By: Robert Siscoe
18th century theologian, Fr. Charles René Billuart (b. 1685), Notre Dame de Revin
NOTE: Hyperlinks (e.g., “HERE“) are included throughout this article to pages that provide the reader with further explanation and/or citations to support the assertion being made.
“His unwillingness to formally address the dubia directly and plainly changes nothing of the objective reality that is staring us squarely in the face … Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope” (Louie Verrecchio)
We will consider the above argument by presenting it in the form of a syllogism and then evaluating it. The syllogism will take into account the fact that Francis has not been judged a formal heretic by the proper authorities, but only by private judgment. And if we personally believe that by his actions (or lack thereof) Francis has “judged himself,” this is still only our private opinion, and not the judgment of the Church. With this in mind, here is the syllogism:
Major Premise: A Pope who is considered to have judged himself a formal heretic (according to private judgment alone), automatically ceases to be Pope.
Minor Premise: Pope Francis has judged himself a formal heretic (according to private judgment).
Conclusion: Therefore, Francis is not the true Pope, but an antipope.
For the conclusion to follow both the minor and major must be certain.
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE MAJOR PREMISE
The major is far from certain (if not certainly wrong), and is contrary to the law and praxis of the Church with respect to other bishops, as we will see later.
First: The Magisterium has never taught that a Pope (or any other bishop) automatically loses his office if he is considered to be a formal heretic according to private judgment; neither is this a teaching one will find asserted by the Church’s theologians. In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning if, when, or how a heretical Pope will lose his office. (HERE)
Second: The major premise is directly contradicted by some of the Church’s most respected theologians, who explicitly teach that a heretical Pope will only lose his office after he is declared a heretic by the Church. The declaratory sentence would not cause the loss of office, but it would precede it.
Both Suarez (d. 1617) and Billuart (d. 1758) said it was the common opinion that a Pope would only lose his office following a declaratory sentence. (HERE) And they said this at a time when the theologians were solid. John of St. Thomas, who is perhaps the greatest Thomistic theologian since the Angelic Doctor himself, went further by saying “It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently [prior] to a declaration of the Church.” (HERE) If all these theologians are correct, it means the major is certainly false.
Third: While it is true that some modern theologians have taught that the loss of office would occur prior to the declaratory sentence, it would not take place as long as the Church continues to recognize the man as Pope.
This is confirmed by Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., considered one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his day, who references multiple authorities who explain that even a notoriously heretical pope will retain his office (and jurisdiction), as long as he is being tolerated by the Church, and is recognized as its universal Pastor (HERE).
Fourth: If it were the responsibility of each Catholic in the street to determine for himself if the Pope is a formal heretic who has thereby lost his office, what would happen if Mr. X believed the Pope was a formal heretic, while Mr. Y thought he was not? Would he be the true Pope for Mr. Y, but not for Mr. X? And how would Mr. Y and Mr. X know for sure their private opinion was correct – especially since the Church has never taught if, when or how a heretical pope will lose his office, even if he is a formal heretic?
The Law of the Church
The common theological opinion, attested to by Suarez and Billuart, is confirmed by the law of the Church established by Pope Martin (d. 1431). This law states that heretical bishops retain their jurisdiction (office) until they are declared heretics by the Church. Billuart commented on this in his celebrated book, Summa St. Thomae.
He wrote:
I say that manifest heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve. This is proved by the Bull of Martin V [which states]: … ‘henceforth no one will be obliged, under the pretext of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure generally promulgated by law or by man, to avoid the communion of any person, in the administration or reception of the Sacraments, or in any other matters sacred or profane, or to eschew the person, or to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, unless a sentence or censure of this kind shall have been published by a judge, and denounced specially and expressly…’
From these lines, we argue that the Church is granting permission to the faithful to receive the sacraments from heretics who have not yet been expressly denounced by name; and, therefore, that she allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments since otherwise the concession granted to the faithful would mean nothing. … [this] is confirmed by the current praxis of the entire Church; for no one today … avoids his pastor, even for the reception of the sacraments, as long as he is allowed to remain in his benefice, even if the man is, in the judgment of all or at least of the majority, a manifest Jansenist, and rebellious against the definitions of the Church. (HERE)
This law established by Pope Martin is reflected in the current law of the Church (Canon 194) which states that even if a cleric “publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church,” his removal from office can only be insisted upon “if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority.” (HERE)
What this means is that, according to the current law of the Church, even if a bishop “publicly defects from the faith” he retains his office and all of his official acts remain valid, until the proper authorities establish and declare the fact upon which the loss of office is based. The loss of office (by law) does not take effect until the declaratory sentence is issued.
Commentary on Canon 194.2
This is confirmed by the acclaimed work, “A New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” by Beal, Coriden, and Green, which explains the following about Canon 194:
In the case of defection [194, 2º] or clergy attempting marriage [194, 3º], the declaration by competent authority is similar to the declaration at the end of a term of office or completion of age. The fact on which the loss of office is based does not depend on the authority’s declaration, but its effectiveness does. The officeholder remains in office, and the actions which require the office are valid, until the declaration or removal is communicated to the officeholder in writing.
Law confirmed by Historical Examples
This law of the Church is confirmed by many historical examples, such as the case of the 19th Century Archbishop of Paris, George Darboy, who publicly professed heresy and then refused to recant even after being warned by Pius IX. Yet, in spite of this, since he had not been declared a heretic by the Church, the Archbishop retained his office and was even invited by Pius IX to take part in Vatican I. No one at the time, including the Pope, thought that his publicly heretical statement and evidence of pertinacity resulted in his loss of office. (HERE)
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CONCLUSION
Not only is the major premise contrary to the mind and praxis of the Church, but the conclusion of the syllogism – specifically the actions that necessarily follow from it – are forbidden by the decree of a general Council.
The Fourth Council of Constantinople attached an excommunication to any layman who separated from their Patriarch (the Pope is the Patriarch of the West) for an alleged crime (judged by private judgment), before the proper authorities first judged the matter. (HERE) Hence, if a layperson embraces the conclusion and then acts on it, he thereby violates a decree of a general Council.
Additionally St. Thomas explains that those who render a public judgment, that they have no authority to make, are guilty of judgment by usurpation, which is a mortal sin. (HERE) And declaring that a Pope has lost his office due to heresy is certainly a public judgment that only the Church has a right to declare. (HERE) This means that the conclusion cannot be publicly declared as a fact by members of the laity without committing a mortal sin.
Furthermore, based on the traditional doctrine of the Church (which cannot be denied without mortal sin) the conclusion is certainly false. We know this because Francis was accepted as pope by the universal Church (by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics) following his election. This, in and of itself, provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy. As Cardinal Billot explains, “the adhesion of the universal Church will always be, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff.” (HERE)
Francis’ legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is not only infallibly certain (HERE) but cannot be denied without committing a mortal sin against the faith (HERE), if not heresy. (HERE)
FINAL REMARKS
In light of what we have seen, the major premise is almost certainly false, being contrary to the mind and praxis of the Church. The conclusion is infallibly wrong, and cannot be publicly declared by private judgment without committing a mortal sin; nor can it be acted on without violating the decree of a General Council.
Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the responsibility of sanctifying our souls by doing our daily duty. We can defend the Faith to the best of our ability during the current crisis, but should not exceed our authority when doing so. In the case of the current Pope (and previous ones), we should allow the proper authorities to render the necessary judgments and take the necessary actions, which will certainly happen at the time appointed by God.
[NOTE: As I wrote yesterday, Robert and I are confident that, if nothing else, we will demonstrate that so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) can disagree strongly on important matters and yet remain charitable toward one another. Thanks in advance to readers / commenters for contributing to this intention by staying focused on the content of the arguments alone; i.e., refraining from anything that might be viewed as a personal attack of any kind. – Louie]
Click here for Point / Counterpoint 1 – Verrecchio Responds
Superb!
This makes sense. “The fact on which the loss of office is based does not depend on the authority’s declaration, but its effectiveness does. The officeholder remains in office, and the actions which require the office are valid, until the declaration or removal is communicated to the officeholder in writing.”
Think of a corporation that makes its employees sign a contract saying if they steal from the company they are fired. No exceptions! Then say there is an employee who is stealing from the company and some of his fellow employees are CONVINCED he is doing so. Does that mean he no longer has his job? No. Their private judgment wouldn’t be enough. The thief would keep his job until he is caught stealing by the authorities and told he is caught by the . Only then would he lose his job. Or put another way, only then would the law take effect.
It’s a please to read ecclesiatical documents written in the manner in which they should be written.
Well, it’s plain to me that we must swallow a very bitter dose of reality here. We have a bad Pope, one who teaches evil and leads souls to stay in mortal sin with the threat of eternal damnation over their heads…but, we must not judge him an anti-pope because we believe he has excommunicated himself. To be trite: it’s above our pay grade.
A bitter pill. Is this not part of the punishment for the sins of the world? Do we think it’s too harsh a penalty – for millions and millions of abortions?
If we look at this punishment being that we must suffer under a Pope who may not be declared a heretic by The Church before he dies – does the punishment fit the crime?
I say it does. We must cease from private judgement as described by Mr. Sisco and suck it up. We can gain much merit by suffering this punishment as it comes from the hand of God. We must stop being harsh with those who disagree. I don’t think this is one of those cases where we can ‘agree-to-disagree.’ One side is right and the other wrong.
All this is not to say that we must use all legitimate means to bring sanity back to Holy Mother Church. But declaring our judgements against this pope is not the way to go. We fight on line, we fight in our parishes, we declare the Truth to anyone who will listen. But the rest is just a waste of time. After all does it make things better that we decide which label Francis is to have, then stick it onto him?
Clear and concise. This short posts demolishes the sedevacantist thesis.
The argument makes the assumption that the laity have no right to private judgement, when in fact the Scriptures gives us the right and the duty not to associate with an obvious and public sinner. For example:
1 Corinthians 5
11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within?
13 For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.
I believe Mr Bergoglio to be a server of idols and a railer, and I put this evil one away from myself. St Thomas Aquinas says that to not follow my conscience is a mortal sin, as does Vatican II. So there is therefore no mortal sin in a man following his private judgement.
Michael F Poulin
Jesus allows individual private judgement here even of Himself!:
John 7:16-18
So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood
Of course the laity can make private judgments, but what the laity can’t do is make private judgments that reject teachings of the Church. That’s what Luther was condemned for promoting. That Bergoglio is the vicar of Christ is the teaching of the Church and “following your conscience” is not an excuse for rejecting it. Like Barbara said accepting Bergoglio a pope is a difficult pill to swallow. Heck, accepting JP2 as pope was a difficult pill to swallow.
First: The Magisterium has never taught that a Pope (or any other bishop) automatically loses his office if he is considered to be a formal heretic according to private judgment; neither is this a teaching one will find asserted by the Church’s theologians. In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning if, when, or how a heretical Pope will lose his office.
The above is simply not true.
St. Bellarmine, De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. II, Books 3-5, by Ryan Grant, p. 187
Although Liberius was not a heretic, still it was considered that, on account of the peace made with the Arians, that he was a heretic, and from that presumption his pontificate could rightly be abrogated. For men cannot be held to thoroughly search hearts; yet when they see one who is a heretic by his external works, then they judge simply and condemn him as a heretic.
Also, p. 182
But Marcelinus neither taught something against faith, nor was a heretic, or unfaithful, except by an external act on account of the fear of death. Now, whether he fell from the pontificate due to that external act or not, little is related; later he abdicated the pontificate and shortly thereafter was crowned with martyrdom. Still, I believe he would not have fallen from the pontificate ipso facto, because it was certain to all that he sacrificed to idols only out of fear.
This seems to show that St. Bellarmine believed that a true act of heresy, with pertinacity, which he calls such a person a manifest heretic, would cause a pope to fall from the pontificate ipso facto. So unless I am misunderstanding St. Bellarmine, then he would be a theologian who would consider a formal heretic (pertinacious) to lose his office ipso facto. Pertinacity is needed to be a formal heretic and the warnings are only for proving it but are not necessary since pertinacity can be proven in other ways.
michael
I’m sorry, but the opinion of a theologian and how you believe his teaching applies does not represent a teaching of the Church’s magisterium. Other theologians can be quoted that directly contradict what you wrote.
