In the May edition of Catholic Family News, Stephen Kokx provides readers with a recap of the conference that took place April 6-8 under the headline:
Weapons of Warfare Conference Report: CFN Makes Strong Come-Back
The part of the report that interests me the most appears under the heading The Pope is still the Pope.
Three speeches at the “Weapons of Our Warfare” conference focused on the Papacy. Church historian Dr. Roberto de Mattei said “true devotion” to the Chair of St. Peter requires Catholics to speak out against “the heresies” being promoted by Pope Francis, who, despite propagating heresy, remains the Pope.
Readers may recall that I commented on Professor Roberto de Mattei’s CFN talk in some detail last month.
Mr. Kokx went on to report:
Canadian Dominican priest Fr. Albert Kallio O.P. echoed de Mattei’s words. “Even if the Pope is a heretic that does not at all mean that by that very fact, ipso facto as we say in English, he would cease being Pope.”
Rejecting the claim that Pope Francis has lost his office, Fr. Kallio said, “Even those who hold that a Pope who is manifestly a heretic loses automatically his office [believe] that the manifestation required before the Pope would lose his office takes place by a declaration declared by the authority of the Church, namely the bishops.”
It seems God is allowing “a sort of eclipse” of the Church for the moment, he concluded.
I have fond memories of conversations with Fr. Albert at various conferences over the years (you know… before I was added to the “no speak” list), and I mean no disrespect in saying that the Lord also seems to be allowing an eclipse of basic logic.
As I wrote with regard Professor de Mattei’s talk, this is one of the real “Francis effects;” in the process of trying to make sense of the Bergoglian occupation, intelligent men are routinely denying reality and uttering all manner of contradictions.
Before we proceed further, let it be said that “manifest” – as in the case of “manifest heresy” – is not some esoteric concept that only doctors of canon law can fully grasp; it simply means that the heresy is publicly known as opposed to being merely private.
Where de Mattei is at stunning odds with objective reality is in claiming that this “has not yet happened.”
As for Fr. Albert, let’s revisit his remarks:
Even those who hold that a Pope who is manifestly a heretic loses automatically his office [believe] that the manifestation required before the Pope would lose his office takes place by a declaration declared by the authority of the Church, namely the bishops.
Here he speaks of a Pope who is manifestly a heretic, but then seems to suggest that there is yet another level of “manifestation required” before it is of any consequence.
Sorry, Father, but either the heresy is manifest or it isn’t – just as one is either in communion with the Church or not – and manifest heresy always has real consequences.
Fr. Albert seems to believe that manifest heresy isn’t really or perhaps fully manifest (which, again, simply means publicly known as opposed to private) until the bishops declare as much – and this he says must happen “before” a manifestly heretical pope loses his office.
Bearing in mind that Fr. Albert may very well have spoken more clearly in his presentation, the quote offered in the May edition of CFN presents readers (the overwhelming majority of whom were not present at the conference) with a number of very serious problems.
For one thing, no one with any Catholic credibility whatsoever is claiming that Francis’ heresy is merely private, or perhaps known only to “the bishops” (the greater body of which is infested with heresy in its own right anyway) who will one day, God willing, inform the rest of us poor fools who can’t see what is plainly right before our very eyes.
Chris Ferrara, who also spoke at the conference, signed his name to the Filial Correction that details no less than seven publicly known cases of Francis propagating heresy! That, my friends, is called “manifest.”
Professor de Mattei himself even stated unfortunately [Pope Francis] propagates heresy – although, in fairness, he immediately and inexplicably then insisted that it’s not yet manifest! (You can’t make this stuff up, folks.)
Secondly, and perhaps more disturbing, Fr. Albert comes dangerously close to suggesting that the declaration from the bishops is what causes the heretic pope to lose his office; i.e., his words could easily be mistaken by one who knows no better to mean that the bishops in some way judge the pope guilty.
And yet, I am certain that Father would agree that no mere man, nor collection of men, can judge the pope.
Be that as it may, what Fr. Albert very specifically says is that the declaration precedes the loss of office. This is most certainly untrue.
Should one ever come, a formal declaration that a pope has lost his office due to heresy is nothing more than an announcement concerning what has already taken place; i.e., it would come after a pope has already severed himself from the Church and Christ has thus removed the papacy from him.
Now, we can debate precisely when and how Our Lord removes the office from the man, but let us be clear – a manifest heretic is not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. That man, therefore, cannot be her head, the pope.
This is simple logic, folks, but it is lost entirely in the comments quoted above – or better stated, logic must be sacrificed in order to support the untenable positions cited.
The alternative would be to sacrifice popularity in support of logical observations. I’m not saying that these men have made a conscious decision to choose one over the other, mind you, but those are the choices nonetheless.
Lastly, Mr. Kokx quoted Chris Ferrara:
Ferrara said the most effective opposition to what has to be seen now as the most wayward Pontificate in the history of the papacy will have to come from the upper hierarchy.” Such an opposition would come in the form of a public statement made by a significant number of Cardinals that would declare Pope Francis is “in error, that he’s attempting a to impose error upon the Church, that his effort to pass off these errors as ‘authentic magisterium’ is a fraud … and that the faithful cannot follow this pope in his errors,” Ferrara said.
