His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, God love him, seems to genuinely want to do the right thing, but he has a serious problem; he is a cardinal conflicted.
Claiming citizenship in two incompatible worlds, he appears trapped and torn between two irreconcilable forces:
On the one hand, he is deeply devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, the immutable doctrines of the Faith as taught throughout the centuries, and the Blessed Virgin Mother.
On the other, he is blindly willing to assume the inherent goodness of the Novus Ordo Missae, the wisdom of the Second Vatican Council, and the veracity of Rome’s official position on Our Lady of Fatima.
In other words, he is the poster prelate of disoriented neo-conservative Catholicism; a walking contradiction.
As such, when it comes to Amoris Laetitia, one can hardly be surprised to notice that, in spite of his good intentions, Cardinal Burke is beginning to resemble a drunken cowboy engaged in a gun fight with some very bad men in a crowded saloon; often dangerously way off target, but also occasionally (even if perhaps inadvertently) squarely hitting the mark as well.
In his latest interview (as of this writing, anyway), this one with the Italian publication, La Verità, (complete translation courtesy of Andrew Guernsey available HERE), Cardinal Burke made some interesting claims; the first to jump out being found in the headline:
There is no ultimatum to the Pope, but we must go forward: the faith is in danger
Just as one may have expected, this is about half-right.
First, let’s be clear: The dubia most certainly is an “ultimatum;” a proposal that essentially demands, “Do this, or else suffer the consequences.”
Cardinal Burke has made it clear on a number of occasions that a failure on the part of Francis to directly answer the dubia will result in “an act of formal correction.”
His deliberate and repeated use of the word “formal” strikes me as one of those “on target” moments; even if he doesn’t intend it as such.
I mean, isn’t it just common sense that “formal” corrections are reserved for “formal” errors (more properly in the present case, heresies) as opposed to those that are simply “material” in nature?
In any event, Cardinal Burke has never shied away from this threat.
In fact, in the La Verità interview, he cited Aquinas while once again saying, “In this case [of a pope falling into error, with the clear implication being that this is what he believes Francis has done], a correction must be made.”
As for the faith being in danger, well, duh!
This statement was offered in direct opposition to claims recently made by Cardinal Gerhard Muller in an interview that was broadcast on Italian television. (Is there anyone in Rome able to resist the seductive allure of the media?)
Specifically, Muller said that a correction of Francis isn’t warranted because “there is no danger to the faith.”
Since then, the indefatigable Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register reported:
One informed official recently told the Register that a CDF committee that reviewed a draft of Amoris Laetitia raised “similar” dubia to those of the four cardinals. Those dubia formed part of the CDF’s 20 pages of corrections, first reported by Jean-Marie Genois in Le Figaro on April 7, the eve of the publication of the document.
Another senior official went further, revealing to the Register last week that Cardinal Müller had told him personally that the CDF “had submitted many, many corrections, and not one of the corrections was accepted”. He added that what the cardinal states in the interview “is exactly the contradictory of everything which he has said to me on the matter until now” and he had the “impression of someone who was not speaking for himself but repeating what someone else had told him to say.”
With all of this in mind, it seems reasonable to suspect that Cardinal Muller’s about face is the result having been threatened to “toe the company line, or else” (speaking of ultimatums).
Given that the wolves somehow managed to convince Benedict XVI, not only to flee, but to offer public support for the Argentinian madman who daily goes about attacking the very doctrines and liturgical traditions he once championed, one can hardly be shocked.
With respect to the future, Cardinal Burke said:
I do not want to make any speculation about possible next steps to be taken for the initiative that we have undertaken. If we do it, we will do it after having confronted [Francis, privately].
OK, fine, but in his previous interview with Michael Matt, Cardinal Burke did more than merely speculate about what may come next.
He said that “the truths that seem to be called into question by AL would simply be placed alongside what the Church has always taught and practiced and annunciated in the official teaching of the Church. And in this way these errors would be corrected.”
Yawn…
QUESTION: When someone is Hell bent on promoting errors that call into question what the Church has always taught and practiced, what is that called?
HINT: It begins with “H” and ends in “Y.”
Readers may recall that Cardinal Gerhard “no-danger-to-the-faith” Muller, following the Extraordinary Synod of 2014, gave us the answer when he warned:
“Each division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of the faith would be a reflection of a subtle Christological heresy.”
The La Verità interviewer invited Burke to connect those very same dots, but he refused to go there, saying:
…it is not possible to receive the sacraments for a person who is living more uxorio [as husband and wife] with someone who is not his or her spouse. To claim instead that this is possible constitutes a formal error that goes against what Jesus himself taught and has always been the teaching of the Church.
The interviewer pressed, “Therefore, to claim this is a heresy?”
No, it seems to me that it can qualify as an error, but we are dealing with a complex situation. Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt, on the part of the baptized, of a truth that one must believe by divine and Catholic faith.
Wait just a minute…
Burke had just admitted that the situation is anything but “complex;” we are dealing with “a formal error that goes against what Jesus himself taught and has always been the teaching of the Church.”
If this doesn’t constitute a “truth that one must believe by divine and Catholic faith,” nothing does.
Then again, this is the punchline to the entire conciliar revolution, which is precisely why Burke (man of the Council that he is) can’t quite seem to pull that trigger.
This, however, isn’t the end of the story.
Remember, while Burke has one foot firmly planted in the Second Vatican Council, at least a few of his toes are still wading in tradition. As such, he felt compelled to add:
One heresy could be that of one who sustains that there do not exist intrinsically evil acts; to affirm this would be to say something contrary to the doctrine of the Church and would clearly be a heresy. The affirmation about access to the sacraments of which we were speaking a while ago, on the other hand, refers to a practice that contradicts two doctrines: that of indissolubility of matrimony and that of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. At first glance we can say that certainly it’s an error.
So, it’s “clearly heresy” to teach that which is “contrary to the doctrine of the Church,” but a lesser error to “contradict two doctrines” at once?
Talk about disorientation!
In many respects, the reality of the present situation, for those with eyes to see, is as plain as day:
Francis has willfully taken positions that stand in direct opposition to both Sacred Scripture and the dogmatic teaching of the Church; obstinately pushing forward propositions that were plainly condemned by the Council of Trent almost verbatim.
[NOTE: See HERE for three very specific examples of Francis’ heresy.]
While Cardinal Burke arguably left the door cracked for possibly declaring Francis guilty of heresy, at this point, there is little reason to believe that he (or anyone else in Rome) has the wherewithal to confront him head-on.
I hope I am wrong, but either way, there is nothing stopping me or any other faithful Catholic from pointing directly at Francis and repeating after the Fathers of Trent:
“Let him be anathema!”
Wel said. Burke is living a contradiction. As well as many Catholics who claim a non-Catholic can be the head of the Catholic Church. But that is the world most trads choose.
“On the one hand, he is deeply devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, the immutable doctrines of the Faith as taught throughout the centuries, and the Blessed Virgin Mother.
On the other, he is blindly willing to assume the inherent goodness of the Novus Ordo Missae, the wisdom of the Second Vatican Council, and the veracity of Rome’s official position on Our Lady of Fatima.”
This is the thing I simply do not get. Why do I see a problem, and he doesn’t?
“Francis has willfully taken positions that stand in direct opposition to both Sacred Scripture and the dogmatic teaching of the Church;” Is there a doctrine that says “The Church does not judge interior”? So who can determine Francis preach heresies and blasphemies “willfully”?