Proverbs 4:14 Be not delighted in the paths of the wicked, neither let the way of evil men please thee
.
Exodus 23:22 Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil: neither shalt thou yield in judgment, to the opinion of the most part, to stray from the truth.
.
Psalm 1:1
Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence.
Yeah, you are right. I can’t believe they made him a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH who excelled in Church history and Ecclesiology, especially concerning the Papacy.
I presume Mr. Verrechio, Mr Siscoe, Mr Salza and others here reject The Second Vatican Council where they feel it taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which were contrary to the Church’s teaching and constant practice.
Mr Siscoe, I presume, brings into play his private judgement when he rejects what he feels are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality as defined at Vatican II, and signed by a majority of bishops there and approved by the Pope at the time.
So it’s OK for Mr Siscoe, who I assume is a layman, to pick and choose, using his private judgement, which doctrines of the Church to accept and reject, yet you are basically telling me I cannot do the same thing?
.
According to the Vatican II Church, we owe all of its teachings docile religious assent, and therefore the existence of this blog and your support of it is in defiance of the authority of the Church.
.
So why don’t we all just go home and shut the hell up?
.
Because those who seek the will of God can discern truth from lies.
For the record, here is what VII had to say on the matter.
LG 25
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
“but, we must not judge him an anti-pope because we believe he has excommunicated himself” What does “judge him” mean? How do you define it for a laity? like not hanging his picture in our living room? Every Catholic, whatever belief we hold regarding if the Seat is empty or not, has only one thing he should do, that is to resist Francis to his face to avoid mortal sin and loss of his soul.
The clergy class in the Vatican II church has told us to obey the “certain” guidance of our conscience in all cases, but has carved out for itself a self -serving little bastion that prevents the laity from actually using its judgements against that class:
HERE
CCC 2039 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.
.
Pretty sweet little deal they’ve made for themselves eh? “Keep quiet…don’t question us – ever! The second collection today is for…”
Let’s apply the “four marks of the Church” test (unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and sanctity) to the Vatican II Church:
“UNITY: Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government.”
Oops! I think it failed that one. …
Could Mr Siscoe or someone else please answer, in light of what he has written according to his private judgement, what exactly is the point of the Papacy?
Does anyone know of an example in church history where a valid Ecumenical Council with the authority of a true Pope taught error to the Universal Church on faith and morals.
I know some have tried to claim Haec Sancta as an example but it is my understanding that Haec Sancta was never ratified by a true Pope but by an anti-pope at the Council of Constance. Imagine that.
Does anyone know of another example or can defend Haec Sancta as a valid example?
The reason I bring this up is because this seems to be the bigger issue that is being overlooked, IMO. I know R&Rs say Universality has to include both time and space for a teaching to be infallible, but I have read other arguments that say only one is needed and that antiquity is used to measure a new teaching against and not a necessary prerequisite for infallibility.
Following from this, if Vatican II teaches error to the Universal Church via the Infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium, then it can’t be the true Church which means it’s head is also false.
And of course, this leads to the eclipsing of the Church and where to find her now, which most would agree is the hardest question to address. However, Scripture does tell us that the Church will be eclipsed by the Whore. I remember Fr. Sylvester Berry saying that he believes the Sacraments on the Church will also be imitated in a false way. The Church teaches that She is visible but in order to be eclipsed, it must be unseen for at least a moment. I am not sure a temporary invisible (eclipsed) Church would conflict with the visible essence of the Church.
michael
Then in what category do you place Mr Siscoe’s article, and what weight does it have?
Yeah, but the Vatican II Church gave itself a free pass on that requirement. The Church apparently now consists of Catholics and baptised heretics.
“where a valid Ecumenical Council with the authority of a true Pope taught error to the Universal Church on faith and morals.” Nobody claims Vatican II was a valid Council.
And the great irony, I think, is that defenders of this heresy cite teachings of predecessors while Bergoglio’s almost daily denies the teachings not only of all of his predecessors since Vatican II but the words of Our Blessed Lord himself. Perhaps the primary problem is even imagining that we would see his like in our lifetime. We’re applying faithful Catholic criteria in determining the nature of the actions of a diabolical narcissist. That’s why there’s so much confusion. Occam’s Razor: he shows himself to us daily to be anything but a true pope.
Instead of arguing whether or not Bergoglio is the Pope or not, the bigger and more important question to ask oneself is: is the Vatican II church the Catholic Church?
If so, then you have to accept all of the pronouncements from Vatican II’s magisterium on, like these two little gems from Guadium et Spes:
It’s OK to steal from the rich to give to the poor:
GS 71 ….Indeed, insufficiently cultivated estates should be distributed to those who can make these lands fruitful; in this case, the necessary things and means, especially educational aids and the right facilities for cooperative organization, must be supplied. …
It is the Church’s duty to strive for one world government:
GS 81 …..It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, …
Neither of these two doctrines were ever taught by Our Lord or by the Catholic Church anywhere at any time.
After a recent disputation of some sort, Siscoe and Salza level serious accusations at Father Paul Kramer.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-fr_14.html
The following conversation was published in September.
Fr. Kramer sounds as lucid, erudite and as loyal to Our Lady as in previous videos in which he has spoken. Hear it for yourself. In the audio, Father Kramer says, referring to the dispute mentioned above, that he has been libelled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2XiCpbRJNg
What is one to make of it?
As for today’s topic, it is well for the Catholic to affirm the Pope, which I now do:
Long live Pope Benedict XVI, who resides in the enclosure of Peter!
Long live Pope Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger, who like his 15 papal predecessors, bears the sainted name of that monastic Father!
Long live Pope Benedict XVI who wears the white worn by the singular ruler of the visible Church!
When Benedict dies (by Heaven, may that day be far from now) he will die Pope.
When Pope Benedict dies (by Heaven, may that day be far from now) may the Holy Ghost be heard by the Conclave electing his successor!
Well, I would think Mr. Siscoe does and most others such as the SSPX. They just resist the teachings that conflict with Tradition because they claim they are not binding on the faithful.
It seems that it could also go the other way, if you have a valid Pope gathered with all the bishops in council, then it has to be a valid council. Wouldn’t that make sense?
What is visible may not necessarily be seen, so an eclipsed Church is possible.
Except it doesn’t work when the “authorities” are the thieves does it?
1. Are public heretics members of the Church?
2. Is the Church indefectible?
3. Does the Novus Ordo church have the Four Marks of the Catholic Church?
The Church can’t and doesn’t turn on and off Her infallible magisterium at whim. When she gathers all the bishops along with the Pope in a Council, she can do nothing other than teach infallibly.
But Vatican II was obviously not protected from teaching error and/or heresy, so there must have been a great impediment, and if it was not Paul VI being an antipope, then what was it?
Except for his incredible and innumerable public heresies, I might consider agreeing with you.
…and Mulsims, because they worship the same god, so they are baptised-by-desire heretics…
But that’s the trouble, tradprofessor. He does show him self to be a terrible pope but he can be a terrible pope, yet still BE the pope – that’s the bitter pill.
A lot of great theologians like St. Robert were speculating on what might happen under differing circumstances. That’s why we see theologians in his time who disagreed. They did not have to act on any of their speculations but it was a great value to Holy Mother Church that they did undertake this study.
I’m sure Saint Robert Bellarmine would be mortified to see us fighting amongst ourselves over what he wrote.
It has no weight, but it has value. No weight because Mr. Siscoe does not speak for the Church. Great value because he has done his homework, and is generous enough to share it with us.
But the “government” part has not failed. We are still governed successfully every day – from the parish up to the diocese to the people who work in the Vatican. We simply have a bad pope. They are not the same thing.
So, according to Siscoe, for laity to render a public judgment is a mortal sin. But I thought there were no mortal sins in Bergoglioism? Sodomy? Abortion? In fact I’m fairly certain Jorge says to do what we will and someone in the clergy will discern that we’re just living our lives on the boundary of the periphery and grant mercy and forgiveness. Heck, I don’t think repentance is even necessary, just show up in the drive-thru. It’s all good, the “bishop of Rome” has got our backs.
So, in order not to appear too “rigid” and just accept all of Siscoe’s dusty theological doctrine, let me publicly accuse Bergogli. Hey, “Pope Francis,” I believe you’re a heretic.
I demand that Robert Siscoe withdraw this statement as erroneous:
–
“In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning if, when, or how a heretical Pope will lose his office.”
–
There is at least one instance where a Pope taught exactly contrary to this erroneous claim.
Does anyone remember when “Is the Pope Catholic??” was a rhetorical question??
Well, in that case no one would get fired, since the thieves with authority probably would not care about those without authority. Then again, they very well may fire the other thieves anyways.
1. Public manifest heretics are not members of the Church but can retain their office and jurisdiction in certain cases as Church law and theologians have said.
2. Yes, which is why sedevecantism is wrong. If sedevecantism were right, then the whole Church would have became material schismatics and their would be no true Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Church would have universally accepted an Anti Pope as Pope, which is impossible.
3. Yes. No other Church has the Four Marks. Sedevecantist Bishops do not have formal Apostolic Succession because they have no ordinary jurisdiction or formal mission from the Church.
How could vat 2 be considered valid, did not all present violate their oath against modernism???
Haec Sancta was indeed confirmed by a valid Pope at the Council of Constance. It did not fulfill the requirements for infallibility the same way Vatican II did not fulfill it.
It seems that it teaches the heresy of counciliarism. One could argue that it was ambiguous but it is very difficult to.
Also, for something to be taught infallibly under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, it MUST be proposed as “of the faith” and something necessary to believe in to be Catholic. Vatican II did not do this.
Not everything in an Eucumenical Council is necessarily infallible. Theologians have taught this for quite some time. Furthermore, Paul VI himself said Vatican II was only Pastoral and not infallible. The Council did not use the fulness of its authority just like Popes do not normally use the fullness of their authority to make Ex Cathedra statements.
Can you give the quote. Besides one Pope saying something does not necessarily constitute Chirch teaching depending on how authoritative he says it.
If it is Ex Cathedra, then the case is closed. If it is a personal opinion written in a book or a private letter then the case is still open.
Good, orthodox theologians have held varying opinions about the case of a heretical Pope and all of them said it was still an open question. So, apparently you know something they did not.
Lol, or otherwise you might cry.
What a time we live in
So basically we have to fend for ourselves when it comes to what we are to believe and reject…..which is the total antithesis of what Catholicism is. But yeah, v2 was Catholic. Ok.
Let’s apply the “Four Marks of the Church” test again:
Catholicity
” Christ founded the Church for the salvation of the human race. He established it that it might preserve His revelation, and dispense His grace to all nations. Hence it was necessary that it should be found in every land, proclaiming His message to all men, and communicating to them the means of grace. To this end He laid on the Apostles the Injunction to “go, and teach all nations”. ”
.
Oops ….we don’t do that anymore….
Let’s apply the”Four Marksof the Church “test again
Apostolicity
” The Apostolicity of the Church consists in its identity with the body which Christ established on the foundation of the Apostles, and which He commissioned to carry on His work. …”
Hmmm let’s see….Jesus said to His Apostles he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery…oh…never mind, we changed that…
“Does anyone remember when “Is the Pope Catholic??” was a rhetorical question??” Well none of the Popes after Vatican II are Catholics, objectively speaking, they are all Apostates, objectively speaking. I don’t see any contradiction of “having no right to judge them” and “resist them to their face” because they are objectively apostates.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM#4
My understanding is that…
The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclif and, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecumenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.
Let’s apply the “FourMarks of the Church” test again:
Sanctity
“When the Church points to sanctity as one of her notes, it is manifest that what is meant is a sanctity of such a kind as excludes the supposition of any natural origin. The holiness which marks the Church should correspond to the holiness of its Founder, of the Spirit Who dwells within it, of the graces bestowed upon it. A quality such as this may well serve to distinguish the true Church from counterfeits. It is not without reason that the Church of Rome claims to be holy in this sense. Her holiness appears in the doctrine which she teaches, in the worship she offers to God, in the fruits which she brings forth.
