By: Robert Siscoe
I want to begin by thanking my friend Louie for his reply and for continuing this important discussion. I had originally intended to discuss a different issue in this second installment, but I believe it will be more helpful if I address to several of the points Louie raised, as well as the reasons he gave for rejecting the teaching of the authorities a quoted.
PRIVATE JUDGMENT
Louie wrote:
We are not discussing it [private judgment] in the Sedevacantist sense wherein one may presume to have the personal authority to act as judge and jury; finding a pope (or popes) guilty of formal heresy and thus no pope at all. Rather, ‘private judgment’ in the present context is nothing more than discerning objective realities through the lens of our Holy Catholic faith.
But how are we not acting as “judge and jury” if we publicly declared that Francis has “judged himself” a formal heretic (first judgment), and then conclude and declare that he is “no pope at all” (second judgment).
And this is the exact methodology used by Sedevacantists, who don’t claim to be judging with personal authority either. They say all they are doing is “discerning objecting reality” (they even use that exact terminology) and arriving at the conclusion that the last 6 popes have been antipopes. This is the same approach used by “Our Lady’s Resistance” to reject all the Popes after Pius X (d. 1914), and by Richard Ibranyi to conclude that all the Popes since Innocent II (d.1130) have been Antipopes.
There is no essential difference between the approach Louie mentioned and that used by Sedevacantists, since both are rooted in private judgment concerning the question of “fact” (i.e., is the pope a heretic?), and the very complicated questions of speculative theology and law (i.e., if he is a heretic, when and how does he lose his office?). Because there is no teaching concerning the latter, we cannot declare that Francis has lost his office for heresy, even if we sincerely believe he is a heretic based on what we “discern.”
Now, I readily admit that “discerning objective realities through the lens of our Catholic faith” may lead a person to conclude that Francis lacks the virtue of faith, but, as all who have studied this subject in depth admit, the loss of supernatural faith does not result in the loss of papal office.
IMPLICATIONS
Louie wrote: “With this understanding in mind, it is indeed my opinion (or “private judgment” if you prefer) that Francis has judged himself a formal heretic; the implications of this self-judgment [i.e., loss of office] being plain.”
But that’s the problem: the implications are not plain, since the Church has never told us what the implications are. That is, the Church has never settled the pertinent “questions of law”. Consider the teaching of the “Doctor Eximius et Pius,” Francisco Suarez, who wrote:
“In no case, even of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived form his dignity and power immediately by God himself, without undergoing the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today. (… ) if a Pope were a heretic and incorrigible, he would cease to be pope after a declaratory sentence of the crime were advanced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common teaching of Doctors.”
What was plain to the theologians and Doctors of the Church in the 16th Century concerning one aspect of the “question of law” is that a Pope, who is considered, by private opinion, to have “judged himself” a heretic, will not lose his office (and jurisdiction/power) until after he is declared a heretic by the Church. And this is not the opinion of one “dissenting voice,” but the common opinion from a time when the Faith was strong and the vast majority of theologians were solid (unlike our age).
In fact, even the Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn, admits that the recent Popes (and bishops) all legally retained their office because they were never declared heretics by the Church.[HERE] In other words, Sanborn agrees with “the common teaching of the Doctors” concerning this aspect of the “question of law.”
IS FRANCIS A FORMAL HERETIC?
Concerning the “question of fact,” if we consider the case of Pope Francis objectively, and are guided in our judgment by canon law, he cannot yet be considered a formal heretic. At this point, he would only be “suspect of heresy” (you’d be surprised what a cleric can get away with while only being “suspect of heresy”.[HERE] Before being judged a formal heretic by the Church, he would have to be warned twice by the proper authorities, and given six months to remove or clear up the cause of suspicion. Prior to that, regardless of how heretical he seemed according to private judgment, he would retain his office. [HERE]
Now, if these procedures are required, as a matter of justice, for a lesser cleric, how much more necessary when the accused is the Pope? Does it seem reasonable for there to be such a lack of proportion between how Francis is being judged, by private judgment, and what would be required before a lesser cleric were considered a formal heretic by the Church’s judgment?
DO WE USE REASON AND LOGIC TO DETERMINE IF FRANCIS IS THE POPE?
Louie wrote:
It is my sincere belief that Our Lord wills that we should use reason, logic and intelligence – applied with sensus Catholicus – to discern the objective reality of the present situation as best we are able.
If the “objective reality” in question is whether Francis is the Pope, I deny that God wants us to use our reason and logic to figure it out, any more than He want us to use our reason and logic to determine which defined doctrines are true. I say this because the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been elected by the Cardinals and accepted as Pope by the Church, is not only infallibly certain, but is similar to a doctrine defined by a council.[HERE] Just as we don’t use our reason and logic to decide what defined doctrines we will accept, neither do we use our reason logic to decide if we should accept Francis as Pope. To know who the Pope is, we simply look to what the Church has proposed for belief and accept it. Francis’ legitimacy is a dogmatic fact that Catholics must accept.[HERE]
The very notion that it’s up to the laity to determine who the Pope is, is a non-Catholic mindset introduced into the world of Tradition by the Sedevacantists, who are then forced to either publicly reject the traditional doctrine concerning dogmatic facts (which is a mortal sin against faith), or else twist themselves into a pretzel in their attempt to get around it.
NO CANONICAL PROVISIONS
Now, we both agree that “no canonical provisions exist” governing how the Church would deal with a heretical pope, or how/when he would lose his office; and therefore if faced with such a situation it would be necessary for the Church to “consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history” (Catholic Encyclopedia). Based on this, Louie wrote:
As Robert and I go about sharing our opinions with you, our readers, you will discover that some of the available theological opinions make logical sense; while others seem downright incompatible with the dictates of right reason alone (to borrow a phrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia). In his article, Robert provided an excellent example of the latter when he quoted John of St. Thomas (JST) as follows: ‘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.’
I would begin by noting that the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t say it is necessary to use right reason alone, but “right reason and the teachings of history” – which is precisely what JST did in his treatise on this subject. And this may be the first time anyone has accused John of St. Thomas, who is considered one of the greatest Thomistic philosophers and theologians in the history of the Church, of lacking sound reason.
Now, the reason Louie considers JST’s teaching to be, as he called it, an “offense against right reason,” is because he says a pope can be at once a heretic, de facto, yet remain pope. He sees this as a contradiction; but as we will see as we go forward, there is no inherent contradiction in what JST wrote, when the proper distinctions are made. And JST was not just shooting from the hip when he made his comments. He studied the matter in depth and wrote one of the most thorough treatise’ on the subject that one will find. He used his trained mind, guided by ecclesiastical laws and historical precedents, to arrive at his conclusion. And his conclusion (concerning this point) was the common opinion of his day, which would not have been the case if it were an offense against right reason.