You likely already know the answer to your question. He (mr burke) truly does see the contradiction, and fully understands that he is just blowing smoke; he is a true son of the masonic faith, aka vatican 2. This (dubia) is a big modernist game….and its good to see that at least one “trad” site gets it. Maybe the writers/readers of “the remnant” should start frequenting this site in order to get a clue.
Daniel, do you know your faith? If so, you already determined that Francis preaches heresy and error.
Is Cardinal Burke trying to sell Pepsi Cola while he works for Coca Cola?
Does Cardinal Burke pray to John Paul II?
Thanks Tom for your reply! But all the non Sedevacantist Catholics do not say Francis WILLFULLY or FORMALLY preaches heresies and blasphemies. I want to find out what is the criteria to declare PF a FORMAL Heretic or Apostate.
I know that he at least encourages others to which is pretty much the samething. http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-discusses-st.-john-paul-iis-lasting-impact-on-the-catholic-c#.WHrqI1ko5qU
And he’s not the only one. Medjogorge promoter Father Gabriel Amorth says the only one that scares Satan more than Pope John Paul II during an exorcism is the Blessed Mother https://churchpop.com/2015/06/07/st-john-paul-ii-romes-chief-exorcist/
Cardinal Burke about John Paul II (NCR April 2014):
“He demonstrated to a heroic degree the virtues of faith, hope and charity. Was he perfect? No; no human being is. People criticize him for this or that, but notwithstanding whatever imperfections he may have had, he cooperated so heroically, to such a tireless degree, with the grace of God that he is a model for all of us in our lives. And if he were perfect, he wouldn’t be a model for us.
We’re not perfect, and if we thought he was a perfect human being, it’s wonderful, but there’s nothing there for us.”
Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to eight Cardinals about Pope John II and Assisi:
Econe, August 27, 1986
Your Eminence,
Confronted with the events taking place in the Church that are coming from John-Paul II, and confronted with what he proposes to do in Taize and Assisi in October, I cannot help addressing myself to you, in order to beg you in the name of numbers of priests and faithful, to save the honor of the Church being humiliated as she has never before been humiliated in all her history.
The speeches and actions of John-Paul II in Togo Morocco, India and the Synagogue of Rome, fill our hearts with righteous indignation. What do the holy men and women of the Old and New Testaments think of all this? What would the Holy Inquisition do, if it was still in existence?
The very first Article of the Credo and the first of the Ten Commandments are being outraged in public by the occupant of the See of Peter. Incalculable scandal is being given to Catholic souls. The Church is being shaken to her very foundations.
If faith in the Church as the one and only Ark of Salvation disappears the Church herself disappears. All her supernatural strength and activity are based upon this Article of our faith.
Is John-Paul II going to continue wrecking the Catholic Faith, in public, especially at Assisi, where a procession of religions is due to follow him through the streets of St. Francis’ home-town, with the religions then spreading out amongst the Basilica’s chapels to practise their worship in favor of peace as it is understood at the United Nations? That is what is being announced by Cardinal Etchegaray, the organiser of this abominable Congress of Religions.
Is it conceivable that no voice of authority is speaking out within the Church to condemn these public sins? Where are the Machabees of today?
Your Eminence, for the honor of the one and only true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, make a public protest. Come to the help of the bishops, priests and faithful who are still Catholic.
Your Eminence, if I have taken the liberty of making this approach to you, it is because I cannot doubt how you feel in this matter.
I am addressing this appeal to each of the eight Cardinals here named, to enable you, if you so wish, to take joint action.
May the Holy Ghost come to your aid, your Eminence, and be so good as to accept the expression of my fraternal and devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
Cardinal Burke about John Paul II (NCR April 2014):
“He demonstrated to a heroic degree the virtues of faith, hope and charity. Was he perfect? No; no human being is. People criticize him for this or that, but notwithstanding whatever imperfections he may have had, he cooperated so heroically, to such a tireless degree, with the grace of God that he is a model for all of us in our lives. And if he were perfect, he wouldn’t be a model for us.
We’re not perfect, and if we thought he was a perfect human being, it’s wonderful, but there’s nothing there for us.”
From Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to eight Cardinals about Pope John II and Assisi:
“Confronted with the events taking place in the Church that are coming from John-Paul II, and confronted with what he proposes to do in Taize and Assisi in October, I cannot help addressing myself to you, in order to beg you in the name of numbers of priests and faithful, to save the honor of the Church being humiliated as she has never before been humiliated in all her history.
The speeches and actions of John-Paul II in Togo Morocco, India and the Synagogue of Rome, fill our hearts with righteous indignation. What do the holy men and women of the Old and New Testaments think of all this? What would the Holy Inquisition do, if it was still in existence?
The very first Article of the Credo and the first of the Ten Commandments are being outraged in public by the occupant of the See of Peter. Incalculable scandal is being given to Catholic souls. The Church is being shaken to her very foundations.
If faith in the Church as the one and only Ark of Salvation disappears the Church herself disappears. All her supernatural strength and activity are based upon this Article of our faith.
Is John-Paul II going to continue wrecking the Catholic Faith, in public, especially at Assisi, where a procession of religions is due to follow him through the streets of St. Francis’ home-town, with the religions then spreading out amongst the Basilica’s chapels to practise their worship in favor of peace as it is understood at the United Nations? That is what is being announced by Cardinal Etchegaray, the organiser of this abominable Congress of Religions.
Is it conceivable that no voice of authority is speaking out within the Church to condemn these public sins? Where are the Machabees of today?
Your Eminence, for the honor of the one and only true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, make a public protest. Come to the help of the bishops, priests and faithful who are still Catholic.” (…)
I’m sorry for the double post.
If he’s not mentally retarded, which he isnt, than of course he’s a heretic and therefore not Catholic and therefore not Pope. What criteria are you looking for? If someone walks up to you and breaks your jaw with a punch to the face, do you need some “council” to determine that he physically harmed you?
Popes CANNOT be judged by man. They either ARE popes or they are NOT popes. Actual popes CANNOT be put on trial (regardless of what siscoe and salza tell you) for heresy….its a Catholic impossibility. If you believe mr bergoglio to be a pope, than you are obligated to obey him. This is basic Catholicism.
Louie Verrecchio is honest, has no strings attached and allows possibilities to be thrown out that many others would never permit.
Unfortunately I think I do know the answer to my question, but I make it a practice to try to see all possibilities and ask hard questions – with answers that I will potentially not like – to get a broad understanding of things. That’s why it took me a decade to take up a moderate, minimalist version of the sede thesis. It helped me to avoid going insane and lose the Faith.
I want Burke (he might be a properly appointed Cardinal under supplied jurisdiction due to common error) to be a Catholic, but I won’t bend the Faith in order to make someone fit into it.
Maybe once this Amoris domino falls over, (if it does fall over) it will start a chain of them falling all the way back, taking out along the way, the 1983 New Code of Canon Law, the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II, the revised rites of the sacraments (including the dodgy rites for Holy Orders) and the so-called pontificates of Paul VI, JPII, BXVI and Frank with them.
Dear Daniel, it’s not about reading the heart. No one can do that except God. All we can do, and must do, is make a judgement on the external forum. You are correct about the Church not judging the interior.
