information arises that establishes the false papal claimant had publicly deviated from the faith from a time prior to his elevation. Of course, if prior to his elevation the false claimant was already known to be an heretic or apostate his elevation would be invalid ab initio.
–
How does this better understanding of the situation illuminate the interaction of the teachings of Popes Paul IV and Pius XII? The faithless hierarchy who elevated a non-Catholic to the Chair of Peter essentially achieve nothing because their act LEAVES THE CHAIR EMPTY. Their act is either null and void ab initiio, or once it becomes known that the false Papal claimant had publicly deviated from the faith from a time prior to his elevation. In either case the chair is empty.
–
Also, by not populating the Chair, the hierarchy have denied the Church a True Pope, who would have ruled as the Visible Head of the Church. What would be the effect of this denial on the part of the hierarchy? We can guess that it would be disunity, because a True Pope is the Principle of Unity in the Church. Further, the situation is analogous to the situation of schismatics who sin against the bonds of unity by denying allegiance to a True Pope. Pope Pius XII’s apt description of the effect of that situation is equally applicable here:
–
“They have taken away the VISIBLE head, broken the VISIBLE bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, that THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HEAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT”. [Capitals added for emphasis].
–
There is no disagreement between these teachings of Popes Paul IV and Pius XII.
–
Thus your “visibility of the Church” “proof text” that you apparently like to spring on sedevacantists is erroneous. It is erroneous because Pope Pius XII teaches that although the Church is visible, it is subject to obscuration caused by sins against the bonds of unity.
And back to square one Cyprian,
–
You ended with this: “There is no disagreement between these teachings of Popes Paul IV and Pius XII.”
–
The Catholic response is, of course there is no disagreement among the true Vicars of Christ, as that has been deemed impossible by the Incarnate Son of God and His Church. To even suggest the possibility that there could be contradiction within the Magisterium is to profess heresy, ipso-facto, and of course. The point is, that you Cyprian, evidence manifest contradiction in your non-Catholic response to what you opine has occurred. Your reasoning is errant, as of course the Popes simply cannot be in contradiction in their Papal Teaching and Authority, deFide. You evidence manifest contradiction as heresy when you claim, as you have done now time and again in this back and forth, the following: “The faithless hierarchy have DENIED THE FAITHFUL A TRUE VICAR OF THE CHURCH.”
You simply remain utterly blind to your heresy. This perfectly miserable wretch now writing you will attempt yet again to walk you through. You posit the claim that, “faithless hierarchy”, have accomplished something negative WITHIN the Catholic Church while at one and the same time the, “faithless hierarchy”, are outside the Catholic Church–they are NOT members of Her–, as you claim that they have, “DENIED THE FAITHFUL A TRUE VICAR OF THE CHURCH”. How can, “faithless hierarchy”, who by the very term, “faithless”, lack the Catholic Faith and thus are OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, deFide, deprive the faithful of a True Vicar of Christ who is the Chief Shepherd of, as within the Catholic Church, when they would have NO POWER WHATSOEVER to ever as never ever provide Catholics ANYTHING, yet alone a Vicar of Christ, because those, “faithless hierarchy”, are by definition, OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, deFide?
–
You patently misinterpret what Pope Pius XII was teaching in, “Mystici Corporus Christi”, as you quote him thus:
–
‘“They have taken away the VISIBLE head, broken the VISIBLE bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, that THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HEAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT”.”
–
You must remember the context of what he is teaching and to better understand this context, is now included all of paragraph 41 of the Encyclical, “Mystici Corporus Christi as here:
“41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”
“They have taken away the visible head”, has not a thing to do with electing a false vicar of Christ, rather it is the result of, “schism”, as it is the very nature of schism to remove one’s self from the Vicar of Christ. He is not speaking specifically of Bishops or Cardinals here, rather he is speaking of any Catholic who chooses to separate himself from the teaching and governing Authority of the Vicar of Christ. Amen. In that act of schism, the individual who accomplishes this separation from the Catholic Church, has chosen to not adhere loyally to Christ’s Vicar on earth, while at once falsely believing that they at one and the same time, accept Christ as the Head of His Church. Amen. In this act of separation from the Church as in schism, they have no possibility of achieving the Beatific Vision as Pope Pius XII teaches, as without the visible head they have left the Catholic Church as obscured, a shell of Herself, maimed and blinded, not seeing or knowing the path to eternal salvation. Amen.
–
And again, “faithless hierarchy”, are by the very immanent understanding of the word, “faithless”, men who DO NOT HOLD the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith. As per, “Cum Ex….”, “faithless hierarchy”, are NOT HIERARCHY AT ALL of the Catholic Church, nor were they ever, regardless of the amount of time that they APPEARED to be. Amen. As they were NEVER IN TRUTH Catholic hierarchy to begin with, as deFide per, “Cum Ex…”, they held NO POWER within the Catholic Church to which they DID NOT BELONG, to, “deny the faithful a true Vicar of the Church”, as you posit, because they NEVER HAD THE POWER to provide the Church a true Vicar in the first place, which they then chose to deny the provision of. They have NO POWER TO WITHOLD, that which they NEVER HAD POWER TO, in the first place, PROVIDE. And how could they, when they are as you deem, “faithless hierarchy”???
–
This then cycles all the way back to the beginning of this discourse when you were asked to prove the Apostolicity of so called, “Bishop Schneider”. It is heresy to believe that he is a Bishop of the Church conceived by the Incarnate Son of God, because to suggest that he is, when he assents to false popes, thus he not only deviates from the Faith, as per, “Cum Ex…”, but he is in utter apostasy from the true Faith. Amen. I now rest. In caritas.
@The ironically-named calumniator “In Caritas”: If you aren’t an SSPX partisan sent here to disrupt this blog, you do a darn good imitation. First, you pepper your replies with numerous personal insults. Second, you mischaracterize the arguments of other posters. Third, you mischaracterize the teachings of Popes and Church fathers, either by attributing them to a poster and then attacking them, or as you have done in your last post, straight out misrepresenting the teaching.
–
In your last comment, after I demonstrated that the teachings of Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius XII that are the subject of this discussion don’t contradict each other as I have interpreted them, you cutely said of course they don’t contradict each other. The only problem is, you accused me of interpreting them in a manner so that they DID CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. Did you forget that? Here is a reminder:
–
“Pope Pius XII cannot contradict Pope Paul IV in his Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, as you the heretic Cyprian posit the claim that he has, and as you do this”
–
You have a puerile way of admitting you were wrong.
–
Next, you argue that the passage from Mystici Corporis under discussion beginning “They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity . . .” only concerns schism, in contrast to my position that it is equally applicable to other sins against the bonds of unity like heresy or apostasy.
–
Your distinction is unavailing in the present situation for a different reason. You have literally repeatedly ranted and raved that the hierarchy of the entity advertising itself as the Catholic Church could not possibly be the true hierarchy because none of them have the faith. For example, you stated thus:
–
“Who Cyprian are, ‘faithless hierarchy’? Whose church are they hierarchical members of as, ‘faithless’, you sophomoric idiot? How can, ‘faithless hierarchy’, deny true Catholics anything that is authentically Catholic when they are, ‘faithless’, and therefore by definition they do not themselves hold the divine and Catholic Faith, to then deny the teaching of that same Faith, which they do not first hold as, ‘faithless’, to the laity? How can they deny someone what they do not first hold themselves, in order to then deny it to someone else, you utterly, imbecilic, juvenile, fool?”
–
Your description of an hierarchy that has apostatized ESTABLISHES THEM AS SCHISMATICS AS WELL. The false hierarchy are in schism from the True Church because they have rejected the authority of the True Church to command their belief. One need only consider the attacks of the “hierarchy” on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage, and related moral issues that were the subject of Amoris Laetitia, and associated documents (e.g., motu proprios issued governing annulment proceedings). The establishment of what is effectively a counterfeit of the True Church with new teachings, new sacraments, etc. by the once Catholic hierarchy is at heart a schismatic act.
–
This is not a novel interpretation of heresy and schism on my part. It is well-known that heresy and schism are often found together.
–
Now, when the present situation of the Church is considered in detail, it is not surprising that the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis applies to it. Nonetheless, while arguing that the entity operating out of Rome is false you deny that their actions have obscured the True Church in any way. You are not at liberty to deny that though, since Pope Pius XII teaches that such schismatic acts on the part of the false hierarchy WILL OBSCURE THE MYSTICAL BODY OF OUR LORD: “They have taken away the VISIBLE head, broken the VISIBLE bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, that THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING THE HEAVEN OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN NEITHER SEE IT NOR FIND IT”.
–
So your proof text – which assumes the perpetual and perfect visibility of the Church at all times – fails because none other than a Pope HAS TAUGHT THAT THE CHURCH CAN BE OBSCURED BY SCHISMATICS WHO SIN AGAINST THE BONDS OF UNITY. The false hierarchy – in their schismatic act of rejecting the authority of the True Church to command their belief – have established a false Church – that they nonetheless advertise as the “Catholic Church” – which obscures the True Church from those seeking it.