The doctrine of the Church is summed up in the imitation of Jesus Christ. This imitation expresses itself in good works, in self-sacrifice, in love of suffering, and especially in the practice of the three evangelical counsels of perfection — voluntary poverty, chastity, and obedience. The ideal which the Church proposes to us is a Divine ideal. The sects which have severed themselves from the Church have either neglected or repudiated some part of the Church’s teaching in this regard. The Reformers of the sixteenth century went so far as to deny the value of good works altogether. Though their followers have for the most part let fall this anti-Christian doctrine, yet to this day the self-surrender of the religious state is regarded by Protestants as folly.
The holiness of the Church’s worship is recognized even by the world outside the Church. In the solemn renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary there lies a mysterious power, which all are forced to own. Even enemies of the Church realize the sanctity of the Mass.
Fruits of holiness are not, indeed, found in the lives of all the Church’s children. Man’s will is free, and though God gives grace, many who have been united to the Church by baptism make little use of the gift. But at all times of the Church’s history there have been many who have risen to sublime heights of self-sacrifice, of love to man, and of love to God. It is only in the Catholic Church that is found that type of character which we recognize in the saints — in men such as St. Francis Xavier, St. Vincent de Paul, and many others. Outside the Church men do not look for such holiness. Moreover, the saints, and indeed every other member of the Church who has attained to any degree of piety, have been ever ready to acknowledge that they owe whatever is good in them to the grace the Church bestows. “
Danielpan–When J23 “opened the windows to the world”, the Prince of the World flew into the Church. No one could convince me that any of the post-conciliar popes believes in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist is the center of our faith. Yet, we are supposed to believe that these “popes” are not heretics. I don’t get it.
If there is a magisterial teaching on this point why didn’t you quote it? If you claim a magisterial teaching exists explaining exactly how and when a pope heretic loses his office then quote it.
I agree. I appreciate the mature, calm and logical way this article was written.
Barbara,
St. Bellarmine was arguing against Protestant heretics who were accusing Pope Marcelinus and Pope St. Liberius of being heretics themselves, a torch the R&R camp has proudly taken up.
I think St. Bellarmine would be more mortified to hear Catholics claim that a valid Pope can be a manifest or formal heretic, teaching error to the Universal Church on faith and morals in a valid general council.
What good is a rock, as a rock, if it is not firm and rigid in its rockness? As another has asked here, what is the purpose of the papacy if it can be something Christ never intended it to be, or better yet the Church, a means of damnation rather than salvation?
A mother who places poison before her children for eating is no mother I want to be subject to.
I am no Sede but see their arguments to be convincing not only logically but also is keeping with the sensus fidei.
All these words and titles. We may never in our lifetimes see the end of this demonic cycle. I am Catholic though, here in my home. I just listen to whatever he says and do the opposite. I am Catholic. Just do the opposite of what he says. Any good Catholic could agree to agree on that. That’s my simple public judgment. It’s really that simple. You really don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know God’s Truth in your heart. Most of us out here aren’t that intelligent, you know. It doesn’t matter what you call him, just do the opposite. It’s all we got now, God’s Catholic Church. I am in it.
P.S. I like your comment, Barbara.
Just to show how ridiculous this statement of the author is the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 on p. 261 of Vol. 7 states this:
–
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
–
It is noted that this quotation directly contradicts Mr. Siscoe who states there is no teaching on the matter! The Encyclopedia states that a notoriously heretical Pope would, in fact, lose his office. Is this not a teaching? Since the Catholic Encyclopedia bears an imprimatur of the appropriate ecclesiastical authority and Mr. Siscoe’s book does not I will let the readers guess whose “teaching” I will give more weight.
–
Now regarding the alleged lack of teaching on the matter, Mr. Siscoe is apparently confusing the lack of binding teaching with the lack of teaching.
Surely he understands that a Pope exercises his teaching office in the vast majority of instances where it is clear he is not invoking his infallibility.
–
Regarding the Papal quote, Pope Innocent III states as follows:
–
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him:
–
‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
–
Here Pope Innocent III establishes one of the essential aspects of the issue – that the heretical Pope is NOT JUDGED BY ANY MAN, whether that man be a lay person or an ecclesiastic serving in a judicial capacity. So when Mr. Siscoe claims that sedevacantists claim to exercise “private judgment deposition” of the Pope he either is ignorantly or intentionally misrepresenting what sedes believe. Sedes don’t believe they have any power to judge and depose the Pope. They merely recognize that the Pope who has withered into heresy has already been judged (from the perspective of the Almighty) or has been self-judged (really self-declared from his own perspective) and has already lost his office.
–
In other words, once the heresy becomes notorious the Pope automatically loses his office.
–
The foregoing discussion involved a Pope who withers into heresy after elevation. There is teaching and legislation involving a Papal claimant who is elevated to the office despite the fact that he had deviated from the faith or fallen into heresy from a time prior to his elevation (not after). In such a case, the claimant’s elevation is null and void.
–
So in view of these troublesome facts, I stand by my request that Mr. Siscoe withdraw his ridiculous claim about the purported lack of teaching.
De Mattei:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/07/haec-sancta-1415-conciliar-document.html?m=1
Even with hignsight, it is a complicated issue.
Correct. Pope Paul IV’s Papal Bull (in which he specifically wrote that he was teaching Infallibly and as the Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church), Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, in February 15, 1559, wrote what you refer to. I know, I know, many Sedevacantists also use this pope’s papal bull to support their claims. However, no future pope or Council in union with any Successor to Peter has EVER said or declared that Pope Paul’s papal bull was not infallible teaching.
Although I greatly appreciate the arguments laid out by the authors, my main criticism of their book is that they give very short shrift to Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated on February 22, 1996, which governs valid papal conclaves and the valid election of a cardinal as pope by the College of Cardinals. Pope Benedict left this apostolic constitution unchanged. Therefore, it alone governed the valid election of a new pope.
With the advent of the St. Gallen Mafia, and the cardinals who have since come out publically about the conclave and the events which led to Bergoglio’s election, it behooves us to look at all the now corroborated public facts that point to an invalid papal election based on the violations of the apostolic constitution.
Additionally, if Pope Benedict was not forced out (thus, the question of if his resignation was truly free), why retain the wearing of the papal white, and the title of Pope Emeritus? Why stay within the walls of Vatican City, and not returning to his home country of Germany?
So many questions, and too few answers.
I respect Robert Siscoe for his expertise and thorough research of this topic. However, it appears to me that the Catholic faithful (both clergy and laity) must “go by the book” when Bergoglio and Company can shoot from the hip and disregard Catholic teaching whenever it suits them. Why can’t we just fight fire with fire and treat Bergoglio the way he treats anyone who steps in his way? The Church is in crisis. It is not a time for RULES, but ACTION!!! I think Our Lord will forgive us from trespassing on any rule that allows further destruction of His Church before more souls are put in jeopardy of losing eternal salvation. What’s more important–going by the book or saving souls?? Perhaps, greater minds than mine know the answer.
Their claim is not rediculous. It is the same that all of the theologians have given. The Church does not have a specific and comprehensive teaching on the question of a heretical Pope.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not necessarily Catholic teaching. I could quote plenty of theologians who disagree with it. Furthermore, it only gave a very simple answer and does not address all the questions at hand.
As far as Pope Innocent III statement, it is important to realize what he means by the word “judge”. Siscoe and Salza have already dealt with this issue.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/part-ii-can-church-judge-heretical-pope.html?m=1
St. Bellarmine said this: “A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case.”
Here is what the Canon Si Papa 40 said:
“On earth, no mortal should presume to reproach the Pontiff for any fault, because he who has to judge others, should not be judged (judicandus) by anyone, unless he is found deviating from the Faith”
The Church can indeed judge a heretical Pope but cannot judge in the sense of punishment since only God can punish a Pope since only he is superior to him.
Also, Innocent III does not exclude any judgments by the Church before God judges the Pope. After all, would God depose a heretical Pope before anyone knew he was a heretic?
I read that a few times and he offers no evidence for his claims.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, EX CATHEDRA: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity,NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY
Ok. The frequency of future councils is not a problem since having a set day or place for a council does not place the council or the bishop above the Pope. That session ratified Oct. 9, 1417 has nothing to do with Haec Sancta, which was not ratified by any valid Pope.
You still haven’t provided a magisterial teaching saying when or how a pope would fall from the papacy for heresy. Nothing you quoted directly addresses that. And an imprimatur does not make a book magisterial. If it did, every book with an imprimatur would be a magisterial document.
It is not an either or. You can save your soul and go by the book at the same time. The rejection of Bergoglio seems to be to be due to the psychological repulsion for the man that we all have, and not due to sound doctrinal arguments. The disgust we have for the man causes some to seek out theological reasons to justify rejecting him.
But what about the bad popes of the past, like the teenager pope who was accused of rape, murder and all kinds of other horrible things. The Catholics of his day were probably as repulsed by him as we are of Bergoglio.
The bull you are referring to does not say how a pope will lose his office for heresy.
Yes, it does.
Disregard my reply to you. Your reply is correct. However, Pope Paul IV made it very clear under what circumstances and criteria a sitting pope would lose the papacy. As to the procedure? Well, the Four Cardinals continue down that path. We will have to wait and see….and pray.
Saving souls trumps the rules. Your mind is working fine. I question those who overcomplicate a very simple issue. A person either is Catholic or is not. A teaching either is Catholic or it is not. A very good case can be made that basically everything after Vatican 2 has deviated from true Catholic teaching. Siscoes arguement fails because he basically argues that only some competent authority can set this all right, but what if all the “competent authority” is also heretical. The Church will not be saved by someone from within. It is too far corrupted. Only those laity and clerics who still hold the true faith can restore the Church. But we are too distracted amongst ourselves arguing over the legal status of the heretics in charge. Scripture says have nothing to do with them. Its time the faithful clergy call an imperfect council and declare the last 50 year nightmare anathema. Then elect a true Pope and began the battle against the concilior usurpers. Pretending Bergolio is a catholic is a waste of time. Everyone in this forum knows he isnt because he doesnt speak like one and doesnt act like one.
“Grin and bear it. Let the Devil have his day” does not sound like the battle cry of the Church Militant. What is missing in all this, in my opinion, is total and complete outrage. The architects and evil doers of the Second Vatican Council were committed soldiers AGAINST Christ. Where are the committed Soldiers FOR Christ? Four lonely Cardinals with no backup troops? Even the SSPX leadership could do much, much more. You can’t be “a little bit Catholic” any more than you can be “a little bit pregnant”. Either you are or you aren’t. Bergoglio and Co. aren’t Catholic.
Yes!
Remember Caiphas, the “competent authority” at the time pronounced Jesus Christ guilty of blasphemy. Truth trumps everything.
.
It seems to me also that the legalists raise Canon Law and”the Magisterium” over and above Sacred Scripture, when in fact they rate below it. Anyone reading the early Church Fathers is struck by how much they interlace their writings with Sacred Scripture. The Vatican II church rarely applies Scripture correctly, and usually ignores it as it suits them.
.
The sheep know the voice of the True Shepherd.
.
And do not be discouraged by our small numbers. Hannibal was outnumbered at Cannae, and Alexander was outnumbered at Gaugamela.
Mr. Siscoe’s statement is confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Catholic Encyclopedia – “No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romana impedita, ie., in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history.”
Every sedevacantist I know believes the Church defected at Vatican II, so it is they who have the ‘splainin to do.
He is to hold firm to the Faith taught by Jesus Christ, and pass it on whole and entire to those who come after him.
From what we see Francis doing he is simply not doing his duty.
Yes, but also remember that Jesus said to do what Caiphas and the rest of the Jewish authorities said but not what they do. When He said that he had also said that they were vipers and devils.
In other words, they were evil but still had authority. Keep in mind that they also had many doctrinal errors, “traditions of men”, that might even be considered heretical.
I ask Critical Thinker, Convert and J Peters to take a step back and to examine themselves and their commitment to truth before they formulate comments in this thread. Each of them have effectively misrepresented what Robert Siscoe stated.
–
Robert Siscoe said this:
–
“In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning if, when, or how a heretical Pope will lose his office.”