Anyone with the use of reason and knows the Faith can determine that Francis is a heretic because he professes heresy. It is really that simple.
“For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.“
St Robert Bellarmine
It was a real blow when I found out some years ago that Fr Amorth promoted Medjugorje.
That’s ok. That’s ok.
It would be great if that did start to happen but I personally dont see it. I think, like has always happened in the history of the world, things will just naturally progress for the worse as time goes on.
Daniel, that formal canonical process is a subject of tremendous controversy. There are many conflicting theological and canonical opinions and very little definitive authoritative teachings. But I think the teaching that the Pope is judged by no man, means there is no process or criteria to declare a Pope a heretic since the phrase heretical pope is basically an oxymoron. It simply, in my opinion, cant be. This is the contradiction I think Louis brings up and it is why I was very reluctant to leave the NO and join SSPX. But once I did leave NO, it wasnt very long before the contradiction set in and I saw how sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion. The NO V2 sect no longer professes the faith, why would anyone want to reconcile with them?
Good question, Daniel. Refraining from judging the interior disposition of another soul concerns (in my understanding) the matter of intent; e.g., Francis may fully intend to do good, and may sincerely believe he is doing God’s will. God alone is the judge of such subjective things.
.
My use of the word “willfully” means to say that he is not ignorant of either Sacred Scripture or the dogmatic teachings in question; that is to say that he is not merely mistaken – meaning, if only he was aware of the dogmas of the faith he would accept, protect, propagate them as he ought. We can surmise that he is acting willfully and with full knowledge of what the Church teaches by common sense alone, but it is entirely evident given the number of times he has been confronted with the dogmas in question. This is an objective matter that can, and must, be judged. If indeed it was beyond our ability to judge such things, no one could ever be judged a formal heretic.
Paul VI nailed it when he said: “From some fissure or another, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple.” Obviously, the 2nd Vat leaders are inhaling and savoring the errors brought on by Satan’s smoke.
In my mind’s eye I always picture Mr. Bergoglio as a spoiled child, stomping his feet and screaming; I want my Crayolas-!!!!!!!!
St. Hillary of Poiters,
” I say to thee, Constantius, (for our sake , lets say, Francis). what I would have said to Nero or Decius, or Maximian : You are fighting against God, you are raging against the Church, you are persecuting the saints, you are hating the preachers of Christ, you are destroying religion, you are a tyrant, no in human things, but in things that appertain to God. Thou falsely calleth thyself Christian, for thou are a new enemy of Christ; thou art a precursor of Anti-Christ, and a doer of his mystery of iniquity: Thou that art a rebel to the faith, art making formulas of faith; thou art intruding thine own creatures into the sees of the Bishops; thou art putting out the good and putting in the bad…By a strange ingenious plan, thou hast found a way to persecute, without making martyrs”
There is nothing new under the sun. The faces change but the heresy goes on.
And public heretics remain outside the Church, along with the schismatics, apostates and excommunicates.
Indeed nicely written! I have, however, just one question for these churchmen:
What is the consequence so dreaded that these churchmen get all weak-kneed? Sacked? So what? Not likely they’ll be flipping burgers or selling popcorn at the movies to earn a livlihood. It won’t be social ostracism. There are innumerable Catholics who would love to take them into their very households.
I hope my intuition is wrong, and I hate to say it, but what will happen if these waffling churchmen are sacked will be that the spotlight of the world on them will dim.
With all of the contradictions and compromises with evil in the Church for the past 50+ years, and the “hermeneutic” of rupture with Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it is still a fact that every cardinal and bishop in the institutional Church is beholden to these contradictions and compromises. So in the feeble attempt by some to come out fighting for one of the dogmas of the true faith is worth something but the foxes are still in the henhouse and until they are forced out, there really doesn’t seem to be much to be hopeful of.
Danielpan, if you are waiting for an announcement by the church leaders pronouncing Francis is a heretic, you are not going to here it, unless God directly intervenes. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of cardinals and bishops are also heretics.
If you know the true Catholic faith, it is easy to determine he is a heretic.
If you do not know the true Catholic faith, here is an excellent website that posts plenty of his own words and then compares them with the true teachings of the faith, with quotes. Click on the blog in particular.
https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/2015/08/06/we-are-all-equal-everyone-but-this-equality-is-not-acknowledged-and-society-is-unjust/
Anyone who knows the true faith can determine that Francis preaches heresies willfully, as in his signing of the document, Amoris Laetitia.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons – Against Heresies, III, 5,2:
“For the apostles, who were commissioned to find out the wanderers, and to be for sight to those who saw not, and medicine to the weak, certainly did not address them in accordance with their opinion at the time, but according to revealed truth. For no persons of any kind would act properly, if they should advise blind men, just about to fall over a precipice, to continue their most dangerous path, as if it were the right one, and as if they might go on in safety. Or what medical man, anxious to heal a sick person, would prescribe in accordance with the patient’s whims, and not according to the requisite medicine? But that the Lord came as the physician of the sick, He does Himself declare saying? ‘They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to REPENTENCE.” (Lk 5:31-32). How then shall the sick be strengthened, or how shall sinners come to repentance? Is it by persevering in the very same course? Or, on the contrary, is it by undergoing a great change and reversal of their former mode of living, by which they have brought upon themselves no slight amount of sickness, and many sins?”
Partaking of Holy Communion unworthily is addressed in the following passage of Sacred Scripture:
Matt: 7: 6: “Give not that which is holy to dogs: neither cast ye your peals before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, tear you.”
From Haydock’s Bible Commentary: Give not that which is holy, or holy things to dogs; i.e., to scandalous libertines, or infidels, who are not worthy to partake of divine mysteries and sacraments, who sacrilegiously abuse them, and trample them under their feet, as hogs do pearls. (Witham).
The sacred mysteries should not be given to those that are not properly instructed in the sublime nature of them; nor should we hold any communication of religion with those that are enemies to the truths of Christ, which they tread under their feet and treat contemptuously, and will be so far from having any more friendship for you on account of such a criminal complaisance, that it is more probably they will betray you and turn against you. (Haydock)
I have to agree with you on that. Joining the SSPX, which I consider myself to have been a member of for maybe one year (after getting away from the NO), definitely brought me to the sede position very quickly. I am not a proponent anymore of the SSPX, but I do truly thank them for getting me on the right path.
Suarez (vs. Rich): “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope **just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church**. This is the **common opinion among the doctors**” (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, p. 316). (In addition to the “common opinion of the doctors,” it’s also the *most liberal* opinion on the matter – the other school of thought (the so-called Dominican) holds that a pontiff, once judged a pertinacious heretic **by the Church**, must still be deposed by an (imperfect) general council of the Church. John of St. Thomas also held that the declaration of heresy can *also* come only from such a council, citing the historical examples of popes Marcellinus (Council of Sinuesso) and Symmachus.)
–
What criteria is he looking for? It sounds to me like he’s interested in what the Church teaches (as opposed to what you offer – your personal opinion, totally sans references, as usual).
–
With sedevacantism – which is what you’re talking about here, really – it’s all about what establishes establishes formal heresy, or even what “is” heresy as referred to by the theologians (because this is also misunderstood). The *sin* of heresy separates one from the Soul of the Church (as a mortal sin against the divine virtue of Faith, it divests one entirely of Faith as well as sanctifying grace), but is actually totally related to the external forum, in which ecclesiastical office lies. The *crime* of heresy, on the other hand – which is declared *by the Church* – *can* sever a man from ecclesiastical office. (There is more to it in the case of a pope, since he is not subject to canon law and cannot be judged by the Church for any *other* crime, which is why the case of deposition of a heretical pontiff is treated very much as a “special case” by the mind of the Church.)