I would also add that it is not for the laity (Ecclesia Discens) to “consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history” to determine if, when, or how a heretical pope loses his office, since the laity have neither the authority nor the competency to do so. Rather, it is for the proper authorities (Ecclesia Docens) to resolve these difficult legal questions and determine the proper course to follow.
Something may seem to be unreasonable to us, or even appear to contain an inherent *contradiction*, due to an error in our own thinking or simply because we lack sufficient knowledge to understand it. That is why such complicated matters are to be resolved by the competent authority.
CONSCIENCE WON’T HELP
In response to an objection raised in the comments section below my first installment, we cannot consult our conscience to know if Francis is the Pope. This is because the conscience does not judge speculative truth, but practical behavior. It applies knowledge (what is already known) to individual acts (past, present and future) in order to determine if they are morally good or bad. (ST Ia, q. 79, a. 13) Therefore, one cannot look to their conscience to determine if Francis is the legitimate Pope, anymore than the Catholics of the 15th Century could look to their conscience to determine if Alexander VI – who was accused by Savonarola of being “a non-Christian” who did not “even believe in the existence of God” – was the legitimate Pope.
CANON 194
Next Louie rejected the highly acclaimed commentary on canon law by Beal, Coriden, and Green, because he believes their commentary on Canon 194 is “a glaring offense against right reason.”
I have to disagree. Nothing in their commentary on Canon 194 is an offense against right reason. On the contrary, their teaching is founded on a common legal principle.
MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT
As Beal, et al. explain, if a cleric publicly defects from the Faith or attempts marriage, his office is lost by the force of law (per C. 194), but it only takes effect after the Church renders a judgment and declares the fact upon which the loss of office is based. This is an example of what legal scholars call “a mixed question of law and fact”. The facts are established by the proper authorities, before the consequences of the law take effect.
“A mixed question of law and fact” explains a popular legal dictionary, “refers to a question which depends on both law and fact for its solution. In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case.”
In the case under consideration, if a cleric publicly defects from the Faith, the Church (like a secular court) establishes and the fact, and then the consequences of the law take effect. This is standard legal practice both in secular and ecclesiastical courts, and it is a matter of common sense.
For example, let’s say that an employment contract states that the punishment for stealing is immediate termination. Now, if an employee is stealing from the company, and if some of his co-workers are convinced “by discerning objective reality” that he is doing so, that’s not enough for him to lose his job. The proper authorities must establish the fact, before the consequences of the law (loss of pay and employment) take effect. This is similar to the loss of office for a cleric who publicly defects from the faith or attempts marriage. The Church establishes and declares the fact, and then the consequences of the law take effect.
What Canon 194 confirms is that a cleric, who has been judged to be a heretic by private judgment alone, will retain his office until the proper authorities establish the fact. Hence, there is no inherent *contradiction* in Beal’s commentary, which reflects the common legal practice.
Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, a crucial point we will need to address is this: Heresy, of his nature, severs a person from the Church (quoad se); but heresy, of its nature, does not cause a cleric to lose his office or jurisdiction quoad se (in itself) or quoad nos (for us). This point will be fully developed in a future installment.
BILLUART
Regarding the citation from Billuart, who wrote: “I say that manifest heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve,” you responded by saying his teaching “is not directly applicable to the matter at hand,” since it pertains to the validity of sacramental theology, not the legitimacy of a pope.
But what Billuart’s teaching does show is that clerics who are “in the judgment of all or at least of the majority … rebellious against the definitions of the Church,” will retain their jurisdiction until they are denounced by the proper authorities, which is consistent with Canon 194 and the law established by Pope Martin V. And Billuart does indeed directly address the matter at hand later in the same chapter, when he writes:
“Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”
Billuart explicitly stated that what he wrote above was the “common opinion” of his day (the late 18th century), which would certainly not have been the case if it was “downright incompatible with the dictates of right reason.”
PAUL LAYMANN, S.J.
For all of the reasons already given, the opinion of Fr. Paul Laymann, S. J., (considered one of the greatest canonists of the 17th Century), which maintains that even a notoriously heretical Pope would retain his office “as long as he is tolerated by the Church, and is publicly recognized as the universal pastor” likewise contains nothing contrary to right reason.
Would it not be more prudent for us to presume that some of the Church’s most respected theologians, canonists, and distinguished prelates, fully trained in their respective science, have a more complete understanding of the principles of theology and law than ourselves? And if we accept their teaching as even probable, we cannot say Francis has lost his office for heresy – at least not until the Church establishes the fact and declares the crime.
Click here for Point / Counterpoint 2: Verrecchio
Can a manifest apostate assume the Office in the first place?
This is like an argument through a time warp: we’re humoring the opponent’s refusal to acknowledge that some fundamental things have been completely obliterated since 2013.
“To know who the Pope is, we simply look to what the Church has proposed for belief and accept it.”
{Stage whisper} In case you haven’t noticed, there are two men who, mutually approving, call themselves, the (singular) Pope. Added to that, the Pope’s confidant tells us that the Petrine Ministry has been expanded by the act of the Pope’s will, thereby making two men into one pope. This CONTRADICTION is what the Church apparently proposes.
“This is because the conscience does not judge speculative truth, but practical behavior. It applies knowledge (what is already known) to individual acts (past, present and future) in order to determine if they are morally good or bad.”
Perhaps the INTELLECT can know what is true, and can know that what is true cannot at the same time be false, that one cannot equal two. The well-formed Catholic conscience then picks things up and refuses to submit to the intellectual violence of internalizing a contradiction.
The only response Catholics have for this cruel intellectual violence inflicted by the Hierarchy itself is selective blindness. Close one eye, stop seeing Benedict, and it all fits. Sorry, I’ve done enough pretending in my life to know that it won’t work, and yes, my well-formed, Catholic CONSCIENCE is the very thing that I rely on to make the decision (because it’s all we’ve got left since 2013).
No one in the Bergoglio faction will touch the above.
Nor will they talk about St. Gallen’s Mafia (admitted by the very members of that little crime syndicate).
Nor will they talk about the delict in Benedict’s resignation (the fact that you cannot at the same time abdicate the Papacy and retain the Office.)
I fully support Louie’s and Ann Barnhardt position i.e. Bergoglio is not our pope.
I’ve pretty much read everything available online by Mr. Siscoe on the subject: I admire the work, but his logic is flawed. How can you pretend not to be judging the pope if a judgement of the Church is required for him to lose office? It is much, much more simple to acknowledge that the pope loses his office by being a manifest heretic, period.
Not to conclude that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic would be a negation of what is there for everyone to see. It’s no longer a matter of “private judgment” on a complicated or hidden matter. It’s in plain sight!!!!