–
Finally, you plainly mischaracterize the passage from Mystici Corporis by interpreting the passage to teach that the sin against the bonds of unity committed by schismatics have no effect on others and only result in their own self-delusion:
–
“In this act of separation from the Church as in schism, THEY have no possibility of achieving the Beatific Vision as Pope Pius XII teaches, as without the visible head they have left the Catholic Church as obscured, a shell of Herself, maimed and blinded, NOT SEEING OR KNOWING THE PATH TO ETERNAL SALVATION. Amen.” (capitalization added for emphasis).
–
First, the loss of the beatific vision is a red herring since that is not what is being “obscured” – it is the mystical body of Christ that the schismatics obscure.
–
Second, in the subject teaching of Pope Pius XII, those sinning against the bonds of unity and obscuring the Mystical Body of Christ and those who suffer the resulting obscuration of the Mystical Body are distinct from one another:
–
“THEY [schismatics] have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so OBSCURED AND MAIMED, THAT THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING the heaven of eternal salvation CAN NEITHER SEE IT [The Mystical Body of Christ] NOR FIND IT [The Mystical Body of Christ].” (Capitalization added for emphasis).
–
It is clear that “they” (the schismatics) and “those” (the seekers) are distinct from one another with the “seekers” suffering from the sins of the schismatics. Instead, you misinterpret in a transparently obvious (intentional?) manner this teaching so that it is the schismatics that cannot see.
–
As I reminded you, Catholicism teaches that it is never permitted to do wrong (like misinterpreting the teaching of a Pope) to achieve a good, if that is in fact your intent. Who instructed you that it is acceptable from a Catholic perspective to act in this manner?
Poor Cyprian,
You are so twisted within the conundrum of your heretical belief that you cannot even see, and of course you cannot see that you are then, as you falsely accuse me of what it is that you do. As infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”, the heretic is as, “sterile and worthless sand”, he simply, “cannot comprehend”, the Magisterial Teaching, deFide, and as Jesus the Christ commanded: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits. Cyprian, you wrote this:
–
““The faithless hierarchy have DENIED THE FAITHFUL A TRUE VICAR OF THE CHURCH.”
–
Let’s do this tedious work, one step at a time Cyprian, as you are not answering your heresy. The question of you Cyprian: how do what you have posited to be, “faithless hierarchy”, as indeed I concur that you are correct in saying that they were, “faithless”, deny, “the faithful a true Vicar of the Church.” ? As those, “hierarchy”, are deemed to be, “faithless”, and as thus NOT to be members of the Hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church, how do they positively deny the faithful a true Vicar of Christ, when they never possessed Jurisdictional power within the Catholic Church in the first place, as they were, “faithless”? This is a most serious question of you Cyprian. I concur with you that the men who founded the church of Antichrist, which then as now possesses ONLY the metaphysical accidental forms of the Holy Catholic Church, in this Satanic masquerade posing as though it could be the Church established by the Incarnate Son of God, were, “FAITHLESS”. Please, God Willing, let us continue. In caritas.
Good Friday afternoon Cyprian,
Awaiting your response. Have you none at this point in the discourse? In caritas.
@”In Caritas”: With all due respect, you did not advance your argument in any meaningful manner, so I did not feel it necessary to reply.
–
In addition, you do not have a firm grasp regarding the concept of “heresy”, so disputing with you is tiresome. Heresy has a very definite meaning in Church teaching, and I will not knowingly hold a heretical position. However, you have accused me of holding heretical beliefs that I either do not hold, or that even if I held them, are not heretical.
–
Further, many of your accusations of heresy appear to me to result from your hyper-attention to the writing style of others. Even though from the context it appears that they hold orthodox positions, they may not have the intellectual means to write with sufficient precision to satisfy your supposed orthodoxy in every instance. If that is, in fact, the case shouldn’t your initial criticisms be that they are not writing with sufficient precision to avoid mischaracterizing church teaching, rather than to accuse them of holding a heretical position?
–
As an example, you have accused me of holding “the heretical belief that Bishop Schneider is both a validly ordained priest and a validly consecrated Bishop” solely because I referred to him as “Bishop” Schneider.
–
Exactly where has the true Church decreed that a Catholic has to hold with divine and Catholic faith that the new ordination and episcopal consecration rites of so-called Pope Paul VI are invalid? I have read those who have considered the issues and am not sure who is ultimately correct. For example, Novus Ordo Watch argues that the rite of priestly ordination is doubtful, but the rite of episcopal consecration is definitely invalid.
–
I understand that these conclusions are reached through a logical application of Catholic teaching, BUT HAS THE CHURCH DECREED DOGMATICALLY THAT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THESE CONCLUSIONS? Where? Does calling Schneider “Bishop Schneider” in such a confusing situation and in the absence of a definitive decree constitute heresy? I don’t think so, but I can be persuaded. That doesn’t mean that you are capable of doing the persuading. Your accusations are often conclusory in nature, meaning that they are devoid of the most important information – e.g,, a recitation to a specific Church decree or a clear explanation of Church doctrine – that would persuade someone.
Good Sunday night Cyprian,
–
Please recall the citation of, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, as it relates both Mr. Schneider and what you have called, “faithless hierarchy”. My writing is conclusive, as it bears witness to the divine, living, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is cited time and again and again. As it relates heresy, when matters deFide are affronted, heresy is to be found there, period and end. The question is material vs manifest or formal, while at once heresy takes the soul to Hell regardless, with the hierarchy of Hell itself only in question. You wrote this:
–
“Heresy has a very definite meaning in Church teaching, and I will not knowingly hold a heretical position. However, you have accused me of holding heretical beliefs that I either do not hold, or that even if I held them, are not heretical.”
–
“Heresy”, is simply that belief which affronts divine teaching as from the divine Magisterium, as, “heresy”, is opposed to the divine and Catholic Faith. Heresy either rejects the infallible, Authoritative teaching, or it replaces it with an heretical belief, one’s own dogma in opposition to the divine Dogma.
–
Unbeknownst to you, as that is your claim Cyprian, you are utterly rejecting the infallible, Authoritative teaching of, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, section 6, as has been quoted for you above, by referring to Mr. Schneider as, “Bishop Schneider”, and positing that what you have rightly called, “faithless hierarchy”, as wrongly then, men who have, “withheld a Vicar for the Church”. The critical point of heresy remains that men who are, “faithless”, cannot be Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and this is deFide teaching throughout the Magisterium, and in point of fact, “Cum Ex….”, “Satis Cognitum”, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, to name three. As they were, “faithless”, they held no Jurisdictional power during, “interregnum”, to elect a true Pope. Because they never held Jurisdictional power to elect a true Pope, they could not withhold a true Vicar of Christ from His Church, as they cannot withhold the Jurisdictional power which they NEVER first possessed, deFide, as per, “Cum Ex…”. It is the, “chicken/egg”.
–
The men who falsely elected Roncalli were truly, “wolves in Sheep’s clothing”, and this is deFide, as per, “Cum Ex…”, section 6. This is where the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, the final Vicar of Christ this world will ever know, comes into play as, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”. That is why the point was stressed weeks ago now, over and over and over and again about the maximum 18 day rule in, “VAS”, to begin the business of a valid Conclave to elect the next Pope after the death of Pope Pius XII. He commanded that any conclave would be as, “null and void”, if any strict methodological rule was in any way altered, abridged, or replaced, period and end. Therefore, no valid Conclave can now ever meet again as the 18 days after his death to begin a valid Conclave, expired 61 years and counting ago. Amen. Very simple, strait forward application of his rule. No man or any men have the capacity to question or alter his rules of, “VAS”, in any way and of course, as only the true Vicar of Christ has the, “keys to bind and loose”. Anyone who posits question of his intent, making absurd suggestions that he would not have, “intended to end Apostolic Succession”, as has been stated over and over, etc., places that person/persons outside the Church in schism, for that act alone, yet alone the objective evidence that they are actually apostates in fact, as Jesus the Christ commands: “You will know them by their fruits”., period and end. Amen.
–
This now written Cyprian, what is your foundation for such a claim as this which you last wrote?:
“or that even if I held them, are not heretical.”
What are you claiming, “is not heretical”?
–
As this is tedious Cyprian I’ll stop here for now, with one more quote from your last response, which hopefully, God Willing, you can glimpse now, based upon what was written to you here. You wrote this:
–
“Exactly where has the true Church decreed that a Catholic has to hold with divine and Catholic faith that the new ordination and episcopal consecration rites of so-called Pope Paul VI are invalid?”