–
Let’s start with the definition of formal heresy. What it is, in fact – its very nature – is *rejection of the Church as the rule of faith*. This is what a manual of dogmatic theology will tell you. Note that that is more than simply the willful rejection of a specific (implicit or defined) dogma: The subject must consciously reject the Catholic Church *as* the arbiter of truth. As Cardinal Billot puts it, “… the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (“De Ecclesia Christi”).
–
Next, there is the question of how the guilt of such a crime – the worst there is, actually – can be determined. Can I determine a pope is a formal heretic, as the sedevacantists insist? No, actually, I cannot; no individual can do such a thing, because none of us can judge the soul of a man, which is what is necessary to know that he does, in fact, willfully reject the Church
–
This frustrates sedevacantists, and, in a sense, this frustration is understandable. I am faced with a personal detestation of Pope Francis again & again, every time I hear some new blasphemous comment, clearly erroneous statement, insult of faithful Catholics trying to live their faith, etc. But I recognize that any personal judgements I might make of his soul, however tempting and even seemingly obvious, are simply meaningless. They can’t change the fact that he’s the pope, and it’s patently ridiculous to believe otherwise. It’s an emotional comfort to some, but nothing more.
–
(Here’s a little mind game we can play. They will quote Bellarmine stating that heresy cuts a man off from the Church, not realizing that he is referring to the *crime* of heresy (as determined by the Church, by definition), rather than the personal sin of heresy. If they are correct in what they’re asserting – that the SIN of heresy cuts a man off from the *Body* (as opposed to the Soul, which is actually the case) – then they really ought to become Protestants in fact as well as spirit, since this makes the Church nothing but a house of cards. Consider: Pope Pius V, some time before he ratified the Council of Trent, committed the sin of heresy, cut himself off from the Church, and became an anti-pope. Thus, Trent’s dogmas are nothing; they are not truth. Its anathemas are likewise meaningless. This is what the sedevacantist mindset does to the Church: It neuters it completely. In reality, the answer to this crisis of the Church, as history shows us was the case with prior abuses of papal power and papal error, is to recognize valid ecclesiastical authority but resist its public material errors, in the very rare cases such exist.)
–
So, as Suarez himself tells us above, it’s the common opinion – and the alternative opinion is further yet from the sedevacantist thesis of private judgement – that a pope loses his office when, but certainly not before, a judgement of heresy against him by the Church. Let’s now take a look at the common sede “objection” (which are de facto objections to the mind of the Church): The pope cannot be judged by the Church; he is not subject to canon law.
–
While it’s indeed true that the pope is *not* subject to canon law, the common opinion is that heresy is the one exception to the rule that a sitting pope cannot be judged.
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from “De Membris Ecclesiae”, as quoted in “True Or False Pope”, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, “Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi”, as quoted in “True or False Pope”, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
This (“a pope cannot be judged by the Church”) is the only objection the sedevacantists have against these teachings (which are what Bellarmine, Suarez, and every other theologian who spoke on the matter taught). It’s not a real objection. The sedes have no answer to the fact that heresy has long been recognized as the sole exception to this rule. (And it’s far from an arbitrary exception: Heresy does indeed make a man until to hold any ecclesiastical office, much less the highest, but the judgement of heresy has to be that of the Church. As Bellarmine also noted, just as the Church is intimately involved with binding a man to the form of the papacy, so must she be involved in severing the bond. If this were not the case, the result would be de-facto anarchy at any time.)
–
Note that these Doctors of the Church, popes, and theologians taught these things knowing full well that the supreme pontiff has full juridical authority over the Church Militant (this was taught since the time of the Fathers).
–
So, while shouting “Francis is NOT MY POPE” might satisfy a certain inner urge, it can’t undo reality.
Tom, the issue actually may be that you don’t understand what makes a man a Catholic or a non-Catholic. See my extended reply below to Rich.
Tom, no offense, but, again, you are doing nothing here but spreading confusion. See my extended reply above to Rich.
–
While there’s indeed no formal teaching on how or even whether a heretical pope loses his office, every since theologian and pope who spoke on the matter torpedoes the sede opinion of private opinion out of the gate.
–
(You’re right that “[formally] heretical pope” is essentially an oxymoron, but the question is who determines formal heresy.)
–
The SSPX is has always rejected sedevacantism; it’s not tolerated. You should be careful.
Formal heresy is the willful rejection of the Church as the rule of faith, not just material rejection (even willful) of some doctrine. The Church alone determines formal heresy, not you or any other individual. That’s what every Church authority who has ever spoken on the matter has taken for granted; it’s not even a matter of debate. See my reply above to Rich and please see trueorfalsepope.com.
–
Now, I essentially detest Francis and cannot wait for the Church to be rid of him, personally, but I can’t make him not the pope. (And I realize you didn’t state that here.)
Yes, this was a sign of his own serious confusion.
We have to judge specific statements and teachings to know whether or not we can give assent to them, as practicing Catholics, but that is independent from formal heresy, which deals entirely with a subject (not his statements or actions which affect us).
–
Formal heresy involves a willful rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. Barring a direct refutation of the Church by a subject, the crime of heresy (which is what is relevant regarding formal separation from a bishop and ecclesiastical office) is determined by the Church, by definition.
–
I believe Francis does essentially reject the Church as the rule of faith, but the diabolical disorientation we’re witnessing is so insidious that he may not be consciously aware of it, per se. These modernists have always believed they’re discovering the “real” Church.
–
In any case, my opinion of him doesn’t matter much. My family & I will continue to resist the errors of the entire Vatican II orientation and cleave to Tradition.
@Catholic Thinker: You said this:
–
“Formal heresy is the WILLFUL REJECTION OF THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH, NOT JUST material rejection (EVEN WILLFUL) of some doctrine.”
–
The Online Catholic Encyclopedia said this:
–
“The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: IN NONE OF THESE DOES WILL PLAY AN APPRECIABLE PART, WHEREFORE ONE OF THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS OF SINFULNESS – FREE CHOICE – IS WANTING AND SUCH HERESY IS MERELY OBJECTIVE, OR MATERIAL. On the other hand THE WILL MAY FREELY INCLINE THE INTELLECT TO ADHERE TO TENETS DECLARED FALSE BY THE DIVINE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. HERESY THUS WILLED IS IMPUTABLE TO THE SUBJECT AND CARRIES WITH IT VARYING DEGREES OF GUILT; IT IS CALLED FORMAL, BECAUSE TO THE MATERIAL ERROR IT ADDS THE INFORMATIVE ELEMENT OF ‘FREELY WILLED’.
–
PERTINACITY, THAT IS, OBSTINATE ADHESION TO A PARTICULAR TENET IS REQUIRED TO MAKE HERESY FORMAL. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.”
–
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_III
–
Catholic Thinker argues that for heresy to be formal, a person must deny the Church as being the rule of faith, apparently in so many words. Catholic Thinker argues that just willfully denying a truth of the faith is not enough to constitute formal heresy.
–
The Online Catholic Encyclopedia contradicts Catholic Thinker by stating that heresy becomes formal when to the material error is added the fact that adhesion to the error is freely willed by the formal heretic.