Even Mr. Siscoe sees it. Do you need a proof? Just as Mr Siscoe if he gives assent of the mind to Amoris Laetitiae 😉
I think this article has driven me into the camp with the Sedevacantists. When Rome accepted the false precepts of the 2nd Vatican Council together with refusing to Consecrate Russia to Our Holy Mother’s Immaculate heart, she ceased to be Catholic. She has made God a God of contradictions. For cardinals and bishops who have accepted the false precepts of the 2nd Vatican Council to challenge Bergoglio’s errors in Amoris Laetitia is somewhat akin to the “Pot calling the Kettle black”. What is one supposed to think about Rome’s apostasy in line with all the diabolical disorientation-?
Satan beats the drum and Bergoglio, Msgr. Vito Pinto and Cardinal Muller
together with the rest of the Modernists are marching to the beat of the
“Diabolical Disorientation” Our Blessed Mother warned us of.
Only God can restore Rome to it’s Traditional Catholicism and influence a new or renewed Pope to keep the COMMANDMENT TO CONSECRATE ROME.
Until then I stand with the Traditionalists.
I agree with you that there cannot be two popes, one active & the other inactive. It simply cannot be accepted that this is in accordance with Tradition which the Papacy is supposed to uphold. Either Pope Emeritus Benedict has abandoned the Papacy on account of the reasons given by him or he was put under duress to do so. If the latter be the case, it would have to be verifiable, which would be difficult to do as long as PF visibly holds the Papal Office. As most of the present Hierarchy appear to be his henchmen i.e. heretics themselves, the possibility of having PF declared a heretic by an Imperfect Council is nil. If, OTOH, if the number of Cardinals that accept something has to be done about PF grows with the issue of a formal correction, then it could be successful.
Correction: “TO CONSECRATE RUSSIA.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the expressed consent of Rome. This was a proper and legal action considering the dire state of affairs in the Church and in order to preserve the True Catholic Church and all Her holy Traditions. Couldn’t this same logic be used to oust a heretical pope for the greater good of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Are we getting too hung up on rules, rules, rules. Every second Bergoglio sits on the Throne of Peter (legally or illegally), he is a menace. How will Our Lord judge those who “go by the book” disregarding the loss of souls because of the evil spirit of Vatican II? Maybe I see things too simplistically .
Siscoe continues to rely on theological opinions to bolster his case and not authoritative sources. An authoritative source (Pius X) defined and condemned modernism. Every Pope since John 23 has without any doubt expressed modernistic beliefs. This official declaration of a heretical pope is not coming anytime soon since those in the hierarchy are themselves modernists. Therefore this “process” that Siscoe declares must take place (based on opinions of others), will never take place and waiting for such a process only commits the trads to perpetual inaction and intercine squabbling over who is a true or false pope. The job at hand is to restore the Church without the modernists. For that to happen, the trad bishops need to call a Council.
We sede’s arent necessarily in a “camp”…..we have just simply come to a logical conclusion. The vatican 2 church is a false faith which has no use for the True Catholic Church of Christ. All of the vatican 2 council must be condemned as evil.
Amen-!!!!
Siscoe loves his fallible theologians. All of the good ones were long gone before the v2 church usurped the Catholic Church in 1965.
I have never encountered so much legalism since reading trad websites. Many are missing the big picture and using legalism to justify inaction. It was illegal for the colonists to rebel against the Crown, yet they did so anyway and used Natural Law to justify it. Surely Divine Law demands action against a heretical papal pretender.
Here is a copy of a post I made to Mr Siscoe a few days ago on The Remnant. It was removed without comment (plus I have also been banned on 1P5 too for similar “unapproved” opinions). Perhaps Mr. Siscoe would reply in this forum:
[I have been following your debate with the sedevacantist position for a few months now. It seems your position is based heavily on theological opinion, some authoritative sources, and debatable historical comparisons. The basic sede position (which there are several), tends to highlight authoritative sources, and theological opinions, and seems to do a better job on the historical facts by emphasizing pre vatican 2 sources and discounts non catholic sources like Newman who wrote his famous book of Arians while a protestant. To me both sides make great points but neither can nail the issue shut and resolve this problem. My biggest stumbling block is the teaching of an indefectable Church protected by the Holy Spirit. Yet the last 50 years have seen nothing but error after error and heresies and contradictions abound. How can this be from an indefectable church. The faithful need clarity, I’m afraid the theological premises you propose only cause confusion. The sede position seems very clear. Francis isnt Pope solves lots of issues for those who believe in the true faith. The position that Francis is a Pope, but….. requires way too much nuance. I would appreciate your comments. I want to believe in the Church that is my heritage but I simply dont see it when I look at anything Concilior.]
Robert is exactly right again. Verrechio unwittingly made the same mistake sedes do when attempting to say the pope is an antipope (not the pope). This has never been a decision left to the individual to discern, much less declare as though his or her declaration were a matter of fact, or that the universal Church is required to accept. I’m glad Robert pointed that out, and thanks to Louie for allowing Robert to do so, unlike the sedes who refuse to even consider what Robert is saying. A point Robert made that proves individuals cannot discern and declare the pope an antipope apart from a Church declaration, is the contradictory opinions sedes have regarding who the previous popes are or are not. They have all used private judgment/discernment in the matter, yet they conflict as to who they are. Yet, if we can’t tell with certainty who was or was not a previous pope, how can we know which doctrines to accept or reject? We can’t. Does this mean one cannot make judgments? No, we can all make judgements, but when our judgment contradicts the Church’s judgment on who is or is not the pope, guess who wins? It isn’t you, dear sedevacantists. The only judgment that counts is the Church’s. Robert has enough sense to see this. Why don’t you? It reminds me of Protestants who put private judgment of Scripture before that of the Church. They never seem to understand that the Church alone makes the judgment regarding certain Scripture verses, and similarly sedes never understand that without a Church judgment declaring that a heretical pope has lost his office, one will never have certainty that he has in fact lost his office. You disagree? Guess what, your supposed certainty means nothing in the eyes of the Church. And it’s irrelevant that certain theologians believed a pope ceased to be pope before a declaratory sentence, because even that would have to occur in an Ecumenical “imperfect council,” and this hasn’t occurred, plus even then, the fact that he’d lost office would have to be declared in order for the Church to recognize the fact
I recall a priest’s homily at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in Palm Coast Florida which went something like this:
“Everything Hitler and the Nazis did they made sure was legal in German law at the time. All the evils, the euthanasia, the racial laws, the prison camps, were all backed up by lawyers and judges adhering to the letter of the law.”
.
What will it take before all the lawyers, theologians, canonists, etc., put aside their law books and listen to Jesus Christ and HIS teachings?
Michael F Poulin
The RCA Victor dog can recognize his master’s voice.
