Consider, if you will, the following hypothetical scenario:
A Catholic man and woman are validly joined in holy matrimony.
At some point, the man abandons his wife.
No annulment is obtained.
The man, still validly wed, proposes marriage to another woman; managing to deceive even their pastor into believing that he is single.
Marriage vows are exchanged at the altar with the pastor as witness, and the “newlywed” couple is widely embraced by the entire community as man and wife.
QUESTION: Is the couple validly married?
ANSWER: No, the conditions for a valid marriage, in spite of the convincing outward appearance to the contrary, did not exist.
We might sum up the general principle being applied in this case as follows:
An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.
Needless to say, this principle applies always and everywhere; i.e., there are no exceptional cases where it does not apply.
So far so good?
Great!
Now let’s consider an analogous hypothetical scenario:
A certain cardinal is validly elected pope.
At some point thereafter, enemies of the pope secretly pressure him via threats of harm, perhaps either to himself or to the Church, in order to force his resignation.
The pope acquiesces to this pressure and declares his intent to resign the Office of Peter.
The resignation is invalid, of course, given that “it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely.” (See 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2)
The pope, still the valid occupant of the Office of Peter, manages to convince the faithful – both laity and hierarchy – that the See of Rome is vacant.
A conclave assembles and promptly elects another cardinal who is then presented to the world as the new pope, and he is widely embraced by the entire community as the Holy Roman Pontiff.
QUESTION: Is cardinal #2 the pope?
ANSWER: No, the conditions for a valid conclave, in spite of the convincing outward appearance to the contrary, did not exist.
Now let’s set our sights on reality:
There are any number of reasons to suspect that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was in some way forced. Whether or not you see them, stick with me here…
Oh, but Benedict said that his decision was freely made!
Yes, he did, but as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller recently acknowledged:
“The simple declaration of free resignation on the part of the person in question [the pope] is not enough, because depending on the circumstances that statement could easily be forced, and the resignation therefore invalid.”
I’ve had the pleasure of debating this situation with some well-informed and intelligent friends who will readily concede that the circumstances of Benedict’s resignation suggest that it may very well have been forced.
They insist, however, that even if it was forced and technically invalid, the simple fact that a moral unanimity of the Church has since accepted (and continues to treat) Francis as pope provides “dogmatic certainty” that he is, in fact, the pope.
In other words, even if the See of Rome was not truly vacant as conclave 2013 assembled, they firmly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is now the valid occupant of the Office of Peter.
Look, I don’t know for certain that Benedict acted under duress, but what I do know is that an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.
To suggest otherwise in this case is to imagine that a forced resignation can be valid (i.e., God will remove the papacy from the extorted pope) under the solitary condition that the crime is carried out in such a way as to fool a moral unanimity of people.
Sorry, I’m not buying it.
At this, let’s take a closer look at this claim of “dogmatic certainty” arising from Francis’ acceptance to see if it holds up to scrutiny.
Consider:
It is a matter of dogmatic certainty that a man once made pope remains pope until such time as either he dies, validly resigns, or is deposed (which has never happened).
No one contests this.
If my friends are correct, then what we would have in this case, at best, are two competing dogmatic certainties, and that, my friends, cannot be; i.e., one of them does not apply in every conceivable situation, most notably, the present one.
My friends have cited the writings of certain venerable theologians in order to demonstrate the “dogmatic certainty” that they believe applies in the present case.
On close inspection, however, one will find that none of said writings speak to the specific circumstances of a conclave assembling under false pretenses; a situation that is not altogether unprecedented.
On April 7, 1378, less than two weeks after the death of Pope Gregory XI, the cardinals who were present in Rome assembled in conclave and validly elected the man who would be known as Pope Urban VI.
For various and perhaps even good reasons, Pope Urban was unpopular with the College of Cardinals.
So, on September 20th of that same year, many of these same cardinals assembled in conclave and proceeded to elect another man who took the name of Clement VII.
History clearly recognizes Clement as an anti-pope; the first of the Western Schism.
This recognition is not based upon the fact that only a portion of the Church recognized and accepted him as pope. (Indeed, the same could have been said of Urban VI thanks to the confusion that followed).
The fact that Clement was not universally accepted was merely a sign of the objective underlying truth that he was not a true pope.
Likewise, when a moral unanimity of the Church accepts a man as pope it is also merely a sign of the objective underlying truth that the man is pope.
NB: In neither case does this sign [of acceptance or non-acceptance] create the underlying truth; it simply reflects it, and the truth, whatever it may be, in no way depends on it.
As such, even if a moral unanimity of the Church had embraced Clement VII as pope in 1378, Pope Urban VI still would have been pope and Clement a pretender.
With all of this said, the reason Clement VII was an anti-pope is very simple and entirely objective; the See of Rome was not vacant when the cardinals proposed to elevate him to the papacy.
That’s it.
The subjective intentions of the cardinals that proposed to elect him – good, bad or otherwise – are irrelevant; i.e., even if every last one of them was somehow convinced that the Chair of St. Peter was vacant as they met, it would not matter one iota.
In light of the points raised here, my interlocutors have responded:
God will not allow the Church (again, a moral unanimity) to follow a false pope. This would be tantamount to the ‘gates of Hell prevailing’!
To which I would point out two things:
One, we know that God did allow arguably 2/3 of the Church to follow a false pope at certain points during the Western Schism and the gates of Hell did not prevail then.
So, why not 7/8 of the Church? How much is too much?
In 1958, if you were to describe the Second Vatican Council and the destruction of the liturgy that followed to a devout Catholic, he likely would have laughed it off, saying, God will not allow it as this would be tantamount to the ‘gates of Hell prevailing’!
If little else is crystal clear these days, it’s that God is willing to allow far more evil to enter the Church than most of us can imagine.
Secondly, my friends are essentially insisting that God will allow certain devious men to force His hand in removing the papacy from His Vicar if only they are crafty enough to extort the pope into resignation with sufficient stealth.
Is anyone really willing to hang their hat on this proposition?
I’m not.
In conclusion, make of these observations what you will, but just know that to insist that Francis’ acceptance provides “dogmatic certainty” that he is pope – in spite of any shenanigans that may have taken place with respect to Benedict’s resignation – you are also necessarily making claims that fly in the face of both faith and reason.
I would say that the only thing one can say with certainty is that a Pope remains a Pope until he is not. The only divine requirements to be Pope are to be baptized, hold the Catholic faith, be a male, and be the Bishop of Rome. If any of these conditions are not met, he ceases to be Pope. So naturally, upon death one loses bein male and being Bishop of Rome. If one resigns, one loses being Bishop of Rome and naturally the papacy. If one falls into heresy, by reason he ceases being Catholic and by reason his bishopric and papacy. I cannot think of any scenario where any earthly authority can depose a sitting Pope. The Church simply appoints/elects a new bishop of rome when a vacancy occurs. The church cannot divinely or canonically create this vacancy. This vacancy can only occur in the person occupying the office. Thru, death, thru resignation, or thru heresy.
I suspect your friends are part of the vatican II novus ordo sect. Even if they aren’t, there reasoning is invalid. Faith is based upon logic and reason. Their is nothing logical or reasonable about what took place in 2013. Two popes cannot be alive at the same time. The catechism tells us that the church will have to pass through one final trial that will shake the faith of many. We are in it right now.
Don’t ask me to cite my references, but it has been told me that some time in the distant past, a sitting Pope had the skeleton of a past Pope dug up, seated in the chair of Peter, and formally excommunicated. It could happen again. If someone could provide documentation for this historical precedent, I would appreciate having access to it.
Jeff Klump: “Faith is based upon logic and reason.”
That is a heretical statement. Faith is not based on logic and reason, but on the authority of God revealing:
Pope Leo XIII, Satisu Cognitum: For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTRINSIC TRUTH PERCEIVED BY THE NATURAL LIGHT OF REASON, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3).”
You professed heresy. According to sede-vacantist reasoning you are no longer a member of the Church.
Poor Louie. He reverted a little too late. Does he know that this article he posted could have been written almost word for word by the supporters of the “Siri thesis”? Honestly, I like Louie so I would just give him one piece of advice.
Louie, when you think you have thought of something profound, see if what you are about to write has already been written by those who didn’t accept the pontificate of John XXIII.
It was Pope Formosus.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais quotes from an interview:
Fideliter: Yet Archbishop Lefebvre was very reserved about the situation of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: That is correct. He said more than once about these popes-about Paul VI from 1976, and about John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 – that he did not exclude the possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their situation, that a future pope and his cardinals might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been popes. But for himself, he preferred to consider them as popes. This supposes that he did not feel that he possessed sufficient knowledge of the pertinent facts nor the necessary power for making such a judgment. This is of critical importance to bear in mind.
For instance, the abrupt logic of a Fr. Guérard des Lauriers led to the former conclusion: “The pope promulgated a heresy [with religious liberty], hence he is a heretic, hence he is not formally pope.” But the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre made him feel, to the contrary, that the premises of this reasoning were as shaky as the authority that formulated it, be it that of a theologian or even a bishop.
Fideliter: How then did Archbishop Lefebvre resolve the dilemma?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: The Archbishop left the theological question open. Our venerable confrere, the late Alois Kocher used to say: “Let’s leave this question to the theologians of the 21st century! ” Our founder took the problem from a higher perspective and resolved it in the most down-to-earth manner possible. It is the mark of the supernatural intuition that he possessed, and of the action in him of the gift of wisdom, gift of the Holy Ghost.
Fideliter: Do you mean that Archbishop Lefebvre received a divine illumination to carry out these consecrations?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Not at all; but he had an exceptional understanding of the crisis of the papacy. Do not forget that this man who had been Apostolic Delegate in Africa for ten years, friend and confidant of Pope Pius XII, faithful disciple of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XI, who had a perfect knowledge of the eternal Catholic Rome, was able to penetrate deeper than anyone the mystery of iniquity that had been unfolding at Rome since Vatican II: the mystery of the occupation of the See of Peter by a foreign, antichrist ideology, with its practical negation of the royalty, and hence the divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Do not forget, after all, that this is what the doctrine of religious liberty constitutes; that the Assisi reunion of 1986 was, as Bishop de Castro Mayer stated so magnificently in 1988, “the recognition of the divinity of paganism”; that ecumenism is nothing else than the quest for a universality greater than the Catholic Church. All these acts constitute as many execrable blasphemies, which Archbishop Lefebvre, because of his lively faith and his constant union with our Lord Jesus Christ, perceived as being addressed directly against our Lord.
So, confronted by this mystery, he did not wish to resolve it, but rather to make the practical decision rendered necessary by the needs of the body of the faithful, and justified by the existence of this mystery, a mystery of iniquity.
Fideliter: But what about the promises made to Peter that, the Church being founded upon the faith of Peter, the gates of hell would not prevail against her?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre believed with his whole heart in this truth of faith. But to what extent might this promise be nonetheless compatible with a serious deficiency of the pope in his preaching of the faith, a deficiency that would be obvious? Archbishop Lefebvre replied, “The facts speak for themselves!”
Fideliter: On the eve of the consecrations, didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre speak to the four future bishops about this extremely grave problem and the wise solution he had adopted?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: With an extraordinary wisdom, so profound and yet so practical, so as to astonish our limited minds, for in fact, he did not! On the eve of the consecrations, he simply gave us bits of practical advice on the way to preach, the use of the mitre keeping patience with the master of ceremonies, and so on. You see, it was really down to earth.
But if you want a brief expose of the wisdom of judgment about which we were speaking, it is to a writing of March 1984 that you must have recourse. Everything is set forth there with remarkable gravity, depth and force. I quote:
The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Carton Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth.”
You would have a problem, then, with St. Thomas Aquinas. Reason is valid, but not sufficent.
How do you determine that the previous occupant of the See of Rome has validly vacated it? And how, in your view, is it determined that a man presumed to be pope is in fact not Catholic?