First of all, yes, provided we except Divine intervention (and I’m sure Chris would say the same) I agree that the most effective protection of the flock against the Bergoglian wolf will have to entail a public statement (I prefer to say declaration) from at least some portion of the College of Cardinals. That is their duty.
Where I cannot agree with Mr. Ferrara is in the implication that a heretic (like Jorge Bergoglio) can at one and the same time labor to impose error upon the Church as ‘authentic magisterium’ (let’s call it what it really is just like the aforementioned Filial Correction does – not just “error” but heresy) and can still be considered a member of the Church much less the pope.
Mr. Ferrara actually goes one step further, suggesting that even if the cardinals should be compelled to issue a statement warning the faithful to avoid the heretic who is laboring to deceive them, even then he is the pope!
One wonders, do these men believe that there is anything Francis can do – short of declaring himself a Buddhist or a Muslim – that would serve to severe himself from the Holy Catholic Church?
It appears that the answer is no.
Two conclusions can be drawn from all of this.
One, when tradition-minded men are Hell bent and determined to avoid stating the obvious and unpopular truth – namely, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is by no measure whatsoever a member of the Holy Catholic Church – they will invariably profess all sorts of absurdities and contradictions in the process.
Secondly, the publisher of a traditional Catholic newspaper has a grave duty to avoid printing anything that could lead a sincere reader to embrace error.
In our day, serving as the editor of such a publication is no easy task. It takes both an awareness of what is, and what is not, truly Catholic, but also the backbone to tell popular figures that their words are not suitable for print.
With this and the headline to the article under review in mind, one wonders exactly from what, and to what, has CFN made a come-back?
I pray (and ask you to do the same for me) that I will be given the grace to serve well as editor of The Catholic Inquisitor. Though it remains to be seen just how that will play out, I can promise you this much:
Comments such as those made by the three conference speakers cited above will not find a place in the pages of the Inquisitor, which is precisely why it is so very necessary.
“Where I cannot agree with Mr. Ferrara is in the implication that a heretic (like Jorge Bergoglio) can at one and the same time labor to impose error upon the Church as ‘authentic magisterium’ (let’s call it what it really is just like the aforementioned Filial Correction does – not just “error” but heresy) and can still be considered a member of the Church much less the pope.”
Vatican II imposed error upon the Church. Paul VI promulgated it and all of the rest of the post Vatican II papal claimants manifestly taught and professed its false, non-Catholic teachings. How can these men be considered members of the Church much less popes, Vicars of Christ? How is that logical?
CFN died with John Vennari.
As for The Catholic Inquisitor (such a PERFECT name—especially the INQUISITOR part), I say again: don’t hesitate to preach to the choir. The choir desperately needs it, more than ever. Indeed a regular column might be featured under this heading: “Preaching to the Choir”
Also, don’t worry—even to the slightest degree—about OFFENDING every manner of lukewarm jellyfish sellout to the world, whether they be liberal or “conservative” or anything else. Pay no mind to winning the applause of madmen; that is, the applause of today’s worldlings.
Caution: these wretched worldlings will resort to every manner of trickery in trying make you yield. They’re experts in concern-trolling, tone-policing, virtue-signaling, white-knighting, chronological snobbery, trying to silence with shrieks of RAAAAAAACCCISSS, homoPHOOOObic, and all the rest of it. Never yield. As pitiful cuckservatives have yet to learn, yielding to the devil’s minions doesn’t make them stop; it only emboldens them. Thus, for example, the best response to one who cries RAAAAAAAAACCCCISSSS is this: “And?” For only fools attempt to use reason with those who have abandoned reason. Alternatively stated, only fools attempt to argue with madmen. Thus only fools attempt to argue with today’s worldlings. Better to prick their pride via ruthless mockery.
“The devil…the proud spirit…cannot endure to be mocked.”
-St. Thomas More
Bergolio simply teaches what Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Montini, and V2 taught, modernism and protestantism. His heresies and blasphemies are just more obvious.
It makes no sense to point out the errors of Vatican 2 and the constant heretical statements of Bergoglio and Co. without saying the obvious: “Bergoglio is a heretic and therefore, cannot be the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth.” That is why The Catholic Inquisitor is so needed. The Weapons of Warfare from this publication will be directly aimed at the target without mincing words. I’m tired of being told how bad Bergoglio is and then stop short of using the proper word: HERETIC! Go get em’, Louie, Randy, Peter and Cornelia and whoever else contributes to a Catholic newspaper that is not afraid of TRUTH!
I’m sorry but these men are lying. I don’t assume that they are evil and maybe they think they are lying for good reason but it’s never good to lie. +Fellay signed that same Filial Correction and this was one of just a couple questions that he took following that speaking engagement just some wks or mos back. The Filial Correction says heresy but now you say he’s in error, why? And he TOTALLY BSed; oh, well heresy can also mean leaning towards heresy. I’m paraphrasing but it was BS. Words have meaning. You can say: I was rash, I was mistaken, I’ve rethought that but if you tell me that you meant that word in a sense that doesn’t actually exist then I know you are lying to me, straight to my face and that’s not pretty. These men have lost their credibility in my eyes and I don’t know how anyone else takes them seriously other than a fervent desire to live in denial of the TRUTH.
