Francisco Suarez, S.J.
First, a comment: These posts are growing in length as we proceed, but that is because they are also growing in importance as we draw closer to the heart of the matter. I wish to encourage you to persevere!
Before moving on to new territory, I offer for consideration the following bullet point comments relative to Robert Siscoe’s latest article:
- The case of Pope Francis is entirely unprecedented; not just among the post-conciliar popes, but all popes.
Never before has a pope been so publicly admonished and warned (more on this momentarily) as Francis has; much less has any pope disseminated so universally such grievous offenses against the Faith.
As such, dated Sedevacantist arguments concerning other popes, as well as those arguments that do not take into consideration the unprecedented (and necessary, in my view) admonishments leveled against Francis, are irrelevant.
- WRT Canon 194, one notes that the very next Canon (195) begins:
“If by a decree of the competent authority, and not by the law itself, someone is removed from an office…”
Clearly, the law recognizes those who are removed by the law itself as being distinct from those who are removed by a decree; i.e., in certain cases a decree is not necessary for removal – the law itself suffices.
In such cases, according to Can. 194, the removal “can be enforced” only by way of decree. This, however, is not the same as stating that the removal is made “effective” by a decree.
That said, the law concerning lesser clerics cannot be applied directly to the pope. More on that later.
- As for establishing the fact of heresy (as I will argue below) ordinary faithful are able to know the fact of a heretic pope who must be avoided apart from a declaration of the Church.
- We are not discussing the infallible certainty of a pope legitimately elected and peacefully accepted; we are discussing our approach to a pope who judges himself a formal heretic. These are two rather distinct scenarios. Whether or not a moral unanimity of the undernourished faithful of our day are able to distinguish between a heretic who must be avoided and a faithful son of the Church to be embraced is something we will address below.
At this, as promised, we will examine an important treatment of the topic from the eminent 18th century theologian, Fr. Pietro Ballerini, as cited on Robert’s website [HERE].
Ballerini’s treatment in light of the dubia (and Francis’ response to it) weighed heavily in the formation of my opinion.
I will break this lengthy quote down into bite sized portions below (you may wish to skip ahead), but I offer it in its fullness here as it merits our closest consideration. [NOTE: The emphasis in the text has been provided by Robert.]
“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject 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 counselors, 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).
For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn 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 he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” – Fr. Pietro Ballerini
For clarity – in particular as it applies to Francis – let’s now follow Ballerini’s treatment of a pope who has fallen into heresy step-by-step; i.e., chronologically. Along the way, I will provide questions and commentary.
- The heretic must be “admonished once or twice.”
Question: What does it mean to “admonish” a pope?
Those who may be looking for something akin to Jesus taking a whip of cords to the money changers, a reprimand, or a rebuke (I have been guilty of this in the past) are likely to be disappointed. Admonishments such as these are acts of judgment and an indication that authority is being exercised over the individual being called to account.
In the case of a pope, however, admonishment is, and should appear as, a respectful act of charity being extended from an underling to his superior.
This would be a fitting description for the ways in which Francis has already been publicly “admonished” – including the “Filial Appeal” signed by more than 30,000 persons, including bishops; the petition signed by 45 theologians, many of whom are priests, and the dubia authored by four prominent cardinals, just to name a few.
With all of this in mind, I would argue that the admonishments that Francis has already received very likely meet (and perhaps even far exceed) the threshold envisioned by Ballerini. This includes what he later refers to as a “warning,” as we will see momentarily.
- If the heretic “does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic.”
Question: What is “heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity”?
The Catholic Encyclopedia states:“Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal.” This, as opposed to “wrong beliefs [that] are only transient errors and fleeting opinions;” something that no reasonable person would say aptly applies to Francis.
Question: Having defined “pertinacity,” what did Ballerini mean by “public”?
It’s important to bear in mind that Ballerini (b. 1698) died more than 50 years before the telegraph was even invented. During his lifetime, a transatlantic journey took upwards of three months to complete.
As it concerns ecclesial communications, even as late as 1925 we find Pope Pius XI noting that official pronouncements from Rome “usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful” (cf Quas Primas 21).
The point should be obvious: Ballerini (and his contemporaries) could not have possibly imagined the near instantaneous, readily accessible, means of communication that the global community enjoys today; the same that Francis uses with stunning frequency and unbridled brashness.