Louie, it seems to me that given everything we now know publicly with corroborated facts points directly to the invalid election of Bergoglio. Along with that, it also seems most certain with facts now known that numerous prelates coerced Benedict’s “resignation.” I still believe that Benedict is the true pope. How else can we account for his bizarre “new” definition of the papacy wherein Benedict said he resigned the “governance” of the Church while retaining the “spiritual” (along with the title of “Pope Emeritus”, remaining inside the Vatican as opposed to returning to Germany, and retaining the wearing of the white papal dress). Given his age, Benedict’s health seems just fine. I find it extremely strange that Benedict is rarely seen, and never heard from unless Francis gives the nod.
LV : “They insist, however, that even if it was forced and technically invalid, the simple fact that a moral unanimity of the Church has since accepted (and continues to treat) Francis as pope provides “dogmatic certainty” that he is, in fact, the pope.”
That is not technically correct. The acceptance of a Pope by the Church does not CAUSE him to be the true pope, nor does it invalidate another legitimate papacy. The universal acceptance is an EFFECT that provides certainty that he is the true Pope. If the effect is present, it is proof that the cause (a true Pope) being present.
If the effect is not present, such as during the Great Western Schism, it doesn’t mean there is not a true pope. It only means the legitimacy of the true pope cannot be determined by this means of this doctrine.
LV: “One, we know that God did allow arguably 2/3 of the Church to follow a false pope at certain points during the Western Schism and the gates of Hell did not prevail then.”
During the Great Western Schism there were multiple conclaves by the lawful electors, multiple popes elected, and the magisterium was divided over who was the true pope. Today we have one man claiming to be pope and one man accepted as pope by the magisterium. There is no comparison between now and then. It is apples and oranges.
When there is one man claiming to be pope and the same man is accepted as pope by the Church, the doctrine of the “universal acceptance” proves that he is the pope. That is a basic Catholic doctrine. To reject it is to pick and chose what Catholic doctrine one will accept and what doctrine one will reject, which is a good definition of a heretic.
Reason studies the motives of credibility, but it is not involved in the act of faith.
Well, Ganganelli, it’s all new to me. I would never know about what happened during the pontificate of John XXIII, but I’m glad you would. In these rotten old, dark days, I’m grateful there is someone here who is thinking and considering the many facets of this papal mess we have going on. I’m grateful to Louie, so grateful, he cares enough to question the issue and think out loud. Otherwise I wouldn’t even hear these possibilities. Is there such a thing as a totally original thought that has never been thought? Ew, that’s weird to think about.
Good Monday evening JPeters,
Your assertion of purporting to know what you call, “basic Catholic doctrine”, is simply in error, yet again. You had this to say,
“When there is one man claiming to be pope and the same man is accepted as pope by the Church, the doctrine of the “universal acceptance” proves that he is the pope.”
This assertion of yours’ is simply fallacious. Following is the definition of “dogmatic fact” (those facts connected to a dogma), as it is applied to the person of the Pope, as taught in the “Catholic Encyclopedia”:
“This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter.”
This authentic, both/and definition, has not one iota of anything to do with whether one man, as any man, stakes his “claim” as being Pope, and whether he stands alone as the claimant of the Papacy or whether there are any other number of men who also claim it. Under your erroneous supposition, one can logically conclude that there could be 10 men, who in singular succession, claim the Papacy as each his own, and then whichever man gains the largest number of Catholics’ “votes”, as each is individually voted upon in succession, is then deemed, by popular vote, to be the authentic Pontiff. This claim of yours implodes under its own weight. The Church is not a democracy. The man to whom the Papacy actually belongs is not Pope because he claims to be, rather it is because he is “duly elected” and “recognized by the Universal Church” to be Pope.
The reality is that there are two dogmatic criteria, as spelled out by the “Catholic Encyclopedia”, for the recognition of the true, Holy Roman Pontiff, and they are these: “…duly elected and recognized by the universal Church…”. Thus it can be said, that the overriding majority of Catholics throughout the universal Church can think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as “Pope Francis”, is truly the Roman Pontiff, and he may at once not be Pope, as in order for him to be, the first criterion of being, “duly elected”, must be an ontological reality, before there can be any recognition by the universal Church. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Dear In Caritas,
As usual you demonstrate your ignorance of Catholic doctrine. What you referred to as a “both and” is actually an “either or”. EITHER the man is validly elected and the election is not at once contested (peaceful acceptance), OR the election is contested and/or illicit, and then he is accepted as Pope by the universal Church (universal acceptance). The *peaceful* aspect pertains to the election, and the *universal* aspect pertains to his acceptance as pope by the universal Church. Either of the two suffices to prove his legitimacy.
Regarding the latter point, St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Universal Church explains that a pope who is illicitly elected, or who takes possession of the Papacy by fraud, is nevertheless shown to be a true Pope if he is accepted as such by the universal Church:
St. Alphonsus: “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”
As you can see, a legal election is actually not necessary for a Pope’s legitimacy to be a dogmatic fact. What is necessary is that he is accepted as pope by the universal Church. That’s one of the reasons I phrased it the way I did.
Here is how Msgr Van Noort describes the universal acceptance:
Van Noort: “[W]e must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: … (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’ … WHEN SOMEONE HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY ACTING AS POPE AND HAS THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY THE BISHOPS AND BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM IS GIVING AN UTTERLY CLEAR-CUT WITNESS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS SUCCESSION.”
Francis has been theoretically and practically recognized as Pope by the entire Magisterium and by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics. This proves that he is the legitimate pope.
Now let’s address the election.
In explaining this point, the Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, observes that the election of the Cardinals and their declaration to the Church of the newly elected Pope “is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered.” He then teaches that if the election is not at once contested when it becomes known throughout the world (which today is instantaneously) he must be accepted as Pope.
John of St. Thomas: “As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.”
The election of Francis was not at once contested, which means it met the requirement for a peaceful election which, in and of itself, guarantees his legitimacy. To reject Francis is similar to rejecting a doctrine defined at a council.
So even though the either/or is all that is required, Francis meets both/and. If you deny Francis’ legitimacy, according to Suarez and John of St. Thomas you are a heretic:
John of St. Thomas: “WHOEVER WOULD DENY THAT A PARTICULAR MAN IS POPE AFTER HE HAS BEEN PEACEFULLY AND CANONICALLY ACCEPTED, WOULD NOT ONLY BE A SCHISMATIC, BUT ALSO A HERETIC; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in … the case at hand, WHOEVER WOULD DENY THE PROPOSITION JUST STATED WOULD NOT BE A PURE SCHISMATIC, BUT ALSO A HERETIC, AS SUAREZ ALSO RECKONS.”
Hopefully you possess the humility to and accept this doctrine of the Church, rather than professing a heresy to justify your withdrawal from the Church.
Some points to note:
– There has been true moral unanimity (by both the episcopate and the laity) in Francis’ acceptance as pope; the situation is not analogous to the Great Schism, where there was none.
You ask, “So, why not 7/8 of the Church? How much is too much?” – one must learn what is meant by “moral unanimity” per Catholic theology, and especially consider that it is that of the bishops that is most relevant.
Not even the courageous bishops who resist Francis have ever been under the impression that he’s not actually Pope.
– Yes, the theologians teach, unanimously, that a moral unanimity of the Church cannot fallow a false pope. This is a level of confusion Christ will not allow, it has been determined, by the greatest minds the Church has given us. It seems you think you have spoken to this, but you did not. Where are the quotes from these theologians and your refutation from an equal or higher authority?
– Once a dogmatic fact is realized it cannot magically cease to exist.
– Such a dogmatic fact (general acceptance by the Church of a pontiff) simply “heals in the root” (Cd. Billot) any and all legal (canonical) defects that might exist in the election. Yes, that’s right: They are done away with. And it should be easy to understand why – for the public benefit of the Church. If the Church cannot be certain of who is pope, nothing the Church teaches, dogmatically, is ever certain, since all (explicit) dogma are promulgated by a pope (either directly or indirectly via ratification by an ecumenical council).
This actually does, completely, cover the case of a conclave meeting under “false pretenses.” Such things are exactly the point of the teaching, as a matter of fact! The Church must know, publicly, who is Pope – if anyone is.
(Again, during the Great Schism, no one had moral certainty, because there was no moral unanimity. Such is not the case today.)
– The Church Herself regulates ecclesiastical office, publicly. Again, this is a matter the theologians who’ve spoken on do not disagree. It is not even a point of debate; it’s implicit.
To paraphrase one of them, as the men of the Church are involved, publicly, in offering a man to be bound to the form of the papacy (an action performed by Christ Himself), they must – for the public good of the Church – be involved in severing that bond as well. We know what the possibilities are for such an occurrence, and these have not come to pass with regard to Francis.
The public good of the Church is one reason why your analogy of an invalid marriage falls flat: The life of the Church, the salvation of souls, does not depend on having moral certainty regarding the validity of any particular marriage. The situations are in no way analogous.
– You say, “It is a matter of dogmatic certainty that a man once made pope remains pope until such time as either he dies, validly resigns, or is deposed (which has never happened). No one contests this.”
This is accurate per se but misses a vital aspect.
It is Christ who binds a man to the form of the papacy and Christ who severs that bond – on this point there is absolutely no contention. Christ is the formal cause of the elevation (or separation), though He will act in accordance with the actions of the Church for its public benefit.
But, the point is that in the course of “healing in the root” (as the theologians say) any canonical irregularities that exist in the election of a pontiff, Christ Himself would, clearly, sever from the form of the papacy the prior holder of the office. Since no more than one man may be Vicar simultaneously, this is logically certain.
This did not occur during the Great Schism, but, again, neither was there any one claimant accepted unanimously (morally) during that crisis. That is not the case today.
– Despite being recruited for the cause, Cd. Brandmüller does not give any credence to this position (that Francis holding the office of supreme pontiff can be regarded as less than morally certain) in his article, nor does the piece on chiesa linked.
The main point of the cardinal’s essay is that the situation we have now is not good for the Church. Against that any argument is difficult to imagine (except, perhaps, for Archbishop Gänswein):
“Much less does Brandmüller accept that the post-resignation should take the form that it is assuming today with the entirely unprecedented figure of a ‘pope emeritus,’ with the very grave risks, including that of schism, which in his judgment it entails.”
“Pope Francis as well, responding to a journalist during the return flight from Armenia on June 26, demonstrated that he rejected the idea of ‘almost a shared ministry’ between the two popes. On the contrary, he claimed the exercise of primacy for himself alone…”
Yours is an argument based on doubt. Essentially, the argument is that there is “reasonable doubt” that Francis is not actually the pope. But this is not the way Catholic theology works. If it did, we’d be Protestants. Does it matter? Yes, because such a path ends in looking back at the past 2,000 years, as, say, Steven Speray has done, and deciding which popes were popes and which popes were not popes. This is lunacy, and also pulls the rug out from under the Church’s teaching authority.
Logically, it’s a case of special pleading, that simply ignores what the theologians teach. When there is no dissent among them, ignoring or contradicting what the theologians teach is not properly Catholic.
I am not sure why recognizing (dogmatic) fact while resisting material error is not enough for some, but it is enough. It is the way of Tradition. Christ has given us Francis, whether we like it or not. To paraphrase a great saint, God blesses the Church with some popes and curses Her with others.
God bless, Louie.
Hello JPeters,
The argument stands as to the definition of the “dogmatic fact” of the actual person of the Pontiff as taught in the “Catholic Encyclopedia” (C.E.). The statement made by the C.E. is pristinely clear, as quoted here again, ““This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter.” This statement speaks as “both/and”, as “and” is not “or”, “…every pontiff duly elected AND recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter.” All your citations and machinations simply do not alter the reality that both criteria are required, otherwise the Church is a democracy controlled by the laity. The C. E., circa 1917 is not teaching error JPeters. In caritas.
Good evening Paul,
Your entire argument hinges on your first point, which you simply cannot substantiate, and to quote you,
“– There has been true moral unanimity (by both the episcopate and the laity) in Francis’ acceptance as pope; the situation is not analogous to the Great Schism, where there was none.”