–
To summarize:
–
Catholic Thinker DENIES THAT THE WILLFUL DENIAL OF A TRUTH OF THE FAITH IS ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE FORMAL HERESY. Catholic Thinker argues that a person must also deny that the Church is the rule of faith in so many words before his heresy can be called formal..
–
The Online Catholic Encyclopedia states that the mere addition of WILLFUL ADHESION (PERTINACITY) to material heresy is enough to make the heresy formal. It says nothing at all about the additional requirement added by Catholic Thinker. Where is Catholic Thinker getting this stuff?
Catholic Thinker, I see it differently. When I read complex explanations like you gave to Rich above, I have to wonder who is sowing confusion. I think my opinion is rather clear and unambigious. Someone who does not profess the Catholic faith is not a Catholic. Therefore someone who does not profess the Catholic faith logically cannot objectively be head of the Catholic Church since he is not a member. This is the contradiction that I cannot accept. I can accept a mystery as to what happened to the Church and the Papacy, but not a contradiction.
Answer: Salza and Siscoe.
Technically, only a priest can “join” the SSPZ. The rest of us are just Catholic faithful.
It didn’t take me long to take up the sede position after I started attending the local SSPX chapel.
The reasons for fleeing the diocese and the FSSP had the inertia to keep seeing this mystery all the way through.
I love and support the SSPX, because I am certain of the validity of the Mass and the Sacraments, I don’t hear heretics in the pulpit, am not scandalised in the confessional, and the faithful are the salt of the earth. I don’t refuse communion/social charity with those who think Bergoglio is the pope. I keep my view on the Vatican II popes to myself. It is the only way I can see clear to keep the whole Faith intact, without compromising the Papacy and the nature of the Church. We are in an unprecedented crisis.
A Catholic Thinker and those who promote the TOFP line always say that if each member of the faithful can recognise a heretic when he sees one, chaos would ensue!
Imagine letting the sede thesis disturb the peace which reigns over the persent circumstances! In case you haven’t noticed…
The Vatican II sect does not have the Four Marks of the Church. A ten year old getting ready for Confirmation knows that this is the sure way to distinguish the true Church from counterfeit religions.
“We have to judge specific statements and teachings to know whether or not we can give assent to them.”
Wow. Can you please write a long, complex post on where this idea is taught by the Church and approved theologians as the way the faithful are to be taught by the Church?
That’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? You say that it is finally up to the faithful to sift, weigh and judge the statements and teachings of the Vicar of Christ; that it is our duty and privelege to make the declaration upon anyone who thinks he can know that someone is a heretic, is a protestant.
Do you not see how far you have to bend, twist and deny the essential nature of the Church and the Papacy, in order to keep the TOFP line afloat?
You sacrifice the Papacy to keep Bergoglio.
Sedes sacrifice Bergoglio to keep the Papacy.
Hello Papal Subject (congrats on the irony),
–
You completely missed the point. I can well recognize heretical statements, and I condemn them, and even publicly correct those who utter them, if possible. But formal heresy is what concerns loss of ecclesiastical office, and the Church teaches that it is She that determines that. I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but that’s the way it is.
“Therefore someone who does not profess the Catholic faith logically cannot objectively be head of the Catholic Church since he is not a member.”
–
Again, this is an oversimplification, which you yourself state you simply insist on believing. Your reaction is emotional, but you don’t get to invent theology to suit it.
–
What the Church teaches is that public membership, in Her Body, is determined by visible bounds of sacrament, faith, and union with the pope. Pope Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic faith, and the Church teaches that when that is not the case, pertinacity in heresy (which is the rejection of the Church per se as teacher) can only come from the Church. The Church bound the man to the form of the papacy, and must be involved in severing him.
–
That’s not all that complicated; you simply don’t like it, as you say. It’s nice to see honesty regarding sedevacantism once in awhile.
“The Vatican II sect does not have the Four Marks of the Church. A ten year old getting ready for Confirmation knows that this is the sure way to distinguish the true Church from counterfeit religions.”
–
The Catholic Church is the same visible, hierarchical, Apostolic Body it was before Vatican Council II. The set of defined, binding dogmas is exactly the same as it was then.
–
In claiming to be a true Catholic but rejecting the Church, you’re spewing material heresy yourself. Isn’t that ironic? The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – which you are now denying.
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
Thanks for quoting St. Bellarmine, who taught that in the case of a prelate, his ecclesiastical office (a matter of the external forum) is not lost due to the *sin* of heresy, but only the crime, as judged by the Church.
–
Now, he was only teaching the same thing as the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which declared an *anathema* on any Catholic who would formally separate from his bishop without a declaration from the Church.
Sorry, Papal Subject (again I’m struck by the irony), but you don’t understand the Recognize & Resist position (which is THE historical position of faithful Catholics when faced with wayward prelates) at all.
–
How can you not be aware that the SSPX (since apparently you’re a Mass-goer) has been condemning the dangerous and erroneous statements and actions of post-conciliar popes since – the Council?
–
“Sedes sacrifice Bergoglio to keep the Papacy” – actually, sedes have now sacrificed anywhere from (generally) five to 100 or so popes as they see fit. Speray has picked several “anti-popes” out of antiquity as he pleases, and some other nut has declared anyone since Innocent something in the 13th century an anti-pope. That is what individuals deciding who is and who isn’t a formal heretic gets you.
–
Will over intellect, emotion over reason.
–
I’ll return shortly with those references you asked for, since you apparently aren’t aware of what the Church teaches requiring levels of assent. I do hope it’s not too “long and complex” for you to bother with.
“Wow. Can you please write a long, complex post on where this idea is taught by the Church and approved theologians as the way the faithful are to be taught by the Church?”
–
The level of assent required is proportional to the intention to bind, the subject matter (is it faith & morals, the only subjects of Catholic doctrine?), and the type of language employed (an unclear proposition leaves nothing to assent to).
–
As quoted in Michael Davies’ Pope John’s Council, Dom Paul Nau. O.S.B., “cites a number of authors regarding the attitude Catholics should have towards statements of the Ordinary Magisterium: ‘…that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty of involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.'”
–
So, we see here the nature of the valid exceptions to giving assent.
–
No less an authority than Dr. Ludwig Ott (author of the seminal work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) notes that, “The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activitiy is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless, normally they are to be accepted with an inner assert which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is ‘reverent silence’, does not generally suffice. By way of exception the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives with a positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”
–
Again, I apologize if this requires more thinking or discernment you’re willing to give.
(I’m curious why you would put in all caps such innocuous things as the nature of material heresy, but no matter.)
–
So, *I* said that formal heresy consists in withdrawal from the Church as the rule of faith? Me? Actual answer: Cardinal Billot. As I already posted, he wrote, “…the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (“De Ecclesia Christi”).
–
I could say much more, but for now, I’ll just say this. You like to ask questions, so answer this one: Are the eminent Cardinal Billot and the Encyclopedia in contradiction, or, alternatively, are you missing something?
–
If you answer the question, I’ll tell you what I think.
(I’m curious why you would put in all caps such innocuous things as the nature of material heresy, but no matter.)
–
So, *I* said that formal heresy consists in withdrawal from the Church as the rule of faith? Me? Actual answer: Cardinal Billot. As I already posted, he wrote, “…the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (“De Ecclesia Christi”).