So this is not a baiting question or anything to the effect. I have posted to this site before with great feedback and dialogue. I am really trying to understand. But if Francis has manifestly pronounced heresy and by that action removed himself from the office, does that mean that sedevacantism is valid now? I realize that may not have been the case with the other V2 popes (horrible as they may have been) but is it now? Also, if the object is to publicly denounce all these actions and so few actually do, does this mean the resistance priests (i.e. Hewko and Pffeifer) are right since they are very vocal in denouncing the pope’s heresies? I am a fairly recent rescuee from NO (less than a year) and still trying to navigate this. Thank you, Louie, for all you do.
“Dialogue”
I’m pretty sure that is a word propagated by the communists. Thus its frequent use in the media, academia and the concilliarists.
Well let us to continue to pray for all those who, for whatever reason, have lost their ability to reason and thank God for the graces He has given to us and pray for each other that we remain His faithful servants no matter what the cost.
Personally, I think Bergoglio successfully vindicates sedevacantist Catholics. Jorge Bergoglio is not the first guy to pull this scam, he just barely puts on a facade of Catholicity at all and his heresies are extremely simple, e.g. go ahead and receive Communion in mortal sin as long as you’re good with it. He leaves no room for assuming some kind of misunderstanding, if one is honest and actually believes the faith. He doesn’t have to, the new religion is there is no religion; if a few Catholics have a problem with not having a Pope and a guy pretending to demolish the Church, what could that possibly matter to him? Everyone is really Novus Ordo now unless you happen to be Catholic. If you want to stay Catholic, I’m thinking they’re going to start revoking tribal membership for that. The completely illogical position that the recognize and resist Catholics maintain makes it obvious to me that it was terrible error to take up this position from day one. It is, in essence, blatant disobedience and a sin. If you can not follow the teachings of the Pope and be Catholic than that ain’t the Pope, it’s simple. I think Bergoglio is evil, wants souls to sin and therefore, I don’t think he has an issue in the world with anyone recognizing and resisting the man they claim is Pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth.
In one sense, Bergoglio is not the Pope, since as a heretic, he doesn’t hold the Catholic Faith. In another sense, he is the Pope, since the College of Cardinals declared him Pope and continue to treat him as such, in spite of his manifest heresies. I believe Chris Ferrara and Father Albert refer to Bergoglio as Pope in this second sense and call on the College of Cardinals to declare Bergoglio is not Pope due to manifest heresy. Until that declaration happens, Bergoglio continues to be Pope in the second sense and not in the first sense. Does that make sense?
Catholic terminology 101:
Heresy is a doubt or denial of as few as a single tenet of the faith.
Formal heresy is when that doubt or denial becomes two things.
A. Public
B. Pertinacious. ( Stubborn, unrepentant)
Formal heresy severs one from the church automatically. No declaration or action of canon law by men is necessary. It is automatic.
Secret ( occult) heresy that nobody knows about does not sever one from the church. It is still a grave sin, but does not automatically by Divine Law sever a man from the church.
Manifest heresy means that the heresy is out in the open. It means the same as public.
man·i·fest1
ˈmanəˌfest/Submit
adjective
1.
clear or obvious to the eye or mind.
“the system’s manifest failings”
synonyms: obvious, clear, plain, apparent, evident, patent, palpable, distinct, definite, blatant, overt, glaring, barefaced, explicit, transparent, conspicuous, undisguised, unmistakable, noticeable, perceptible, visible, recognizable
Material heresy just means that the matter of heresy is present. Material heresy can be public (manifest) –or occult. It can be formal (public and pertinacious) or just public but not yet pertinacious.
Pertinacity is generally to be assumef after two warnings, although no warning is technically necessary. In the case of Pope Francis, he has had hundreds and hundreds of warnings.
Does this help unscramble the terminology?
No Crawler, that does not make sense. That is really the whole point of the above article.
From the blog:
“Secondly, and perhaps more disturbing, Fr. Albert comes dangerously close to suggesting that the declaration from the bishops is what causes the heretic pope to lose his office; i.e., his words could easily be mistaken by one who knows no better to mean that the bishops in some way judge the pope guilty.
And yet, I am certain that Father would agree that no mere man, nor collection of men, can judge the pope.
Be that as it may, what Fr. Albert very specifically says is that the declaration precedes the loss of office. This is most certainly untrue.
Should one ever come, a formal declaration that a pope has lost his office due to heresy is nothing more than an announcement concerning what has already taken place; i.e., it would come after a pope has already severed himself from the Church and Christ has thus removed the papacy from him.”
In other words, Francis is already no longer pope by divine law.
The position of sedevacantism has always been in keeping with Catholic principles and teaching. It’s just that some folks are more accepting of it “now” because they now see what others have been saying for decades.
Having said that, many who believe Francis is no longer pope still believe Benedict is pope, so technically they don’t believe the See is vacant (yet). They believe that Benedict’s resignation was invalid/coerced and therefore he remains pope. I happen to think Benedict was more than happy to give Francis the reins to further the Vatican II revolution to its next step.
They started with the First Commandment. Francis has moved on to the Sixth and Ninth.