–
Note Robert Siscoe stated that “THE CHURCH HAS NO TEACHING AT ALL concerning if, when or how a heretcial Pope will lose his office”. His statement is without qualification – “THE CHURCH HAS NO TEACHING AT ALL”.
–
Then I brought to Critical Thinker’s attention that even something as simple as the Catholic Encyclopedia presents teaching on the matter, and even a Pope in a sermon has taught on the matter. So how does Critical Thinker reply? He states as follows:
–
“The Church does not have a specific and comprehensive teaching on the question of a heretical Pope.”
–
He admits by implication that the Church may, in fact, have teaching, its just not “specific and comprehensive”. In case you didn’t notice, you just agreed with me that Robert Siscoe’s UNQUALIFIED claim regarding the lack of teaching is, in fact erroneous. In your own words, the Church does have teaching its just not “specific and comprehensive”.
–
Just to clarify, I don’t think it is accurate to say that Church teaching generally concerning faulty papal claimants is not specific and comprehensive. There may be missing details, but several specific situations have been well covered by Popes and the basis on why a Pope who withers into heresy loses office is well understood – Siscoe admits as much.
One other point, if Robert Siscoe is capable of wildly exaggerating by claiming that there is no teaching AT ALL on the subject, why do you take anything he says seriously?
As I stated above you have joined with Critical Thinker and Convert to misrepresent what Robert Siscoe stated.
–
Robert Siscoe said this:
–
“In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning if, when, or how a heretical Pope will lose his office.”
–
You responded to my argument that Robert Siscoe’s claim is, effectively, a wild exaggeration by providing this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
–
“No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romana impedita”
–
The lack of canonical provisions is irrelevant to this dispute. Robert Siscoe’s claim was about the unqualified LACK OF TEACHING on the subject, not the lack of canonical provisions. As my references to the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Pope Innocent III”s sermon demonstrate there is teaching. So Robert Siscoe’s statement is erroneous, and the apparent lack of canonical provisions does not save Siscoe.
–
It may be the case that canonical provisions would be unnecessary or even impossible, because it is probably certain that cardinals have no jurisdiction to judge the Pope as a heretic while he is still Pope since even Siscoe agrees that this is a matter of divine law – it is the Almighty alone who exercise jurisdiction in this instance.
This really is a snide reply that is unworthy of the decorum that Mr. V. asked that this disputation be conducted in.
–
Why is it snide? You admit by implication that what Siscoe said was incorrect but you will not come out and say it in a straightforward manner.
–
How did you admit that Siscoe was incorrect? Siscoe said this:
–
“In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning IF, WHEN, or HOW a heretical Pope will lose his office.” [Caps added]
–
You stated this:
–
“You still haven’t provided a magisterial teaching saying WHEN or HOW a pope would fall from the papacy for heresy.” [Caps added]
–
Siscoe said “if”, “when” and “how”, but you only made mention of “when” and “how”, apparently hoping that the readers would miss that you left out “if”. So you apparently admit that the Church teaches in contradiction to Siscoe’s claim that a Pope who withers into heresy may not lose his office, its just you claim that the Church does not teach the “when” and “how” of the matter. So Siscoe’s statement is erroneous.
–
I believe that Pope Innocent III’s teaching, when viewed with the mind of the Church, probably sheds great light about not just the “if” question, but also the “when” and “how”.
–
The canonist Coronata apparently believed as much when he made reference to Pope Innocent III’s teaching in his own statement:
–
“Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: […] c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, 3I6)
–
Coronata apparently believes that there is enough teaching in the Church on these matters so that he can opine not only on the “if” question, but also the “when” and “how” questions.
This post is exactly why “True or False Pope” is one of the best books I have recently read. Bravo to Robert, and may all traditionalists continue to support the SSPX!
May the sspx simply begin to support the four cardinals who are speaking out against the newest v2 apostate.. Why has no one brought that up yet in response to this rejection of AL. Why hasnt anyone brought up why Bp Fellay and his society has remained silent here? Weak as usual.
Sorry for my grammatical errors here, including punctuation. I love this site but I wish it had an edit option.
Can you ‘splain how the Church can teach error and heresy in a General Council?
Antipope Anacletus II. Reigned from Rome. Had the majority of Catholics on his side, including a miracle working Saint – St Vincent Ferrer.
Can he be a heretic as Jorge Bergoglio?
Can he teach error/blasphemy/heresy leading souls to ruin as Pope Francis?
If you’ve got a reference for what you think Paul VI said about “pastoral”, can you please put it up?
I can’t find a reference to where the Church teaches that “Pastoral” means “can contain heresy and error”.
According to Siscoe, “In fact, the Church has no teaching at all concerning if, when, or how a heretical Pope will lose his office. ” Yet then Siscoe goes on to tell us how a Pope loses his office even though the Church has no teaching on the subject. I am left scratching my head everytime I read his writings.
Matthew23:24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
The legalists will swallow the camel of an heretic man claiming to be Pope, because they worship Church rules, regulations, structure, and philosophy that effectively protects and insulates an evil , scandalous clerical class that sets itself above the teachings of Jesus Christ.
When someone is brought into the E.R. bleeding to death, this is not the time to ask for family medical history or what kind of insurance the victim has. You’ve got to stop the bleeding. The Catholic Church is bleeding at the hands of Bergoglio. Take care of the problem NOW–worry about rules LATER!
THANK YOU! I was thinking the exact same thing. First he says the Church has no teaching on if, when or how a heretical Pope will lose his office but then goes on to explain exactly the opposite. Now I’m sure he could reply that the Church was speaking of Bishops only or they were mere opinions. But if so, then how did the Church know what to do with the previous Popes that were heretics? Applying them, declaring them heretical (even though post-humously) at a Council?
Would it now be considered the universal and ordinary magisterium i.e. the sensus catholicus, that every Catholic worth their spots knew that in order to deal with a heretical Pope the Church would need to call a Council and declare him such? We certainly didn’t have the official Magisterium saying Our Lady was conceived without sin for almost two millenia, but the Church knew it anyway.
Although I am grateful that we are all getting together to discuss this and find out the best path to go is here:+) Thank you Louie and Mr. Siscoe for taking the time to weed out this issue.
God bless~
The men at Vatican II intended the Council to be every bit as authoritative as all the previous Councils. I’m sick of hearing the “pastoral, pastoral” cry, as if that gets the Council and Paul VI off the hook anyway.
Paul VI Closing speech of the Council:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19651208_in-spiritu-sancto.html
“At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.”
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.
Dear Tom A, There is no explicit magisterium on the procedure for an official finding by the Church that a particular pope has lost the Office by his proven formal heresy. However, we know what constitutes formal heresy and we know that the bishops have a duty in respect of a pope shown to assert material beresies and suspected (by any person of right reason with sufficient information) of formal heresy. There has to be fair and transparent procedures that can objectively show for now and all time that formal heresy was proven to a level of moral certitude, a definitive finding of fact that is not controvertible.
It’s crucial that there is the spiritual realm of the Church, but also the visible, temporal one. Thus, God knows when a man who apparently holds the papal office ceased to be Catholic in the spiritual realm and thus ceased to be Pope (or never was) Pope in the spiritual realm. However, people generally will not know this very moment. Our right reason informs us that he has asserted many material heresies, and given all the circumstances, that it is exceedingly likely that he is a formal heretic. However, for the proper governance of the Church, there needs to be a documented visible and plausible procedure by the proper authorities that leads to the declarative finding of formal heresy and loss of the Office in the external, visible realm of the Church. And, until the Pope has been declared fallen from the Office, all his acts and ordinances that were not in contravention of the Faith would stand.
I might directly witness a very deliberately-executed unlawful killing of a person by another and thus have personal knowledge that that person is guilty of the temporal crime of murder (and I would attest to that) but the suspect cannot be formally declared to be guilty for the purposes of the institution of the state, until the proper authorities following the proper authorities have found him to be guilty. Obviously, one would know with moral certitude that the person is guilty of murder and give evidence against him at trual; yet for the common good of the people, the visible organs of the state must do and be seen to exercise their proper authority in respect of the matter. Until that was done, one would protect oneself and others and rely on the proper authorities to protect the population from the suspect given you’ve made your information available to the initial responders (police).
We protect ourselves and others (and bishops and priests have a grave duty to do so) from the material beresies and objectively-wrong statements (in word or deed) of the apparent Pope, that currently still holds the visible, temporal office of Peter.
Another issue is the failure or otherwise of bishops to do their duty to defend the Faith and morals and work to save souls from threats to their salvation, given all the circumstances of the current horrific situation. All bishops and priests ought to be defending the Faith and opposing the current pope’s explicit or implicit opposition to the Faith on the many counts.
Anyone who knows the Faith, knows Pope Francis has opposed it and continues to oppose it in very many ways, not only the Faith but also basic moral law knowable to all men by our natural reason. He must be resisted on all that is in opposition to the Faith and morals.
But the Church did not universally accept him as Pope. There was no moral unanimity.
Yes. A council is only protected from error when it defines doctrines, since only definitive teachings are guaranteed to be free from error. Vatican II, which is known for its ambiguity, did not define any doctrines and therefore errors were possible.
Lynda said this:
–
“There has to be fair and transparent procedures that can objectively show for now and all time that formal heresy was proven to a level of moral certitude, a definitive finding of fact that is not controvertible.”
–
Lynda is contradicted by Coronata, a renowned 20th century canonist who stated as follows:
–
“If indeed such a situation would happen [a public and notoriously heretical Pope], he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
–
Coronata, a renowned canonist of the 20th century believed that such a procedure as outlined by Lynda and its resulting sentence (whether declaratory or condemnatory) was IMPOSSIBLE [Coronata’s words not mine].
–
I ask Lynda whether she has investigated who Coronata was, and compared his qualifications to those of Messrs. Siscoe and Salza?
–
In any case, the reason that Coronata believed such a procedure outlined by Lynda and its resulting declaration was impossible is because NO MAN HAS JURISDICTION TO JUDGE THE POPE WHILE HE IS POPE. Only the Almighty has such jurisdiction. And as soon as the Pope appears to be a public and notorious heretic he is judged by the Almighty and loses his office. The Almighty’s sentence is complete, authoritative and final.
–
That is why Coronata opined that a declaratory sentence was unnecessary (the fact that the Pope self-declares himself as a public and notorious heretic is the only declaration required by the Church) and a condemnatory sentence was impossible (no man – whether he be lay or an ecclesiastic – has jurisdiction over the Pope as Pope).
–
If we follow Lynda’s approach which I believe she adopted from Siscoe and Salza, we are confronted by an apparent contradiction. Although the Almighty’s sentence is complete, authoritative and final, we can’t know this until an ecclesiastical judicial proceeding finds as such.
–
Did you notice the sleight of hand? The ecclesiastics who have no jurisdiction over the Pope as Pope have somehow regained jurisdiction back over the Pope as soon as he appears to be a public and notorious heretic. Now, strictly speaking, they have regained jurisdiction over the Pope as an heretical non-catholic. But they can never have jurisdiction over the Pope as Pope, and that is what happens when you claim a judicial proceeding is necessary to determine as a factual matter whether the Pope has proved himself to be a
public and notorious heretic. Why do they of necessity regain jurisdiction over the Pope as Pope in such a situation as outlined by Lynda? Because the outcome of such a proceeding may be that the Pope is not a public and notorious heretic and hence remains Pope. What is even worse, is that the ecclesiastics who have not been promised infallibilty in such a situation can render the sentence of the Almighty a nullity, thereby blasphemously vaulting over the Almighty in the process.
–
So what are we left with? Noticing and concluding whether the Pope has become a public and notorious heretic is a question open to all Catholics since no man whether he be lay or ecclesiastic has jurisdiction over the question. A Catholic then need ask himself is he or she is competent – meaning properly catechized – to answer that question.
–
Now, as a factual matter, the Pope has been publicly warned twice by professionals in the Church – once in the letter of I believe the 45 theologians and twice by the four cardinals. As a matter of charity he has been warned by those who have no jurisdiction over him that AL has heretical content but who are nonetheless experts in the faith. He has no excuse at this point and if he does not recant he has satisfied the canonical understanding of notorious (he has no excuse since he has been admonished) and all can see that he is a public and notorious heretic.