–
I could say much more, but for now, I’ll just say this. You like to ask questions, so answer this one: Are the eminent Cardinal Billot and the Encyclopedia in contradiction, or, alternatively, are you missing something?
–
If you answer the question, I’ll tell you what I think.
@Catholic Thinker:
–
During the first few times you spoke about formal heresy in this thread, you took a position that is reflected here in my first comment to you, that formal heresy is only demonstrated when a heretic denies that the Church is the rule of faith – willful (pertinacious) adhesion to heresy is not enough. I repeat your comment here:
–
“Formal heresy is the WILLFUL REJECTION OF THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH, NOT JUST material rejection (EVEN WILLFUL) of some doctrine.” [caps added]
–
I brought a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia that contradicted you stating that when willful adhesion is added to material heresy formal heresy results. Thus your initial claim that the heretic must state in so many words that he rejects the Church as the rule of faith in addition to willfully adhering to a heresy for formal heresy to result was refuted.
–
Now, in mid-stream, you change your tune. You state this later in this thread:
–
“Pope Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic faith, and the Church teaches that when that is not the case, PERTINACITY IN HERESY (which is the rejection of the Church per se as teacher) CAN ONLY COME FROM THE CHURCH.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Here in this your latest quote you implicitly admit that willfully adhering to heresy (pertinacity) is enough to constitute formal heresy. It is clear you have changed your position. Wouldn’t you have more credibility if when an error of yours is brought to your attention you admitted it? Otherwise, wary readers might suspect that you are seeing what you can get away with by exaggerating factual aspects of your argument. And it goes without saying that in your most recent statement you are not restricting yourself to your understanding of Cardinal BIllot’s statement. So consistency is not one of your strengths.
You go to an SSPX chapel, right? Your Bishop doesn’t want you to do that. What on earth are you doing going against your Bishop? Trying to keep the Faith, perhaps? The whole situation is completley unprecedented. One has to go to an emergency chapel and sidestep the diocesan structure to practice Catholicism, because the diocese is not teaching the Faith, or providing the spiritual goods of the Church that have been handed on.
“I will continue to resist the errors of the entire Vatican II orientation and cleave to Tradition.”
We do the same thing in practice; the difference is that I don’t believe the Church can be the cause of this evil, and you do. That’s the summary.
I think one of the errors made is attribution of the personal sin [of heresy] of a pope to the Church.
Critical Thinker, I am wondering why you do not go to the FSSP? They are “canonically regular” and their mass looks almost identical to the SSPX Mass, apart from the confiteor before Communion. Would that not make more sense to your position?
You sift and weigh the teachings and statements of the man you believe is the Vicar of Christ. If what he says lines up with the way you understand things, then it’s magisterial; if it doesn’t line up, then you decide it is not magisterial, and can be tossed aside. The pope is not the rule of Faith – you are.
Tell me, what is the point of the Church and the Papacy? It appears to be merely the vehicle to present you with propositions, which you then judge as authentic or non-authentic?
Look who’s calling people “protestants”! What model of the Church are you putting forward?
Those who commit the sin of heresy (known only to God) are cut off from the Soul of the Church – sanctifying grace. They are also entirely divested of the theological virtue of faith.
–
To be severed from the Body of the Church (visible membership) requires excommunication. In the case of a pope, it requires (at the very least – theological opinions vary beyond this point) an ecclesiastical declaration of the crime of heresy, which can occur after formal warnings are not heeded.
–
That’t the common theological opinion on a matter on which the Church has no official teaching.
Just as in the Arian crisis, when Pope Liberius shamed himself by putting his name to a heterodox formula that denied the divinity of Christ, and when 90-99% of the bishops went along with the heresy.
–
But nobody (no reasonable person that history records) claimed Liberius was not the pope, during or after this.
–
I absolutely acknowledge that the time is extremely confusing. It is even worse than Arianism: This is the worst crisis in the history of the Church. (Unlike that terrible but simple heresy, modernism is much more insidious and has its tentacles everywhere.)
–
The distinction between material and formal separation is extremely important. Our SSPX priest acknowledges our bishop and his jurisdiction. And our former ICK priest actually blesses our attendance at an SSPX chapel.
“Critical Thinker, I am wondering why you do not go to the FSSP? They are “canonically regular” and their mass looks almost identical to the SSPX Mass…”
–
That’s CATHOLIC Thinker, buddy. “A Critical Thinker” is another (good) poster here, but I ain’t him.
–
We attended ICK Sunday Masses for five years and I still attend them for daily Mass when I can (which is not nearly as often as I’d like). The switch came down to two things:
–
1) The Society completely understands the root causes of the crisis (the Council) and speakers to it. The ICK and FSSP do not and cannot. I like truth, and this became grating over a time.
2) The Society chapel is closer.
No, you misrepresented the SSPX position.
–
You need to learn to distinguish between the Church and churchmen that occupy office.
“You sift and weigh the teachings and statements of the man you believe is the Vicar of Christ. If what he says lines up with the way you understand things, then it’s magisterial; if it doesn’t line up, then you decide it is not magisterial, and can be tossed aside. The pope is not the rule of Faith – you are.”
–
This is what Catholics have always done and always have to do. What makes you think you can put your God-given gift of reason in the closet.
–
Would you have agree with Pope Liberius when he signed a pseudo-Arian formula? (No: You’d have declared him not the pope.)
–
Would you have believed John XXII when he contradicted Tradition by publicly preaching that the blessed in Heaven do not possess the Beatific Vision? Or deposed him?
–
There are more examples. Popes are infallible when they define dogmas which use formal, precise language with the intent to bind. Otherwise they are not. It is as simple as that and always has been.
First of all, you’re wrong: The very first time I stated what I did regarding the nature of heresy, I quoted Cardinal Billot. You may not understand that posts here don’t appear in chronological order. Here is that quote again:
–
The eminent theologian Cardinal Billot: “…the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” – “De Ecclesia Christi”.
–
You also ignored the question I asked you. In fact, there is no contradiction between this teaching of the cardinal (and NUMEROUS other theologians – this is the COMMON TEACHING on the subject – it may even be de fide) and what you quoted from the Encyclopedia. Even though the *nature* of heresy is a *refusal to follow the Church as Teacher and Mother of the faith*, the willful rejection of any particular dogma does, in fact, constitute the sin of heresy – as long as that person knows he’s rejecting what the Church teaches. I did not say otherwise, but merely drew attention to the fact that the subject must be knowingly rejecting something the Church teaches, per se.
–
Thus, every cafeteria Catholic who says, “I’m Catholic but don’t accept what the Church teaches about X” is, from all appearances at least, a formal heretic. And the sin of heresy divests a person completely of the theological virtue of faith; such a soul is lost. In fact, heresy is the worst of all types of sin.
–
I hope that helps. And I hope you’re debating in the search for truth, and not to win an argument.
Catholic Thinker: Since the faith is integral, rejection of any one of its tenants is tantamount to a rejection of the faith in its entirety. That is what Cardinal Billot meant.
–
You turned this around to exaggerate the difficulty of determining whether heresy is formal by adding that the heretic must, in so many words, reject the Church as the rule of faith. The fact that the heretic rejects any one of the tenants of the faith establishes that the heretic rejects the Church as the rule of faith!