The College of Cardinals elected this guy. Now, they are going to declare him a heretic???? I don’t think so.
Can anyone on this forum provide an actual scholarly source to find Pope Paul IV’s Ex Cum Officio?
I have found it referenced in the old 1917 Code of Canon Law in the footnotes, but not anywhere else.
Has the Holy See purged this highly valuable document from the Vatican Archives and Library?
Only the College of Cardinals can get Bergoglio off the payroll.
They want BXVI to still be Pope because than we can turn this around and get Bergoglio out and elect a new Pope after BXVI passes. I haven’t seen any prospects for electing a new Pope from sedes that stands on solid ground, frankly what I’ve seen looks made up and desperate. The only thing that makes sense for their position is that the Papacy has been taken out of the way to make open the path for the antichrist and the Apocalypse. Horrible thought but I’ll take it, I knew Apocalypse was in there. BUT, another commenter on 1P5 made a real valid point that’s unsettling. Say you take this last option and you’re laying on your death bed 50yrs from now, having had several “Popes” succeeding Jorge with varying degrees of audacity, a completely new religion calling itself Novus Ordo or maybe something else, but no actual Catholic institutional Church with licit hierarchy and life goes on as always with wars, rumors of wars, suffering, bad leaders, and of course some great stuff too. It’s not going to be easy to hold your faith at this point, which is a test of faith under normal circumstances. Nobody’s in denial for no reason. We’re in a tight spot, we need something to show us that our faith is true, whether it’s the arrival of the antichrist and the ensuing nightmare or some Heaven sent miracle, something has to happen now, God’s gotta help us out here. I pray he does soon.
*He
The debate is kind of meaningless because in the real world the Pope is the Pope because he does Pope things. For example, today we have learned that all 34 Chilean bishops have submitted their resignations TO Pope Francis. He’ll either do the Pope thing and not accept them or he’ll do the Pope thing and accept them. If he does accept them, he’ll then do the Pope thing and appoint 34 new bishops.
One can jump up and down and declare to the heavens that Bergoglio is not the Pope. Meanwhile, 10 years from now the new Archbishop of Santiago appointed by the Pope will be ordaining priests.
Run ,do not walk away from the two priests you mention.
They embrace “disordered” clergy.
Common sense is not all that common anymore anywhere.
This comment was for KGB0701
That’s not true. A military posse from a Catholic country or the Swiss Gurard could do the job. Look up Emeror Sigismund. He evicted John XXIII from “papal authority”, at a time when there were three popes. As far as I know all three were true Catholics, but encouraged Schism. The true pope, only recognized later, was in Rome, Gregory XIII, I believe.
I believe what you are looking for is the following:
“Papal Bull
CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO
Promulgated February 15, 1559
by
POPE PAUL IV (23 May 1555 – 18 August 59)
(Gian Pietro Carafa)
_____________________________________________________________________________
(The renewal of whatever judgments and punishments promulgated against heretics and schismatics in whatever
manner whatsoever; and the imposition of other punishments on prelates and princes of whatever degree and
dignity who are guilty of heretical or schismatic perversity. )
Paul, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, for a perpetual remembrance hereof.
Since the duty of the Apostolic Office has been divinely entrusted to Us, although We are unworthy of it, …”
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.pdf
It is logical, assuming they are not aware they are promoting heresy. Unlike Jorge, who knows very well that he is and takes great pains to run away from confronting it.
Vatican II is an error, based on an error that the Earth goes around the Sun, supported by Popes since the 18th Century in direct opposition to their predecessors and Church magisterium and defined Heresy.
Vatican II occurred because the periti believed the Church Fathers, Dogmatic Councils upholding their authority and the Holy Roman pontiffs erred when they used the weight of Papal Authority to interpret Scripture as Geocentric against the Pagan and Enlightenment schools who preached otherwise without evidence and without evidence to this very day in the year 2018.
Therefore Vatican II had to account for why Popes in the 18th Century did a 180 and drifted away from the authoritative rulings of every Pope prior, and had to move away from making dogmatic statements, shift language to assume the Bible is inerrant only in matters of salvation and not history, accommodate Darwinism, another bastard child of Copernicism, accommodate the teachings of Einstein and Relativity, applied to both the material world and to the moral world, accommodate the psychologists like Jung who being anti-dogmatists, and knowing how the world post-Galileo was shattered and broken away from the idea that there was a true religion given how the Pope and Catholic Church ’embarassed’ themselves by guarding and teaching Geocentrism dogmatically as reality, had to reinterpret the gods and demons as the product of human consciousness, which is why today we have men like Dr. Jordan Peterson going around interpreting the Bible and the figures of Christ and Mary for a new post-evolution, heliocentric, cultural-christian-only population where Jesus Christ did not come to save us from sin and take us to God in Heaven, but to help us arrive at human reason, and find comfort in ourselves and comfort in this world to a good degree that still needs human improvement which will inevitably occur over time as we tinker with the Biblical foundations and subject the Christian Faith to the findings of Science and Psychology.