Convert’s argument fails largely because the Pope is not subject to any of the criminal penalties enumerated in the Code of Cannon Law. The Pope derives his authority from Divine Law (not ecclesiastical law). The public sin of heresy is a crime against Divine Law. Public Heresy removes one as a member of the Church; you can’t be pope if you’re not a member. It is unnecessary to give time and declarations to a publicly heretical pope since the pope is presumed and expected to know heresy from doctrine.
Both the 1983 and 1917 Codes of Cannon Law are clear—–defection from the Faith results in an immediate (without declaration), tacit resignation/renunciation of office. A tacit renunciation is not a penalty for ecclesiastical crimes. And a tacit renunciation is not a presumed resignation, but a true one admitted by the law as equivalent to an express renunciation. While there are administrative requirements for declaring the papal “office” vacant and calling the Cardinals for an election to fill the “office” any heretic holding the office (in the meantime) has no authority to teach or bind.
Siscoe imputes “private judgment” to those who would declare a wayward pope heretical. His argument then veers off course to discredit the red herring of “private judgments” rather than the disastrous heresies and their consequences. In this case Siscoe is dead wrong; we are “witnesses” rather than “judges.” It is rather trivial for an informed Catholic (without any ecclesiastical authority) to know a Magisterially teaching on “A” and to then witness repeated public teachings of “not-A” by a pope. By analogy: If we witness a murder we have every right to declare the person who used the knife a “murderer” before any judge or jury has done so. Siscoe’s argument collapses.
While Siscoe does throw out some opinions from a couple of theologians (like Suarez) there are a greater who drown out these dissenting views including the magisterial teachings of Popes who were not public heretics.
Siscoe defends the position often labeled as “Recognize & Resist.” The holder of such a position publicly recognizes a holder of the Keys (both authority and office) yet decides for him/herself when they will accept the pope’s authority to teach and bind. Unfortunately Catholics have no such freedom/liberty to do so under Catholic doctrine. Bellarmine’s doctrine about resistance did not refer to individuals (another gross misrepresentation by Siscoe). Siscoe and those who follow SSPX sift what they will believe from a pope’s teaching and what they will discard. This is practically the text book definition of a schismatic. The Recognize and Resist crowd either appoint themselves (individually) as magisterial judges or appoint someone—-like Bishop Fellay—-as the effective pope to decide what will be accepted and what will not. Does anyone really find Siscoe’s position to be Catholic?
2 points id like to make about Siscoe’s theological opinion it seems to me he’s saying that only the church can formally declare francis not pope ??. 2nd that only the church can declare him a formal heretic ??. So my question to Sisco would be is francis a formal heretic ?? Yes/no . I guess he will answer “no” not until the church says so. So he would obviously only be left with the statement that he believes francis is a material heretic.
Its quite easy to understand both points of view louie believes his latest dubia show makes he him a formal heretic and thus antipope. Sisco believes (i think) hes not a formal herectic because the church hasnt declared it so still valid pope. So big question to sisco is what does francis have to do to be antipope ??? answer he can do anything say anything teach anything until the church declares him a formal heretic only then is he an antipope. This seems the only logical explanation for Siscoe because ultimately hes waiting for the church to declare him as such. I understand its a theological argument but what concerns me the most is the fact that sisco isnt screaming to the whole catholic world that francis is at least a dangerous material heretic and pointing out his errors to the faithful some of whom may be following francis and his errors/ heresies.
Sisco has co written a 700 + page book defending francis as a true pope thus giving the impression that things arent that bad. Im sure he could write 700+ page book all about his “material heresies ” and dangers to the faithful. Something defiantly a jar with sisco lack of pointing out how serious the “material heresy” is with francis
I would be interested in what version of the Catholic Encyclopedia Mr. Siscoe quotes from. Using post concilior sources should not be allowed in this debate. Also using theologians, former protestants, and non-catholic sources should be forbidden. Stick with Papal documents and canon law, 1917 and earlier only. Then a true answer can possibly be found.
What Caiphas and the others were telling the Jews to do was to follow the law while they didnt. Bergolio and Co. are telling us to sin. There’s a huge difference.
Lynda, if you saw a person murder another person you would treat that person as a murderer regardless of what the law said. By Divine Law the murderer would be judged as such. No man or earthly authority can judge a Pope. Only God. We are the witnesses to that murder you used as an example. We are witnesses to Bergolio’s heresies. We must treat him as such. He has already been judged by God. Perhaps someday some ecclesistical court will pass an official ruling. But because we are witnesses to the crime of heresy we must act accordingly to save our own souls, just like we would avoid the murderer we witnessed to save our temporal lives.
I may be totally off base here, but Bp Fellay of the SSPX wrote the forward to their book, and thus far, despite the four v2 cardinals finally taking the first legitimate stand against Mr. Bergoglio, Bp Fellay and the SSPX have remained silent (as far as I know) regarding this most serious matter. We all know by now that Bp Fellay is desperately trying to be recognized by the v2 church (why he would want to is anyone’s guess….Im assuming money of course). Maybe they (Bp Fellay, siscoe/salza) are collectively NOT trying to show Mr. Bergoglio for what he is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..
“While Siscoe does throw out some opinions from a couple of theologians (like Suarez) there are a greater who drown out these dissenting views including the magisterial teachings of Popes who were not public heretics.”
Read the link that Siscoe provided. Both Suarez and Billuart said it was the common opinion that a pope would only loses is office after he was declared a heretic. The common opinion can hardly be called a “dissenting view”.
And what magisterial teachings of the Popes are you referring to? Provide one that teaches when a heretic pope will lose his office.
You said “Both the 1983 and 1917 Codes of Cannon Law are clear—–defection from the Faith results in an immediate (without declaration), tacit resignation/renunciation of office.”
Did you not read the canon that Siscoe linked to along with the commentary? It says the exact opposite of what you wrote.
Why are you people so hung up on when a public heretic loses office? Who cares? He can keep his office until he drops dead. The question is whether or not he needs to be adhered to by us Catholics….and if he is a true pope than HE DOES need to be adhered to on universal teachings regarding faith and morals…which is PRECISELY what AL regards to be. That is the crux of the issue. If you deny AL then you deny the pope (if you actually ever believed the pope). You cannot have it both ways. Either AL is evil and he’s not the pope OR AL has to be adhered to because he IS the pope.
(if you actually ever believed HIM TO BE the pope).
Rich, you need to learn basic Catholic doctrine. Catholics are only required to accept by faith what has been taught infallibly. Doctrines that have not been infallibly taught are subject to error. If these doctrines contradict what the Church has always taught (which is the case with AL) Catholics are not required to accept them. Why is it that sede-vacantists are so ignorant of these basic principles of Catholic doctrine? I am convinced that ignorance and a completely wrong understanding of the papacy is the reason why so many end up in sede-vacantism.
Other popes have taught errors and remained pope. Alexander VI was accused of being an apostate by Savonarola yet he remained the true pope.
You keep claiming that Siscoe was wrong is claiming that the magisterium has no teaching of how a heretic pope loses his office, but you have not provided any magisterial quotations to support your claim. Either provide a teaching of the magisterium or admit that you were wrong. And a quote from a theologian does not suffice. Siscoe also provided quotes from theologians.
Once again, all you provided was a quotation from a theologian, not from the magisterium. You are only proving Siscoe correct.
The quotation was from the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia. I’ve been reading through Siscoe’s footnotes-links and I haven’t seen anything from after the robber council of Vatican II.
Siscoe didn’t say when or how a pope loses his office for heresy. All he did was quote theologians who said it would only happen after the Church declared the Pope a heretic, but not if, when, or how. Here’s what is written in the link Siscoe referenced, in case you didn’t read it:
“When we inquire about how or when a heretical Pope loses his office, what we are really asking is what is required before Christ will sever the bond that unites the man (the Pope) to the papal office (the Pontificate).
“To further clarify this point, there is a distinction between the 1) papal office, 2) the man who occupies it, and 3) the bond that joins the two. Only Christ has the authority to make a man pope (e.g. by joining the man to the office following the election), and only Christ has the authority to disjoin the man from the office for the crime of heresy.
“When will Christ do so?
“The Church has never taught how or when Christ would sever the bond uniting the man to the office. All we have are theologian opinions, which vary greatly. One opinion (which has never been condemned by the Church) maintains that Christ will never sever the bond (will never disjoin the Pope from the Papal Office) regardless of how heretical he becomes. The more common opinion, however, is that He will do so; but precisely when, how, and what must precede it has never been taught by the Magisterium.
“The various opinions of the theologians and canonists regarding this issue fall into the category of speculative theology, or “questions of law”. Only the Magisterium has the authority to settle such questions, and it has never done so. [1] Anyone who maintains that one theological opinion is certainly correct is usurping the authority that belongs to the Magisterium alone.
“Bellarmine himself did not present his opinion on how a Pope loses his office as being a fact, nor did he declare that the other opinions (even those that are highly unlikely) were certain wrote.
“For example, in De Romano Pontifice, where he discusses how a heretical Pope would lose his office, he referred to the opinions with which he disagrees by using phrases such as “not proven to me” (second opinion), “exceedingly improbable” (third opinion) or “to my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended” (fourth opinion). He never declared that they were all certainly wrong and that his opinion was certainly correct, since he knew full well that only the Church alone has the authority to settle such “questions of law” definitively; and until it does so, theologians are free to disagree.
“Therefore, it is not permitted to use a theological opinion as a certain premise to arrive at a certain conclusion. Much less is it permitted to publicly declare a conclusion to be a fact, when it is founded upon an opinion that itself is not certain.”
Before adding my next comment, I must say that anyone who has investigated the question at hand in detail will be impressed with the subtlety that the author is trying to impart false impressions to the guileless.
–
For example, the Author of this piece writes as follows:
–
“While it is true that some modern theologians have taught that the loss of office would occur prior to the declaratory sentence, it would not take place as long as the Church continues to recognize the man as Pope.”
–
From this one might conclude that the opinion that a papal claimant loses his office for public heresy prior to declaratory sentence by the Church was a MODERN INNOVATION unheard of until the 20th century. This statement is laughable.
–
This is what St. Robert Bellarmine had to say about the question following a thorough historical survey:
–
“Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. THIS IS THE OPINION OF ALL THE ANCIENT FATHERS WHO TEACH THAT ALL MANIFEST HERETICS IMMEDIATELY LOSE ALL JURISDICTION, and outstandingly that of Saint Cyprian (lib. 4 epist. 2), who refers like this to Novatian, who was Pope (anti-pope) in the schism which occurred during the Pontificate of Saint Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the Episcopate, and, if he was made Bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were like him Bishops and from the unity of the Church’. According to what Saint Cyprian affirms in this passage, even though Novatian had been truly the legitimate Pope, he would have however automatically fallen from the Pontificate in case he had separated himself from the Church.”
–
So the opinion held by some modern theologians is SHARED BY ALL THE ANCIENT FATHERS OF THE CHURCH. From this one can conclude that the theologians relied upon by Siscoe and Salza – Suarez and Cajetan – were in fact the innovators who departed from the teaching of the Ancient Church Fathers.
–
Note also that Siscoe claimed that there was no teaching AT ALL on the if, when and how a Pope who withers into heresy loses office. After a lengthy review of the Ancient Fathers, St. Robert concluded that the ALL the Ancient Fathers taught that ALL MANIFEST HERETICS IMMEDIATELY LOSE ALL JURISDICTION. Does this sound like there is no teaching on the matter as claimed by Siscoe?
–
Does it shock those that adhere to the Siscoe position that they are on the opposite side from ALL THE ANCIENT FATHERS, St. Robert Bellarmine, and modern theologians?
My next comment is in the same vein as my last. Siscoe provides an historical anecdote which he describes as follows:
–
“This law of the Church [that a public heretic retains his office until the Church removes him] is confirmed by many historical examples, such as the case of the 19th Century Archbishop of Paris, George Darboy, who publicly professed heresy and then refused to recant even after being warned by Pius IX. Yet, in spite of this, since he had not been declared a heretic by the Church, the Archbishop retained his office and was even invited by Pius IX to take part in Vatican I. No one at the time, including the Pope, thought that his publicly heretical statement and evidence of pertinacity resulted in his loss of office.”