–
Thus you used Cardinal Billot’s quote in a dishonest manner to exaggerate the difficulty in establishing that someone is a formal heretic by claiming that, in so many words, the heretic has to deny that the Church is the rule of faith. These are your own words that clearly require such an additional element:
–
“Formal heresy is the WILLFUL REJECTION OF THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH, NOT JUST material rejection (EVEN WILLFUL) of some doctrine.”
–
You said it. The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly contradicted you.
Well I am glad we can finally agree on something. It is only opinion and there has been no official teaching.
@Papal Subject: Catholic Thinker adheres to Gallican beliefs, not realizing that doing so was made untenable by Vatican I. In particular, the entry in the Online Catholic Encyclopedia on Gallicanism describes the fourth article of Gallicanism as follows:
–
“4. Although the pope have the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches, and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church.”
–
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06351a.htm
–
Sounds like the “recognize and resist” position doesn’t it?
In any case, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that three of the tenants of Gallicanism – including the fourth reproduced above – were condemned by the decrees of Vatican I:
–
“When the Vatican Council opened, in 1869, it had in France only timid defenders. WHEN THAT COUNCIL DECLARED THAT THE POPE HAS IN THE CHURCH THE PLENITUDE OF JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF FAITH, MORALS, DISCIPLINE, AND ADMINISTRATION [AND] THAT HIS DECISIONS EX CATHEDRA ARE OF THEMSELVES, AND WITHOUT THE ASSENT OF THE CHURCH, INFALLIBLE AND IRREFORMABLE, IT DEALT GALLICANISM A MORTAL BLOW. THREE OF THE FOUR ARTICLES [including the fourth reproduced above] WERE DIRECTLY CONDEMNED.” [caps added]
–
Note in the fourth article of Gallicanism, the Gallicanists admitted only that the Pope had “chief” power in the Church regarding questions of faith. Note, a synonym for “chief” is “principal”. Vatican I clearly condemned the belief that the Pope had only the “principal” power in the Church; rather the Pope has the plenitude of [full and supreme] power in the Church:
–
This the relevant provision from Vatican I:
–
SO, THEN, IF ANYONE SAYS THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFF merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or THAT HE HAS ONLY THE PRINCIPAL PART, BUT NOT THE ABSOLUTE FULLNESS OF THIS SUPREME POWER; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”
–
In view of this clear dogmatic statement of the extent of the Pope’s power it is not seen how Catholic Thinker can in good conscience hold that there is an exception to the absolute fullness of the Pope’s power (e.g, to allow him to be tried or contested in a council] when he adheres to a heresy. Vatican I simply made no such exception.
–
After Vatican I, an heretical Pope cannot be contradicted as being wrong and hence subject to correction; rather he can only be considered as a heretical non-Catholic whose decrees are null because a heretic – being outside the Church – cannot rule the Church.
Please not the Liberius canard again. What Liberius signed or didnt sign is an historical controversy. Please do not use one post V2 source or Cdl Newman who was a protestant when he wrote his famous book when you try and refute me. There is not enough evidence to sully his name at this point. The fact that St Athanasius did not write anything condemning Liberius should be enough for us to assume he did not betray the faith. My understanding was that he signed some document that was ambigious at best but not Arian at all.
@Catholic Thinker: Are occult formal heretics excommunicated from the Church?
You seem to want to get to the bottom of issues. I have something you might be interested in.
This link to an excerpt of John Daly’s “Michael Davies – an Evaluation” will hopefully give you better information than the sources you have read thus far regarding Pope Liberius.
I hope you end up reading the whole book! It’s important to check what’s outside the party line.
http://novusordowatch.org/john-daly-alleged-fall-of-pope-liberius-excommunication-of-saint-athanasius/
There is a thread over at Suscipe Domine called “Siscoe and Salza – Collection of posts demolishing their credibility” by a poster called Nazianzen which is worth reading in light of all the discussion that has taken place here. I don’t know if you have to register with the forum to read it, but it is worth one’s while, even if you just want to “lurk” and not contribute.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15724.0
Hi Tom, not sure if you are familiar with the Suscipe Domine forum, but you will find this thread helpful. A Catholic Thinker has been pushing the Salza/Siscoe line heavily here, and the poster Nazianzen takes them to the woodshed in his thread here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15724.0
Papal Subject, I have read Daly’s Evaluation of Davies work. In all these blogs and forums I have never seen any semi trad try to refute anything Daly has ever wrote. I think they collectively agreed that the only way to refute Daly was to ignore him.
Your question is nonsensical.
“Opinion” and “no official Church teaching” are not the same thing. Some of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church (Bellarmine, Suarez, John of St. Thomas) have weighed-in on the issue and all reject the sede position out-of-hand. It’s not even worthy of discussion to them, as it’s preposterous on its face, actually.
“Since the faith is integral, rejection of any one of its tenants is tantamount to a rejection of the faith in its entirety.” Agreed, most certainly.
–
“…That is what Cardinal Billot meant.” Why don’t we let him speak for himself? In *this particular* quote, he said: “…the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.” He is speaking to the very nature of heresy rather than a *symptom of it*. The reason heretics deny or obstinately doubt dogma is that they reject the Church as the rule of faith. If they aren’t doing the latter, they aren’t really doing the former.
–
“Thus you used Cardinal Billot’s quote in a dishonest manner to exaggerate the difficulty in establishing that someone is a formal heretic by claiming that, in so many words, the heretic has to deny that the Church is the rule of faith. These are your own words that clearly require such an additional element:
–
‘Formal heresy is the WILLFUL REJECTION OF THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH, NOT JUST material rejection (EVEN WILLFUL) of some doctrine.'”
–
So, by quoting exactly what he said, I used the quote in a dishonest manner? Cardinal Billot – and he’s speaking the mind of the Church – was speaking to the very nature, the very foundation of heresy – what makes a formal, willful heretic tick, so to speak. I just wanted to point out that this is important to understand.
–
You seem to be implying that a person who rejects a dogma yet accepts the Church as the rule of faith is still a formal heretic. But that is the point: The Church teaches the opposite. A person holding such views would clearly only do so if they were *mistaken* about what the Church teaches. Is that not apparent to you?
–
As a matter of fact, the cardinal said further, as part of the same passage: “heresy… does not take place” if there is “an error of fact concerning what the rule dictates.” I.e., if a person rejects a dogma but is not aware that that is what the Church teaches, he is not a formal heretic (even if his rejection is willful).
–
I’d love to see a debate between you and Cardinal Billot.
–
Unlike you, I do not pit Cardinal Billot against the Catholic Encyclopedia because I understand what both quotes are speaking to and how they are harmonized. There is no tension whatever between them; there is no way to use one to undo or undermine the other.
–
I say is that you’re a sophist and a boor desperately trying to win a semantic argument. I’m happy to let the audience decide that one.
–
You deny the Church’s perpetual visibility, which is an implicit dogma: Are you just mistaken about what the Church teaches, or do you reject Her as your rule of faith?
Assigning beliefs to someone (who denies them) presumes knowledge of their interior, something the Church forbids, but which sedes like you specialize in.
–
It is amazing that you believe the very nature of the papacy was transformed by Vatican Council I. How old are you, and how long have you been Catholic, if you don’t mind me asking? (It’s notable that the sede ranks are dominated by Protestant “converts” and reverts.)