If just-heresy was enough to eliminate one from being Pope, we have had no Popes since the 1800s where everyone was pulling a ‘Francis’ when it came to dealing with the continuing onslaught and pressure on the Church to get with the times and allow individual clerics and scientists on their own initiative to decide whether they would be heliocentrists or geocentrists, no different than what Germany is proposing with regards to giving the Holy Eucharist to Protestants.
Vatican II had its precursors long ago, when the index and more were laid to waste for the sake of the Galileo Affair and allowing freedom of conscience and inquiry with regards to the movements of the Sun and the Earth in a manner directly contrary to the Teachings of the Church Fathers, the Holy Roman Pontiffs, the Holy Inquisition, and the Dogmatic Councils who upheld on pain of anathema against anyone who would interpret Scripture contrary to the consensus of the Fathers, who adopted Geocentrism, not because of some rationalist scientific arguments of their day, but because it was directly inferred from Holy Scripture itself, and with unanimous consensus strongly dictating that it was Apostolic in origin, considering there was no shortage of heliocentric opinions in their own days, and they defended Geocentrism against the Greek pagans who poo-pooed the idea of the Incarnation and the Earth being a place worthy of God to come to reside in, because according to them it was the anus of the universe because the gods occupied the air and the heavens and the Earth was central thereby making it the lowest place. So instead of the Fathers assuming heliocentrism as an option, they instead stood firm by geocentrism as being the Truth because Scripture revealed it and Scripture was inerrant, and thus its centrality and the Incarnation’s worth had to be defended logically on those grounds, where instead there is one God, and the Earth at the center was the jewel of Creation and the Apple of His eye, and His throne etc.
This debate isn’t quite as cut and dried as the Sedes make it out to be, and considering that many Sedes themselves are Copernican and staunch Darwinists and reject the Book of Genesis, we’d only be trading one set of Novus Ordo VII heretics, for the heretical Helio-Darwinist Sedevacantists, who would then have to explain why the Holy Spirit screwed up so colossally to protect the Church from error and only reversed course 1800 years later, where suddenly, things changed! And the Church corrected itself and reconciled with modernity. If anything, Vatican II is more consistent considering it is only following that example another 150 years later.
Cardinal Ratzinger knew this. That’s why he said the Galileo affair was precisely the mindset the VII periti had in mind as their impetus entering the Council. Some even wanted the Church to make a formal declaration of apology. This apology never came, except for John Paul II appealing to the current reigning paradigm of relativity, which allows Geocentrism, which eve Ratzinger acknowledged that current Science had no proof that the Church was ever wrong, and currently both views are tenable according to the mathematics of Relativity, but because they were both Darwinists, as are many Sedes also Darwinists, the Earth not being central was only presumed due to improbability according to the Copernican philosophy that assumes as a methodology that God is out of the picture and everything must be explained as having occurred by random chance.
Given how widespread this error is that most of the Catholic world, and even the majority of sedevacantists have accepted this explicitly defined and condemned heresy, we must therefore presume that Catholics and even Popes do not lose the faith or membership by erroneous subscribing to complex affairs they are invincibly mistaken about.
We can easily see that the Popes of the 1800s, due to documented lies and subterfuge presented to them, erred, but not intentionally. An argument can be made that the VII Papacies erred because they were forced to somehow reconcile this problematic history and therefore see Scripture, Dogma and Councils and Papal authority in a new light that had to make sense given the Galileo Affair.
But there is no way in Hell, that Francis has no idea that Christ said divorce and remarriage = adultery, and that those outside the Catholic Faith cannot receive Holy Communion, and that Heaven and Hell are articles of faith that do exist and all these are central to the Church’s raison d’etre. This is why he bolts when confronted with obvious dubia, and always makes sure to speak his heresies out of the mouths of others. The man is a heretic, and he knows it, and he’s proud of it and arrogantly plays the gas-lighting game because he knows well what he is doing and revels in it.
Certainly one can entertain arguments of varying degrees about the other VII Popes, and I don’t have a problem accepting the idea that they might also be just as guilty as Francis on one thing or another. But the long-held Sede argument is a problem, because it refuses to reconcile itself with the errors of Popes spanning back to the 1800s. Who were undoubtedly heliocentrists themselves or sympathized with it, as Francis sympathizes with Socialism. Either that or explain the long-standing screw up of Popes from St. Peter in 33 AD to the Innocents, Alexanders, Piuses and Clements of the 16-700s who for some reason were absolutely convinced they could interpret Scripture Geocentrically and decided to impose that upon the entirety of Christendom by ruling the alternative as definitively formally heretical. An event so large and grand in scope that such a ruling has never been seen since, and that even the secular world remembers and continues to attack the Church on till this day for just about everything, despite that Science has today vindicated the Church, and it naturally would, while the current idiots in the heliocentric paradigm are constructing fables about alternate multi-universes, and the idea that everything around it is illusion and holographic and doesn’t really exist. Someone should remind them that Krishna told that to Arjuna in the Gita. Then again, I suppose that’s precisely why so many of them are enamoured with Hinduism and Eastern religions.
So according to the gagbag, anyone who dresses like a Pope and does Popish things, is the Pope.
I think there are several other claimants out there as well.
Once upon a time, there were 3 well known ones.