My GPS can even recognize my voice.
The laity can certainly recognize a true shepherd when it hears one.
Solid article.
Mr Siscoe here is concerned with legalism and “competent authority “ and correct procedures for determining legitimacy of a Pope.
Pretty tough to accomplish in the VaticanII religion it appears.
.
I think we are talking past one another a bit here sometimes. I do not argue that my private judgement or conscience is what determines the legal legitimacy of the Pope. I have never said my conscience determine the legality or legitimacy of any office. Conscience only determines for each of us whether or not we accept and follow a person as the Pope in our hearts, or even judge him a heretic . It is a private determination only when I say he is a heretic, not a public one, and not a legal one and not binding on him. Yeah, we simple incompetent laity get that too.
So there are two separate issues being discussed .
Also Mr Siscoe may think what I determine privately is a mortal sin, (which does not follow from either Aquinas or Vatican II philosophy) but too bad… I still do not care. So he can go on a quote theologians, philosophers and lawyers as his authority, and I’ll quote Jesus of Nazareth as mine.
Siscoe’s approach is correct. He is relying on traditional doctrine, not feelings and private judgment. All the theologians he quoted were from before Vatican II.
Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia by name to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on July 7, 1952. It was late, Russia had already spread her errors throughout the world. The Bishops of the World did not participate in the consecration, so only a conditional, a certain period of peace, was granted to the World.
You believe Benedicts resignation was invalid, but he said “There isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd.”
If Benedict and Francis were both claiming to be pope you might have a point, but that is not the case. One modernist pope resigned, and another modernist pope was elected.
I assert that the laity does have the authority to disregard anyone teaching a false gospel as recognized by St Paul in his letter to the Galatians:
.
Gal1:6-9
6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
The whore Vatican II religion has eclipsed the Catholic Church and teaches a false gospel, let those who teach it (ie Jorge Bergoglio) be anathema.
Anyone who knows the Catholic Catechism, knows what the Church teaches. We also know what Pope Francis teaches by reading Vatican documents and published public interviews. When Pope Francis speaks contrary to the catechism, he’s spouting heresy. The pillar and ground of the truth is the Church (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15), not Pope Francis. While the gates of hell can not prevail against the Church (cf. Matthew 16:18); they can prevail against Bergoglio. Pope Francis is a papal deposition waiting to happen.
Banned by Skojec the Ultracrepidarian? A badge of honor sir!
The lawyers want to treat the Vatican II Church like their mistress, instead of their bride. They take from it only what they desire, and leave the rest. The “traditional” Catholic legal scholar rejects her ecumenism, her collegiality, her denial of Christ’s kingship, her humanism, yet they desperately cling to her, pining and hoping she really is their bride because she vaguely resembles the girl they used to know.
Michael F Poulin
So according to Siscoe and you, the faithful have to wait until the modernist church decides to no longer be modernists and declare themselves heretics. Do you not see the impossible predicament you advocate by insisting on some formal declaration instead of private judgment. There is simply no formal declaration ever coming from the concilior church denouncing itself. We are wasting time, souls are being lost. There are bishops and clergy who know the true faith. Its time they restore. What are we waiting for? Its like waiting for Lutherans to admit Luther was wrong. Its not going to happen. Siscoe and Salza et al are advocating perpetual inaction.
Lamentations 4:4 The tongue of the sucking child hath stuck to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the little ones have asked for bread, and there was none to break it unto them.
Psalm 114:6 The Lord is the keeper of little ones: I was little and he delivered me.
But they were only theologians and thus only opinions. He never mentions the theologians who disagree with his opinion.
Tom, the last thing I advocate is perpetual inaction. As a matter of fact, I know Burke has read Robert’s book which very likely propelled the actions he took. It’s the first step necessary to correcting the situation. And notice, the four Cardinals followed standard procedures before declaring the pope an antipope. They asked him to clarify himself first. Why don’t sedes learn from this? Instead of acknowledging that Robert was right by the Cardinals actions, they try to undermine the Cardinals any way possible for not being Catholic enough? They miss the point. The point is, they asked him to clarify himself first, and the pope didn’t ipso facto lose his office when he didn’t answer the questions. As well, you said, “Do you not see the impossible predicament you advocate by insisting on some formal declaration instead of private judgment.” It’s the other way around. Private judgement will never be an authority capable of declaring the see vacant. Sedes have been doing it for years to no avail. Only a Council can declare the see vacant. John of St. Thomas said only an Ecumenical Council could do it with at least a majority of bishops, and that Suarez was mistaken for thinking simply a Provincial Council could do it. Neither said anything about laymen somehow privately judging the pope an antipope and declaring the see vacant in an undisclosed manner no one can figure out. So, it’s not according to me or Siscoe, it’s according to those who pondered this issue far more than me, and more qualified to explain it. John of St. Thomas is right. If the Church is incapable of calling a Council presently due to unorthodox bishops, then yes, we’ll have to wait till we are able to do so. But that’s part of the cross. I personally think it’s a test to separate those who will remain in the Church with valid and licit Sacraments from those who are not worthy to be in the Church, receiving illicit and invalid Sacraments as a punishment, i.e. sedevacantists, who if they would humble themselves, could see their way through this.
The King er. The Pope has no tiara. Shocking but true.
The whole traditionalist movement is based on the non-Catholicity of Vatican II and the reforms that sprung from this “robber Council”; if this Council contained errors harmful to the faith, then it did not come from the Church; the Church cannot teach errors harmful to the faith; therefore the Popes the promulgated these errors cannot be true Popes. “The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth”; therefore Vatican II does not come from the Church and neither are those who promote these errors Catholic.
A few observations come to mind when following this excellent discussion between Louie and Robert.
1) This discussion is a highly informative, civil, respectful, scholarly, brotherly and Christian exchange..Bravo and Thank You!
2) For whatever God’s plan, all of us are privileged to be living through an extraordinary situation in the history of the Church. As such we are too close to it to be objective, regardless of the good will and well meaning desire to defend the faith and save souls…..our own as well as those around us.
3) What to do? When in doubt go with the Tradition & Church Magisterium. even though they might not be crystal clear…Meaning? Since Popes are elected and determined by Councils; It makes sense that a Council would also have to formally remove a Pope involuntarily absent his death or resignation.
4) The procedure(s) to do so are within the Church but for practical purposes have not been used for over 1000+ years . Thus the current Papal confusion creating the confusion that needs to be formally addressed is creating further confusion because it is not crystal clear how to formally handle the confusion due to the lack of usage (thank God) absent a more recent level of confusion remotely requiring implementation of said removal procedure(s).
5) In the whole scheme of things 50 years of the ongoing current disaster aka Vatican 2 represents approximately 2.5% of the 2000 year history of the Church. By comparison, Arian and Avignon were closer to 100 years each.