You may believe your argument to be solid and yet you have no foundation for your claim of “moral unanimity”, while most Catholics are in schism, as they are material heretics minimally, placing themselves latae sententiae outside the Church, as heresy is opposed to Faith and as the “C.E.” teaches, “all heretics are in schism”. If we simply look at so called “artificial birth control”, embraced by an overwhelming majority of Catholics from Europe and America, placing them outside the Church, as not simply committing the mortal sin of severing the bond between the procreative and unitive aspects of the conjugal act, but patently rejecting the teaching itself, of contraception under any and all circumstances as an intrinsic evil, thus finding no remedy immanently to substantiate the act, anywhere and ever. Let’s ponder the dogma of the True Presence. An utterly small minority of Novus Ordo “Catholics” believe this dogmatic reality. How about the dogma of Hell. Most believe it either doesn’t exist because God is “too merciful” or it is not occupied, like the material heretic Bishop Robert Baron, who has proclaimed that we are called to believe in the “possibility” that hell exists.
Your house is built on sand, Paul. There can be no “moral unanimity” found when it is not at all clear who yet remains in the True Church, as you claim the “moral unanimity” among Catholics regarding the belief that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope as Francis. And as to your second point, “–one must learn what is meant by “moral unanimity” per Catholic theology, and especially consider that it is that of the bishops that is most relevant. “, tell us dear Paul, just what is meant in the post-Conciliar, “Conciliar Church” by “moral unanimity”? You opine that it is the “moral unanimity” of, “the bishops that is most relevant”. So you mean to say that those same bishops who embrace the material heresy of “Nostra Aetate” and “Dignitatus Humanae”, those bishops who proclaim this heresy as having come from the “Ordinary Magisterium” of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that same Church as commanded by Jesus the Christ, which can never teach heresy and therefore these documents simply cannot come from the authentic teaching Magisterium, rather they are from the magisterium of some other religion? Those bishops, Paul? As being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect, those VC II documents cannot both be in the Ordinary Magisterium as Conciliar documents are and not be in the Ordinary Magisterium, at the same time. The documents are proclaimed to be of the Council, yet in truth they cannot be of a Council of the Catholic Church, which cannot teach heresy. And so who are these “bishops” of whom you speak that it is so important that they be in “moral unanimity” regarding the belief that the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is indeed a Pope? In caritas.
In caritas – well done. It seems to me that every modernist argument furtively makes false assumptions .
Dear Paul,
Your argument on this “dogmatic fact” is quite convincing when up against Louie’s position about BXVI still being Pope. However, out of all the references you post backing your position, none deal with a heretical man becoming Pope and/or remaining a heretic once elected to the papacy. They only deal with canonical form and universal acceptance. Another dogmatic fact often forgotten in this argument is that a Pope cannot be a heretic and not Catholic while being Pope. Cum Ex Apostolatus was clear on this and so is the old Canon Law when it referenced Cum Ex. All you have done here, to some degree, is expose the absurdity the R&R camp finds itself in when it tries to sit on the fence while playing footsie with the rabid dog on the other side.
God bless.
JPeters, on this issue of faith you fair much better in your argument because you use an authoritative source. Too bad you did not do that when arguing with In Caritas, where you resort to cherry picked medieval theologians to justify your position.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06139b.htm
In Caritas,
The object of the dogmatic fact is the legitimacy of a pope, which usually involves a valid election, but in rare circumstances is not required, as St. Alphonsus explained above. The adherence of the Church to the pope as its head, is what proves he is the Pope, as Cardinal Billot notes:
“[A]t least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: THE ADHESION OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH WILL BE ALWAYS, IN ITSELF, AN INFALLIBLE SIGN OF THE LEGITIMACY OF A DETERMINED PONTIFF, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ (…) As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. HE CANNOT HOWEVER PERMIT THAT THE WHOLE CHURCH ACCEPT AS PONTIFF HIM WHO IS NOT SO TRULY AND LEGITIMATELY. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For THE AFOREMENTIONED ADHESION OF THE CHURCH HEALS IN THE ROOT ALL FAULT IN THE ELECTION AND PROVES INFALLIBLY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS.”
If you reject that teaching of Cardinal Billot, explain why he is wrong.
Well according to some arguments on this post, if enough people were to “think” Bergolio was invalidly elected or a heretic, he would no longer be Pope. It seems some are arguing that it is dogmatically certain that Bergolio is Pope since the vast majority accept and recognize him as Pope. Well if that is true then it stands that if the vast majority were to be suddenly convinced that he was not validly elected then he would cease being Pope. If this is true, then we should all start advocating sedevacantism and get the majority on our side so we can “depose” a sitting Pope. Seems silly doesnt it? Well thats what you get if you “dogmatically” think that somehow having the masses recognize a Pope’s election makes him a Pope.
I cherry picked medieval theologians? I quoted two theologians from the 17th century (one of whom was a doctor of the Church) and two from the 20th century. And thee teachings that I quoted are not disputed by any theologians that I am aware of, unlike the teachings sede-vacantists cherry pick to support their theory.
Good morning pigg0214,
Your clarity and peace in argument remains ever refreshing. The so called R&R camp loves to deal with the metaphysical form of the Papacy, divine from its nascent genesis, and occupied in the human person of Saint Peter as Christ Jesus first commanded. What they can only ever theologically skate around is the metaphysical matter of the man, the human person, who makes his claim to the divine Office. The ontological reality, which of course cannot be obfuscated, simply demands that the metaphysical matter, who is the specific man staking his claim to the divine Office, can only remain an integral piece of deciding whether he is or even can be the Holy Roman Pontiff. Otherwise stated, the ontological reality is that the metaphysical form, the divine Office of the Papacy, must be in perfect union with the metaphysical matter of the Papacy, as the individual man who stakes his claim to that same divine Office. The form must fit the matter in perfect ontological conformity, otherwise the “reality” which is proffered as the “Pontiff”, simply and with certainty has no metaphysical being. If it has no metaphysical being, it is as it can only be, a near perfect deception, as an aping of being, and therefore not at all real. To somehow separate the metaphysical form from its matter and attempt to deal with each as though it stands independently of the other, and then attempt to bring the two vital elements of being in the material world back together again in conformity, can in the end only place an affront to the law of non-contradiction, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect. God bless and keep you and yours’ pigg0214. In caritas.
Sorry Tom, but it doesn’t work that way. The universal acceptance of a pope proves that he is the pope, but if a pope is NOT universally accepted it does not prove he is not the Pope. We have an example of this from the Great Western Schism, when the true pope was not universally accepted by the Church, yet he remained the true pope non-the-less.
The universal acceptance can only be used to prove that a man is pope, it cannot be used to prove who is not the pope.
Thank you. I was thinking the other day along the same lines you draw. The question of a heretical pope is an ontological issue, the same goes for the Church of Christ being scandalous to the faithful.
Types of Truths
moral truth; opposite is lie
logical truth; opposite is error
ontological truth; opposite is falsehood/fake
And since we know from Divine Revelation that the Church of Christ will be eclipsed by another, I am not sure why many people treat Sedevacantism as if it is leprosy and an unacceptable position for one to hold. To me, though I have not completely swallowed the hook of SV, it seems to me to be the only logical conclusion one can come to at this point in history without throwing the entire faith into the trash bin of human concoctions and errors. Honestly, in order to be an R&R today, you literally have to side with the Protestants back in St. Bellarmine’s day, obviously siding against him. For example, how many times have we heard them accuse Pope Honorius or Liberius of being heretics? To me, that does huge damage to the faith if not destroy it completely in a person.
One of the reasons I finally had to throw in the towel and side with sedevacantism is because the majority of sources used by the RR side was from theologians while the sede camp primarily relies on the words of actual Popes and Councils. Just look at TOFP and any Novus Ordo Watch article and you will see a definite pattern. The RR side likes theologians and the sede side uses actual authoritative sources. You must know that the purpose of theologians is to debate the issue until definitively declared by the Pope. While much of what many of the great doctors of the Church wrote was true and edifying, none of it is dogmatic until taught by the Pope. So if you want to convince me, quote a Pope.
Those who call Honorius and Liberius heretics are simply aping the Gallican and Protestant propoganda. A thorough review of these two Popes is available in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia. I find it odd that the RR crowd would use protestant and Gallican sources to attack a true Pope. A good source of how ans why this happens is John Daly’s An Evaluation.
I will do better than that. I’ll quote a council which teaches that it is forbidden to separate from one’s patriarch before a judgment has been rendered by a council.
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault,’ and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently THIS HOLY AND UNIVERSAL SYNOD JUSTLY AND FITTINGLY DECLARES AND LAYS DOWN THAT NO LAY PERSON OR MONK OR CLERIC SHOULD SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM COMMUNION WITH HIS OWN PATRIARCH BEFORE A CAREFUL ENQUIRY AND JUDGMENT IN SYNOD, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices. In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If ANYONE SHALL BE FOUND DEFYING THIS HOLY SYNOD, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; IF A MONK OR LAY PERSON, HE MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM ALL COMMUNION AND MEETINGS OF THE CHURCH [I.E. EXCOMMUNICATED] UNTIL HE IS CONVERTED BY REPENTANCE AND RECONCILED.” (Fourth Council of Constantinople).
Here a general council of the Church condemns those who take it upon themselves to separate from their Patriarch before a council has rendered a judgment. And if you object by saying a council can’t render a judgment about a heretical Pope, you are disagreeing with Bellarmine and just about everyone else. In his book on the councils, Bellarmine lists the reasons a council can be called. One of them is to judge a pope who is suspected of heresy, and if he is found guilty by the council, to depose him or declare him deposed.
Incidentally, the statement, “the first see is judged by no one” (which has never been defined by the Church) does not mean the Church cannot render a judgment of papal heresy. Heresy is the exception to the rule, as Pope Innocent III taught.
I have more papal quotes to cite, but I’ll do so in another post.
Great post Paul.
If Francis is the Pope then the gates of hell have prevailed.
If Francis is the Pope then he must be obeyed.
It is simply blasphemous to accept that Christ would place an apostate at the helm of His spotless Bride, the Church. The Papacy is the guardian and protector of the Faith.
I don’t have anything “clever” to say other than it should not, and does not, take a degree in Theology or Canon Law to recognize the Voice of Christ. I am a mere sheep and I do NOT hear my Shepherd’s Voice when I listen to that man. You all have free will and can believe in and follow, sift and disobey this “Pope” all you want, and at your own risk. This has all been prophesied to happen, this “operation of error”, and it’s all contained in a nutshell in 2 Thess Ch. 2, for those with ears to hear and sight to see.
Dear A Simple Beggar,
Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
This endless argument about whether a pope is a true pope has resolved nothing.
So simply use the new criteria to determine for yourself what is true or false or what is moral or immoral-regardless of what the Church taught prior to Vatican II if it differs from that taught in Vatican II-which is to follow your conscience!
Dear JPeters,
I don’t see in what you quoted the word “heresy” or anything related to it. Also, you are misinterpreting St. Bellarmine. He was quite clear that a council does not judge a Pope to be a heretic in the sense that he was not a heretic already but the council simply declares him a heretic to those who do not already know. Objective reality does not need to be declared to someone who already knows it, kind of like preaching to the choir. The declaration also allows the Church to move forward with the next conclave.
You said, “…Bellarmine lists the reasons a council can be called. One of them is to judge a pope who is suspected of heresy, and if he is found guilty by the council, to depose him or declare him deposed.”
Can you please link to or provide a reference to what you just wrote? I have read a lot of St. Bellarmine and don’t remember ever reading something like what you just posted. In fact, I specifically remember reading Bellarmine and him making clear that a Pope would lose his office ipso facto upon manifest heresy and cannot be deposed by anyone or any council nor judged by either since he judges himself and is not judge by anyone. I also remember him saying that a man cannot be at fault for considering a pope to be a manifest heretic since man cannot judge internals. This shows that intentions and motives are presumed to be ill until proven otherwise. The is done by one manifesting their intentions and accepting correction. And let’s not forget that Bellarmine’s first position was that it was impossible for a Pope to be a public heretic and he only argued the other positions out of necessity.
God bless.