That situation sorted itself out. This one will too. Let’s hope it’ll be in a way that doesn’t involve all 34 of these bishops along with Benny and Jorge lying in pools of blood on the ground, or vaporized immediately alongside billions of others.
Francis is no more of a “manifest heretic” than were John Paul II and Ratzinger, which begs the question: if your judgment that Francis is a manifest heretic PROVES he isn’t pope, why does TomA’s judgment that JPII and Ratzinger were manifest heretics not prove they were not popes? If you believe those who reject your opinion are “refusing to face reality,” why are you not guilty of the same for rejecting TomA’s opinion?
–
And if you believe John Paul II and Ratzinger remained popes because you personally don’t believe they met the definition of manifest heretics, why hasn’t Francis remained pope as well, since Cardinal Burke, Bishop Gracida (and countless others with formal training in theology and canon law), believe Francis does not meet the definition?
–
The reality is that no bishop is “ipso facto deposed” for manifest heresy unless the Church judges and declares him a heretic, or else he publicly leaves the Church of his own volition. If you look into the examples St. Robert Bellarmine uses to support his position that manifest heretics are ipso facto deposed, every single one, without exception, had either publicly separated himself from the Church by his own volition, or had been judge to be a heretic by the Church. And if you read the early canonists who taught the “ipso facto deposed” theory for manifest heresy, which Bellarmine later adopted, you will see what they meant by a “manifest heretic”. They had an objective criterion that had to be met: the pope would have to publicly admit that he held doctrine that had been directly condemned by the Church (a new heresy didn’t count), and then he would have to refuse to renounce the heresy after receiving three “formal correction”. All of that was required before he would be a “manifest heretic” AND BEFORE he would be “ipso facto deposed”. Needless to say, none of the recent popes meet this definition of a manifest heretic, which means none of the canonists and theologians who held theory that Bellarmine later adopted, would have believe they were “ipso facto deposed” from the pontificate
–
The sede-vacantists have their own definition of manifest heresy, and it is entirely subjective. If they personally judge the pope to be a heretic, he’s a “manifest heretic”, period. And since Bellarmine taught that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, if they personally judge the pope is a heretic, they believe their judgment PROVES he is no longer pope. And if anyone dares to disagree with them, they are accused of “refusing to face reality.”
Ignatio, well said. It is true that we accuse non sede trads as not facing reality because we hear and read the same conciliar teachings that you do and we identify the heresies within. So do you. The problem is what does one do with that information. Can the Church officially teach the faithful heresy? Well our de fide faith and logic says no. But reality seems to say yes it has? I am not sure how you square that circle but for me I have to reject the conciliar church as having the Authority from Christ to teach me the faith since what they teach is heresy. I dont have to worry about the details and definitions of the degrees of heresy. I leave that to canonists and theologians. All we simple faithful need to determine is whether the concilar church teaches Catholicism or modernism. The answer is obvious and the conclusion is therefore obvious. The Church cannot defect from the Faith. An institution that does defect from the faith cannot be the Catholic Church. Its a necessary conclusion and to believe otherwise not only denies reality, it defies logic.
Teaching heresy is one of those things that a Pope CAN’T do. Popes do Pope things. Teaching heresy isnt one of those Pope things.
Hey Johnno boy.
Do those other papal claimants like Pope Michael of Kansas have the ability to appoint 34 new bishops in Chile?
You and Ganganelli need to stop Pope-ing on the Sedevacantist parade. Don’t be such party Pope-ers.
That’s fantasy and you know it. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s hoping fornWWIII. Why would anyone want that? I don’t know why you keep posting this stuff.
Well said, TomA.
Israel intervenes all the time in Syria. The United States intervened, without cause in Iraq. Our CIA and Israel supports ISIS, as does Saudi Arabia. Has WWIII started yet. No? Stop Blunderbussing. If our country keeps trying to overthrow Basher Assad and confronts Russia in the process, that could start WWIII. Catholics are persecuted by the Israelis but are free to practice their faith in Syria. Why is the US on the side of the devil in Syria? Because Jewish money and blackmail are supporting and goading Trump.
Now what about the papacy? As I have said repeatedly this is an internal Catholic matter. If Catholic countries and Catholic state players or bishops, or Cardinals coalese to actually do something about this matter, it could be done without bloodshed. You are being hysterical, in the Fruedian sense.
Catholic countries? Which countries would that even be?
I get it, so who is Catholic? Do we need papers or something? Pass a certification? Yeah, come to think of it, we will. At the end of our lives with our first judgment by Christ. But that is too late to do anything about the situation in Rome. We have an obligation to speak out AND to act in this life on behalf of Christ and His Kingdom. That is what this is about. Catholic countries like, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Bohemia or Switzerland do not have to have a majority of citizens with degrees in theology or a certain number of contemplative monks or nuns or even a higher percentage of Catholics who go to church on Sunday or a low enough abortion or divorce rate. None of these measures of Catholicity mean a thing when we are speaking of the integrity of the papacy. Venezuela today is controlled by a stooge of Raul Castro from Havana Cuba. Nicolas Maduro surrounds himself with hired guns from Havana. Is he a legitimate leader of Venezuelans? Of course not. He needs to be overthrown. How do you do that? With organization, guns, tanks, money, and articulate spokesmen. You have to have ordinary people behind you. That’s what it takes. The Catholic Church has been infiltrated and usurped by a foreign power, the same way Venezuela was, and I would add, the same sources, that is, from freemasonry, the real power in this world. These Catholic countries must find the unity and the political will derived from the will of their citizens to march into Rome and demand the eviction of Francis and the entire College of Cardinals. Then an inquistion must be formed to test the Catholicity of any and all who wish to be priests. An election of a pope can be done in time.