–
The Catholic Church declared this in 1559, 15 February, by the Vicar of Christ and his full Apostolic Authority, Pope Paul IV, in “Cum Ex…”, section 6. What the true Church declares from Her living, divine, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, is that because, “so-called Pope Paul VI”, was NEVER a true Vicar of Christ, as he was NEVER a true Bishop nor Cardinal, as he could NEVER EVER HAVE BEEN, as per, “Cum Ex…”, his, “new ordination and episcopal consecration rites”, are indeed, “NEW”, but they ARE NOT RITES OF THE DIVINE AND CATHOLIC CHURCH, deFide, as he was not a Bishop, nor Cardinal, nor Pope of the Church conceived by the Incarnate Son of God. Amen.
–
The breathtakingly, unmitigated canard, dear Cyprian, is that one would even question, “validity”, of, “ordination and consecration rites”, as though they COULD POSSIBLY BE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH in the FIRST PLACE, so as EVEN TO BE CONSIDERED VALID, in any possible manner. Amen.
–
Please dear Cyprian, God Willing, we will continue this discourse. Amen. I pray you come to see Cyprian. In caritas.
In caritas,
It seems to me that this is a matter of simple logic and of course, metaphysics. The fact that it doesn’t “register” indicates sheer blindness which is frightening.
My only reply to you folks will be this:
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” – St Thomas Aquinas
On another note I will say however that I keep hearing that old Alanis Morrisette song in my head now…you know, “Isn’t it ironic, don’t ya think?”
Dear Joseph,
Yes, of course. These treasures fell into the hands of the enemy – the false church. This deception was foretold in 2Thess Ch 2. The adherents to the false popes are deceived and thereby they are also not Catholic, objectively speaking.
In caritas,
I have a few questions regarding your applications of “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.”
1) Many times, you assert that prelates who have been detected as falling into heresy are not only automatically deprived of their offices, but that they were also “never” therefore able to have been elected to those offices. How would one apply this legislation in practice (since, according to this interpretation, an election rendered null and void thus renders *all* of their jurisdictional actions null and void; would that imply priests ordained by a bishop prior to said bishop’s heresy are therefore no longer priests? In what sense could this be held as just, to penalize priests for the future heresy of their bishop?) ?
2) Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code says the following: ““An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or external forum is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to Canon 2261.3; otherwise it is valid.”” In like manner, paragraph 34 of VAS allows for excommunicated Cardinals to participate in the election of the Roman Pontiff. How are these not abrogations of the penal decrees in Cum Ex?
3) How would you apply Cum Ex to individuals who previously belonged to heretical or schismatic sects, yet after their conversion to Catholicism, thereafter became clergy of high rank, such as Henry Cardinal Manning or Bishop Nicolas Steno?
4) When papal infallibility was discussed prior, during, and after Vatican I, opponents used Cum Ex as an example of why the Pope was not infallible. In response, supporters of papal infallibility held that Cum Ex held *no* doctrinal authority. One such citation is as follows:
xxxx
“Appeal is also made to the Bull of Paul IV., ‘Cum ex apostolatus officio,’ of 15th Feb. 1559, to which our opponents are most eager to attach the character of a dogmatic ex-cathedra decision, saying that if this Bull is not an universally binding doctrinal decree (on the point of the Papal authority), no single Papal decree can claim to be such. But none of the exponents of dogmatic theology have as yet discovered this character in the Bull, which has been universally regarded as an emanation of the spiritual penal authority, not a decision of the doctrinal authority. We see the tactics of the Church’s opponents have been reversed: formerly the Jansenists and lawyers of the French parliament denied that the Bull ‘Unigenitus’ was dogmatic, though all Catholic theologians regarded it as such; now the Janus [i.e., Döllinger] party and jurists who protest against the Vatican Council assert that the Bull of Paul IV is dogmatic,though all Catholic theologians deny it to be such. In truth, neither the wording of this last-named Bull, nor its contents as a whole, nor the rules universally received among theologians, allow it to be regarded as a dogmatic decision. If there is to be a doctrinal decree binding on all, it is requisite that a [particular] doctrine to be held, or proposition to be rejected, be placed before the faithful in terms implying obligation, and be prescribed by the full authority of the Church’s teaching office. This is not the case with this Bull.
True enough in the introduction the Papal power is spoken of, and in accordance with the view of it held universally in the Middle Ages. But here, as in every other Bull, the rule already spoken of holds good, that not the introduction and the reasons alleged, but simply and only the enjoining (dispositive) portion, the decision itself, has binding force. Introductions quite similar are to be found in laws relating purely to matters of discipline, as any one may see who consults the Bullarium. As to the enjoining portion of the Bull in question, it only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which unquestionably belong to disciplinary laws alone.”
(cited from Cardinal Hergenrother, Catholic Church and the Christian State, vol. I (London: Burns and Oats, 1876), p. 42 )
xxxx
According to Cardinal Hergenrother (who was not only a canonist, but the first Cardinal-Prefect of the Vatican Archives), if Cum Ex possessed no doctrinal authority, but rather belonged only to the realm of penal authority, then it logically cannot be “deFide” (as you have repeatedly said), correct?
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Good Monday morning ASM,
As time is growing very short, temporally speaking, this answer will be as well. Most importantly, I pray you find the Faith. You are receptive in witness now. Addressing your first question:
–
“I have a few questions regarding your applications of “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.”
1) Many times, you assert that prelates who have been detected as falling into heresy are not only automatically deprived of their offices, but that they were also “never” therefore able to have been elected to those offices. How would one apply this legislation in practice (since, according to this interpretation, an election rendered null and void thus renders *all* of their jurisdictional actions null and void; would that imply priests ordained by a bishop prior to said bishop’s heresy are therefore no longer priests? In what sense could this be held as just, to penalize priests for the future heresy of their bishop?) ?”
–
Dear ASM, look to the Providence of Almighty God, as He prepared us for this time, through his Vicar, Pope Paul IV, in 1559. Amen. Faith dear ASM, the supernatural virtue which must be held to see the simple Truth which a 10 year old must. The application of, “Cum Ex…”, did not apply until it did. Amen. Rules are rules and divine Rules are the Rule and as rules go, they are written and they can be broken, by whom ever chooses to do so, and whenever they so choose. Please do not forget the divine Order of Grace, as the Angelic Doctor taught, the miserable human creature is perfectly incapable of choosing the good in the religious or moral act WITHOUT the free reception of God’s grace. The human person simply MUST dispose himself for the reception, in full accordance with God’s Will. Amen. The poor man who thought he was a priest simply NEVER WAS, just as the poor man who thought he was a Bishop, simply NEVER WAS. Please do not be led astray by any theologian, regardless his purported esteem or rank in Holy Mother Church. Hold fast to the Traditions that have been given you, as the Apostle warns in command of his prophesy, in 2 Thess 2. The one, divine, living, perpetual as UNCHANGING and UNENDING, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium IS ONE. Discount any pious (or otherwise) speculation from any singular theologian. It simply cannot hold against that which the Magisterium teaches and commands, as it is DIVINE, deFide. Amen. “Satis Cognitum”, prepares us in knowing this Truth of the Magisterium, so bountifully and beautifully. Amen.
–
To the specifics in, “Cum Ex…”, now that address your first question. Look to section 6, subsections iv, v, which state this:
–
“(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, NO AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE BEEN GRANTED, nor should it be considered to have been so granted EITHER IN THE SPIRITUAL or the TEMPORAL DOMAIN:
–
(v) EACH AND ALL of their words, deeds, ACTIONS and ENACTMENTS, howsoever made, and ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to which these MAY GIVE RISE, SHALL BE WITHOUT FORCE and shall grant NO STABILITY WHATSOEVER NOR ANY RIGHT TO ANYONE;”
–
This simply commands what it does command ASM. Adhere to Blessed Peter in his Successor Paul IV or adhere to a theologian and his speculation. Amen. Pope Paul IV then closed section 6 with subsection (vi): ” those thus promoted or elevated shall be DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honour, title, AUTHORITY, OFFICE, AND POWER.”
–
You wrote this to close your first question then:
“…would that imply priests ordained by a bishop prior to said bishop’s heresy are therefore no longer priests? In what sense could this be held as just, to penalize priests for the future heresy of their bishop?) ?”
–
Those men which you refer to as, “priests”, were NEVER PRIESTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, as per the infallible and Authoritative teaching of, “Cum Ex…”. There was no time limit codified within this teaching by Pope Paul IV and he specifically stated that in subsection ii of section 6, such that the man could appear to have been a Bishop for 30 years and then yes, anything as everything he appeared to have done in the, “spiritual or temporal”, realms, simply NEVER WAS DONE. Amen. God in His infinite Beatitude, protecting His small flock. Amen. Those men who thought they were receiving Sacrament of Order did not hold the divine and supernatural virtue of the Faith to know their Bishop simply never was, THEIR BISHOP, rather he was a wolf dressed in Sheep’s clothing, just as they ALL ARE today. Amen. Denying this, is a denial of the supernatural Order of Grace. Amen. It is infinite as it is created by the Infinite Triune Godhead and therefore its reach and its power are infinite. Amen. Their penalty for not holding the supernatural virtue of the Faith, as freely given by the Holy Ghost, is to believe that they ever were priests, dear ASM, as they DID NOT as they COULD NOT, somehow lose the Sacrament of Order, as true Order forever as indelibly, marks the ontology of the man, deFide, as per Trent. Amen.