6) We forget it’s Christ Church protected by His Mother. He is still in charge and she is surely protecting it. His ways are not our ways. We are called to be faithful and should not expect to understand the why.
7) Therefore, although my heart tells me to go with Louie, my head and sense of faith compels me to go with Robert. Why? His position represents the historical mindset of the Church, however imperfect, based on voluminous research and prayers with his co author, researcher, and apologist, John Salza.
8) The modernist heresy currently ravaging the Church is a test of faith being allowed by Christ for each one of us. Everyone is included from the Pope to the beggar. How do we know what is true?
9) Fr Gruner, may he rest in peace, provided the answer in his must read short book, Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul. Where does one find Truth in this crazy period of diabolical disorientation? Answer…The dogmas/doctrines of the Church. They are infallible and no Pope, Council, Satan or otherwise can overturn them, change them, diminish or ignore them. They are in stone. They are the rock given to us.
What Jacobum said.
A most beautiful summery. Holy Mother Church does not require mental gymnastics from the lowly pewsittters. Our Catholic sense tells us much is amiss. We accept a scoundrel as pope and pray mightily.
“…And if we accept their teaching as even probable, we cannot say Francis has lost his office for heresy – at least not until the Church establishes the fact and declares the crime.”
If this is true, and I think it is, pope Francis will not be called out a heretic, for he has carefully surrounded himself with prelates that support him. We have to sit this pontificate out and pray for better times and meanwhile suffer in obedience.
And suffering it is.
I concur. Well said Jacobum.
Francis is a bitter pill to swallow, for sure, but he’s the pope and he’s the pope we deserve. By God’s permissive will, he is a punishment for the bad, a major trial for the good, and just what is needed to get the remaining bishops and Cardinals who still have the faith off of the fence. It’s not hard to understand why God permitted him to be elected Pope at this time. Another JP2 or Benedict would have only solidified neo-Catholicism.
As someone remarked, it is psychologically easier to simply reject Francis, since he is so repulsive to our sensus catholicus, but to do so is fleeing from the cross God has sent. Read the history of the Church and you will find many other popes who are repulsive to the sensus catholicus. It was bad a pope and a general corruption in Rome that scandalized Luther and eventually led him out of the Church.
Our Lady of Good Success predicted a Church crisis that would begin in the second half of the twentieth century, and that is what happened. At Akita she said there would be bishops against bishops and cardinals against cardinals, which is what we are seeing.
First of all, I do not consider myself a sede but I do see the logic of many of their arguments. It is the resister arguments that are twisted to justify disobedience to a valid Pope. Secondly, I too do not believe private judgment is what declares anything with the Church. These matters need authority. The problem with these discussions is who is the Church? If you say the modernists are the Church and I say the Trads are the Church then we will never agree on anything. Now the only way we can settle who is the True Church is by personal private judgment. Here is an example. If Burke et al take this process further and hold an imperfect council and they declare someone the new Pope, who will you follow? Burke or Francis? And how will you decide? You will use PERSONAL PRIVATE JUDGMENT. That is why I am continuously advocating the Trad Bishops call that imperfect council, depose Francis the Heretic, and elect a new Pope. Is that competent authority enough or will you still cling to FrancisChurch because 99% of the modernists bishops refuse to join BurkeChurch? If a true schism occurs, it will be individual private judgment that we use to decide which church to follow.
There you go again using logic. Tsk Tsk.
I think both Louie and Robert can both be right if the Trad Bishops would only use their authority as the last remaining true remnant of the Catholic Faith and get on with calling a Council. My concern is that many trads are looking for the modernist elements in the concilior church to initiate this process.
Using your “logic” you will have to reject the papacy of John XXII and Honorious since they both taught errors that were harmful to the faith. And if you retort that they did not define the error, well, neither did Vatican II define any errors. The only time errors are excluded is when infallibility is engaged, and that did not happen at Vatican II. If pope can err when they are not defining doctrines, so too can a council. SVism is an overreaction to the crisis that God is permitting His Church to suffer.
That’s because practically all of them agree that two formal warnings would be correct. The vast majority of them then think the crime of heresy would have to declared. Finally some say the Church would then have to tell the faithful to avoid the heretical Pope before he would actually cease to be Pope.
Sedevecantists actually disagree with Bellarmine but do not even realize it.
The WHOLE Church accepted Paul VI as Pope just before and just after Vatican II. Therefore, it is a dogmatic fact that he was Pope.
How about Vatican II teaching error then? Firstly it never defined anything or used the fullness of its authority. Secondly, everyone interpreted it in many different ways. So it is not infallible by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium because specific teachings were not taught by all the Bishops to be of the faith.
John 22 did not teach error. He held an erroneous view on the beatific vision. His opinion was in no way harmful to ones faith and the issue was later defined by the Church. Honorious’ crime was to not denounce Sergius for holding views that were later declared heretical. And for that he was denounced by a Council and a Pope. So I suppose one can hold the opinion that Honorious lost his papacy by being an heretic or that he only lost his papacy when condemned by a later Council. Either way the Church defined the issues and that is what I am continuing to advocate. Call that imperfect council and denounce Vatican 2 and all the Concilior Popes. That is the lesson from the historical record. But to think that the modernists are going to do this??? Well, that is just plain naive.
Please cite the date that Benedict XVI reverted back to Cardinal red and the name Joseph Ratzinger.
Please cite the date Joseph Ratzinger left the enclosure of Peter.
Do you deny Archbishop Ganswein’s comments about the expansion of the Petrine Ministry?
Please let me know, or maybe I just have to pretend not to see the fact of Benedict’s ongoing papacy.
JPeters,
Bellarmine defended Honorius and John XXII against the heretics of his day. Why do you take the position of heretics and accuse two dead popes of being heretics themselves? Hell, even the Protestants know the teachings of the Church concerning the papacy and the indefectability better than you and others who hold that a Pope can be a heretic while maintaining the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth”.
A Critical Thinker,
Since we like to reference history for precedence, please provide a time where the Catholic Church taught ANY error concerning faith and morals to the entire Universal Church, implemented those errors, and refused those who held contrary views to those new and erroneous teachings access to the seminaries and even treated them to psychological reform if they happened to sneak by.
Let me make it a bit simpler, just give me an example when the Church taught error on faith and morals, infallibly or not, to the Universal Church via a General or Ecumenical Council. Haec Sancta was ratified by an anti-pope so please don’t use it as an example.
“Satan’s masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Traditon through obedience (ie. false obedience) Faith is greater than obedience! Therefore, if obedience acts to harm the faith, than a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior.”
I disagree with you about Heac Sancta, but I do agree that there is no precedent for our time. However, there was no precedent for the Arian crisis or the great western schism and there certainly in no precedent for sedevecantism either.