–
Now Siscoe wants us to conclude that because Pope St. Pius IX failed to act to remove the Archbishop that this proves he retained his office. How does that follow? Maybe the Pope made a mistake. Failure to act in this situation does not necessarily demonstrate the true teaching of the Church.
–
In any case, Siscoe describes this event as apparently occurring PRIOR TO Vatican I.
–
This is what Archbishop Purcell had to say about the papal loss of office question AFTER the deliberations of Vatican I.
–
“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
–
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago
–
Note that the loss of office according to Archbishop Purcell does not coincide with formal action by the Church, but as soon as the Pope who withers into heresy begins to teach heresy. The fact that the hierarchy may be dilatory in not performing the ministerial actions to effect the loss of office does not mean that the loss of office has not occurred.
–
To the readers of this thread – are you shocked that Siscoe left this quote from Archbishop Purcell out of the discussion? Isn’t Archbishop Purcell’s teaching far more on point than the anecdote concerning Archbishop Darboy related by Siscoe? Siscoe cannot claim ignorance. He follows these disputes very closely on line and was well aware of it.
His best friend is a “former” 32nd degree mason. God will forgive him (salza) if he is sincere when he stands before Him, but I will always be weary of one such as Salza…and Siscoe because he commiserates with Salza. I’m sorry but I cannot feel otherwise. I dont trust them in terms of the Faith. Like Voris, maybe some people, based on their past lives, should just shut up, stop worrying about making money, and focus on saving their souls.
I agree rich how easy would it be to give support and say the same thing as the 4 cardinals. Bishop Felay should of been doing this from the very beginning with francis. But priests of the resistance av seen this problem from the 2012 doctrinal declaration hence the sspx resistance.
I personally think Bp Williamson is off of his rocker….but I feel the same same about the entire 2016 version of the SSPX. ABP Lefebvre, if he were alive today, wouldnt have stood for neither Fellay nor Williamson, NOR bergoglio. He’d be seriously cracking the whip at this point. He knew in the 80’s that all hell was breaking loose…..God help the v2 church if he were somehow still alive today. I firmly believe that Abp Lefebvre, if he were alive today, would have cast aside his doubts as to whether or not the v2 church was Catholic or not and would have been our guiding light. He would have rejected ALL of this modernist garbage. Bp Fellay fails him.
Magisterial Teaching on the fact that the sin of heresy severs one from the Church:
–
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII
–
Magisterial Teaching on the self-severing of an heretic from the Church:
–
“In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?” Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
–
Magisterial Teaching concerning that one outside the Church cannot command in the Church:
–
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
–
Apparently Coronata had a firm foundation for his opinion in papal magisterium.
Rich- Hahaha i think i know where your coming from with Bishop Williamson i personally like him but you have made good points Felay is a let down Abp Lefebvre would not be keeping silent about francis let alone seeking some sort of deal, if he were still alive today. I do think though that bishop williamson if Lefebvre were still alive would be following him. But hey this will only go down the road of r&r vs sede. I listen to bishop sanborn and his priests fr jenkins i even listen to the diamond brothers etc. but i also listen to some ffsp & icksp priests i follow the infighting between the resistance priests fr pfeiffer & fr hewko , also fr kramer and bishop Williamson its all a mess at the moment but seems for time being francis got what he wanted ” make a mess” just so you know rich i beleive francis is the destroyer prophesied by St Francis Assisi the biblical false prophet who will combine all religions ready to direct us to the anitchrist who in the not so distant future will make his appearance as the great peace maker during WW3
https://youtu.be/_cllmZQ_Z0A
St. Cyprian wrote, “As my references to the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Pope Innocent III”s sermon demonstrate there is teaching. So Robert Siscoe’s statement is erroneous”
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document, and has no more authority than the teaching of any single theologian. And the teaching of Innocent III only says a heretical pope can wither away into heresy and be judged by the Church.
You still haven’t provided any magisterial teaching that explains if, when or how a heretical pope loses his office. Either admit you are wrong or provide a teaching that supports your claim.
You are backfilling the thread in a most dishonest manner! You placed a comment in the thread claiming that I haven’t responded to you when I did above! Well I will repeat my comment here to demonstrate your dishonesty:
–
Magisterial Teaching on the fact that the sin of heresy severs one from the Church:
–
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII
–
Magisterial Teaching on the self-severing of an heretic from the Church:
–
“In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?” Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
–
Magisterial Teaching concerning that one outside the Church cannot command in the Church:
–
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
–
Apparently Coronata had a firm foundation for his opinion in papal magisterium.
–
This comment was posted in the comment thread @ 3:00 AM 12/5 before your most recent claim regarding my supposed lack of response.
Just one more point. You are moving the goalpost. Siscoe when he made his claim about the lack of teaching regarding the if, when or how a Pope loses office never limited his statement to magisterial teaching. By his formulation he implied there was no teaching of ANY kind. So by providing a citation to the Catholic Encyclopedia I demonstrated his error by that alone.
I missed your misrepresentation about Pope Innocent III’s teaching. This is what Pope Innocent III stated:
–
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him:
–
‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
–
Pope Innocent III is implying that the Pope is not judged by men because the Pope, in fact, is ALREADY JUDGED BY GOD. The fact that he already is judged means he cannot be judged by men. He made this clear at the beginning when he stated: “because the less he [the Pope] is judged by man, the more he is judged by God”.
Is this the same Archbishop Darboy who when interviewing Maximin a seer of Our Lady of La Salette stated ” your Beautiful Lady is all lies” – after he tried, unsuccessfully, to extract Maximin’s secret. Maximins reply was “It is just as certain that I saw a Beautiful Lady as within three years you will be shot dead”
As the Archbishop was being lead to execution, he is reported to have said, “Maximin warned me about this”
Rome has lost the Faith. All of the apologists for the current regime try as they might, cannot deny the obvious. As Blessed Anna Emmerich noted in her volume
men in aprons were tearing down the Church working to a plan and reporting to a Dark Man. Must look that up again soon.
It only matters to the SSPXers and their followers (generally labeled Recognize & Resistors). They insist that public heresy neither results in loss of Church membership nor loss of office. They opine that a heretical pope is true pope until death or some undisclosed formal ecclesiastical process removes him. They (including Siscoe) selectively quote a few theologians for support while ignoring a superior number of theologians, non heretical popes, and the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law which stand against their theory.
In conjunction with arguing that a publicly heretical pope was a true pope SSPXers developed another “novel” theory that they may sift through and ignore any teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) (including that of a pope they declare as true) and discard anything they personally judged to be contrary to Tradition. The notion that they may safely ignore teachings of the UOM unless or until “they” make their adjudication of UOM teachings is unsupported by any theologian (as far as I know)—-it is the textbook definition of being a schismatic.
Sedevacantism on the other hand is consistent with the vast majority of theologians and popes concerning the public heresy of a pope—-loss of membership and loss of office is immediate and requires no declaration. It would matter little whether the heretical hierarchy removes him from material possession of the office or not. The heretic cannot bind anyone to anything taught; no assent is required to anything. In this case there is no sifting of heretical documents to find the grains of truth. Any heretical teaching is non binding and disregarded in toto.
Apologies for late response. Yes, Tom A. Of course, we are witnesses to Francis’s attacks on the Faith and morals, and right reason in all the circumstances leads us to our respective private judgments (most likely he is a formal heretic). I’m not aware of evidence to the contrary. The issue, is however, the judgment of “the Church”, necessary prerequisite to loss of Office. (The loss of the supernatural faith and membership of the Church in the spiritual realm necessarily happens much earlier, known only to God, although it’s theoretically possible for a Pope to be deposed due to the Church finding him guilty of formal heresy (refusing to recant material heresies after two formal warnings) whilst he still has the supernatural faith, his being objectively in error but without intent.
Dear My Two Cents, the lack of outrage and fierce opposition to Francis’s constant evil attacks on the Faith and even the natural moral law is shameful, and a source of great suffering to faithful souls. Lord, come to our aid!
To suggest that Siscoe (and perhaps Suarez/Billuart) has misled many is charitable. Here is a list of theologians, Councils and Popes who have declared that public heresy results in the pope’s immediate loss of office: Matthaus Conte a Coronata (1950), Pope Innocent III (1198), St Antoninus (1458), Pope Paul IV (1559), St Robert Bellarmine (1610), St Alphonsus Liquori (1787), Vatican Council I (1869), Serapius Iragul (1959), j Wilhelm (1913), Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927), F.X. Wernz / P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch/ I. Creusen (1949), Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956).
As far as a magisterial document concerning immediate loss of office: how about Convert try on Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.”
I have copies of both the 1917 and 1983 Code of Canon Law. Both explicitly decree immediate loss of office for the public heretic. That is, a heretic pope immediately and effectively looses any authority to teach or bind. What the footnotes in the 1983 Canon and the commentaries discuss is how the heretic is to be actually removed from material possession of the office and replaced.
Quite honestly Siscoe is dead wrong about almost everything and should be disregarded:
1. The notion that theologians Suarez/Billuart were speaking the common opinion of theologians past and present is nonsense. Here is a list of theologians, Councils and POPES who have declared that public heresy results in the pope’s immediate loss of office/authority: Matthaus Conte a Coronata (1950), Pope Innocent III (1198), St Antoninus (1458), Pope Paul IV (1559), St Robert Bellarmine (1610), St Alphonsus Liquori (1787), Vatican Council I (1869), Serapius Iragul (1959), j Wilhelm (1913), Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927), F.X. Wernz / P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch/ I. Creusen (1949), Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956). Also please see Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.”
2. Siscoe’s assertion that one is guilty of “private judgment” when one merely witnesses a pope teach heresy is sophistry. If the Church teaches its members Magisterial truth “A” as necessary for salvation we are expected to recognize when “not-A” is being taught. Contrary to Siscoe’s claim this does NOT necessarily entail our rendering a judgment upon the man (the pope). By analogy: If you witness a murder then you ARE justified in calling the act “murder” and categorizing the one wielding the knife as a “murderer.” This does not entail you rendering any formal judicial ruling on the bad actor. This is merely a matter of logic. Siscoe, apparently, argues that we abandon logic.
4. What the numerous theologians, popes, councils, and Codes of Canon Law (1917 and 1983) make clear is that it is the public acts of heresy (merely witnessed by Catholics) which convicts the heretic and causes the immediate loss of office/authority. The pope derives his authority from Divine Law and not Ecclesiastical Law. And whether the ecclessial administration of justice removes the pope from material possession is irrelevant to his loss of authority. Siscoe incorrectly conflates “ecclessial removal from material possession of office” with the “loss of authority derived from Divine Law.”
3. What is the Siscoe-SSPX solution to the problem? They encourage Catholics to be schismatics and heretics. Siscoe asserts
(a) that unless or until some Ecclessial process removes the pope from material possession of the office that he retains office AND authority; however, Siscoe (and the SSPX) conjoins to this that
(b) catholics (certainly, Bishop Fellay) has the authority to overrule the Pope by sifting through his teachings under his Universal Ordinary Magisterial authority and deciding what is and is not of Tradition. This is heresy and schism. Where is this found in the Magisterium?
4. Siscoe’s position (created and espoused by the SSPX) is contradictory. If one accepts the Pope as holding the material office and possessing the attendant authority under Divine Law then it is contractory for Siscoe (and the SSPX to) justify sifting papal teachings through some private adjudication (and disregarding some papal teachings)? Under this situation the pope is not the one ruler of the Church but there are as many rulers as adjudicators. This is exactly what protestantism is: each person is his own adjudicator. This position is as bad as the heretical pope himself.
5. Sedevacantism is the only non heretical position available until Heaven intercedes on our behalf. A heretic pope automatically loses authority under Divine Law as codified in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law. Whether the pope retains material possession of the office is irrelevant without the necessary authority from Divine Law. Under this position everything the heretic has taught or promulgated is ignored as non binding. While all false doctrines contain some elements of truth they are nonetheless false doctrines.
1. This is contradictory nonsense. How exactly can a non member of the Church hold the authority to teach and bind members? Whether the man wears the garments and enjoys the benefices of the material office has little to do with whether he has the authority to teach and bind. And this is were the SSPX have deluded themselves and other (through its defenders like Siscoe).