–
Secondly, you asked this:
–
“2) Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code says the following: ““An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or external forum is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to Canon 2261.3; otherwise it is valid.”” In like manner, paragraph 34 of VAS allows for excommunicated Cardinals to participate in the election of the Roman Pontiff. How are these not abrogations of the penal decrees in Cum Ex?”
–
In VAS, if you read after where you cite and carefully, you will see where Pope Pius XII specifically states in paragraph 36 this:
–
“36. Canonically deposed Cardinals, or those who have renounced the cardinalitial dignity
with the Roman Pontiff’s consent, have no legal right at an election. On the contrary, during the
vacancy of the See, the Sacred College cannot restore or bring back to their former state
10
Cardinals stripped of this right or deposed by the Pope.29”
–
That answers your question from the Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successor Pius XII. “Cum Ex…”, provides a Papal deposition as, “automatically”, as deemed by Pope Paul IV. Amen. Also know dear ASM, that Pope Saint Pius V affirmed, “Cum Ex…”, in his Encyclical, “Inter multiplices”, December 21, 1566, precisely as it was written and as it was unchangeable, as it touched directly upon matters, deFide, as in deviation from the Holy Faith and upon heresy itself. Amen.
–
As it relates your question 3, there is no, “application of”, “Cum Ex…”, to be undertaken, as the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ and as a matter of fact, received those men into the Church and thanks be to God especially for Henry Edward Cardinal Manning and his prophetic insight into this as our time, the epoch of the, “End of Time”, Amen. His 4 sermons from Easter Season 1861, were paramount in yielding the final formulation of my understanding by the grace of Almighty God alone, as I know that as the perfectly miserable wretch that I am, and can only be this side the veil, what I deserve as immanently, an eternity in Hell. Amen.
–
Lastly now then ASM addressing your question 4:
–
“4) When papal infallibility was discussed prior, during, and after Vatican I, opponents used Cum Ex as an example of why the Pope was not infallible. In response, supporters of papal infallibility held that Cum Ex held *no* doctrinal authority. One such citation is as follows:
And this last part:
“According to Cardinal Hergenrother (who was not only a canonist, but the first Cardinal-Prefect of the Vatican Archives), if Cum Ex possessed no doctrinal authority, but rather belonged only to the realm of penal authority, then it logically cannot be “deFide” (as you have repeatedly said), correct? ”
–
The disciplinary Authority of the Vicar of Christ is a matter deFide, as per the Vatican Council, Session 4, where it Authoritatively taught that, “Both clergy and faithful, whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but ALSO IN THOSE which regard the DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH throughout the world.” Amen. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, 29 June, 1958 (his last before his death) as follows:
–
“46. “We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”[17]”
–
His final command thus: “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which NO ONE CAN DEPART without LOSS OF FAITH [aka, deFide, and as to oppose the faith is heresy, as the loss of the Faith] and SALVATION.”
–
This is the Catholic Faith dear ASM. I pray you receive the intellective lights of grace to continue your quest and see. Amen. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
IC,
Firstly, Cum Ex’s penal penalties would only apply to those who were actually authoritatively judged as heretics by proper ecclesial authorities, and not merely by a layman’s private say-so (as explained by canonists Maurcus Antobius Borghesius and Antonio Massa). As such, even if we personally believed that a clergy had committed the sin of heresy, we would not be justified in applying the penalties of Cum Ex so named, as we lack the capacity to make such a legal declaration as laymen.
Secondly, knowing historically that the primary purpose of Cum Ex was to prevent Protestants from ascending to the papal office (particularly one Cardinal Morone, whom Paul IV suspected of Protestant tendencies, even though this was never ultimately proven. In fact, after Paul IV imprisoned Morone in the hands of the Inquisition, none of the Cardinals in charge of the case could find anything to prosecute him with; he was not released until after Paul IV died and Pius IV was elected. Morone would go on to participate in the elections of Pius V and Gregory XIII, which only further enforces the fact that Cum Ex’s penalties for heretics only apply to those authoritatively judged as such, as Morone wasn’t one), the simple application of said penalties as you’ve described are enough to show it does not possess magisterial infallibility, for you must otherwise profess (as you clearly do) that a bishop who was a loyal son of the Church, if judged to be a heretic for something he did on his deathbed, was thereby not only *never* a bishop (in other words, a future action rewrites the past), but also all actions he took while being a loyal bishop are thus invalid (thereby penalizing those who had nothing to do with his heresy, which is also unjust).
It should say something that the Jansenists and Gallicans (like Dollinger) who opposed papal infallibility utilized your same line of argumentation, if only because actually applying it in its fullness would lead to unjust absurdities.
Thirdly, to quote from Bishop Joseph Fessler, secretary of Vatican I:
xxxx
“Dr. Schulte proceeds with another Bull of Pope Paul IV [Cum ex Apostolatus], issued in the year 1559, which is rightly described in the collection of Papal Bulls under the title of ‘Renewal of previous censures and punishments against heretics and schismatics, with the addition of further penalties.’ Why, the very title, which gives a true account of its contents, is of itself alone enough to show everyone who reads it, that this Papal delivery is not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an utteranceex cathedra. (…) it is beyond all question certain, that this Bull is not a definition of faith or morals, not an utteranceex cathedra. It is simply an outcome of the supreme Papal authority as legislator, and an instance of his exercising his power of punishing; it is not done in the exercise of his power as supreme teacher.”
(as cited from Fessler, The True and False Infallibility of the Popes (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, No. 9, Warren Street, 1875), pp. 88-89).
xxxx
Fourthly, Cum Ex makes *no* allowances for men who fall into heresy and later renounce their error (as was the case with Manning and Staso); it simply states that the election of one who had previously deviated from the faith, or previously embraced a heresy, is thereby null and void.
Lastly, per canon 5.2 of the 1917 code, “That which pertains to penalties, of which there is no mention made in this Code, be they spiritual or temporal, remedial or, as they call it, punitive, automatic or declared through a judgment, they are to be held as abrogated.” None of Cum Ex’s most severe penalties made it into the 1917 code as far as I’m aware, and thus it has been abrograted.
One cannot abrograte Catholic doctrine or dogma; however, one can certainly abrograte ecclesial disciplinary laws.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Excellent work ASM. However, it will not stop certain home aloners from applying their own private interpretations of Cum Ex and other papal documents. They are incapable of making certain necessary distinctions when it concerns dogmas vs. law.
Dear Tom,
Oh but it’s you that has the spin; there’s no spinning the directives of Christ. Are you home-aloning it yet? If not you will be here every shortly.
May God have mercy on you and me.
@A Simple Man: Since you seem to have relatively strong opinions on Cum Ex, I was wondering if you would share your opinion on the following questions:
–
(1) Is it possible for the Church to preserve either by inaction or by legal enactment (e.g., a law) the claim to office of a prelate whose defection from the faith from a time prior to his elevation becomes known in a public manner after his elevation, and whose continuing defection is confirmed by public actions after his elevation?
–
(2) Is it possible for the Church to enact a law that forbids the lay faithful from withdrawing their obedience from a prelate whose defection from the faith from a time prior to his elevation becomes known in a public manner after his elevation, and whose continuing defection is confirmed by public actions after his elevation?
–
(3) Can Cum Ex be considered infallible since it appears to touch, involve and confirm a dogma of the Church?
@St. Cyprian,
It’s not necessarily my opinions being strong for my sake; I’m trying to be of the same mind as the Church, in how she exists, in how she teaches, in how she enacts her disciplines, and in how those disciplines both relate to her doctrine and stand separate from them.
So, to answer your questions:
1) On whether it would be possible for the Church to preserve (whether passively through inaction or positively through active legislation) a man’s claim to a religious office when said man’s defection to the faith was manifest (i.e. publicly known) and not occult in the least: I don’t see how the Church could *positively* sanction such an action, since it would go against the long-held understanding that heretics are not members of the Church. As the theologian Van Noort writes:
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’. By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church. ”
(cited from Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242)
Now, with regards to whether the Church would allow the same to occur by inaction: this is essentially asking what would happen if legal recognition of an event which has already occurred (namely, the legal and disciplinary recognition of a man’s heresy which was already publicly known) were delayed, even if for a long time. I can point to certain examples in history with regards to clerics who were treated with much in the way of mercy regarding their public words which could reasonably be deemed heretical (in example that comes to mind for me is Archbishop Georges Darboy) without being formally condemned or excommunicated for their public actions. How long such ‘inaction’ could last (particularly with the current state of the hierarchy), I cannot say. However, this does not prohibit laity from recognizing objectively as to whether someone professes the Catholic faith or not (as John Lane exposits on quite well here: http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1820), which dovetails nicely to the next question:
2) On whether the Church could enact legislation *prohibiting* laity from obeying a prelate whose defection from the faith was publicly known and manifest: I cannot fathom how such could be possible, since it would contradict a whole host of theologians, pontifical writings, teachings of the Church Fathers, and Sacred Scripture itself. For as St. Paul states in the sixth chapter of his second epistle to the Corinthians: “[14] Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? [15] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?”