Supposed problem sedevecantists seek to fix: the Pope and hierarchy taught error.
Supposed solution: the Pope and entire hierarchy defected (or remained in communion with heretics) so there was no hierarchy to teach error.
Sedevecantism makes more problems that it solves.
In all sincerity, how can you disagree with me about Haec Sancta? I have read Robert de Mattei’s take on this and it only confirmed what I am saying here. I have honestly never heard the same defense he offered for Vatican II from anyone else.
It is clear that the session containing Haec Sancta was not ratified by a valid Pope at any time. The frequency of councils in a later session, which was ratified by valid Popes, did not contain the heretical part of Haec Sancta which placed the body of gathered bishops, without the Pope, over the Pope. It just set dates and instructions for future councils and was undone later because it could give the appearance of holding to the teachings of Haec Sancta when it did not. You can say it was an error in prudence but not in faith.
Is it error concerning faith and morals to set dates and times for future councils?
I still side with Siscoe on this one, but I feel what we’re getting mixed up in is the ‘legal’ side versus the ‘factual’ side.
Something can be grasped individually as a fact – “The Pope is a heretic.”
But legally still requires due process to recognize it for the sake of history and the official record – “The Church must investigate the fact, proclaim it, and functionally depose the heretic in the position of the Pope.”
For example, say I am an actual witness to a murder. I factually saw someone kill somebody else in front of me. I know with certainty that this man is a murderer.
But for the sake of the general public, due process still must be followed, the law still holds this man ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ he must be arrested, taken to court, I must be called in as a witness to testify, and a judgment must be proclaimed.
So even if I as an individual KNOW that this man is guilty, the general public do not. My saying so does not convict him legally. The general public must call for the police, an investigation, and a trial. Only AFTER all this has taken place, will the verdict be stated and the man declared guilty and legally stripped of his position of innocence and jailed/executed.
So therefore with Louie and everyone else – NO – we are not crazy nor do we sin for recognizing and being witnesses to the heresy of Pope Francis.
But with Siscoe – YES – due process must be followed. And the verdict MUST come from the proper authority.
Even if due process looks bloody unlikely, we NEED to have faith in God who is ultimately in charge. We already know that HE KNOWS and prophesied this calamity long in advance! If we are to suffer under this still longer then it is because we have deserved Francis and will be stuck with him at the helm until this is over.
All we can do is continue to VOICE OUR SUSPICIONS – PETITION OUR BISHOPS – NOT REMAIN SILENT THAT WE ARE WITNESSES TO HERESY FROM THE MOUTH OF THE POPE!
Against the Sedes I stand on this position. Due process must be followed from the Right Authorities to correct such matters. If they remain uncorrected then the people holding that office still retain that office validly.
If we were to take the Sede position then the Church has failed, because since the 1600s, when successive Popes, with the full weight of their authority and the irreformable rulings of the Holy Inquisition CONDEMNED Galileo and his positions, many Churchmen, and even many Popes and even many Sedes & Catholics today hold to the Formal Heresy of Heliocentrism. Not even John Paul II could change it despite wanting to exonerate Galileo. The study came back – negative. So the best he could do was to tell the Academy of Sciences some grotesque vagaries, such as that everybody, including the Churchmen acted brashly, and that anyway according to the modern consensus of Relativity, nobody could tell which was correct – geocentrism or heliocentrism – so lets all get along.
Benedict XVI let the cat out of the bag further when he stated that the Galileo affair was a turning point that made the Church doubt itself and necessitated that the Church had to come to some compromise and opening to the world to reconcile itself and thus the peritii of Vatican II entered into the Council with this mentality and shame of the Galileo Affair in mind, and thus this erroneous Council was predicated on a mentality of an erroneous belief – that Science proved the Earth moves around the Sun, which even until today it HAS NOT! And further, in light of new evidence this is even refuted, thus vindicating the Popes and the Inquisitors and Saints of the 1600s and the Church Fathers who unanimously held to Geocentrism as a fact derived directly from Holy Scripture against the Pythagorian and Samoan heliocentrists and even defended their geocentric view against the Greek Geocentric view where the Greeks saw the Earth’s centrality as being the Universe’s anus because the gods occupied the skies, whereas the Holy Catholic Church saw the central Earth as the tabernacle of the Lord where the Incarnation would come and live and dwell amongst His Creation, the Earth being the apple of His eye and at rest with concern to the universe which was created to serve it and those who dwelled there.
Thus given that gradually the Church ceased to teach the Truth about Geocentrism and uphold its own authoritative rulings condemning anything else as formal heresy. With many subsequent pre-VII Popes and theologians and cardinals, bishops and priests who likewise fell to the same error with many unwittingly promoting heliocentrism, then if we take the Sede position, we are stuck with a MAJOR problem!
Thus on these grounds I cannot accept the Sedevacantist position. At least not on such criteria that ignores due process to be followed whereas the Papal suspect of heresy is not confronted, and therefore can take action and teach and promote error. Though Unlike Francis I can believe that the Pontiffs with regards to Geocentrism may have invincible ignorance, the same cannot be said for Francis with regards to what is currently occurring. But this demolishes the idea that error cannot infiltrate the Church and be promoted by the Popes.
Thankfully God knows all, and this is why I believe the major Fatima miracle was a Sun spinning and moving in the sky in marvelous fashion against a fixed Earth. Also the heliocentric paradigm is one of the foundations of modernism, the enlightenment and even of Protestantism itself, used as a weapon to wield against the papacy. Unchaining the Earth from its privileged position and sending it hurtling nowhere was a necessary poetic demonstration of their fall away from God, and thus was born Relativity to hide from the facts that the Earth was not moving, and from there we derive the moral Relativism today where people are capable of denying even their own fixed male/female anatomy.
Thankfully Science continues to tell these heretics to stuff it no matter how many probes they send up and how much mathematics they spin and concoct to hide from the facts. Ironically that even now evidence actually shows that their beloved ‘Climate Change’ has more to do with the Sun/Earth’s electromagnetic relationship than anything man is capable of doing. But if it’s global warming they want, then God just might give it to them through a divine chastisement of fire.
So in summary, no, the Church has order and hierarchical rules. These must be followed so that we do not descend into chaos. Error can indeed be disseminated through the Church as is the case with the heresy of Heliocentrism, but this does not destroy her any more than the chaff can destroy the wheat. But still the Lord sows these together and still Judas is there. Due process must be followed. The reason it hasn’t happened means we also need to get busy and demand that it happen.
We RATIONALLY SUSPECT POPE FRANCIS OF HERESY and TREASON AGAINST CHRIST and an immediate PUBLIC DANGER TO SOULS!