Bravo, Johnno, absolutely brilliant! You encapsulate everything to do with the problems of today’s Church in a nutshell.
Thank you!
Your thesis has a couple holes in it Johnno. First of all, you claim that geocentrism is de fide teaching, revealed by Christ and handed down to the Apostles, it is not. Secondly, you claim the Church taught heresy. It cannot. If all you claim is true about heliocentrism being a heresy that the Church taught, then all you have done is moved the sede date from 1958 to somewhere around 1500. I’ll let you pick the date. Even if heliocentrism is a heresy, show us where and when the Church taught heliocentrism officially. It simply tolerated the error because it had bigger fish to fry, ie Luther. That is poor judgment in hindsight, not heresy. For the record I am a sede who thinks it makes theological sense that the earth is the center of the known universe since this is the place where God Himself incarnated Himself into history. The Church has nonetheless never required this view to be held for salvation. Science has so far been unable to prove that the earth is actually in motion so all models of motion are simply theoretical at this point. Our salvation does not depend on our knowledge of celestial movements.
Fantastic reply Tom. If there is a good reason to believe all that the true Catholic Church holds forth for our belief, you have articulated it. There are doctrines necessary for salvation and many, many other ideas and historical indications that can only be verified by true science. The Bible and tradition may point toward answers to questions of history and nature but not require the full consent of our mind and will in belief as do the doctrines of the Church.
“It is logical, assuming they are not aware they are promoting heresy. Unlike Jorge, who knows very well that he is and takes great pains to run away from confronting it.”
So these men who were brought up in Catholic homes, went to Catholic seminaries, were mostly ordained/consecrated in Catholic rites, became leaders of their Catholic dioceses, and were elected “popes” *didn’t know* that Vatican II was contradictory to the Catholic Faith?
Quite honestly, it is much more likely that Francis *doesn’t know* just as so many Novus Ordo attendees don’t know. Most of the above doesn’t apply to him.
Your are correct, the Conciliar Church is moderist, but where does that modernism come from, if not freemasonry?
“Catholic countries like, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Bohemia or Switzerland do not have to have a majority of citizens with degrees in theology or a certain number of contemplative monks or nuns or even a higher percentage of Catholics who go to church on Sunday or a low enough abortion or divorce rate. None of these measures of Catholicity mean a thing when we are speaking of the integrity of the papacy.”
So who exactly is representing these so-called “Catholic” countries?
Leaders of Catholics who know how important the papacy is, that’s who represents Catholics in majority Catholic countries. The pope doesn’t just decide what is and what is not doctrine. The pope is meant to be our champion, the champion of Catholicism. Pope St. Pius V did exactly that when he helped organize the military and naval forces to confront the Moslems at Lepanto. We don’t just need a pope who sits in Rome and throws anathamas at heretics, we need a champion who will lead Christians, protect Christians and convert the world to Christ. Is Francis doing that?
“Leaders of Catholics who know how important the papacy is, that’s who represents Catholics in majority Catholic countries. ”
I’m still wondering who these “Catholic” leaders are….are there any leaders who truly follow the Faith?
First-world NATO countries invading each other is very different from bombing Syria.
Christians do better under Assad than under a radical Islamic government. He’s still an evil man. Jews are neither bribing nor blackmailing Trump to do anything. I agree that it’s not our fight but don’t lionize a butcher or act in any way like Russian is somehow on God’s side. If you study Middle Eastern history and politics, you’ll learn that much of it boils down to tribalism, where God isn’t on anyone’s side.
TomA: “The Church cannot defect from the Faith. An institution that does defect from the faith cannot be the Catholic Church. It’s a necessary conclusion and to believe otherwise not only denies reality, it defies logic.”
–
Comment: But the institution you mistakenly believe defected IS the Catholic Church. There is no way to get around that. If you concede that the “institution” (consisting of Cardinals, bishop, priest, deacons, religious orders, laity, etc.) that existed at the time of Pius XII’s death was the Catholic Church, there is no way you can legitimately argue that the institution that elected and followed John XXIII less than two weeks later (consisting of the same Cardinals, same bishops, same priests, same deacons, same religious orders, same laity, etc.), was a different Church. The fact is that the institution/Church that existed on October 9, 1958 was one and the same institution/Church that elected John XXIII on October 28, 1958. If it wasn’t, then where did the institution from October 9th go?
–
However you slice it, your position necessarily entails that the institutional Church defected immediately after the death of Pius XII. That is false. Individuals within the Church may have defected from the faith, but the Church itself has not, because it cannot.
–
I’ll reply to your other points later.
You are correct that the Church cannot defect. You are also correct that individuals defect. The entire hiearchry of the Church defected when they accepted V2 because V2 is a contradiction. So while the Church remains indefectable, those who held all of its offices lost those offices. Thus all the Sees became vacant and the buildings are now occupied with heretics. But the Church Herself has never defected or taught heresy. The heresy of V2 was taught by those who defected.