2. The notion that theologians Suarez/Billuart were speaking the common opinion of theologians past and present is nonsense. Here is a list of theologians, Councils and POPES who have declared that public heresy results in the pope’s immediate loss of office/authority: Matthaus Conte a Coronata (1950), Pope Innocent III (1198), St Antoninus (1458), Pope Paul IV (1559), St Robert Bellarmine (1610), St Alphonsus Liquori (1787), Vatican Council I (1869), Serapius Iragul (1959), j Wilhelm (1913), Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927), F.X. Wernz / P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch/ I. Creusen (1949), Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956). Also please see Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.”
3. It is the followers of the SSPX novel theories who are the schimatics. Siscoe and the SSPX argue
(a) that unless or until some Ecclessial process removes the pope from material possession of the office that he retains BOTH office AND authority; however, Siscoe (and the SSPX) conjoins to this that
(b) catholics have the authority to overrule the Pope by sifting through his teachings (given by him under his Universal Ordinary Magisterial authority) and deciding what is and is not of Tradition. Recognizing the pope’s authority but failing to give assent to any teaching under his Universal Ordinary Magisterial authority is the textbook definition of schism.
4. Under sedevacantism the public heresy of the pope results in his immediate loss of authority and office—-AND MEMBERSHIP in the Church. It is the heretic pope who finds himself outside the Church and not Critical Thinker’s utterly ridiculous claim that the heretic remains while the “Church” schisms.
5. And I suggest Critical Thinker review the definition of Apostolic Succession.
Which sedevacantists might they be—-most likely the “straw” kind?
First things first. . . . Siscoe’s defense of SSPX’s novel theories rests, in large part, on the mistaken claim that the opinion of Suarez and Billuart represented the consensus of the Church’s theologians——that is, the consensus concerning the loss of office of a publicly heretical pope. Siscoe, et al’s 700+ page book doesn’t enumerate these consensus theologians. The truth seems to be that Suarez/Billuart have been Sisco’s only sources.
Yet the majority of theologians did NOT agree and the consensus was AGAINST Suarez. Here is a list of theologians, Councils and Popes who have declared that public heresy results in the pope’s immediate loss of office: Matthaus Conte a Coronata (1950), Pope Innocent III (1198), St Antoninus (1458), Pope Paul IV (1559), St Robert Bellarmine (1610), St Alphonsus Liquori (1787), Vatican Council I (1869), Serapius Iragul (1959), j Wilhelm (1913), Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927), F.X. Wernz / P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch/ I. Creusen (1949), Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956). One should also peruse Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.” Siscoe has yet to address any of these.
With that out of the way. . . .There were at least three principle heresies contained in the Vatican II Constitutions and all the Constitutions were promulgated by Montini (aka Paul VI). Unfortunately Montini was a heretic before and after he was elected. He was on the Vatican “watch” list before Pius XII’s death. That is, Montini never met the requirements to become pope and according to Divine Law cannot possess the authority to teach or bind. As a heretic he couldn’t even be a Church member let alone the Vicar of Christ. His outer garments and the benefices of the papal office don’t make him the Vicar of Christ without the authority of Divine Law——which he lost as a result of his public heresy.
In other words Montini lacked any authority to teach or bind. His promulgation of and the Vatican II Constitutions themselves are null and void—–in toto. That is, they are not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. If Montini ain’t a Member of Church he can’t promulgate anything to its members or cause the Church to do anything let alone cause her to defect. The sedevacantist solution is the only logical, non heretical solution to the problem
The SSPX/Siscoe employ a novel-but-useless theory to handle this. Siscoe/SSPX recognized Montini as having held both the office AND full authority of the Papacy—–for them Montini was the Vicar of Christ. However, this presented the SSPX with a serious problem—-they knew that the Vatican II Constitutions were unmistakably heretical. So they came up with the novel theory to sift through Magisterial Constitutions and ignore what they didn’t like and keep what they did. Their novel solution is both heretical and schismatic (and pure protestanism)—-and completely useless for explaining how the Church can’t defect. Which magisterial document did this novel theory come from (Bellarmine doesn’t help Siscoe here)? In effect the SSPX had created a parallel church with its sanitized Vatican II documents. Their parallel church had not defected—–but they had jumped head long into schism. And lastly this protestant solution didn’t save the Church from defection.
We don’t even have to go down that road.
Siscoe’s assertion that one is guilty of “private judgment” when one merely witnesses a pope teach heresy is sophistry. If the Church teaches its members Magisterial truth “A” as necessary for salvation we are EXPECTED to recognize when “not-A” is being taught (by a heretical pope or by any member). Contrary to Siscoe’s claim this does NOT necessarily entail our rendering a juridical ruling upon the man (the pope). By analogy: If you witness a murder then you ARE justified in calling the act “murder” and categorizing the one wielding the knife as a “murderer.” This does not entail you rendering any formal judicial ruling on the bad actor. Your witness of the public acts of a pope and drawing a logical conclusion based upon your knowledge of the Faith is a matter of simple logic. As mpoulin points out, it is our duty and responsibility to draw such conclusions as Church members. Siscoe can point to no magisterial document showing otherwise.
Siscoe cherry picked the theologians Suarez and Billuart as most consistent with the novel SSPX position he was trying to defend—-that is, a heretic pope does not automatically lose his office. Siscoe claimed (or he tries to shift this claim on to Suarez for cover) that their position was a consensus position of all theologians. This is nonsense. The majority of theologians did NOT agree with Suarez and the consensus was AGAINST him. Here is a list of theologians, Councils and Popes who have declared that public heresy results in the pope’s immediate loss of office: Matthaus Conte a Coronata (1950), Pope Innocent III (1198), St Antoninus (1458), Pope Paul IV (1559), St Robert Bellarmine (1610), St Alphonsus Liquori (1787), Vatican Council I (1869), Serapius Iragul (1959), j Wilhelm (1913), Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927), F.X. Wernz / P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch/ I. Creusen (1949), Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956). One should also peruse Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.” Siscoe has yet to address any of these.
The publicly heretical popes condemn themselves. Public heresy immediately denies them Church membership and any authority to teach or rule as pope. The pope derives his authority from Divine Law and not Ecclesiastical Law. So the failure of the heretical hierarchy to take juridical steps to remove a heretic from material possession of the papal office in no way prevents his loss of authority under Divine Law (which is automatic). This is a sad road to travel but the above enumerated theologians, Councils, non heretical popes together with the 1983 and 1917 Codes of Canon Law show us that the heretical pope can never cause the Church to defect.
These heretic popes purportedly have a greater knowledge of theology than any of us. Do they not fear judgment for attempts to destroy the Church?
This certainly supports mpoulin’s point that the SSPX and their defenders (Salza, Siscoe, et al) have no right—-even under the Vatican II Constitution—-to sift and discard teachings of the Magisterium they don’t like. Particularly since the SSPX accept the last six popes as true popes.
Where the Magisterium is silent or unclear the hierarchy often takes council from its theologians. And the expert opinion of her theologians often form the basis for its later magisterial teachings.
This is seriously mistaken. Barbara is implying that everything is peachy keen except for Bergoglio. Bergoglio is merely the product of almost 60 years of the destruction of the Church at the hands of heretical-modernist popes. Roncalli (John XXIII) beginning in 1958 began systematically promoting and assigning modernist bishops to the dioceses of the world and promoting modernists to the rank of Cardinal. ALL the popes after him followed suit. These modernist bishops operate the seminaries and control what they are taught—-they turn out modernist priests. Since at least 1970 what converts are being taught at RCIA, what children are being taught during religious instruction and what the Novus Ordo service teaches its attendees bears almost no resemblance to what was taught by the Church for the previous 1600 years.
Barbara seems to be of the impression that because dioceses and parishes exist and they have the veneer of reverence that all is well. The statistics give a very different picture of how bad things have become since 1958.
The duty of the Pope and the hierarchy is to teach, rule and sanctify. Modernist bishops (and the priests under them) around the world are teaching what the modernist popes have promulgated since Vatican II—-which is error and heresy. Even the validity of the sacraments (except for Baptism and Matrimony) since 1970 are in serious doubt even after the intentionally mistranslated consecration of the Novus Ordo was corrected in 2011. And as they teach so do they rule.
Things are bad from false pope down to the smallest Novus Ordo parish in the world. Even Mother Theresa (God rest her soul) who spent her life serving the poor was infected.
According to Fr Murphy’s, “General Councils of the Church,” The Council of Constance was considered a legitimate one, but not all 45 sessions were approved. Pope Martin V, elected at the end of 1417 finally emerged as the true Pope before the end of the Council of Constance. He approved the acts of the council with the exception of those that proposed Conciliarism. The propositions of the Council dealing with Papal primacy and the relationship between the popes and general councils of the Church were condemned by subsequent Popes.
Infallibility is extended to teaching the truths of Revelation. I assume this includes the primacy of Peter and his authority (and those that hold the keys after him) to rule. So to the extent that canons, constitutions, etc. forming the fruits of the work of a Council are approved (and promulgated) by a true Pope we have an obligation and duty to give assent to that which he makes applicable to us.
Keep in mind that any of the popes who lost the office (in particular their loss of authority under Divine Law) through public heresy are not true popes regardless of whether they continued to hold material possession of the office. Everything promulgated by such a fallen pope is null and void.
It is the novel theory of some in the R&R crowd (like Siscoe) who insist that unless the pope places his ex cathedra stamp on a teaching that they owe no assent. Or that they decide what they will and won’t believe even though they accept the pope as a true pope—-which amounts to schism and protestanism.
Siscoe’s assertion that one is guilty of “private judgment” when one merely witnesses a pope teach heresy is sophistry. He muddies the distinction between “personal judgments” and “juridical judgments.” In other words, Siscoe implies that if we do the former then we necessarily do the latter. Nonsense.
If the Church teaches its members Magisterial truth “A” as necessary for salvation we are EXPECTED (out of necessity for our salvation) to recognize when “not-A” is being taught (by a heretical pope or by any Church member). Otherwise what would be the point of being taught the truths in the first place.
Contrary to Siscoe’s claim this does NOT necessarily entail our rendering a juridical ruling upon the man (the pope). By analogy: If you witness a murder then you ARE justified in calling the act “murder” and categorizing the one wielding the knife as a “murderer.” This does not entail you rendering any formal judicial ruling on the bad actor. Our personal and logical judgment has no juridical effect on someone holding the Papal office.
It is the publicly-committed heretical acts THEMSELVES which “automatically” deprives a pope of his authority (and Church membership)——by Divine Law. This is codified in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law. A valid, Ecclessial, Papal election confers the office on the person and not the authority (this is conferred by Divine Law). Both Codes of Canon Law agree that some form of ecclessial process is necessary to declare the seat “materially” vacant and proceed to an election. This is irrelevant to the heretic’s lack of authority to teach and rule.