I have a similar thought, sort of like a wager. This assumes a conflict in faith and morals exists between the Church before Vatican II and then afterwards. In this forum, I don’t believe the conflicts need to be demonstrated to anyone here.
If I accept the teachings of Vatican II and our most recent popes and am wrong, then I am condemned by the true Church of Christ and Her teachings prior to Vatican II since they are in conflict.
If I reject the teachings of Vatican II and our most recent popes and am wrong, then I am protected under the teachings of Vatican II and post-Vatican II and have a high chance of salvation regardless of the conflicts.
Which one sounds like the best bet?
Jpeters, this edict by the Constantinople IV is valid and true granted there is a valid Pope or Bishops to hold a Council. If I think my Bishop is a heretic I cannot seperate my communion with him until Rome removes him. But if I suspect my Bishop AND Rome of both being in heresy, then I can either assent to the heresy or fall out of communion with them. This is the problem I have with RR. They do not assent to the heresy but try to maintain a forced unfitting unity. Its a contradiction.
Yes I have often used that analogy. I phrase it to my NO and non-Catholic friends like this: Well in my religion, if you are not a Catholic you are damned. But in your religion, no one is damned. So either way I have nothing to worry about.
Pigg, that is the other thing that gets me about this whole debate. The RR types INSIST we remain in communion with a a church that teaches you no longer need to be in communion with.
LOL, exactly. I’m choosing the safe (and ever-so-narrow) route of the few. Besides, it is 100% dogmatic that the actual Pope cannot teach error, in any forum – ex-cathedra or not – when it comes to Faith and Morals.
Good Tuesday afternoon JPeters,
This becomes very tedious. I will make a few more points here and then please see my responses to Paul Folbrecht and pigg0214 below to fill in the gaps. You had this to say: “The adherence of the Church to the pope as its head, is what proves he is the Pope, as Cardinal Billot notes:”. The most fundamental problem with your assertion of proof as, “The adherence of the Church”, is that you simply have no capacity to know, and for that matter nor does anyone else, just who, with ontological certainty, the “Church” today indeed is. In the time of Cardinal Billot, this was not the reality. So tell me JPeters, who is the Church universal today? Who is the Church as our Lady of LaSalette proclaimed, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”, “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay”, and “The Church will have a frightful crisis.” Is the Church composed of the shepherds and laity who embrace the objective heresy, which is patently clear in “Nostra Aetate” and “Dignitatus Humanae”?; as being cannot both be and not be at the same time and under the same respect. The “same respect” here JPeters, is the previous 20 centuries of teaching by Holy Mother Church, which these so called “Conciliar” documents place an affront to. As these “Conciliar” documents cannot both rest within the authentic Ordinary Magisterium and not rest within the authentic Ordinary Magisterium, at the same time, as under the same respect. Therefore, their “respect” is indeed different as it can only be, as properly understood ontologically. Internal contradiction is utterly and simply not possible within the Holy Church’s Magisterium or the gates of hell would prevail. That understood, whoever embraces the VC II as legitimate, Holy Catholic Church teaching, which can only rest legitimately within the Ordinary Magisterium, is a material heretic, as the documents mentioned specifically teach heresy which is opposed to Faith, and as such cannot rest in the authentic, Catholic Magisterium. Therefore, they teach another religion which is not Catholic. There is an argument to be made that as another religion, those who you refer to as “the universal Church”, aka: “Conciliar Church”, who adhere to the VC II as authentic Catholic teaching, are actually and existentially in apostasy without even knowing it specifically, and yet as the “operation of error” replaces the reception of grace, that which is both freely given and completely undeserved, there simply is no excuse, as Saint Paul taught in his Letter to the Romans, chapter 1. Whether the Conciliar Church is in schism consequent to its embrace of material heresy or whether the Conciliar Church is frankly apostate, is not of material essence in this argument, as in either case, it is not the Church of Jesus Christ and therefore it has no capacity to determine who the authentic Holy Roman Pontiff is or whether there is one currently visible in the True Church. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Yes, well done. We have a heretical man accepted with moral unanimity by a crowd of heretics. How does this serve the “good of the Church”….
Traditional theology may have to be put aside for awhile in order to get a grip on what is really happening in these diabolical times.
Hello Tom A,
Beautiful and precise clarity in understanding and argument. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Thanks for the laugh Tom A. Clarity in truth is a beautiful thing. In caritas.
Louie:
The most forceful arument against your case here comes from Ratzinger himself, who seems to have denied the allegation that he was forced out and has indeed gone on to support Pope Francis.
It’s one thing to charge a Usual Suspect with burglary who is caught in possession of his neighbor’s gilt silverware, but it’s quite another thing to obtain a conviction when the owner of the silverware testifies that he made a gift of the cutlery to the Usual Suspect.
“You may believe your argument to be solid and yet you have no foundation for your claim of “moral unanimity”, while most Catholics are in schism, as they are material heretics minimally, placing themselves latae sententiae outside the Church, as heresy is opposed to Faith and as the “C.E.” teaches, “all heretics are in schism”. If we simply look at so called ‘artificial birth control’…”
—
You are ignoring the distinctions that are so critical to Catholic ecclesiology: The internal vs. external forums, the Body vs. the Soul of the Church (as the pope and theologians have defined these things), the sin vs. the crime of heresy.
—
It is not correct, on multiple points, to state that “Catholics… are material heretics… [and thus] outside of the Church.”
—
First, the phrase “material heretic” as used by the Church applies, *by definition*, to *non-Catholics* – that is, Protestants. Here is an actual authority – the eminent theologian Cardinal Billot:
—
“Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently own; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin, and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification… ***if you understand by the expression material heretic those alone, who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still deny something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, hold an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.***” (“De Ecclesia Christi,” as quoted in “True Or False Pope,” p102-103, emphasis here mine).
—
(To keep the length of this post reasonable, I’m going to post a separate response to handle this question – Church membership – distinctly.)
—
Second, the notion that what you are referring to as material heresy – the objective acceptance of some error – would separate one from the Body of the Church leads immediately to clear absurdities. In fact, it is absurd, and is not something the Church has ever taught.
—
Consider a baptized child, Catholic, not far above the age of reason, who hears, innocently, perhaps from a not-too-bright teacher, that Christ possesses a single will. Of course, the child will, in all likelihood, becoming a monotheletist without thinking twice about it. But no sane person would claim that the child is no longer a member of the Catholic Church.
—
Now, you may object that you referring to those Catholics who believe some heresy with pertinacity. First, you didn’t say that. Secondly, this is still false.
—
Sin (the mortal variety), such as that of heresy, separates one from the Soul of the Church – Her life of grace. Now, this is quite a serious matter indeed, since a soul in such a state is condemned should life end in that state. However, the Body of the Church – that is, membership – is another matter altogether. The theologians decided very long ago that *sin* alone could not separate a Catholic from membership in the Church because this leads immediately to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church with visible members. If this were the case, no Catholic ever knew which of his fellow Catholics really was – meaning he never knew which bishops were really bishops and which popes were really popes. And thus nothing the Church taught was certain.
—
The next objection may be that the sin must be “publicly manifest” and pertinacious to separate one from Church membership. Manifest according to whom? Pertinacious according to whom? It is a maxim that the Church does not judge internals, nor, certainly, do individual Catholics. “Manifest heresy” in the external forum is decided by the Church, not individuals.
—
A prominent sedevacantist once objected to me that if he is sitting in a pew in a church and hears a priest utter heresy, he “knows” that man it not really a Catholic at all. He knows his heresy is manifest and pertinacious. And if his neighbor is not sure? Well, the sedevacantist is still confident, because he’s always confident in his own judgement and his own will. But this is another absurdity. The ontological reality of the membership roster of the Catholic Church cannot be dependent upon any subject belief or interpretation. Sedevacantists are appealing to Schrödinger’s cat. As it is both alive and dead at once, according to this confused theology, baptized Catholics are both members of the Church and not depending on who’s looking.
—
It is enough to say of a person who is manifesting some heretical principle, “You are speaking error. This is not what the Church teaches. If you choose to believe this error knowing that it contradicts what the Church teaches, infallibly, you are committing a grave sin that endangers your soul. If you are a priest or bishop, your sin is far worse and you will be accountable for the public damage you are doing. I will resist your errors personally and publicly if they remain public.” This is how Catholics – *layman* – have always responded to wayward prelates. (Here’s a good hint: A Catholic ecumenical council very long ago anathematized any laymen who would formally separate from his bishop without a judgement from the Church.)
—
—
“Your house is built on sand, Paul. There can be no “moral unanimity” found when it is not at all clear who yet remains in the True Church.”
—
By your standards, it was never clear to anyone at any time who was actually a member of the Catholic Church. (Which is not to say we are not living in an extraordinary time in the Church – we certainly are.)
—
None of this in any way, shape, or form excuses in any sense the serious sin of those Catholics who do, with knowledge and pertinacity, reject Church teaching. (This is, frankly, obvious, but the emotional nature of sedevacantism tends to take great affront at whatever it sees as a “defense” of bad Catholics.) However, as the Church has always taught, directly and indirectly, such people are indeed members of the Catholic Church unless and until they either publicly renounce such membership themselves or are separated from the Body by excommunication.
—
A latae sententiae excommunication still requires an ecclesiastical *crime* as been committed – this is a matter of canon law, after all. It is the Church that makes findings of such crimes, by definition. You may be unable to find the Catholic Church, but She has not gone anywhere despite the sins and errors of churchmen.)
—
—
“And as to your second point, –one must learn what is meant by ‘moral unanimity’ per Catholic theology, and especially consider that it is that of the bishops that is most relevant. tell us dear Paul, just what is meant in the post-Conciliar, ‘Conciliar Church’ by ‘moral unanimity’? You opine that it is the ‘moral unanimity’ of, ‘the bishops that is most relevant’. So you mean to say that those same bishops who embrace the material heresy of ‘Nostra Aetate and ‘Dignitatus Humanae’, those bishops who proclaim this heresy as having come from the ‘Ordinary Magisterium’ of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that same Church as commanded by Jesus the Christ, which can never teach heresy and therefore these documents simply cannot come from the authentic teaching Magisterium…”
—
Moral unanimity has a definition that is independent of any particular time or context, actually.
—
It should be noted that you make sedevacantist arguments, but that was not the debate here. My response to Louie, which you are responding to, was not written against a basis of sedevacantism per se, as Louie has not publicly argued that position (though what we may call francisvacantism is similar in numerous ways). But, that is fine, and I will continue with this response (which will be my last to you here with one possible exception).
—
It should first be noted that the phrase “Ordinary Magisterium” has no formal definition outside of the more proper, full, term, “Ordinary Universal Magisterium.” The middle word is important: The OUM is universal in both time and space; any teaching that is *not* universal across both time and space is not, by definition, part of the OUM. (Because this is also a large sub-topic, I’m going to make a separate post about it.)
—
This means that the novelties of Vatican II (parts of the documents, which contain much orthodox content also) cannot logically be considered part of the OUM. Already, this demonstrates that your simplistic analysis above is faulty.
—
Next, we have the fact that the promulgating pope himself informed the Church that there were no new doctrinal (binding) teachings produced by the Council. And, this is apparent from the language used also. Since heresy is the direct denial of a de fide teaching, how can you say what you call a false church is promulgating heretical teachings when there are no teachings at all?
—
No, rather, the mess that is Vatican II is all about ambiguity. Orthodoxy here, at least seeming heterodoxy here, but no clarity, and hence complete confusion. Now, this is insidious and evil – look at the wreckage it has wrought – but it is not teaching heresy. This is obvious.
—
Your naked assertion that the council promulgated heresy as binding teaching is quite false.
—
Here’s a challenge for you – I’ll respond to this if you answer exactly this challenge – what is one point of heresy in a document from Vatican II? Identify the teaching (it must be presented in formal language to be considered doctrinal) and the de fide teaching it directly contradicts. (If it were me, I’d go right for DH, but make sure you have formal language with intention to bind. Best of luck.)