An institution that mandates obedience to one’s superiors *no matter what* – even if said superior objectively demonstrated that they were out of step with the laws, morals, and religion that this institution holds as sacrosanct – would be many things; tyrannical, certainly. But it certainly would not be Catholic, for as St. Paul himself warned the first chapter of his epistle to the Galatians: “[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” Is this not in and of itself apostolic sanction to withdraw obedience from those professing heresy?
Lastly:
3) On whether ‘Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio’ is infallible since it appears to touch, involve and confirm a dogma of the Church, it depends on what portion you speak of. With regards to where it speaks on the danger of heretics usurping positions of authority within the Church, this is only stating the obvious; however, with regards to the actual *penalties* themselves, those can (and apparently have) been abrogated.
To say that Cum Ex was abrogated, and therefore public heretics can validly retain religious offices, is nonsensical; however, to say that Cum Ex was abrogated, and therefore different canonical penalties have superseded it, is entirely reasonable.
This also gets into a portion I’m actually quite curious about; namely, if ever since Cum Ex was enacted, it was ever utilized against a prelate who had previously ordained priests. It would be fascinating to see how the Apostolic See handled the men previously ordained by a prelate judged and convicted under Cum Ex’s penalties, but I don’t know of any cases off hand.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
@St. Cyprian,
A slight correction my above post (since this combox lacks an edit option), my re-iteration of your second question should read as follows:
“2) On whether the Church could enact legislation prohibiting laity from ***withdrawing obedience to*** a prelate whose defection from the faith was publicly known and manifest:”
My apologies!
Cordially yours,
A Simple Man
Poor, poor, poor, faithless heathen, so called, A Simple Man,
–
It seemed that you were possibly and ever so slightly, beginning to glimpse the truth in your line of query and now, once and again as again and again, you demonstrate your implacable hatred of Christ Jesus and His Holy, LIVING, divine, PERPETUAL as UNCHANGING and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Amen. You have the unmitigated, jingoistic audacity to suggest that any element, as anywhere to be found in any iota of Truth in the holy, living, and divine Magisterium, could in any way or in any iota of an aspect, somehow NOT BE INFALLIBLE. You are a pathetic, moronic, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual, bombastic, miscreant fool, so riddled with contempt for Holy Mother Church and Her Spouse, Jesus the Christ, while at once dressed in your pseudo-intellectual facade of concern for her, as merely, “A Simple Man”, you hideously profound apostate. You subscribe to your own religion which binds you to your most hideous soul, you sophomoric fool, as on your most sure as certain path to Hell with your Prince, whose hubris you share, you utterly implacable fool.
–
Know this again you simpleton idiot, as from section 6 of, “Cum Ex…”, part (vi):
–
“those thus promoted or elevated SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED for ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of ALL DIGNITY, POSITION, HONOUR, TITLE, authority, office and power.”
–
This is language that a truly Catholic 10 year old, a child who actually holds the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith, as infused by the Holy Ghost into the operations of his intellect and will, would clearly know and understand to save his very soul. You Simple Man are such an arrogant, pompous, miscreant fool, developing your own gnosis, as you opine and utterly falsely as it is your mere opinion, on what the Pope is commanding infallibly, as you, “are as sterile and worthless sand”, you simply, “cannot comprehend”, as infallibly taught of the heretic by Pope Leo XIII, in, “Satis Cognitum”, you implacably non-Catholic fool. You affront the teaching which is right before your putrid soul and you cannot see it. You are on your way to Hell as Jesus the Christ commands: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.”, and your fruits are toxic, noxious poison, apostate. Amen.
–
You then completely affront the very next and last order of, “Cum Ex…”, in section 7, where the Pope Authoritatively, with his full Apostolic power commands the following:
–
“7. Finally, that ANY and ALL PERSONS who would been SUBJECT TO those THUS PROMOTED or ELEVATED IF THEY HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH, become HERETICS, incurred schism or provoked or committed ANY OF THESE, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this VERY PONTIFF previously deviated from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;……even our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated and to AVOID THEM AS WARLOCKS, HEATHENS, PUBLICANS, AND HERESIARCHS.”
–
You now stand utterly corrected in your heretical, bombastic error, apostate, A Simple Man. However, you will not see, nor will your pathetically infantile, effeminized cheerleader, Tom A, another simply pseudo-intellectual fool, but for any soul who may be properly disposed to receiving Truth, this Holy Magisterial correction stands. I rest. Save your wretched soul, you hideous fool, riddled with Luciferian hubris. I pray that you do. In caritas.
IC,
You quoted part (vi) of section 6; however that automatic loss of their powers of offices occurs “without any **further** declaration.” What particular declaration would he be referring to? As section 6 indicates, it would be the declaration that one “has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy”.
This is especially notable when you consider the case of Giovanni Cardinal Morone, whom Paul IV imprisoned in 1557 on suspicion of the Lutheran heresy. The cardinal strenuously repudiated these charges (and the cardinals in charge of his case, including the future Pius V, could not find anything to condemn him on), but he was kept in confinement until the death of Paul IV in 1559. In 1560, the next Pope, Pius IV, authorized a revision of the process against Morone, and as a result the imprisonment of the cardinal and the whole procedure against him were declared to be entirely without justification; the judgment also recorded in the most formal terms that not the least suspicion rested upon his orthodoxy.
Now my question to you is as follows: would you apply the penalties of Cum Ex against Cardinal Morone for being suspected of heresy, but not declared as a heretic?
Secondly, as Cardinal Hergenrother explains in the book I previously cited elsewhere, just because a Magisterial document issued by a Pope teaches that it is to remain in force in perpetuity (constitutio in perpetuum valitura) does not necessarily mean it cannot be abrogated by a future Pope. It depends upon the nature of the decree (doctrinal versus disciplinary). According to the ancient principle “equals do not have power over equals” (par in parem potestatem non habet), a Pope cannot bind a future Pope to merely disciplinary matters and ecclesiastical governance. A Pope cannot change Catholic doctrine, or abrogate a defined dogma, but he can alter disciplines and change canonical penalties, such as the punishment for certain crimes.
To assert that merely disciplinary laws and penal statutes belong to the “unchanging” Magisterium is to profess ignorance of both history and the Magisterium itself.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
@A Simple Man: Thanks for your reply.
–
I think it can be fairly said that Cum Ex is primarily disciplinary in focus and not doctrinal, a distinction that In Caritas apparently doesn’t grasp. I didn’t either at one time, so there is still hope for him.
–
Nonetheless, I think it can be said that it is dogmatic in the sense that it further affirms the dogma that the Church is an institution of the faithful, with all that entails concerning office, authority, obedience, etc.
–
An interesting anecdote you recounted was that the deviation from the faith of a Prelate was accepted for some time by Church authority in the apparent expectation that he would repent. But what obedience would have been owed to that prelate during his public defection? Excepting some extraordinary circumstance, I would argue none.
–
I assume you would agree with me on that conclusion based on your reply. Contemplating such a situation further served to crystallize in my mind some additional thoughts I had about the nature of authority in the Church. With regard to the defecting prelate, the focus is how his sin is unlike others in that by its own nature it severs his bond with the Church.
–
But what about a subject faithful who is aware of the prelate’s defection? As soon as that subject faithful is aware of the public defection he can withdraw his obedience, and the prelate’s authority effectively disappears, even if for a period of time his defection is tolerated. If the prelate’s authority disappears with respect to one faithful, it disappears for all faithful. Thus, I don’t see how this situation can be understood in any other way than public defection is a tacit resignation of office.
–
Does the knowledge of the prelate’s public defection impose on the faithful any affirmative obligation, e.g., that withdrawal of obedience is actually mandatory, instead of permissive? I would argue it does. Continuing to accept the authority of the defecting prelate is ultimately a rebellious act because it rejects a fundamental aspect of the divine constitution of the Church – that it is an institution of the faithful. The faithful cannot nullify the public defection of the prelate by continuing to accept his authority over them. The faithful do not have that power, and at some point I think it becomes a culpable act if they persist in what is effectively a charade.