Siscoe uses the opinion of theologians Suarez and Billuart to support the theory that public heresy does not cost the Pope his office. He suggests that Suarez/Billuart’s opinion was the consensus opinion. At least one sedevacantist reports that Suarez actually offered a dissent from the majority. Here is a list of theologians, Councils and Popes who have declared that public heresy results in the pope’s immediate loss of office: Matthaus Conte a Coronata (1950), Pope Innocent III (1198), St Antoninus (1458), Pope Paul IV (1559), St Robert Bellarmine (1610), St Alphonsus Liquori (1787), Vatican Council I (1869), Serapius Iragul (1959), j Wilhelm (1913), Caesar Badii (1921), Dominic Prummer (1927), F.X. Wernz / P. Vidal (1943), Udalricus Beste (1946), A. Vermeersch/ I. Creusen (1949), Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956). One should also peruse Pope Paul IV’s Bull, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.” Siscoe has yet to address any of these. [Caveats: You have to dig deep to get the Vatican I quote and it is indirect. And Pope Paul IV’s Bull deals primarily with the prevention of a heretic ever holding the papal office, but the implication towards the possibility of a heretic pope is clear. ]
Papal Bull–CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO
Promulgated February 15, 1559 by
POPE PAUL IV (23 May 1555 – 18 August 59)
Paragraph 6. Adding that if at any time it will be found that some bishop, even conducting himself as an archbishop or patriarch or already mentioned cardinal of the Roman Church, even, as shown, a legate, or even a Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or assumption as cardinal or as Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, before his promotion or assumption as Cardinal or as Roman Pontiff, that promotion or assumption concerning him, even if made in concord and from the unanimous assent of all the cardinals, is null,
void and worthless; not by the reception of consecration, not by the ensuing possession of the office and administration, or as if, either the enthronement or homage of the Roman Pontiff, or the obedience given to him by all, and the length of whatever time in the future, can be said to have recovered power or to be able to recover power, nor can (the assumption or promotion) be considered as legitimate in any part of it, and for those who are
promoted as bishops or archbishops or patriarchs or assumed as primates, or as cardinals or even as Roman Pontiff, no faculty of administration in spiritual or temporal matters may be thought to have been attributed or to attribute, but may all things and each thing in any way said, done, effected and administered and then followed up in any way through them lack power and they are not able to attribute any further power nor right to anyone; and they themselves who are thus promoted and assumed by that very fact, without any further declaration to be made, are deprived of every dignity, place, honor, title, authority, function and power; and yet it is permitted to all and each so promoted and assumed, if they have not deviated from the Faith before nor have been heretics, nor have incurred or excited or committed schism.
Danielpan asks the right question.
Siscoe writes: “Major Premise: A Pope who is considered to have judged himself a formal heretic (according to private judgment alone), automatically ceases to be Pope.”
Siscoe’s mis-states the argument made by
a. a greater number of theologians through out history (contrary to Siscoe’s claim Suarez and Billuart were minority dissenters from the majority),
b. popes,
c. the 1917 Code of Canon Law
d. the 1983 Codes of Canon Law and,
e. most recently, sedevacantists.
Let’s dissect Siscoe’s ridiculous premise held by no one (as far as I know). First, how can a Pope “judge himself” by virtue of another’s private judgment—–contradictory nonsense. And Siscoe is incorrectly arguing that sedevacantists in particular are using private judgment as the criteria for a pope’s loss of office. Unfortunately this is a red herring—–that is, Siscoe diverts completely from the issue at hand (what does the Church teach about a heretical pope) and instead criticizes private judgment: (a) private judgment lacks ecclessial authority, (b) private judgment is independent of Magisterial teachings. Criticism (a) is true enough but irrelevant and (b) is false.
Canon Law is based upon Revelation, the common practice of the Church and the consensus position of her theologians.
1. What does Canon 188 of 1917 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“ANY office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: 3. Publicly defect from the faith.”
2. What does Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the LAW ITSELF: 2. one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church.”
3. In both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law removal from office is immediate without declaration or process. The question of “judgment,” whether private, ecclesiastical or juridical, never arises. The sole criteria is “public defection.” This means the defection need only have public witnesses to the contradiction of Church teachings. There are no declarations, no authoritative rulings, no warnings, no ecclesial trial. This is what the majority of theologians and popes have declared over time. The sin of heresy (rather than the ecclesiastical crime of heresy) results in immediately loss of Church membership and office by virtue of DIVINE LAW.
4. Both Codes of Canon Law require some authoritative process to declare the office materially vacant and call for an election. However, even if this process doesn’t occur material possession of the papal office in the absence of papal authority (his authority is stripped by Divine Law) is insufficient to teach, rule or require our assent.
5. Siscoe has consistently and incorrectly conflated Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law.
But its worse than that. While Ratzinger (posing as Benedict XVI) asserted that all those who were baptized by any sect are members of the Church Wojtyla (posing as JPII) asserted that all people (regardless of baptism) are members of the Church by virtue of Christ’s Incarnation. Both find support in Vatican II.
Hell no.
Siscoe writes: “Major Premise: A Pope who is considered to have judged himself a formal heretic (according to private judgment alone), automatically ceases to be Pope.”
Siscoe’s mis-states the argument made by
a. a greater number of theologians through out history (contrary to Siscoe’s claim Suarez and Billuart were minority dissenters from the majority),
b. popes,
c. the 1917 Code of Canon Law
d. the 1983 Codes of Canon Law and,
e. most recently, sedevacantists.
Let’s dissect Siscoe’s ridiculous premise held by no one (as far as I know). First, how can a Pope “judge himself” by virtue of another’s private judgment—–contradictory nonsense. And Siscoe is incorrectly arguing that sedevacantists in particular are using private judgment as the criteria for a pope’s loss of office. Unfortunately this is a red herring—–that is, Siscoe diverts completely from the issue at hand (what does the Church teach about a heretical pope) and instead criticizes private judgment: (a) private judgment lacks ecclessial authority, (b) private judgment is independent of Magisterial teachings. Criticism (a) is true enough but irrelevant and (b) is false.
Canon Law is based upon Revelation, the common practice of the Church and the consensus position of her theologians.
1. What does Canon 188 of 1917 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“ANY office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: 3. Publicly defect from the faith.”
2. What does Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the LAW ITSELF: 2. one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church.”
3. In both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law removal from office is immediate without declaration or process. The question of “judgment,” whether private, ecclesiastical or juridical, never arises. The sole criteria is “public defection.” This means the defection need only have public witnesses to the contradiction of Church teachings. There are no declarations, no authoritative rulings, no warnings, no ecclesial trial. This is what the majority of theologians and popes have declared over time. The sin of heresy (rather than the ecclesiastical crime of heresy) results in immediately loss of Church membership and office by virtue of DIVINE LAW.
4. Both Codes of Canon Law require some authoritative process to declare the office materially vacant and call for an election. However, even if this process doesn’t occur material possession of the papal office in the absence of papal authority (his authority is stripped by Divine Law) is insufficient to teach, rule or require our assent.
5. Siscoe has consistently and incorrectly conflated Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law.
Canon Law is based upon Revelation, the common practice of the Church and the consensus position of her theologians.
1. What does Canon 188 of 1917 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“ANY office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: 3. Publicly defect from the faith.”
2. What does Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the LAW ITSELF: 2. one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church.”
3. In both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law removal from office is immediate without declaration or process. The question of “judgment,” whether private, ecclesiastical or juridical, never arises. The sole criteria is “public defection.” This means the defection need only have public witnesses to the contradiction of Church teachings. There are no declarations, no authoritative rulings, no warnings, no ecclesial trial. This is what the majority of theologians and popes have declared over time. The sin of heresy (rather than the ecclesiastical crime of heresy) results in immediately loss of Church membership and office by virtue of DIVINE LAW.
4. Both Codes of Canon Law require some authoritative process to declare the office materially vacant and call for an election. However, even if this process doesn’t occur material possession of the papal office in the absence of papal authority (his authority is stripped by Divine Law) is insufficient to teach, rule or require our assent.
5. Siscoe has consistently and incorrectly conflated Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law.
Siscoe writes: “Major Premise: A Pope who is considered to have judged himself a formal heretic (according to private judgment alone), automatically ceases to be Pope.”
Siscoe’s mis-states the argument made by
a. a greater number of theologians through out history (contrary to Siscoe’s claim Suarez and Billuart were minority dissenters from the majority),
b. popes,
c. the 1917 Code of Canon Law
d. the 1983 Codes of Canon Law and,
e. most recently, sedevacantists.
Let’s dissect Siscoe’s ridiculous premise held by no one (as far as I know). First, how can a Pope “judge himself” by virtue of another’s private judgment—–contradictory nonsense. And Siscoe is incorrectly arguing that sedevacantists in particular are using private judgment as the criteria for a pope’s loss of office. Unfortunately this is a red herring—–that is, Siscoe diverts completely from the issue at hand (what does the Church teach about a heretical pope) and instead criticizes private judgment: (a) private judgment lacks ecclessial authority, (b) private judgment is independent of Magisterial teachings. Criticism (a) is true enough but irrelevant and (b) is false.
Canon Law is based upon Revelation, the common practice of the Church and the consensus position of her theologians.
1. What does Canon 188 of 1917 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“ANY office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: 3. Publicly defect from the faith.”
2. What does Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command:
“The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the LAW ITSELF: 2. one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church.”
3. In both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law removal from office is immediate without declaration or process. The question of “judgment,” whether private, ecclesiastical or juridical, never arises. The sole criteria is “public defection.” This means the defection need only have public witnesses to the contradiction of Church teachings. There are no declarations, no authoritative rulings, no warnings, no ecclesial trial. This is what the majority of theologians and popes have declared over time. The sin of heresy (rather than the ecclesiastical crime of heresy) results in immediately loss of Church membership and office by virtue of DIVINE LAW.
4. Both Codes of Canon Law require some authoritative process to declare the office materially vacant and call for an election. However, even if this process doesn’t occur material possession of the papal office in the absence of papal authority (his authority is stripped by Divine Law) is insufficient to teach, rule or require our assent.
5. Siscoe has consistently and incorrectly conflated Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law.
Siscoe doesn’t “seem” to be saying that Ecclesial Authority is required he “is” saying that. His sole source for this are the opinions of two theologians which he claims represent the consensus view: Suarez and Billuart. But they don’t represent the consensus view; they represent the dissenting view (see several of my comments above for the consensus list of theologians and popes). Kick this premise out from under Siscoe and his whole 700 page tomb collapses.
Canon Law is based upon Revelation, the common practice of the Church and the consensus position of her theologians.
1. What does Canon 188 of 1917 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command: “ANY office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: 3. Publicly defect from the faith.”
2. What does Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authoritatively command: “The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the LAW ITSELF: 2. one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church.”
Even the heretical 1983 Code (promulgated by the heretic Wojtyla) doesn’t agree with Suarez, Billuart or Siscoe. Loss of Office is immediate without declaration or process. The immediate effect is loss of authority and loss of Church membership by virtue of Divine Law. It is irrelevant whether the heretic pope retains material possession of the office since Divine Law has deprived him of any authority to teach and rule. Siscoe and the SSPX either ignore Divine Law or incorrectly conflate Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law.
Next Siscoe consistently modifies heresy with “formal.” Can the Pope be anything but a formal heretic? He’s not some goat farmer in outer Mongolia with no secular or Catholic education. No one has asserted any of the defects of reason that would excuse a heretic pope of malice and culpability–he is presumed a formal heretic unless proved otherwise.
The dubia makes clear that “Amoris Laetitia” contradicts Magisterial teaching; however, the Cardinals are asking for papal clarification (not declaring him a heretic). Bergoglio is unlikely to “judge himself.” What if the “dubia” Cardinals (after an unsatisfactory response from Bergoglio) declare Bergoglio a heretic? It would be a simple matter for the College of Cardinals to form a consensus in favor of the Bergoglio (an outcome which has already been threatened). The dubia cardinals lack any Ecclesial Authority outside the consensus of the College of Cardinals. In this event what does Louie do then? According to the SSPX/Siscoe novel theory he must continue to recognize Bergoglio as true pope yet ignore anything he doesn’t like flowing from teaching authority—–this is schism and protestanism.
Where in Church teachings must there be a formal exercise of ecclesial authority to remove a heretic pope? NOWHERE. In both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon law removal from office is immediate without declaration or process. The question of “judgment,” whether private, ecclesiastical or juridical, never arises. The sole criteria is “public defection.” This means the defection need only have public witnesses to the contradiction of Church teachings. There are no declarations, no authoritative rulings, no warnings, no ecclesial trial. This is what the majority of theologians and popes have declared over time. The sin of heresy (rather than the ecclesiastical crime of heresy) results in immediately loss of Church membership and office by virtue of DIVINE LAW. He is judged by God.
@Lynda: Please keep in mind the following anathema from Vatican I when you opine about what you think the Church can do in the situation of an heretical Pope:
–
“So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
–
This anathema ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES A CATHOLIC from holding the position that a Pope can be tried and judged in an ecclesiastical judicial proceeding because there is NO JURISDICTION AT ALL reserved to anyone else besides the Pope to try the Pope when he appears to be a heretic. The Pope has “ABSOLUTE FULLNESS” of power over the entire Church and to deny this – by claiming that some agency of the Church besides the Pope can exercise power over the Pope – subjects oneself to this anathema.
–
It is hoped that you are not encouraging readers to hold this position.