—
—
“…rather they are from the magisterium of some other religion? Those bishops, Paul? As being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect, those VC II documents cannot both be in the Ordinary Magisterium as Conciliar documents are and not be in the Ordinary Magisterium, at the same time. The documents are proclaimed to be of the Council, yet in truth they cannot be of a Council of the Catholic Church, which cannot teach heresy. And so who are these ‘bishops’ of whom you speak that it is so important that they be in ‘moral unanimity’ regarding the belief that the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is indeed a Pope?”
—
“Bishops” in quotes – I love it! You’re now full monty sede. Why not come out right off the bat?
—
Please tell me, when did the specific, hierarchical Church that Christ founded morph into a false Church? When did real bishops become false bishops? What is the date? What is your authority in making this declaration?
—
Do you realize that you are now spreading heresy yourself? You are denying the perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church, which is an implicit dogma. Are you familiar with this theology? Can you quote a major theologian who denies it?
—
So, in the end, you rest your entire case on the Church having failed decades ago – this raises the questions as to why are you bothering with Benedict’s resignation.
—
As with sedevacantism in general, your errors in premise have led to very serious errors in conclusion. In your seal to “protect” the Church from heresy, you’ve gone and denied Her. But she’s still there, just as Christ was present under His blood and bruises as He carried the cross. The Church has taught since the Patristic age that Her Body will go through passions analogous to what His endured. It’s never pretty. In the age of Arius, 75-95% of the episcopate accepted the heresy of the day, yet they were still bishops – or else the Church would have ended then. The case is the same today, with the heresy de jure, modernism (at once less overtly dangerous than the direct denial of Christ’s divinity, yet also far more dangerous for its stealth).
—
Formal unity with supreme pontiff a condition generally necessary for salvation. So, you should think very, very carefully about deciding, with the full weight of your will, that the visible Church is no longer the Church and the Pope is no longer the Pope.
This is related to my response to In caritas above, in regards to Church membership.
—
I would like to cite “True Or False Pope,” by John Salza & Robert Siscoe, as a general source.
—
Sedevacantists tell us that tell us that “heretics” aren’t Catholic, then tell us that any person can determine who is a heretic (without providing a definition of the term, generally), then tell us that if they determine that a prelate is a heretic due to some statement, he is therefore not a Catholic at all, and thus can’t hold any office in the Catholic Church (especially that of Vicar of Christ). But is this based on real Catholic teaching? In fact, the common opinion of the theologians, as well as the timeless praxis of the Church, is that those who are members are baptized Catholics who have neither been excommunicated nor directly apostatized.
—
The internal sin of heresy, being a mortal sin against Faith, results in the complete divestment of that theological virtue – but is unrelated to a Catholic’s membership in the Church, which is ontological reality of the external forum. Manifest – formal – heresy is another matter, but the critical point regarding it is that
—
The Catholic Church has both internal and external elements, that is, what have been termed the Soul and the Body (by St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine, Pope St. Pius Xth, and others). It is possible to be joined with one or the other but not both; a Catholic in good standing who is also in the state of grace is joined perfectly to both the Body and the Soul of the Church. What joins a person to the Soul of the Church are the internal bonds of faith, hope, charity, and sanctifying grace; what joins him to the Body, since this is the external and *visible* aspect of the Church, is also external and visible – and being joined to the Body IS what is meant by “membership in the Catholic Church.”
—
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, **under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth** [sedes, note this]. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, “De Ecclesia Militante”, ch.2.)
—
In the same work, he explains the distinction of Soul & Body: “Augustine says… the Church is a living body, in which there is a Soul and a Body. The internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity, and the rest are the Soul. The external profession of the faith and the communication of the sacraments are the Body.”
—
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry says essentially the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church: “…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
—
Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, **submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.** This is very important, as sedes constantly insist that the mere uttering of a statement in conflict with a de fide teaching (or, frequently, even less than that) makes one a “heretic” and not a Catholic. (Note that this is even *less* than the sin of heresy; it could be a matter of inculpable error.)
—
As Fr. Berry notes above, the very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: that the literal meaning of the word is “choosing” makes that clear. He says, further, in the same work: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
—
Note that Fr. Berry is talking about *Catholics* above. This is important regarding the terminology, as we’ll see shortly.
—
Fr. Berry notes further that perfect observance of the three bonds of external unity (that which unites to the Body) is not necessary: “These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. ***It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church***; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”
—
(We can say that the material aspect of unity with the Body is profession of true doctrine, while the formal aspect is the adherence to the Church in principle as absolute rule of faith. Material errors or faults do not by any means necessarily destroy the formal aspect of unity, which is what is essential.)
My second note, regarding the OUM. Please note that I may not be able to respond to any comments on these posts.
–
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church exists, by definition, across space and time, and is infallible. This means that any teaching of the OUM is something taught, at least in some fashion, “always and everywhere”; novelties need not apply.
—
This simple, uncontested theological fact eliminates the sedevacantist argument that the documents of Vatican II are parts of the OUM (in whole, apparently!), and teach heresy, thus could not *really* have come from the Catholic Church (which they believe has failed, regardless of how they put it). To get around the plain teaching of the OUM, they assert that it need extent only in space – that is, all bishops at one point in time must promulgate a teaching – but this is false. Furthermore, it still would not save the absurd teaching that the documents of Vatican II are false examples of the OUM, since those documents promulgate zero new doctrines.
—
What follows is some basic support for this assertion.
—
Letter from the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII, Suprema Haec Sacra: “through the ordinary and universal teaching office… [are] those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach…”
—
Note the temporal aspect there?
—
Tuas Libener, Pope Piux IX: “…the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith… must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary Magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians.”
—
“Constant” – consistent throughout time.
—
The prestigious theologian Fr. Sylvester Berry:
—
“The value of Tradition as proof for revealed doctrine rests principally upon the active and passive infallibility of the Church. Whenever there are sufficient witnesses to prove that a certain doctrine is accepted by the whole Church as a revealed truth, or that it is taught as such by a majority of the bishops, it is immediately evident that the doctrine is infallibly true and could be defined as a dogma of faith, if not already so defined. When appealing to tradition in this sense, it matters not what age of the Church be selected, since truth does not change with the centuries. The truth of a doctrine is established just as securely by proving its universal acceptance today, as by showing that it was universally accepted in any past age of the Church. But when tradition is used simply for its historical value, as a witness to what Christ or His Apostles did or taught, then he earlier the witness, the more valuable his testimony, because he approaches nearer to those who actually saw and heard the things related.21 (The Church of Christ, Father Sylvester Berry, pg 268-269)
—
Fr. Berry is saying that if a doctrine is taught universally at a point in space, it follows naturally that this always was the case. This is made clear by this statement: “But when tradition is used simply for its historical value, as a witness to what Christ or His Apostles did or taught, then the earlier the witness, the more valuable his testimony, because he approaches nearer to those who actually saw and heard the things related.”
—
Implied that whatever teaching is in question was always taught in the Church. Novelties need not apply.
—
Let’s take a look at some of Fr. Berry’s statements just prior to the quote above.
—
Christ’s Church, 266: “…a doctrine of faith or morals in which practically all the bishops of the Church agree, is infallibly true… [this] is a dogma of the faith, defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: ‘All things are to be accepted by divine and Catholic faith, hich are contained in the written or traditional word of God and set forth by the Church as divinely revealed, whether this be done by solemn decree or by the ordinary and universal teaching authority.”
—
So, clearly, Fr. Berry recognizes that anything the OUM teaches is part of the Deposit of Faith – the “written or traditional word of God” – which closed with the death of the Apostle John (de fide). Therefore, any such teaching is, by definition, universal in time – even if a moral unanimity of the episcopate did not proclaim it with the same level of clarity and directness in every age.
—
I could offer much more on this from other sources. In short, it is very silly to assert that infallible teachings of the Catholic Church can come into existence – in whole, not as a matter of natural development of doctrine – at any point in time.
—
The bishops during & since Vatican II have not taught any specific, new teaching universallyt. We’ve got wishy-washy ecumenism and lack of clarity across the board, but, clearly, no new, defined teaching. This is a simple fact.
—
None of the pseudo errors of Vatican II were ever promulgated as definitive teachings at all; there is nothing but ambiguity. There is nothing binding. Even the proponents of the heterodox teachings acknowledge that.
—
(And we know this as well for no other reason then the fact that Christ promised the Church cannot fail. The theologians teach that the perpetual visibility of the Church is one of its three necessary attributes.)
—
Fr. Berry uses the example of the Arian crisis to make an excellent point very much contrary to the sede mindset, in this same section. He fully acknowledges (like Cardinal Newman and every other scholar of the age) that the majority (most sources, including St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, say it was the vast majority) imbibed Arian spirit to some degree. But, he points out, speaking of the councils of Arimini and Seleucia, which did not formally teach Arianism but did not condemn it (no binding teachings and no anathemas, just like Vatican II, though these were not ecumenical councils), they did not formally defect from the faith, as they did not formally embrace heretical doctrine as a whole. They “…did not err in regard to faith, but simply failed to meet the occasion, as they should have done, by a direct and decisive condemnation” (268).
—
This situation could hardly be more analogous to the present-day situation, substituting modernism for Arianism. The Church has not bound anyone to any aspect of modernism.
“You may believe your argument to be solid and yet you have no foundation for your claim of “moral unanimity”, while most Catholics are in schism, as they are material heretics minimally, placing themselves latae sententiae outside the Church, as heresy is opposed to Faith and as the “C.E.” teaches, “all heretics are in schism”. If we simply look at so called ‘artificial birth control’…”
—
You are ignoring the distinctions that are so critical to Catholic ecclesiology: The internal vs. external forums, the Body vs. the Soul of the Church (as the pope and theologians have defined these things), the sin vs. the crime of heresy.
—
It is not correct, on multiple points, to state that “Catholics… are material heretics… [and thus] outside of the Church.”
—
First, the phrase “material heretic” as used by the Church applies, *by definition*, to *non-Catholics* – that is, Protestants. Here is an actual authority – the eminent theologian Cardinal Billot:
—
“Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently own; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin, and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification… ***if you understand by the expression material heretic those alone, who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still deny something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, hold an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.***” (“De Ecclesia Christi,” as quoted in “True Or False Pope,” p102-103, emphasis here mine).
—
(To keep the length of this post reasonable, I’m going to post a separate response to handle this question – Church membership – distinctly.)
—
Second, the notion that what you are referring to as material heresy – the objective acceptance of some error – would separate one from the Body of the Church leads immediately to clear absurdities. In fact, it is absurd, and is not something the Church has ever taught.
—
Consider a baptized child, Catholic, not far above the age of reason, who hears, innocently, perhaps from a not-too-bright teacher, that Christ possesses a single will. Of course, the child will, in all likelihood, becoming a monotheletist without thinking twice about it. But no sane person would claim that the child is no longer a member of the Catholic Church.
—
Now, you may object that you referring to those Catholics who believe some heresy with pertinacity. First, you didn’t say that. Secondly, this is still false.
—
Sin (the mortal variety), such as that of heresy, separates one from the Soul of the Church – Her life of grace. Now, this is quite a serious matter indeed, since a soul in such a state is condemned should life end in that state. However, the Body of the Church – that is, membership – is another matter altogether. The theologians decided very long ago that *sin* alone could not separate a Catholic from membership in the Church because this leads immediately to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church with visible members. If this were the case, no Catholic ever knew which of his fellow Catholics really was – meaning he never knew which bishops were really bishops and which popes were really popes. And thus nothing the Church taught was certain.
—
The next objection may be that the sin must be “publicly manifest” and pertinacious to separate one from Church membership. Manifest according to whom? Pertinacious according to whom? It is a maxim that the Church does not judge internals, nor, certainly, do individual Catholics. “Manifest heresy” in the external forum is decided by the Church, not individuals.