–
Further, doesn’t false acceptance of defecting prelates serve to obscure the true Church from those seeking it? In some way can’t it be said that that portion of the prelate’s congregation who continue to act as if he had authority in the Church actually facilitate and participate in his defection?
@St. Cyprian,
If one possesses sufficient knowledge, wisdom, or insight to recognize that a particular prelate does not profess the Catholic faith, and that such a defection is publicly manifest (such that the charitable possibility of misinterpretation of what they’ve said or done is zero), then I would definitely agree that the withdrawal of obedience isn’t optional. To continue to recognize their authority would be to grant them *legitimacy*.
In like manner, to whatever decree the laity are knowledgeable of said prelate’s defection, then continuing to obey him – out of attachment to the accidental visible structures of the hierarchy, out of a genuinely Catholic desire to maintain loyalty to one’s pastor, or what have you – unwittingly offers him legitimacy, and gives sanction to his errors. In effect, they not only participate in his defection, but they thereby behave *uncharitably* towards their prelate by denying him the opportunity to repent of his errors in response to their withdrawal from him. Likewise, to those who are on the outside looking in (be they heathen or otherwise), the obedience of laymen to those who have objectively and publicly defected from the faith they claim to hold dear thereby discredits the religion itself. After all, it is possible on a purely natural level for people to recognize hypocrisy and inconsistency; to those seeking truth, such hypocrisy and inconsistency therefore becomes repugnant.
The Most Reverend Donald J. Sanborn wrote about this sort of attachment many years ago, and I would say it still presents a struggle for those who profess to be traditional Catholics: namely, reconciling the visible and invisible elements with regards to the Church’s indefectibility, and why those who attempt to cling to the visible elements (in this day and age) usually end up doing so at the cost of Catholic doctrine and dogma: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Indefect-P.pdf
To summarize: Jorge Bergoglio (among many other supposedly ‘Catholic’ clergy, but his example is the most prominent) does not seem to care whether people adulate him or scorn him; just so long as they continue to call him “Pope Francis”. For in calling him that, even his critics implicitly grant him legitimacy, therefore allowing him to continue misleading souls.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
The poor, poor, pseudo-Catholic gigolos, the intellectively infantile simple man and cyprian, posing as intellectuals, while pseudo-intellectuals in truth, and also at once apostates from the One True Faith, as to be known with apodictic certitude, as Jesus the Christ commands: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.”, and their fruits are noxious poison. Amen.
–
As is your signature simple man, you dance around the truth and spew your now ever more bombastic, pseudo-Catholic gibberish, as you remain a sophist, as you are your own pope, you purulent, diabolically deceived, miscreant fool. Who in Lucifer’s Hell do you think that you are, other than his perfectly miserable slave, you sophomoric moron? You think this is a game to be won in the arena, however even if it was, you are not even present in that arena, you pseudo-intellectual, imbecilic moron. You, a poor, poor, poor apostate simple man, as is your now to be known confrere, Cyprian, deem that the Pope didn’t mean what he meant, as being CANNOT BOTH BE AND NOT BE, at the same time and under the same respect, as you spew utter contradiction, time and time and time and yet again. You subjugate the binding nature of the, “Keys to Bind and Loose”, to a meaningless level, as though you will not descend into Hell for all eternity, simply, simple man and cyprian, for doing this alone, when the singular Vatican Council infallibly as Authoritatively taught that the submission to the Governing and Disciplinary Authority of Blessed Peter in his Successors, REQUIRES THE SAME ASSENT OF FAITH by any and all, as it does for the submission to his Teaching on the Faith and Morality. Amen. This again affirmed by Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, warning you simple man and cyprian of the pain of Hell, as you affront the divine, living, and perpetual Magisterium, in Her Disciplinary Authority. Amen. You are jingoistic as bombastic adherents to your Prince Lucifer’s own, “religion of man”, as you deem to change what the Popes plainly taught, that which a truly simple (you lying fools), 10 year old would know and assent to, if he held the supernatural virtue of the divine and Catholic Faith, you most hideous wretches.
–
“Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, is deFide, as is every iota of every iota of the divine, living, perpetual as UNCHANGING and UNENDING, Ordinary and Universal, as One, Magisterium, you utterly implacable non-Catholic apostates, on your sure as certain roads to Hell, as you are KNOWN BY YOUR noxiously poison FRUITS. Amen. The Vicar of Christ was the only as Singular man in the cosmos who held the, “keys to bind and loose”, you sophomoric, jingoistic adherents and exponents of the, “religion of man”. So you simple man and cyprian tacitly posit that you have the power to change what Pope Paul IV Authoritatively and infallibly taught in 1559, you heretical apostates, while at once NO OTHER POPE changed what he taught, as it touches implicitly the Holy Faith, as it teaches and disciplines regarding, “deviation from the Faith”, heresy, and schism, you imbecilic, intellectively infantile, imbeciles. In perfect opposition to what you claim, you lying fools, Pope Saint Pius V affirmed the teaching of Paul IV in his Encyclical, “Inter multiplices”, December 21, 1566, and affirmed there its perpetual nature. Amen. “Perpetual”, you jingoistic idiotic fools, simply means, “UNCHANGING and UNENDING”, you implacably darkened intellectual midgets, as slaves of your Prince, Lucifer. Amen.
–
You literally stake the overt and tacit claims that the Popes can err and that, “perpetual”, does not mean what it means, as, “UNCHANGING AND UNENDING”, you pseudo-intellectual as intellectively infantile, stupid fools. You tacitly claim, A Simple Fool, that, “unchanging”, means that something can, “change”, you utterly ignorant, imbecilic moron. Your hubris is indeed a reflection of that of your Prince, as you objectively hate Jesus the Christ, as you affront His Divine Magisterium, you faithless moron, on your way to Hell. Your writing is such that you actually believe these men who were/are wolves in Sheep’s clothing, actually held the Ecclesial Office as, “Bishops”, when in Truth, they ONLY EVER APPEARED TO HOLD THE ECCLESIAL OFFICE, you stupid, infantile, intellective midgets, as you again affront the law of non-contradiction, as they CANNOT BOTH BE BISHOPS AND NOT BE BISHOPS, at one and the same time, you simply idiotic morons. Just as the faux Sacrament of Order which the men who ONLY APPEARED to be ORDAINED by them in Truth received, were NEVER TRULY PRIESTS and then somehow then as in accordance with your pseudo-Catholic gibberish, lost their indelible, ontological mark of Holy Order which is perpetual, you imbecilic, freakish gigolo’s as exponents of Lucifer’s religion of man. This is Authoritatively as infallibly taught in, “Cum Ex…”, section 6, part (v), as here again, as you affront it time and again:
–
“(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions, and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone.” Period and end, you utterly infantile, pseudo-intellectual, fools in apostasy. Amen. And you A Simple Fool, have the audacity to twist the meaning of section 6, part (vi) which commands:
–
“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, and without need for ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office, and power.”
–
You then, A Simple Fool, as the intellectively blinded, pseudo-intellectual fool that you are, use the case of one, “Cardinal Morone”, as your pseudo-intellectual proof that, “Cum Ex…”, is not Authoritative as infallible, as you affront, “Satis Cognitum”, in Pope Leo XIII’s infallible teaching on the perfectly infallible and perpetual nature of what he deems as the LIVING, DIVINE, AND PERPETUAL, Magisterium, you stupid, ignorant fool. As if you or any speculative theologian could know precisely, nor could it matter one iota whether you did, what the Vicar of Christ as Pius IV new in his action toward Cardinal Morone, as if it matters what you or any individual theologian ultimately opine in speculation. What matters as deFide, is that Popes Paul IV and Pius IV, were the only two men, as Vicars of Christ, in the cosmos who could first indict, then vindicate Morone. Because the judgment of Pope Paul IV was other than the judgment of Pius IV, has no bearing on the Authoritative and infallible validity of, “Cum Ex…”, as each of them and they alone, as true Vicars of Christ, had the power to Govern and Discipline, not you poor, poor, intellectively infantile A Simple Fool and poor, poor, anti-Saint Cyprian. “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven and what you LOOSE on earth IS LOOSED in Heaven.” What is it that escapes you in this clear distinction, that which a 10 year old who was actually truly Catholic would know, and must know to save his soul, you stupidly ignorant imbeciles? That which one Pope binds, another can loose, and while that is said, Pope Pius IV simply DID NOT LOOSE, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, nor would he dare nor could he, as it was deemed to be, “PERPETUAL”, and affirmed as such in, “Inter multiplices”, by the same Pope which you cite, Pius V, as not finding error with Morone, and yet a Pope is not infallible in his reading of another’s character, you stupid, miscreant, imbecilic, pseudo-intellectual fools, A Simple Fool and anti-Saint Cyprian. Amen.
–
Pope Pius IV did not abrogate, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, nor did any succeeding true Vicar of Christ, you stupidly, stupid, most ignorant fools, so implacably stupid that you simply cannot glimpse the degrees of stupidity which you each hold. Amen. “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.” Amen.