–
Dogmas are formalized, not brought into existence, by ex cathedra declarations and conciliar formula (ratified by the reigning pope, which is necessary). These errors were always errors, and are not the recognize and resist position. This position has never, ever even remotely hinted that the pope does not, in fact, have full juridical power over the Church Militant. That this power exists does not mean it is not bound by divine law – that is the most essential piece you miss, probably.
–
As Archbishop Lefebvre – the modern pioneer of the movement – pointed out, it’s we traditionalists who give the papacy its proper place, against the Vatican II error of collegiality.
–
Here’s a good piece on the subject:
–
https://gloria.tv/article/v1FBpSjZczZT1B9jVCTeA8p9o
“Papal Subject, I have read Daly’s Evaluation of Davies work. In all these blogs and forums I have never seen any semi trad try to refute anything Daly has ever wrote. I think they collectively agreed that the only way to refute Daly was to ignore him.”
–
A perfect demonstration of the fact that you have no knowledge of the position you presume to refute: Daly many errors are handled thoroughly in True Or False Pope. That’s, you know, the book you & the rest of the sedes here are constantly spitting on. And now you make the claim that he’s simply been ignored. Are these things a game to you people?
OK, the church that you are pushing can can give us truth – and they can give us heresy; it can lead souls to heaven and damnation, all at the same time. You win.
In a time of almost universal apostasy, including the great majority of the hierarchy, you want to plug in opinions that a declaration of heresy has to be made – by who? Heretics? You have got to be joking. Your insistence makes me go from giving you the benefit of the doubt, to wonder who you are working for.
Membership in the Mystical Body of Christ automatically excludes heretics, schismatics and apostates by its very nature. Pius XII made that distinction in Mystici Corporis; those who “profess the true Faith” and those who have “been excommunicated”. They are two different categories.
If you don’t profess the true Faith you’re out; if you’ve been excommunicated, you’re out.
The same silly generalizations, over & over, ignoring what the Church has always taught.
–
The supreme pontiff is infallible when he intends to bind the faithful to a doctrine of faith and morals, then & now. The set of Catholics dogmas is the same now as in 1958.
–
Would have rejected Liberius as an antipope for signing a pseudo-Arian formula? Honorious? John XXII for preaching his heresy?
–
The theologians (and at least two popes) spoke to this situation and are completely unanimous in their teaching that a private person cannot depose a pope or convict anyone of crime of heresy. They are unanimous in teaching that some element of the Cardinalate, only, can do this.
–
You & the others here constantly ignore simple direct questions regarding where your philosophy leads. You do this because they expose the absurdity of your position of private judgement.
–
I debate for the audience, not for the hardened sedes here, and am quite content at this point.
–
“Membership in the Mystical Body of Christ automatically excludes heretics, schismatics and apostates by its very nature.” Yes, just repeating the same mantas without knowledge of the definitions contained therein, which you never speak to. For the audience: Body & Soul are different realms of the Church. The theologians and popes have spoken. A prelate does not lose his office without a judgement from the Church. A council of the Catholic Church declared an anathema, actually, on anyone who would formally separate from his bishop without a judgement from the Church.
–
Let’s take one more look at the absolute absurdity that your interpretation of the above quotation leads immediately. It makes no distinction (because it is not a formal theological teaching addressing loss of office) between the sin (internal) and the crime (external) of heresy. By your grossly simplified interpretation, then, occult heretics are “not members of the Church” meaning prelates also lose their office. Since no person can ever know which pope might have, in the past, committed the sin of heresy and lost his office, nothing the Church has ever taught is certain, because any particular dogma could be null by way of the promulgating pope losing his office. That is what you are saying.
–
Keep going around in the circle if you like.
Your assertion is conclusory, meaning that you have not advanced any proof to support your assertion. I am defending the interests of the readers of this thread – anyone contending for a position here should provide support for their position.
–
If my question is so nonsensical then it should be easy for you to support your position that it is nonsensical with evidence. Otherwise, one might conclude that you think we have to take your assertions as true and correct just because you say so. One might even consider your answer as a spiritual work of mercy, i.e., instructing the ignorant!
@Catholic Thinker: In reviewing this sub-thread I did not adequately verbalize my objection to your approach, so I allowed you to make a theological argument that apparently contradicted my argument.
–
My argument is essentially evidentiary/procedural in nature, not theological. It is clear from both Catholic Thinker’s statements and my statements that at some level we agree that for heresy to be formal the heretic must reject the Church as the rule of faith. That is where we part company.
–
Catholic Thinker apparently uses Cardinal Billot’s statement to conclude that since obstinate adhesion to heresy constitutes a rejection of the Church as the rule of faith, that unless the heretic states IN SO MANY WORDS that he rejects the Church as the rule of faith we lay people cannot conclude the heretic is a formal heretic. Rather, it becomes a complex evidentiary matter that only the Church is competent to resolve.
–
He is using Cardinal Billot’s exposition that is essentially theological in nature to control an argument that is essentially evidentiary/procedural in nature. In other words, Cardinal Billot’s teaching is only controlling as to WHAT fact must be established, not HOW that fact can be established, or WHO in the Church has the authority to establish that fact. Catholic Thinker’s awareness that my point is evidentiary, not theological, is revealed by the examples he has used in this thread, and the conclusions he draws from his examples:
–
“Pope Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic faith, and the Church teaches that when that is not the case, PERTINACITY IN HERESY (which is the rejection of the Church per se as teacher) CAN ONLY COME FROM THE CHURCH.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
“Thus, every cafeteria Catholic who says, “I’m Catholic BUT DON’T ACCEPT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT X” is, from all appearances at least, a formal heretic.”
–
Note, in Catholic Thinker’s first example Catholic Thinker states that he believes that since Pope Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic Faith, only the Church can determine whether he is still, nonetheless, pertinacious. It is clear that Catholic Thinker admits that the Pope may still be pertinacious, its just that only the Church has the authority to determine this fact.
–
In his second example, he provides the example of the cafeteria Catholic who IN SO MANY WORDS denies that he accepts the Church as the rule of faith. Catholic Thinker agrees in this latter situation it is apparent to all that the cafeteria Catholic is a formal heretic without a judgment by the Church.
–
As a result of the foregoing, my argument with Catholic Thinker is threefold. First, the portion of Cardinal Billot’s theological discussion on the nature of formal heresy relied upon by Catholic Thinker is only authoritative in this argument as to what fact must be proved, it has nothing to say about the procedures for establishing that fact or who has the competency to establish that fact. He has to provide other authorities regarding the how and who questions.
–
Second, lay people certainly can conclude from other evidence that it is clear that a formal heretic rejects the Church as the rule of faith. For example, if he says things like “this might sound like heresy but I will say it anyways” or there are frequent reports of efforts by the faithful to correct him and he continues to spout the same heresies the lay faithful can certainly conclude he doesn’t care what the Church teaches, he has his own “gospel” to proclaim.
–
Third, no agency of the Church subordinate to the Pope has the jurisdiction to claim authority over this matter. The first see is judged by no one, and the provisions of Vatican I are clear that the Pope has full and supreme power in matters of the faith, and appeals cannot be made to councils in matters of faith to contest a Pope’s judgment. Thus no subordinate agency of the Church can claim precedence over another since none have jurisdiction over the Pope. Hence Catholic Thinker cannot claim that some agency of the Church – e.g., a court or council – has jurisdiction over the question of the pertinacity of an apparently heretical pope.