—
A prominent sedevacantist once objected to me that if he is sitting in a pew in a church and hears a priest utter heresy, he “knows” that man it not really a Catholic at all. He knows his heresy is manifest and pertinacious. And if his neighbor is not sure? Well, the sedevacantist is still confident, because he’s always confident in his own judgement and his own will. But this is another absurdity. The ontological reality of the membership roster of the Catholic Church cannot be dependent upon any subject belief or interpretation. Sedevacantists are appealing to Schrödinger’s cat. As it is both alive and dead at once, according to this confused theology, baptized Catholics are both members of the Church and not depending on who’s looking.
—
It is enough to say of a person who is manifesting some heretical principle, “You are speaking error. This is not what the Church teaches. If you choose to believe this error knowing that it contradicts what the Church teaches, infallibly, you are committing a grave sin that endangers your soul. If you are a priest or bishop, your sin is far worse and you will be accountable for the public damage you are doing. I will resist your errors personally and publicly if they remain public.” This is how Catholics – *layman* – have always responded to wayward prelates. (Here’s a good hint: A Catholic ecumenical council very long ago anathematized any laymen who would formally separate from his bishop without a judgement from the Church.)
—
—
“Your house is built on sand, Paul. There can be no “moral unanimity” found when it is not at all clear who yet remains in the True Church.”
—
By your standards, it was never clear to anyone at any time who was actually a member of the Catholic Church. (Which is not to say we are not living in an extraordinary time in the Church – we certainly are.)
—
None of this in any way, shape, or form excuses in any sense the serious sin of those Catholics who do, with knowledge and pertinacity, reject Church teaching. (This is, frankly, obvious, but the emotional nature of sedevacantism tends to take great affront at whatever it sees as a “defense” of bad Catholics.) However, as the Church has always taught, directly and indirectly, such people are indeed members of the Catholic Church unless and until they either publicly renounce such membership themselves or are separated from the Body by excommunication.
—
A latae sententiae excommunication still requires an ecclesiastical *crime* as been committed – this is a matter of canon law, after all. It is the Church that makes findings of such crimes, by definition. You may be unable to find the Catholic Church, but She has not gone anywhere despite the sins and errors of churchmen.)
—
—
“And as to your second point, –one must learn what is meant by ‘moral unanimity’ per Catholic theology, and especially consider that it is that of the bishops that is most relevant. tell us dear Paul, just what is meant in the post-Conciliar, ‘Conciliar Church’ by ‘moral unanimity’? You opine that it is the ‘moral unanimity’ of, ‘the bishops that is most relevant’. So you mean to say that those same bishops who embrace the material heresy of ‘Nostra Aetate and ‘Dignitatus Humanae’, those bishops who proclaim this heresy as having come from the ‘Ordinary Magisterium’ of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that same Church as commanded by Jesus the Christ, which can never teach heresy and therefore these documents simply cannot come from the authentic teaching Magisterium…”
—
Moral unanimity has a definition that is independent of any particular time or context, actually.
—
It should be noted that you make sedevacantist arguments, but that was not the debate here. My response to Louie, which you are responding to, was not written against a basis of sedevacantism per se, as Louie has not publicly argued that position (though what we may call francisvacantism is similar in numerous ways). But, that is fine, and I will continue with this response (which will be my last to you here with one possible exception).
—
It should first be noted that the phrase “Ordinary Magisterium” has no formal definition outside of the more proper, full, term, “Ordinary Universal Magisterium.” The middle word is important: The OUM is universal in both time and space; any teaching that is *not* universal across both time and space is not, by definition, part of the OUM. (Because this is also a large sub-topic, I’m going to make a separate post about it.)
—
This means that the novelties of Vatican II (parts of the documents, which contain much orthodox content also) cannot logically be considered part of the OUM. Already, this demonstrates that your simplistic analysis above is faulty.
—
Next, we have the fact that the promulgating pope himself informed the Church that there were no new doctrinal (binding) teachings produced by the Council. And, this is apparent from the language used also. Since heresy is the direct denial of a de fide teaching, how can you say what you call a false church is promulgating heretical teachings when there are no teachings at all?
—
No, rather, the mess that is Vatican II is all about ambiguity. Orthodoxy here, at least seeming heterodoxy here, but no clarity, and hence complete confusion. Now, this is insidious and evil – look at the wreckage it has wrought – but it is not teaching heresy. This is obvious.
—
Your naked assertion that the council promulgated heresy as binding teaching is quite false.
—
Here’s a challenge for you – I’ll respond to this if you answer exactly this challenge – what is one point of heresy in a document from Vatican II? Identify the teaching (it must be presented in formal language to be considered doctrinal) and the de fide teaching it directly contradicts. (If it were me, I’d go right for DH, but make sure you have formal language with intention to bind. Best of luck.)
—
—
“…rather they are from the magisterium of some other religion? Those bishops, Paul? As being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect, those VC II documents cannot both be in the Ordinary Magisterium as Conciliar documents are and not be in the Ordinary Magisterium, at the same time. The documents are proclaimed to be of the Council, yet in truth they cannot be of a Council of the Catholic Church, which cannot teach heresy. And so who are these ‘bishops’ of whom you speak that it is so important that they be in ‘moral unanimity’ regarding the belief that the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is indeed a Pope?”
—
“Bishops” in quotes – I love it! You’re now full monty sede. Why not come out right off the bat?
—
Please tell me, when did the specific, hierarchical Church that Christ founded morph into a false Church? When did real bishops become false bishops? What is the date? What is your authority in making this declaration?
—
Do you realize that you are now spreading heresy yourself? You are denying the perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church, which is an implicit dogma. Are you familiar with this theology? Can you quote a major theologian who denies it?
—
So, in the end, you rest your entire case on the Church having failed decades ago – this raises the questions as to why are you bothering with Benedict’s resignation.
—
As with sedevacantism in general, your errors in premise have led to very serious errors in conclusion. In your seal to “protect” the Church from heresy, you’ve gone and denied Her. But she’s still there, just as Christ was present under His blood and bruises as He carried the cross. The Church has taught since the Patristic age that Her Body will go through passions analogous to what His endured. It’s never pretty. In the age of Arius, 75-95% of the episcopate accepted the heresy of the day, yet they were still bishops – or else the Church would have ended then. The case is the same today, with the heresy de jure, modernism (at once less overtly dangerous than the direct denial of Christ’s divinity, yet also far more dangerous for its stealth).
—
Formal unity with supreme pontiff a condition generally necessary for salvation. So, you should think very, very carefully about deciding, with the full weight of your will, that the visible Church is no longer the Church and the Pope is no longer the Pope.
—————————
Your argument on this “dogmatic fact” is quite convincing when up against Louie’s position about BXVI still being Pope. However, out of all the references you post backing your position, none deal with a heretical man becoming Pope and/or remaining a heretic once elected to the papacy. They only deal with canonical form and universal acceptance. Another dogmatic fact often forgotten in this argument is that a Pope cannot be a heretic and not Catholic while being Pope. Cum Ex Apostolatus was clear on this and so is the old Canon Law when it referenced Cum Ex. All you have done here, to some degree, is expose the absurdity the R&R camp finds itself in when it tries to sit on the fence while playing footsie with the rabid dog on the other side.
Comments here are wandering all over the place. My response to Louie was a response to Louie’s blog post – that’s the topic. Louie isn’t asserting that Francis never became pope because he was a heretic or that he lost his office by becoming a heretic. (These are standard sede arguments that I dearly hope Louie never embraces)
—
First, the notion that a pope cannot be a heretic is not a “dogmatic fact”; these are facts in the practical realm that are intimately connected to dogma, not doctrines themselves. Second, this post is again full of common sedevacantist oversimplifications. These failures to denote critical distinctions between such things as the sin and the ecclesiastical crime of heresy are what cause the erroneous sedevacantist conclusions.
—
Yes, it’s true, in a sense, that a pope can’t be a heretic. What type of heretic, and according to whom? A “heretic” in the public forum, which is what is relevant, is someone who has been convicted by the Church. Period.
—
If what you propose here, in a sloppy, general sense, with no distinctions, were true, nothing the Church ever taught would be morally certain. The Church would collapse like a house of cards in the wind. That is because no Catholic can have certainty that every pope in the past two millennia was not a heretic – either secret or even public in his day – coupled with the fact that it is the popes that promulgate all dogma, directly or indirectly.
—
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio as their own, given that it very clearly speaks of *true popes*, not usurpers.
—
“In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”
—
That’s “the Roman Pontiff” – not a “usurper,” “false pope,” etc. And he can be “contradicted” – that is, resisted.
—
When it speaks of heresy, as in, “…convicted of having, deviated [from the Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism…” we know it’s speaking of the *crime* of heresy – which, by definition, is determined *by the Church* (note the word “convicted”).
—
It is people without the proper theological basis – or who find themselves, perhaps, with their will overpowering their intellect – find the Recognize & Resist position “absurd.”
My last comment got concatenated with a former one. It is unfortunate that they cannot be edited. This is in response to pigg0214.
—
Comments here are wandering all over the place. My response to Louie was a response to Louie’s blog post – that’s the topic. Louie isn’t asserting that Francis never became pope because he was a heretic or that he lost his office by becoming a heretic. (These are standard sede arguments that I dearly hope Louie never embraces)
—
First, the notion that a pope cannot be a heretic is not a “dogmatic fact”; these are facts in the practical realm that are intimately connected to dogma, not doctrines themselves. Second, this post is again full of common sedevacantist oversimplifications. These failures to denote critical distinctions between such things as the sin and the ecclesiastical crime of heresy are what cause the erroneous sedevacantist conclusions.
—
Yes, it’s true, in a sense, that a pope can’t be a heretic. What type of heretic, and according to whom? A “heretic” in the public forum, which is what is relevant, is someone who has been convicted by the Church. Period.
—
If what you propose here, in a sloppy, general sense, with no distinctions, were true, nothing the Church ever taught would be morally certain. The Church would collapse like a house of cards in the wind. That is because no Catholic can have certainty that every pope in the past two millennia was not a heretic – either secret or even public in his day – coupled with the fact that it is the popes that promulgate all dogma, directly or indirectly.
—
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio as their own, given that it very clearly speaks of *true popes*, not usurpers.
—
“In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”
—
That’s “the Roman Pontiff” – not a “usurper,” “false pope,” etc. And he can be “contradicted” – that is, resisted.
—
When it speaks of heresy, as in, “…convicted of having, deviated [from the Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism…” we know it’s speaking of the *crime* of heresy – which, by definition, is determined *by the Church* (note the word “convicted”).
—
It is people without the proper theological basis – or who find themselves, perhaps, with their will overpowering their intellect – find the Recognize & Resist position “absurd.”
NO one is going to EVER convince me that Bergoglio – that horrific blasphemer of all blasphemers – is the Vicar of Christ on earth. I don’t care how smart you think you are. I’ve heard and read enough Papal documents and pronouncements to know for certain that this is simply 100% impossible.
THIS Great Apostasy was prophesied.
A Great Deception was prophesied.
The fact that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist was prophesied. Has Rome not lost the Faith?
Freemasons celebrated when Bergoglio was “elected”.
Freemasonry had indicated their plans to capture the “Papacy” by 2017.
Padre Pio foresaw the “Church” being ruled by Satan, and a “Pope” said the smoke of Satan had entered the sanctuary. (Oh? The holy place?)
For just a very few examples…
The Lord thanked His Father for hiding things from the “learned and the wise” and revealing them to the simple and humble, the littlest of children.
He also stated that FEW are saved, which obviously means that the great majority will be damned.
Only God can remove blindness, which is a punishment for sin and pride.
Certain people, well, let’s just say I don’t trust them at all and especially not at this point in time, and leave it at that. Satan is far more cunning than we are and especially when it comes to winning himself as many unsuspecting souls as possible.
This talk ties it ALL together and, all things considered, is the only logical position: novusordowatch.org/2017/02/papacy-passion-of-church-fatima-conference-2016/
Simple Beggar, it is baffling to see such learned people defend Bergolio as Pope. Yet all we here from them is hypothetical agruments from long dead theologians. We have the warnings and authoritative teachings on Mondernism from Pope St Pius X and Pope Leo XIII plus others. These great Popes clearly identified, defined, and condemned Modernism and modernists. They gave us clear and concise way for us to also identify these heretics. Yet we are continually told that these heretics are Catholic and we have to wait and “resist” them. Bravo Sierra.