How can you say the institutional church defecting is false? It obviously has. The only rational solution is that what defected was not the Church. That leaves the question then where is the Church for which I have no answer. Some explain that it is in eclipse. Who knows. But that perfidious cluster of heretics in Rome cannot be the Church.
Dear Mr. Verrecchio,
If manifest “simply means that the heresy is publicly known as opposed to being merely private.” Don’t we have to conclude that all the popes after Pope Pius XII are manifest heretics?
Some are saying that pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are material heretics. We know that they taught contrary to the dogma of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus on the subject of Jewish salvation. Since it was Cardinal Ratzinger under Pope John Paul II who split the followers of Fr. Feeney by telling them they could engage in linguistic definitionism rather then interpreting the dogma in the light of the intent of the law givers, and claim the dogma is not just in the objective forum, but also the subjective forum. In other words, they could disregard the letter the pope (at the time) sent to Fr. Feeney, which Fr. Kramer says is infallible under the ordinary infallible magisterium, if they only admit such interpretations that they reject, may possibly be correct. So now there is a St. Benedict Center across the street from the original St. Benedict Center where the people in the new St. Benedict Center admit the interpretation of EENS that they reject, may possibly be correct, and the people in the original St. Benedict Center, refuse to admit the interpretation of EENS that they reject, may possibly be correct! To make a long story short, neither popes can claim to be ignorant of the dogma of EENS they contradict on Jewish salvation! Unless absentmindedness makes one a material heretic rather then a manifest heretic, the problem of stating the obvious is that it looks like the Sedevacantist are correct on the subject of jurisdiction of a heretical prelate or pope.
If manifest means apparent to the mind. The heresy of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict are apparent to the Traditional Catholics who have withdrawn obedience to heretical prelates. What percentage of the Traditional Catholics who are obedient to heretical prelates find the heresy of the 2 popes apparent? Some do, many don’t, many are simply in the state of denial when presented with the evidence of heresy, as the conservative Catholics generally are. The liberal Catholics don’t see the popes as heretical because they would then have to admit that they themselves are heretical! But with “pope” Francis, his heresy is apparent to the Traditional Catholics, both those who withdrew obedience to heretical prelates, and those still obedient to heretical prelates, conservative Catholics, to the Protestants, and even Michael Savage, (isn’t he Jewish?) refuted “pope” Francis with the (modernist) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Are Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI material heretics simply because of the denial of the conservative Catholics when presented with the evidence of heresy?
I believe Sedevacantists misinterpret Cum Ex Apostolic Officio of Pope Paul IV. “shall be null, void and worthless,” to mean the sacraments of all heretics are not valid. The Church says the Eastern Orthodox have no jurisdiction, they are schismatics and heretics. Yet the Church says they are bishops and priests, with valid sacraments! Yes, Protestantism contains within it a particular heresy that renders the sacraments null and void due to a lack of proper intent. Yes theological modernism, but not cultural modernism, contains the same particular heresy. So individually, if you can prove that the bishop who ordained the priest stated publicly the “lack of proper intent” heresy, the ordination would be invalid. Yet most of the modernist heresy up to this point, through ambiguity, is basically occultic or private.
It seems to me we need Pope Benedict XVI to be a material heretic for the sake of prophesy. If Blessed Anne Katherine Emmerich can speak of 2 popes and one is an anti-pope. Why can’t a pope who has lost jurisdiction or never had jurisdiction, flee Rome? If a pope with no jurisdiction consecrated Russia to The Immaculate Heart of Mary, wouldn’t implicit in that act be admittance and repentance for heresy?
So in conclusion, maybe Pope Benedict is a material heretic because he is absentminded or maybe he is a material heretic because his heresy was not apparent to most Catholics do to their own heresy and simple denial of the evidence presented. Or maybe the Sedevacantists are correct about the loss of jurisdiction, but wrong about that rendering the sacraments invalid? The heresy of the conciliar popes is apparent to less then 1% of Catholics, the heresy of “pope” Francis is apparent to 20% to 40% of Catholics and to Protestants and to others!
Ratio
“I believe Sedevacantists misinterpret Cum Ex Apostolic Officio of Pope Paul IV. “shall be null, void and worthless,” to mean the sacraments of all heretics are not valid. ”
Sedevacantists believe certain Novus Ordo sacraments are at least doubtful in validity because Paul VI substantially changed the form of the pre-Vatican II Catholic rites. They do not believe these sacraments are invalid because they are done by heretics (For example, sedevacantists believe that the Orthodox sacraments are valid despite the fact that they are schismatics).
Yes 2VT, Cum Ex is simply a canonical decree that expresses Divine Law. Pope Paul IV was codifying the obvious fact that heretics are not Catholic. It really is so simple that I can’t believe so many trad minds find some way to rationalize that a heretic like Bergolio or Wojtyla can actually be a Pope. The absurd logical conclusion is that Satan himself could be Pope one day. While it is true that the Satan can pose as a Pope, it is ridiculous and stupid to believe that Satan can be a Pope.