–
For all eyes to now see, demonstrate from the living, divine, perpetual Magisterium, where any succeeding Pope after Paul IV, abrogated, “Cum Ex…” by name, you utterly sophistic fools. “Cum Ex…”, now stands unto the Second Coming, as deemed by Pope Paul IV, you non-Catholic fools, simple masquerading as Catholic, as does your false church, with your poor, poor, poor false bishop Sanborn, as in Truth simply another wolf dressed in the clothing of Sheep in the pious deception of Lucifer, you stupidly stupid, miscreant fools. Amen. Save you blackened and putrid souls you fools, as you both objectively hold, “the operation of error to believe lying”, as do all but all who now live and breathe since October, 1958. I do pray that you do. In caritas.
IC,
If nothing else, you’ve at least utilized a new word out of your collection of insults (“gigolos”? really?).
Neither Cyprian nor I have stated that “Cum Ex” was *not* authoritative, nor that in where it touches on Catholic doctrine that it was erroneous. However, it does not follow that future Popes are thereby incapable of altering or loosing the canonical penalties described within (insofar as they are tied to purely disciplinary matters). As I previously stated, if you want to assert that Popes are incapable of changing the disciplinary penalties of past Popes, then you stand in defiance of the Church’s own history.
This particular pattern of yours, wherein you take the most uncharitable possible interpretation of my words (and those of others), even if that interpretation doesn’t neccessarily follow from what I said, and *then* arguing as if your interpretation is what I actually think and believe, makes talking with you an exercise in futility.
I will leave you with only this question: can you point out a single example in the history of the Church (prior to the death of Pius XII) whereby a bishop was not only declared a heretic, but where all those he may have ordained prior to that declaration were thereby held not to be priests (and therefore would have had to be conditionally re-ordained to continue in their ministry)?
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Oh’ you poorest of the poor gigolo’s of the church of Antichrist, as you dance with your Prince, Lucifer,
–
You are so perfectly perfidious as demonstrated by your insidious, non-Catholic treachery, only masquerading as Catholic, with a Chantilly lace thin veneer of truth, you perfect apostate, A Simple Fool. You again just wrote this heresy in response to the true witness of the DIVINE, living, PERPETUAL, as UNCHANGING and UNENDING, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, you miscreant, pseudo-intellectual, bombastic fool, riddled with your Prince’s hubris. Never do you abjure your hideous error, rather you respond with simply more and more error, digging your eternity simply deeper and deeper into the hierarchical abyss of Hell, you simple fool. Now copied from you:
–
“Neither Cyprian nor I have stated that “Cum Ex” was *not* authoritative, nor that in where it touches on Catholic doctrine that it was erroneous. However, it does not follow that future Popes are thereby incapable of altering or loosing the canonical penalties described within (insofar as they are tied to purely disciplinary matters). As I previously stated, if you want to assert that Popes are incapable of changing the disciplinary penalties of past Popes, then you stand in defiance of the Church’s own history.”
–
It is really becoming a very sorrowful joke, if there could be such a being, to read you, a simple, perfidious fool. And yet again, who in Lucifer’s Hell do you, A Simple Fool, think that you are, other than your Prince’s miserable slave? A Simple Fool now deems which part of the, “divine, living, and perpetual”, Magisterium is, “divine”, while at once Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, deems the entire Holy Magisterium, as every iota of every aspect, simply AS BEING DIVINE, you heretical monster. What a devilish fool you are, you poor, poor, poor soul on your sure as certain path to Hell, as you objectively continue to evidence your hatred of Jesus the Christ as you continually affront His Commands, as the Magisterium is Jesus the Christ Teaching and Governing His Church NOW without His Vicar on earth, as it ALWAYS WAS before, with His Vicar on earth, you utterly as perfectly perfidious, miserable, miscreant fool. That is why it was infallibly defined as DIVINE, not simply the, “doctrine”, but the entire Magisterium, as every iota of every iota, as Pope Leo XIII made no distinctions and as thus he also infallibly taught there that when NO DISTINCTIONS are made, NO EXCEPTIONS can be had, you most hideous wretch. Amen. No man is divine but for the God-Man, you intellectively infantile, sophomoric, non-Catholic fool. Amen.
–
You then finish by lying about what was just written before you, you perfectly blinded, perfidious fool. You are so utterly, stupidly stupid in your intellective blindness, as Almighty God sends you, A Simple Fool, “the operation of error to believe lying”, that you glaze over the meaning of what you just read, before you utterly mischaracterize what a 10 year old would properly understand in distinction, you sophomoric, intellectively, infantile simple fool. As is signature of the ad hominem flame thrower, you accuse the other of precisely what you, A Simple Fool, are objectively guilty of, you miserable, heretical fool. You wrote this gibberish:
–
“However, it does not follow that future Popes are thereby incapable of altering or loosing the canonical penalties described within (insofar as they are tied to purely disciplinary matters). As I previously stated, if you want to assert that Popes are incapable of changing the disciplinary penalties of past Popes, then you stand in defiance of the Church’s own history.”
–
That was your response, A Simple Fool, to what was written for you by me, as just prior your response pasted above, as copied now again:
–
What matters as deFide, is that Popes Paul IV and Pius IV, were the only two men, as Vicars of Christ, in the cosmos who could first indict, then vindicate Morone. Because the judgment of Pope Paul IV was other than the judgment of Pius IV, has no bearing on the Authoritative and infallible validity of, “Cum Ex…”, as each of them and they alone, as true Vicars of Christ, had the power to Govern and Discipline, not you poor, poor, intellectively infantile A Simple Fool and poor, poor, anti-Saint Cyprian. “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven and what you LOOSE on earth IS LOOSED in Heaven.” What is it that escapes you in this clear distinction, that which a 10 year old who was actually truly Catholic would know, and must know to save his soul, you stupidly ignorant imbeciles? That which one Pope binds, another can loose, and while that is said, Pope Pius IV simply DID NOT LOOSE, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, nor would he dare nor could he, as it was deemed to be, “PERPETUAL”, and affirmed as such in, “Inter multiplices”, by the same Pope which you cite, Pius V, as not finding error with Morone, and yet a Pope is not infallible in his reading of another’s character, you stupid, miscreant, imbecilic, pseudo-intellectual fools, A Simple Fool and anti-Saint Cyprian. Amen.
–
Now to further isolate the direct commentary, for you to read once and again, a simple fool, which utterly as objectively causes your last bit of gibberish to implode under its very own WEIGHT OF ERROR, as now here:
–
” That which one Pope binds, another can loose, and while that is said, Pope Pius IV simply DID NOT LOOSE, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, nor would he dare nor could he, as it was deemed to be, “PERPETUAL”, and affirmed as such in, “Inter multiplices”, by the same Pope which you cite, Pius V,…
–
And finally now, as correcting your intellectively infantile, perfidious, sophomoric, heretical gibberish is very tedious, as point by point, you had this to say:
–
“This particular pattern of yours, wherein you take the most uncharitable possible interpretation of my words (and those of others), even if that interpretation doesn’t neccessarily follow from what I said, and *then* arguing as if your interpretation is what I actually think and believe, makes talking with you an exercise in futility.”
–
This is the sine qua non of proof that yours’ is simple ad hominem attack, using gibberish as your intellective foundation as fodder, and then hurling accusations at the other, when YOU, A SIMPLE FOOL, are actually as objectively, for all eyes to see which are given the grace to see, the one GUILTY of mischaracterizing what the other has written, you implacably darkened soul. Abjure your perfidious, incessant, insidious, and pernicious error or go to HELL with your Prince, you miserable wretch. I do pray that you do. In caritas.
Well, I’ve certainly never been accused of being an “ad hominem flame thrower” before (which is honestly very ironic, coming from you).
To others who may be reading our exchange, I think what’s been written has been sufficient to demonstrate our respective cases. If you think the 1917 Code of Canon Law didn’t derogate certain penalties and punishments as described within Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, well that’s your problem, not mine.
In like manner, if you can’t comprehend the injustice (not to mention the sheer impracticality) of an ecclesiastical penalty that deems a bishop who is condemned as a heretic was therefore *never* a bishop (therefore rendering all *past* jurisdictional actions null and void, including all ordinations, which impacts priests who may have had *nothing* to do with that bishop’s heresy; your prior rejoinder from March 16 that those ordained simply lacked the supernatural virtue of Faith to see that their consecrator was not a bishop is ludicrous, for you therefore argue that because they lacked the foresight or gift of prophecy to know their bishop would be condemned as a heretic *in the future*, they thus lacked the supernatural virtue of Faith. This is simply *silly*, and an absurd leap of logic, as knowledge of particular future events – unless *specifically* prophesied in Divine Revelation, such as the coming of Antichrist – does not belong to the order of Faith), well that’s also your problem, not mine (oh, and we again go back to your reading comprehension problems, as you previously asserted that I believe one can be both a bishop and not a bishop at the same time, and that I therefore violate the law of non-contradiction. I never said that either).