That’s right, Tom. Christ didn’t set up a Church for the learned and the wise, but made it such that the Holy Spirit would teach us all things, and that His sheep would know His voice (sheep being of low intelligence and in need of guidance and protection from their enemies).
I’ll take the infallible Papal documents explaining the actual nature and role of the Papacy over these random theologians any day. It’s ironic (and diabolical) as to who is being accused of being separated from the Papacy now. Don’t they know that sin is in the will, and that the Papacy is not being rejected but properly respected and honored enough to see the painful truth through the lies and deception? It is those who hold an imposter to be Pope yet disobey and trash him at the same time who are committing the grave error, as the Popes have proclaimed.
St Paul rebuked Pope Saint Peter. So what’s wrong with resisting a Pope? You all seem to be flirting with popolatry. We don’t follow the man, but the man in his office.
I’m still waiting for someone to address Paul’s points on the ordinary and universal magisterium, which, imo, is the Achilles heel of sedevacantism. Vatican I decreed that a Pope is infallible only within a narrow range of conditions. So how can he be infallible all the time?
The teachings are there for all to find. I don’t have time at the moment to dig them up. I used to discount sedevacantism for the simple fact that others did. Then one day I decided to actually look into it and then began researching with an open mind, especially in light of what is transpiring today.
How can it be that the faithful have to make themselves into little popes, and sift through what the Pope says to determine whether or not it is compatible with Catholicism?
How can it be that a Pope is infallible some of the time, while the rest of the time he is a blasphemer? Can the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ Himself, blaspheme God? Logic and reason tells me that to answer in the affirmative is blasphemy in itself.
John314, infaillability does not mean a Pope gets to be a heretic except when he teaches ex cathedra. If anything Vatican I teaches that no one gets to judge or depose a Pope. No council, no college of cardinals, no one.
The man occupying the papal office may very well blaspheme, but in his office, the will of the Pope, is always inside apostolic tradition. You can count on modernist Popes to try and blur this not too subtle distinction. Such is the cross we bear these days.
Dear John314,
(concerning Paul’s comments)
I will do my best to address Paul’s comments on the OUM. By doing so, I may not address every point made since he says a lot. I believe him and like-minded people are overlooking the fundamental problem concerning the teachings of Vatican II.
1- He claims the OUM consists of universal teachings in both space and time and says those who only say it only requires space are wrong. I object simply due to the reasoning that this would make the charism of infallibility pointless. Can you imagine a person saying they can never error (infallibility), but then add a condition that what they say must have already been said in the past for their infallibility to be confirmed or realized? Or that if what they say is in error but not said in the past, then we can’t conclude they are in error. My understanding of that position is that everyone would then be infallible as long as they say what the Church has always said. That is simply ridiculous.
2- Something does not need to be taught infallibly to be considered heretical. I have personally spent a lot of time studying the OUM and the Church’s teachings on it, and also the arguments concerning the authority of Vatican II. The R&R camp and also the Sedes have gone back and forth about Vatican II being infallible or binding in its teachings or not. After much studying, I came to conclude that the lack of infallibility or not is a red herring. The reason for this is that a heretic or falsehood is not identified as being such only when the charism of infallibility is invoked. If what is newly taught conflicts with previously defined Church teachings, then it is heretical in nature, more precisely material heresy. And since VII taught things that conflict with previous teachings, then it is at least material heresy. Whether it is infallible or not, or did not offer anathemas, are irrelevant. I can’t think of one heretic or teaching by the heretics in the past that was considered heretical because they invoked the infallibility of the Church. Fr. Luther did not use the OUM, yet he is still a heretic. Same for all the others. He simply taught something that conflicted with previously defined doctrine. To sum this point up, the doctrinal nature or status of Vatican II is irrelevant. All we have to do in order to objectively know if something is from God is to juxtapose what is new with the old (truth). And since the Catholic Church cannot universally lead Her children to damnation by ways of error in faith and morals (at any time), then Vatican II was not an act of the Catholic Church, thus, at a minimum, the authority of that council, who is the apparent Pope, comes into question.
3- Paul said: “Letter from the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII, Suprema Haec Sacra: “through the ordinary and universal teaching office… [are] those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach…””
__________________________________
This does not support his position in any way, and I absolutely agree with it.
4- Paul said: “Tuas Libener, Pope Piux IX: “…the matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith… must also be extended to that which is taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary Magisterium of the entire Church spread throughout the world and which, as a result is presented as belonging to the faith according to the common and constant agreement of the Catholic theologians.”
—
“Constant” – consistent throughout time.”
____________________________________
“Constant agreement” means it does not conflict with previous teachings, it does not mean nothing new can be defined.
5- Paul said: “The prestigious theologian Fr. Sylvester Berry: “The value of Tradition as proof for revealed doctrine rests principally upon the active and passive infallibility of the Church. Whenever there are sufficient witnesses to prove that a certain doctrine is accepted by the whole Church as a revealed truth, or that it is taught as such by a majority of the bishops, it is immediately evident that the doctrine is infallibly true and could be defined as a dogma of faith, if not already so defined. When appealing to tradition in this sense, it matters not what age of the Church be selected, since truth does not change with the centuries. The truth of a doctrine is established just as securely by proving its universal acceptance today, as by showing that it was universally accepted in any past age of the Church. But when tradition is used simply for its historical value, as a witness to what Christ or His Apostles did or taught, then he earlier the witness, the more valuable his testimony, because he approaches nearer to those who actually saw and heard the things related.21 (The Church of Christ, Father Sylvester Berry, pg 268-269)
—
Fr. Berry is saying that if a doctrine is taught universally at a point in space, it follows naturally that this always was the case. This is made clear by this statement: “But when tradition is used simply for its historical value, as a witness to what Christ or His Apostles did or taught, then the earlier the witness, the more valuable his testimony, because he approaches nearer to those who actually saw and heard the things related.”
—
Implied that whatever teaching is in question was always taught in the Church. Novelties need not apply.”
_________________________________
The first part of that quote proves Paul to be reading Fr. Berry incorrectly. Here it is again separated from what Paul thinks makes his case. Notice the part…” could be defined as a dogma of faith, if not already defined”.
“The value of Tradition as proof for revealed doctrine rests principally upon the active and passive infallibility of the Church. Whenever there are sufficient witnesses to prove that a certain doctrine is accepted by the whole Church as a revealed truth, or that it is taught as such by a majority of the bishops, it is immediately evident that the doctrine is infallibly true and could be defined as a dogma of faith, if not already so defined. When appealing to tradition in this sense, it matters not what age of the Church be selected, since truth does not change with the centuries. The truth of a doctrine is established just as securely by proving its universal acceptance today, as by showing that it was universally accepted in any past age of the Church.
So here we actually have Fr. Berry confirming the opposite position Paul is presenting here. Fr. Berry is saying that a truth can be known with certainty by simply looking at the teachings of the Church in ANY age regardless of whether something was defined beforehand, all this because if it is defined today, then it is consistent with the past since truth cannot change.
Let us also remember that Tradition is a litmus test for additional teachings. It does not rule out new teachings, just those that conflict with the Deposit of Faith. It serves as a litmus test for Catholics to determine truth from error. Truth does not need Tradition, thus Tradition is not the cause of truth, but its defender.
6- Paul said: “Christ’s Church, 266: “…a doctrine of faith or morals in which practically all the bishops of the Church agree, is infallibly true… [this] is a dogma of the faith, defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: ‘All things are to be accepted by divine and Catholic faith, which are contained in the written or traditional word of God and set forth by the Church as divinely revealed, whether this be done by solemn decree or by the ordinary and universal teaching authority.”
—
So, clearly, Fr. Berry recognizes that anything the OUM teaches is part of the Deposit of Faith – the “written or traditional word of God” – which closed with the death of the Apostle John (de fide). Therefore, any such teaching is, by definition, universal in time – even if a moral unanimity of the episcopate did not proclaim it with the same level of clarity and directness in every age.”
___________________________________
The quote from Fr. Berry is right on. However, I don’t see how this supports Paul’s position. We know what the Church defines at any point in history is true and has to be consistent with the Deposit of Faith. This fact supports the Sede argument that Vatican II was not a Catholic Council because it taught errors in faith. It does not matter that nothing was defined and made binding on the faithful.
7- Paul said: “The bishops during & since Vatican II have not taught any specific, new teaching universally. We’ve got wishy-washy ecumenism and lack of clarity across the board, but, clearly, no new, defined teaching. This is a simple fact.”
___________________________________
Notice he says at first they did not teach any new teaching universally, which is not true, they did. Then he contradicts his own point by saying “we got wishy-washy ecumenism…”, which is in fact a new teaching. And then he adds the word “defined” in front of teaching, which is true; the council did not define any new teaching but this does not change the fact that something new was taught.
Paul said: “None of the pseudo errors of Vatican II were ever promulgated as definitive teachings at all; there is nothing but ambiguity. There is nothing binding. Even the proponents of the heterodox teachings acknowledge that.”
___________________________________
Here we have Paul admitting that Vatican II taught error and history proves they were indeed promulgated to the Universal Church and concerning faith. That they were not defined is irrelevant as previously stated.
8- Paul said: “Fr. Berry uses the example of the Arian crisis to make an excellent point very much contrary to the sede mindset, in this same section. He fully acknowledges (like Cardinal Newman and every other scholar of the age) that the majority (most sources, including St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, say it was the vast majority) imbibed Arian spirit to some degree. But, he points out, speaking of the councils of Arimini and Seleucia, which did not formally teach Arianism but did not condemn it (no binding teachings and no anathemas, just like Vatican II, though these were not ecumenical councils), they did not formally defect from the faith, as they did not formally embrace heretical doctrine as a whole. They “…did not err in regard to faith, but simply failed to meet the occasion, as they should have done, by a direct and decisive condemnation” (268).
—
This situation could hardly be more analogous to the present-day situation, substituting modernism for Arianism. The Church has not bound anyone to any aspect of modernism.”
__________________________________
Being unfamiliar with this quote and taking it at face value, we have Fr. Berry saying “…did not err in regard to faith”.
I am not sure how this situation could be more different from the present-day situation.
Simple Beggar, I’m with you. I have given up trying to rationalize the nonsense I heard on any given Sunday from my former NO parish. I have spent the last few years trying to tell my kids that everything they learned about Catholicism was a big fat lie. Kids have built in BS detectors. Theres no way they would ever see the logic in being a part of a church that teaches lies but you have to resist them. They would simply walk away.
Another brilliant oxymoron. A “modernist Pope”. A pope is the head of the Catholic Church. A modernist is a heretic and therefore not a Catholic. A cannot equal B.
Pigg, you have earned many indulgences by reading Paul’s retort. His tactic, in case you have not noticed, is like a card trick. There are many misdirections and distractions, but somewhere in the argument is the sleight of hand. But to the untrained eye, the grand finale seems genuine. Thats until you know where the mark is conned. When they speak of infaillability they will always say one thing and mean another. When they speak of heresy its like a shell game. If you say its under the material shell its under the formal shell and vice a versa. It goes on and on and on. And their only Ace in the hole are cherry picked quotes from long dead theologians who were arguing both sides of the issue.
How about V2 teaching that the Muslims and Catholics worship the same merciful God?
Or that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. You have to agree that this is pure heresy compared to previous teachings which declare that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. C’mon Paul, theres no wiggle room here. V2 is heretical.
It is laudable as to all the theological work that FR Berry and other have done to define a heretic. Yet we must remember that a theolgian is like a scaffold. Once built the scaffold is removed. What is left is the truth. Pius XII in Mystici Corpris summarized all of this theology down to an understandable “bumper sticker” theology (to use your phrase), “Membership in the Catholic Church is one who is is baptized and professes the Catholic faith.” He also goes on to say that sin does not separate on from the Church as does heresy, apostasy, or schism. That is the beauty of basing ones arguments on authoritative declarations instead of cherry picked statements of medieval theologians.