We ORDERLY AND WITHIN OUR CATHOLIC RIGHTS CALL FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO INVESTIGATE AND PUT THE POPE ON TRIAL TO VERIFY FOR THE HISTORIC RECORD AND FOR HIS AND OUR SALVATION OUR RATIONAL SUSPISCIONS!
We DEMAND AS IS OUR RIGHT THAT OUR SHEPHERDS PERFORM THEIR TASK AND THEIR DUTIES IN OBEDIENCE TO THEIR VOW OF SERVICE TO OUR LORD AND FOLLOWING HIS EXAMPLE OF SERVICE TO US IN OUR LOWER STATE AS THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD TO ACT!
IF THEY DO NOT THEN WE BELIEVE IN FAITH THAT GOD HIMSELF WILL BE FORCED TO INTERVENE AND THAT THEY SHALL PAY A TERRIBLE PRICE FOR THEIR NEGLECT AND THEIR LUKEWARMNESS!
Your mistake is saying Burke et al (in your mind a few trad bishops) can take this process further and hold an imperfect council. As I mentioned, this can’t happen. All or most of the bishops have to be present to do so. So no, we don’t have to use private judgement to decide if we will follow Burke vs Francis, because that can’t happen. Certainly Burke knows he has to have the full college of bishops to hold an imperfect council before a heretical pope can be declared to lose his office. I hope that helps
I have been trying so hard to avoid even thinking that sede might be correct after all. Pope Benedict remains. Therefore, I don’t have to admit that a heretic and apostate was elected pope, an impossibility. What happens when Benedict is no longer there to cling to–even with the statements he has made while completely controlled by Francis’ autocratic regime. That same intimidation and threat is exactly why Benedict’s abdication is more than likely not legitimate anyway. I’ve read everything I could find on these issues like the poster above. None of it convinces me that God would allow a heretic like Bergoglio to become/remain a true pope. After all, if he’s as anti-Christ as he continually demonstrates, how in the world could he be anything other than an antipope? Sorry, but Louie’s way ahead on points in this debate as far as I’m concerned.
ANSWER: The Sentence Against Galileo.
Either A) You believe the Holy Spirit neglected for 1600+ years to prevent the Church from erroneously promoting Geocentrism or even longer considering the Hebrew Tradition stretching all the way back to Moses. Then the Church has erroneously taught and enforced a false paradigm which it argued stemmed directly from Scripture itself and the Apostolic Tradition and the Tradition of the Fathers held in consensus it taught was infallible.
or B) You believe the Church erred when it neglected its traditions and ruling against Galileo and Copernicus’ propositions as formally heretical as it started slipping into the secular science’s consensus circa the 1700s when it removed these condemned works from the Index and softly promoted them, further continuing to slip all the way up to 1960 when Ratzinger said the Galileo Affair was also one of the reasons for convening Vatican II despite he himself knowing that modern science couldn’t actually prove it and John Paul II’s commission could not overrule the authority of the 16th century Pontiffs and simply highlighted the fact that the general modernist consensus of Relativity also could not definitively prove anything but that we should all get along and that he would apologize for any bad behavior on the Church’s part.
It’s one or the other. Either the Church was spreading error since 1 AD to 1990 A.D. when the NY Times says the Church finally apologized, or the Church was spreading error since the Pontiffs under pressure from the secular modernist Protestant/Freemasonic Enlightened world continued to put pressure on the modernist cardinals who then through subterfuge or other wise pressured the Popes to become lenient on this topic until subsequent Popes began to doubt or even belief and speak within an erroneous heliocentric paradigm.
Now we must be careful here as the Church itself DOES NOT teach error, but the Churchmen, including the Popes are NOT IMMUNE from teaching error, and can be misled and spread erroneous ideas that harm the faith, although if you were to ask me, I side with (B) that Geocentrism was definitively taught and held by the capital T Tradition of the Church and Heliocentrism formally condemned by the Popes and an exhaustive Inquisition, and this was never revoked, not even by the likes of John Paul II, nor Benedict XVI who both held to Relativity and thus dismissed the question by appealing to co-equivalent systems of cosmology as both being valid.
So either the Popes taught error then, or accommodated heresy circa 1700s.
Either the Church has therefore failed to protect the Popes for 1600 years or for the latter 300 years.
OR
There’s more to the Church’s indefectibility than just the Pope teaching error, and the Papacy and whether it teaches error or not is bound to formal rules and lawful order that necessitates an investigation of such error with regards to the status of the Papal Office holder. Thus if not confronted or corrected, the Papacy then remains intact due to the ignorance of those who held the Papal office.
Now while the Papacy may be able to get away with it with regards to the complex convoluted topics of cosmology and Scriptural interpretation, I will admit that the situation with Pope Francis with regards to our present crisis is not the same and is actually far simpler leaving Francis with little excuse.
But none the less, just as with regards to the previous heliocentric Popes since the 1700s who lent credence to it to varying degrees, procedure to confront them on error, correct them and then if necessary to convene a council to depose them, must be necessitated in order for them to be properly deposed for the record.
Here is a text from an author that is cited in TOFP: Ballerini:
[B] peril for the faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported for long.[/ Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). “That is to say, he who has been corrected once or twice and does not change his mind, but is pertinacious in an opinion opposed to a manifest or defined dogma: by this public pertinacity of his, he not only cannot by any means be excused from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity; but also openly declares himself a heretic, that is, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic Faith, and from the Church, by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church. In this matter the argument given by Saint Jerome in connection with the cited words of Saint Paul is very clear: “Therefore it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: for the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: this exclusion which is their condemnation by their own conscience. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church. One sees then that in the case of a heresy, to which the Pontiff adhered privately, there would be an immediate and efficacious remedy, without the convocation of a General Council: for in this hypothesis whatever would be done against him before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy, in order to call him to reason, would constitute an obligation of charity, not of jurisdiction; and if, after his turning away from the Church had been made manifest, there was a sentence passed on him by the Council, such a sentence would be pronounced against one who was no longer Pope nor superior to the Council.
One you call Robert. The other you call Verrechio. Hmmm.
I basically agree with most of what you wrote, especially the heliocentric error. I like your analogy of witnessing a murder. I add that as the witness to the murder I will not wait till the court finds him guilty to start treating him as a murderer. I will from the moment I see him commit the murder, tell all I know that he is a murderer so others may be protected from his actions. So yes, some sort of action is needed to declare that Francis fell into heresy and lost his office, but it is simply a declaration of a fact that already occurred. Just like a court declaring so and so a murderer after the fact. The problem as I see it is that no one has even begun the legal process. Burke et al’s attempt is a distraction since they are co-conspirators in Francis’ crimes. Any due process is not going to come from the concilior church.