I could go on, but I won’t, because not only is it a chore to respond to someone who keeps consistently straw-manning me, but also because I have a pretty good hunch as to how you’ll respond.
Have a blessed day, In caritas.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Oh’ it is indeed tedious dealing with a gigolo as you are, dancing with Lucifer, A Simple Fool, of the church of Antichrist, which is all dressed in the metaphysical accidental forms, which the Church conceived by the Incarnate Son of God once possessed, while at once and forevermore it is devoid the metaphysical Substantial form, as Jesus the Christ. Amen.
–
You now wrote this non-Catholic gibberish in your response, as if your utterly affective as foolish notion of what true Justice is, somehow applies to and binds the Vicar of Christ, in the scholastic sense, which actually means that which is, TRULY DUE THE OTHER, in accordance with Almighty God’s Will, you implacable imbecile, and not the will of A Simple Fool. Amen.
–
You now have the unmitigated, bombastic, as fantastic audacity to tacitly posit the claim that Pope Paul IV was unjust in his writing of, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, with his full Apostolic power and Authority to bind and loose, and to do this with the divine protection of the Holy Ghost, as the Magisterium is divine, and as we are bound by the same assent of faith to his Authority as to that of his infallible teaching of Faith and Morality, and as thus he cannot bind us to injustice, as God cannot bind us to injustice, and as the Pope has the divine charism of, “negative infallibility”, in his Governance and Discipline. Amen. To suggest otherwise is utter and pure heresy, as it is to claim that God can bind us to injustice, as we are infallibly bound to the Pope’s Authority in Governance and Discipline, as per the Vatican Council and affirmed in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, and at the very pain of Hell in dissent, you hideously hideous, miserable, miscreant, infantile, pseudo-intellectual apostate. You accuse me of what you do. You deserve these terms as you earn them, time and time and time and time and now again, you utterly stupid fool. You SIMPLY CANNOT PROVE one iota of what you write in your utter fiat, you ignorant, pompous, heretical apostate.
–
For the benefit of your now OBJECTIVELY KNOWN, implacably darkened intellect, as you receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”, as the Apostle prophesied would be in this time, and as Jesus the Christ commands: “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits.”, a focused part and yet again as again and again, from the infallible and full Apostolic Power and Authority of the Vicar of Christ, Pope Paul IV, section 6, opening paragraph and parts i and ii:
–
“In addition, that IF EVER AT ANY TIME it shall appear that ANY BISHOP, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any CARDINAL of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
–
(i) the promotion or elevation, EVEN IF IT SHALL HAVE BEEN UNCONTESTED and by the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF all the CARDINALS, SHALL BE NULL, VOID, AND WORTHLESS;
–
(ii) shall NOT BE POSSIBLE for it to acquire VALIDITY (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the ACCEPTANCE of the OFFICE, OF CONSECRATION of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such BY ALL, NOR THROUGH THE LAPSE OF ANY PERIOD OF TIME [as any time, any time, any time, etc., you pathetically and implacably, intellectively infantile, bombastic gigolo of Lucifer] in the forgoing situation;”
–
AND THE HERETICAL APOSTATE, A Simple Fool, wrote this:
–
“In like manner, if you can’t comprehend the injustice (not to mention the sheer impracticality) of an ecclesiastical penalty that deems a bishop who is condemned as a heretic was therefore *never* a bishop (therefore rendering all *past* jurisdictional actions null and void, including all ordinations, which impacts priests who may have had *nothing* to do with that bishop’s heresy;”
–
Once again A Simple Fool, demonstrate for all eyes to see where in the divine Magisterium, Pope Paul IV’s PERPETUAL Apostolic Constitution was abrogated. Specifics gigolo.
–
And lastly, DO YOU AFFIRM with the ASSENT OF FAITH, Pope Paul IV’s Authoritative, binding, and perpetual as UNCHANGING AND UNENDING teaching and command in, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, or do you reject it, as all your writing is thus far objective evidence that you reject it in some aspects of it. The Magisterium is ONE you perfectly and implacably stupid gigolo of Lucifer’s church of Antichrist. You now have the opportunity to abjure your perfidious error and to remain an apostate as YOU ARE KNOWN BY YOUR FRUITS, you fool. I pray you abjure. In caritas.
And…called it.
IC: that you seem to think I believe a condemned heretic (as authoritatively judged by the Church, unless his sentence were loosed by the Roman Pontiff) can thereafter be elevated to a bishopric or any higher position (even if unanimously consented to by all the Cardinals) when I have said **no such thing** is why I say you have issues with reading comprehension.
If nothing else, I can certainly affirm that.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
And the heretical apostate again spews his non-Catholic gibberish. You poorest of poor fools, A Simple Fool,
–
You again spew heresy, as this you yet again wrote:
–
“IC: that you seem to think I believe a condemned heretic (as authoritatively judged by the Church, unless his sentence were loosed by the Roman Pontiff) can thereafter be elevated to a bishopric or any higher position…”
–
The Authoritative Judgment of the Church is the Authoritative Command of Pope Paul IV in, “Cum Ex…”, you perfectly perfidious apostate to the One True Faith. This, “deviation”, from the Holy Faith or heresy, was to be recognized by the laity, as he gave them the Authority to abjure any allegiance and obedience at all to any men, which they had before the occurrence that they recognized as deviant from, or heretical to the Faith. Pope Paul IV Authoritatively declared, thereby binding the cosmos to the following, with the very assent of faith and at THE PAIN OF HELL IN DISSENT, yet again copied and pasted from, “Cum Ex”, section 6, you hideous, foolish, intellectively deprived heathen, on your sure as certain path to Hell with your Prince, as you hate Jesus the Christ, you imbecilic, intellectively infantile, effeminized man. Now as again from Pope Paul IV:
–
“6. in addition, that if EVER AT ANY TIME it shall APPEAR that ANY BISHOP….”
–
(i) THE PROMOTION OR ELEVATION, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, SHALL BE NULL, VOID, AND WORTHLESS;
–
(ii) IT SHALL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO ACQUIRE VALIDITY (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFICE, OF CONSECRATION, OF SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY,………….NOR THROUGH THE LAPSE OF ANY PERIOD OF TIME in the foregoing situation;
–
(iii) it shall NOT BE HELD AS PARTIALLY LEGITIMATE IN ANY WAY;
–
(iv) to ANY SO PROMOTED TO BE BISHOPS, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, NO AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOR SHALL IT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN SO GRANTED EITHER IN THE SPIRITUAL OR TEMPORAL DOMAIN;
–
(v) EACH AND ALL of their words, deeds, ACTIONS AND ENACTMENTS, howsoever made, and ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO WHICH THESE MAY GIVE RISE [as in faux Sacrament of Order], SHALL BE WITHOUT FORCE and shall grant NO STABILITY WHATSOEVER NOR ANY RIGHT TO ANYONE;
–
(vi) THOSE THUS PROMOTED OR ELEVATED SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, POSITION, honour, title, AUTHORITY, OFFICE, and POWER.”
–
This exercise in objectively evidencing time and time and time and time and now yet again your apostasy, has been very tedious, you simple, simple, simple, simple, intellectively infantile, bombastic, sophomoric fool, riddled with contempt for Christ and His living, divine, perpetual, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as you are locked within the very solitary isolation of your personal Hell beginning here on earth, as evidenced by your hubris, an utter reflection of your Prince in you. You have the unmitigated audacity to claim the reception of the supernatural virtue of the Holy Catholic Faith, as given by the Blessed Paraclete in accordance with His Holy Will, and yet you abjure the Vicar of Christ as Pope Paul IV, as he was protected by the Blessed Paraclete from any iota of any iota of error in his Authority and Teaching, you hideous, jingoistic adherent and poster exponent of Lucifer’s own, “religion of man”. Because the keys to bind and loose allow one man in the cosmos to do so, the Vicar of Christ, does NOT IN ANY WAY suggest that ANY IOTA OF HIS GOVERNING commands can be in error, you hideous wretch.
–
As is always the case, the most hideous stench of your heretical beliefs, as you are in apostasy, and you perfectly reflect that in your poisonous fruit, ultimately as utterly show their hideous face plainly, as you now have with your final statement, you non-Catholic masquerader, as you wrote this, as the ultimate response to the question of Faith posed you:
–
“If nothing else, I can certainly affirm that.”
–
You said it all there, A Simple Fool, in your overt apostasy, as you clearly imply as tacitly, that you reject the Governance of Pope IV, as his full Apostolic power and Authority, as you believe he erred. You miserable slave of Lucifer, you gigolo, dancing with the Devil. I pray you save your putrid soul. In caritas.