I am addressing OUM. Yes it is all in the past. This is a “past tense” religion–the deposit of faith. When a Pope invokes his infallibility he is doing nothing more than making something explicit which was always implicit in the past.
The charisma of infallibility is not a “red herring”. It matters because truth matters. And even if a Pope would desire, God forbid, to destroy the Church, infallibility in his office would prevent him from being successful.
But Pope Francis was “duly elected and recognized by the universal Church…”. I don’t consider it being anything more than an opinion in saying that Benedict XVI didn’t resign freely – Everyone believed in Rome Benedict freely resigned because he announced it in public, in front of a large audience, simply saying he had personal health problems. Therefore, the Universal church recognized the vacancy & got together to form a conclave to “duly elect a new pope and have him recognized by the universal Church…”.
I was not saying the charisma of infallibility is a red herring as if it is unimportant, but that the argument used by others concerning Vatican II and invoking that charisma is. Since VII conflicts with past teachings already defined, what matters is that it is simply in error, not that it defined something infallibly.
Thanks for the correction. I thought Christ was the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23). In making this response I just realized that this is the answer—Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church—that’s it! We’re done.
Ratzinger himself has to answer to the charge of what he meant when he said he still remains in the enclave of St. Peter concerning his resignation as well as all his subsequent unprecedented actions to maintain the outward appearances of a Pope.
Oddly enough, nobody bothers to ask him such questions… or rather it seems Ganswein and Mueller did, which is why they are now both parroting the split papacy possibilities.
Yet here you are, once again, parroting the same thing over and over again and calling the supposed kettle ‘black.’ So I guess there’s just something about louie that keeps bringing Gag back, no matter how many times he claims to have read and re-read some Siri thesis. Which one hopes he didn’t confuse with some protestant theology about the Pope.
Gag, the sin of envy, which you clearly have for Louie, is something you ought to look out for.
Perhaps there’s some nice American Political website out there that you could spend your time abusing the comment section with, like for example, you could complain about how they were late to the party on some Donald Trump thing you read about years ago.
Take a day, or three, or a few weeks or months of viewing the news twice per day on Canon212.com, and then come back and tell us that THAT putrid filth is the Church of which Christ is the Head. Tell us of all the souls that are being led to Sanctity and Salvation in that “Church” which Christ leads. Tell us how it’s not blasphemy to say that Christ is leading so many souls to hell. That is all. I’m done.
Thank you John for the correction. I should have said the Pope holds the highest office in the Catholic Church or some other clearer reference. You are of course correct in that Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. His Church IS the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church IS His Church. To introduce an ambiguity like SUBSISTS IN is diabolical.
Good Thursday morning Paul,
Your pedantic and at times pejorative style of prose is ever so tiring and truly a softened diatribe in the sum, if you will, as you conflate ontological realities here and there, as though they are truly in union, and then use this conflated analysis of yours’ to indict those whom you choose to pejoratively refer to as “sedes”. For example Paul, heresy is heresy firstly and then there exists the reality of the objective or material (read as synonyms) and the formal or pertinacious (read as synonyms). The Catholic Encyclopedia is very clear on this and when it speaks of heresy as causing schism, it is all inclusive, not limiting the schism to those who are formal or pertinacious and as thus at some level sinful, which is known to God alone. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about heresy and schism:
“Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics,…”.
The material/objective heretic is in opposition to Faith, whether or not he is sinful in the act. This person is in opposition to Faith, whether in rejection of a dogmatic reality or in the acceptance of a false dogma, and as thus this person is in schism, because as an heretic, he is by the very nature of his opposition to Faith, in opposition also to caritas which unifies, thus he has separated himself from the Faith, pure and simple. The material heretic maybe in “good faith”, which rests in the internal forum known to God alone, and as thus the material heretic may follow another doctrine all together (aka: “Protestant”) or profess the Catholic Creed externally, while being deceived into the rejection of a dogma or dogmas and as thus in schism in either case. The holy Sacrament of Baptism unifies all within the One True Faith and then after the attainment of the age of reason, each and every human person is thus free to give their willful assent into the Creed of the One True Church, accepting the authentic Holy Father as their sole arbiter for the interpretation of the Holy Writ, Holy Tradition, and Governance or they freely separate in schism, always remaining Christian in time and space, in Heaven, or in Hell, as they bear the eternal, ontological mark of the Faithful, given by Almighty God in the Sacrament of Baptism.
All of the words that you cut and paste in your so called “R&R” approach to somehow dealing with a man who has proven to those with eyes to see and ears to hear–the authentic sensus fidelis–since his walk onto the Loggia, creates a phantasm in your own mind which simply does not reflect the authentic reality of the time and space in which we find ourselves. As your foundation for argument, you typically use the language of men, sometimes “prestigious”, in your vernacular application, and rarely the words of the man, the authentic Vicar of Christ, and when you do, the application supports the reality that the man who now claims the divine Office can only be an imposter, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Very telling of how you view this diabolical conundrum that we find ourselves in, is the reality that you never speak of our Blessed Lady, our Mother and our love, the Mother of the One Who is Love, as Deus Caritas Est. She, dear Paul, is the Queen of all of those mere mortal and as thus miserable theologians which you love to quote, as she is the Queen of Heaven and earth. Indeed it is our Lady of LaSalette who gave us the first (1846) of her more contemporary and dire messages. To now quote her again, as her proclamation remains the basis for the understanding of where we are in this time and space. “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”; “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.”; “The Church will have a frightful crisis.”. You see Paul, the scholastic, metaphysical foundation of reality pays service to theology and without it, theology is tantamount to a smokescreen. As our Lady proclaimed that “Rome will lose the faith…”, we know with certitude that as Rome will lose the faith, it cannot at the same time, hold the faith. When it loses the faith, Rome is then in Apostasy and as Rome is the “eternal city”, as the place of the Vicar of Christ, as the Bishop of Rome, when it loses the faith it can no longer be the place of the true Vicar of Christ as the Bishop of Rome, as she proclaimed it would then become the seat of the Antichrist. Once again, Rome cannot both be the Chair of Saint Peter and be the seat of the Antichrist, as being cannot both be and not be at the same time and under the same respect.
In your hubris Paul, you remain blinded to the reality that by virtue of the very title of the ideological paradigm which contains the positions you hold, “Recognize and Resist”, you are indeed in schism, as you defy the unity in Faith that the authentic Holy Father must as he only can, as commanded by Almighty God, Jesus the Christ, foster and nurture. Yours’ is the so called, “protestant” ideology, whereby you choose to pick those teachings of the “Holy Father” which you Paul, deem to be reflective of the deposit of Faith. Those who you pejoratively refer to as “sedes”, choose instead to view our reality, as it is, and listen for the voice of the Good Shepard, who leads His flock, to be found in the holy Office of the Chair of Saint Peter as the Vicar of Christ, with 20 centuries of authentic Magisterial teaching to reflect upon and to give total free will assent to. Our Blessed Lord and Savior commanded this in the Gospel of John 10:27: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;…”. It is all very simple for those who follow the command of our dear Lord, when He commanded that only those with the faith of a child will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Lastly Paul, you simply misunderstand the charism of infallibility that our Lord, Jesus the Christ, commanded in Matthew 16:18, and spoke of in John, chapter 14 more mysteriously. As each human person has a truly “free will”, which carries the divine and Sovereign protection of Almighty God, as He created us in His own likeness and image, the Holy Father is not somehow prevented in his own “act” of willful assent, as that would place an affront to God’s divine protection of that same free will assent. In other words, the very nature of free will is such that no one in any time, until the end of time, is somehow coerced by God into a particular act, nor can anyone be prevented from assenting from their immanence into any particular act. The reality of the Chair of Saint Peter which holds the Vicar of Christ, is that the man who is the authentic Holy Father, the Chief Pastor, the Vicar of the Good Shepard, does not embrace heresy because he has given of himself freely and completely to Christ, in Christ, for Christ, and by Christ. The charism of infallibility in reality, is the capacity for Christ’s true sheep to hear their true Shepard, as Christ Jesus commanded in John 10:27, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;…”. To view the charism of infallibility as somehow “preventing” an act of heresy from occurring does, as it only can, place an internal contradiction within the Church, which simply and purely cannot exist. This internal contradiction again, is found in the reality that if any act was somehow “prevented” from occurring, in any place and in any time until the end of time, then Almighty God would have lied about His Sovereign protection of our free will assent as we are created in His divine likeness and image as pure Intellect and Will. Couple this reality with our Lady’s proclamations already cited above from LaSalette and the picture of where we are in the existential now is ever clear. It would seem that you likely have many a restless night, as you ponder from your own immanence, some means by which to somehow attempt to place this square peg, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, into the round hole of the authentic Papacy of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. And just for your edification, this analysis applies to Roncali and all the way through to and including Bergoglio. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Au contraire—universal accpetance by all those who are orthodox, Catholic believers. The ragged unwashed massess of New Order “catholics” simply do not count as part of this set. They deny the faith which comes to us from the apostles via horrid catechesis, immorality, ect and innumerable heresies.
Among actual Catholics there is almost universal concern that Bergolio is off his rocker. Thus your ‘universal acclaim’ argument is bogus in 2017. I can’t even find a believing and orthodox Roman Catholic Cardinal in Rome much less the average Joe in the pew.
I’m a Roman Catholic—I don’t accept Francis—-therefore there is no “universal acceptance” by the Church. I’ve just destroyed your argument.
Only those who are orthodox Catholics and Hold and teach the Apostolic Faith are members of the visible Church. Modernists are most certainly not. I accept the Church just not the modernists and Francis is a modernist’s modernist. All the best facing the awesome universal Judgement Seat of Our Lord having lived your life defending a false church lead by a false pope that teaches abominable doctrine.
Bravo Semper Fi, logic once again destroys RR.
Well then you have an issue with Saints De Sales and Bellarmine who both saw Liberius as being a likely heretic.
Thats right a Pope cannot be a heretic. 100% correct.
My Pascal Wager is this: the Roman Catholic Faith teaches that it’s very hard to get to heaven, impossible without sanctifying grace, and that sin is a deadly affair for the soul amd life is one immense battle against the world, the flesh and the devil.
The namby pamby Vatican II religion in turn teaches that sin is a trifling matter, its difficult not to get to heaven, most religions are noble and praiseworthy and that man’s purpose in life is just to get along and not make waves.
Which religion, IF TRUE, do you want to risk offending and ending up on the wrong side of? So we are left with a Win-Win for trads and a big Lose-Win for Novus Ordos.
Ratzinger has no credibility simply because he’s not Ratzinger. He dresses in white walks around the Vatican and calls himself the Pope.
Saints DeSales and Bellarmine are certainly welcomed to their opinions on the matter. Those Popes who followed Liberius did not declare him a heretic.
I take a different approach. I strongly suspect Pope Francis is NOT Pope. I base my suspicions on a possible explanation for his behavior – that Francis was not validly elected due to violation of conclave rules put in place by Pope John-Paul II. According to these rules if cardinals formed a voting bloc by secret compact PRIOR to the conclave then they are DE FACTO EXCOMMUNICATED. There is some evidence (not enough as yet) that this occurred…Cardinal Mueller in a book mentioned it, and Cardinal McCarrick, who was not a voter, also hinted of as much in a talk on the election of Francis on YouTube. Therefore Francis may have been elected ILLICITLY. But – and this is a key element – if the NUMBER of EXCOMMUNICATED voters were subtracted from the total number of votes Francis received reduced the number of votes to the point that it was not enough to elect him, then Francis’ election is also not only ILLICIT, but INVALID, i.e. he is not Pope.
Buttress this possibility with comparison to the Prophecy of St. Malachy, we see that in no way does Francis fit the description of the Pope AFTER Benedict XVI who is cited as “from the branch of the Olive.” Furthermore, since Benedict is still alive, Francis is not AFTER Benedict, but contemporary with him. Therefore I think Francis will die before Benedict..which is likely to be pretty soon, within the year.
And a new Pope, the last Pope, elected…probably Cardinal Peter Turkson.