Johnno,
Please share the Church’s General Council teaching to the Universal Church, prior to Vatican II, where it teaches that the Church errored in the Galileo affair concerning faith and has since taken the position of Heliocentrism, thus condemning Geocentrism.
I don’t want quotes from individual bishops, theologians or even a Pope unless he spoke it ex cathedra.
Prior to Galileo, where is the Church teaching that says Geocentrism is true and Heliocentrism is false?
Post Galileo, where is the Church teaching that says Geocentrism is false and Heliocentrism is true?
I would like the Council teaching that can be used to determine an error in faith by the Bride of Christ.
You may very well be correct here. It has been a while since I studied the Geo vs Helio debacle and never thought to bring this issue into the equation. I will be doing my own research while I await your response if you have time to do so. Thanks.
Johnno,
I have Sungenis’ book on Geocentrism and do subscribe also to it but this URL seems to argue against some of the comments you have made. I am not suggesting you are wrong and this other person is correct but just offering a possible defense.
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/
I will not go back and forth with you here about Geocentrism but will continue to investigate. As of now, I simply don’t see where the Catholic Church taught Geocentrism to the Universal Church as a matter of faith, thus not supporting it now creates no conflict with Tradition.
MSS, I did not know there are rules for an imperfect council. But even if there were, I still do not see how Burke et al solves anything. It would simply be a civil war within what I call the concilior church and not the True Church that was established by Christ. So even if Burke prevails and all the Bishops side with him, then what? The trads are still left outside in the cold and the modernists are still in the palace.
I like Johnno’s analogy above with witnessing a murder. The problem I see with it though is that the errors of Bergolio and Vatican II are public and seen or read by anyone, where the murder of an individual, per the analogy, is only witnessed by one and needs to be demonstrated to everyone else. Rather, Bergolio’s errors should be compared to a broadcasted public killing that is easily verified by anyone with eyes or ears. Those who witness this killing would be silly to wait for a judge to declare the person was killed before accepting the death of the person.
The problem I have with the dubia being considered a warning to prove pertinacity is that it is not an accusation of error towards the Pope. Instead it is a means for clarity. As far as I know, not one Bishop or Cardinal has come out and flatly accused the Pope of any error in faith and asked him to recant or make the correction.
Until this happens, I think the whole thing is a waste of time and we continue in this confusion due to the tepidity of our supposed shepherds.
Well said.
Hello, Johnno. I used the same murder analogy last week in my comment on Mr Siscoe’s first piece on the disputation! – the direct witnessing of a deliberate unlawful killing by a person giving him personal knowledge of the criminal guilt; and the public conviction of murder by the competent judicial authorities of the given jurisdiction. God help us in this terrible time of apostasy. God bless you.
Yes, I think we’re well past time for faithful bishops to be demanding retractions of material heresies/objective falsehoods.
I think we need to stop worrying about how much “suffering” we who hold to the Catholic Faith are going through because of our current situation (because last time I checked none of us Catholics are currently being martyred) and start concentrating fully on those wayward Catholics who actually think that Francis is the Catholic authority (likely 95% or more of the entire population who calls itself Catholic does) and will go to hell for doing so. Im upset at the state of the Church, but I surely am not “suffering”. I doubt that anyone on this site is actually “suffering”. Read St Alphonsus Liguori’s book on the martyrs if you want to know what actual suffering in defense of our Faith is. Lets stop playing lawyer games and lets start worrying about the countless 1000’s who die every day and go to hell because they followed Bergoglio. When you continue to defend this man as a pope, you lend credence to that untenable position to those who are currently lost. And no, I dont subscribe to the theory (which Ive actually heard on this site before), that most people are likely going to go to hell anyway so it is what it is. That is one of the MOST un-Catholic things that Ive ever heard. God already knows who is going to hell, we don’t. Do I believe most will go to hell….of course I do, but this doesnt mean I shouldnt do my best to help convert/correctly guide everyone that I can.
Let me just clarify one thing here: I mentioned a very un-Catholic utterance above that I heard on this site….it was made by a fellow poster. I dont want anyone to get the false impression that I am saying that Louie ever said something like that.
And we now have Rorate Caeli jumping head first into the new doctrine of Ecumenism of Blood, not the first time either. Their post fails to mention the fact that these people belonged to a heretical sect.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/new-holy-martyrs-of-epypt.html
Where is the dubia concerning this?
This is the new religion of vatican 2 once again rearing its ugly head. They just love to debase the perfect Catholic Church and equate it with heretical sects. This is the modus operandi of the modernists which our great pope, St Pius X, warned us about and summarily condemned. Rorate Caeli has succumbed to the great ruse.
Indeed, but the formality of a trial should still be followed even if it is obvious to all.
And for this reason –
Out of prudence for future generations who will look back on this historic occasion. We must by all due diligence dot out i’s and cross our t’s. And then affix the authoritative stamp upon the authenticated documents. Everything recorded, detailed and documented if ONLY for the benefit of those in the future who may be far removed from this time and as usual be prone to questioning the events of history and falling prey to skepticism which would bite the Church in the butt once again, just as the Church losing access to the records of the Holy Inquisition when they were taken by Napoleon were left in the dark with regards to the rulings of the Holy Office and the Roman Pontiffs against Copernicism and Galileo which allowed modernist cardinals to use subterfuge and false argumentation to bring into the Church the heretical cosmology of the Protestants and the Freemasons.
It is a matter of prudence that the rightful authorities and formal arrangements of deposition be done.
By analogy we can refer to the Sacraments. Sure there is the Baptism of desire which can validly occur, but we are never to rely on it, and must out of prudence seek the Baptism through the formal ritual signs and matter of water. We must hear the priest say in our Confessional “Through the Ministry of the Church I ABSOLVE YOU of your sins in the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”
This ritual action and legitimate signs are necessary and if we have recourse to them we must make use of them!
-“Please cite the date that Benedict XVI reverted back to Cardinal red and the name Joseph Ratzinger.”
A. He does not need to according to the current Canon Law:
“Can. 185 The title of emeritus can be conferred upon a person who loses an office by reason of age or of resignation which has been accepted.”
-“Please cite the date Joseph Ratzinger left the enclosure of Peter.”
A. Where he lives is not as important as the name. Living in the enclosure does not mean he sits in the Chair.
-“Do you deny Archbishop Ganswein’s comments about the expansion of the Petrine Ministry?”
Again, there is no need. Contemplation and prayer is not specific to the papacy. It forms no part of governance (jurisdiction). It does not make one who has resigned from a position to keep it. For example, the founder of an order may resign his position as head of the order, but he will continue to pray for his order and he may stick around to help his successor. He might also have a certain moral and emotional influence over the order. That does not mean he is the actual head of the order. This is just an analogy. If Benedict stepped down because he does not want to do the job, then he is not the actual Pope, however much he may continue to hover.