To imagine that the degree to which it is now publicly known that Francis has been admonished and has, in return, demonstrated “obstinate adhesion” to his errors somehow falls short of what Ballerini envisioned with respect to “public pertinacity” is simply beyond reason.
Question: How has Francis made his pertinacity known publicly?
Among the ways in which Francis has publicly demonstrated his pertinacity are:
– His letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires
– His obvious approval of similar norms for the Diocese of Rome over which he is Ordinary (see HERE)
– His recent Avvenire interview
– His frequent harsh denunciations of those who criticize Amoris Laetitia
– By proxy via like minded henchmen who ruthlessly condemn the authors of the dubia
While Francis failing to issue anything more formal (like a written response to the dubia) may serve to frustrate observers, this is irrelevant.
It is also entirely unrealistic to expect any such thing for the simple reason that Francis is a modernist, and such men are known to carry out their misdeeds while “striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety…” (cf Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi)
Therefore, according to a reasonable reading of Ballerini’s thoughts concerning what, for him, was a hypothetical situation, and applying them to the present reality, it seems rather clear to me that Francis has more than made his pertinacity publicly known.
To those who may disagree, I would ask:
What more must Francis (not the “proper authorities,” but Francis himself) do in order to demonstrate public pertinacity?
- “He [the heretic, in this case, Francis] reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church.”
At this point, Ballerini states that the heretic is cut from the body of the Church. (NB: The body; not just the soul of the Church.)
He leaves no room for confusion on this point, the “cut” would take place and “no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary.” (This obviously includes “the proper authorities.”)
On this point, I believe that Robert and I agree. Where we may not see eye-to-eye concerns the role of the proper authorities in providing the mechanism by which God removes the papacy from the man who is “cut from the body.” I am certain we will get to that soon.
4. “Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul.”
Question: What is this “solemn and public warning” of which Ballerini writes; has it already happened with respect to Francis, or are we still awaiting it?
The word “such” is not incidental; it refers back to the same admonishments that we addressed in #s 1 and 2 above. Ballerini is simply saying, because (or if) this has taken place, “therefore… [the heretic] would have to be avoided.”
In other words, Ballerini believes (as Robert states on his website) “the fall would take place before the declaratory sentence was issued.”
[NOTE: Ballerini does not, as we will see, imagine the “sentence” being “issued” by way of the declaration; properly speaking, it is simply announced. It is the heretic pope who pronounces the sentence against himself.]
Question: Can one who has fallen and would have to be avoided also be the pope?
Given that union with the one visible head who is the pope is necessary for a Catholic, the answer is clearly no.
As I argue above, it seems to me that Francis has already been solemnly and publicly “admonished” and “warned.” Once again, to those who may disagree, I would ask:
What more are you expecting in the way of admonishing and warning Francis?
In his latest offering, in addition to acknowledging that no canonical provisions exist for the treatment of a heretic pope, Robert asked if it is reasonable for there to be “a lack of proportion” between what would be canonically required in the case of a lesser cleric suspected of heresy (e.g., being warned twice and given six months to remove the cause of suspicion) and how Francis should be treated while also under suspicion.
He asked, “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?”
My answer: It’s not necessary as a matter of justice at all; in fact, as a matter of justice for the faithful at large, I’d say that the contrary is true. The pope’s heresies endanger the entire Church; indeed, the entire world! As such, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a more stringent procedure in the case of a heretic pope.
Sacred Scripture would seem to agree:
“And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:48)
All of that said, it bears repeating: Opinions and procedures concerning the treatment of lesser clerics do not necessarily apply to the pope who is not under the authority of any superior. He and his situation are entirely unique. His jurisdiction comes from God and, ultimately, in the case of formal heresy, it is removed by God.
Even so, I would add that public calls (admonishments / warnings) for Francis to remove any suspicion of heresy and to confirm the true Faith in light of Amoris Laetitia came almost immediately after its formal release in April 2016.
In fact, the aforementioned “Filial Appeal” was launched some 22 months ago (in February 2015) in light of Francis’ handling of Extraordinary Synod 2014 alone, and it continues to gather signatories even now.
The idea that Francis has somehow been deprived of justice (i.e., he hasn’t been given sufficient opportunity to remove the causes of suspicion by confirming the true Faith, as is his duty) is very difficult to accept.
- “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…”
Question: What is this “contumacy” of which Ballerini writes?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Contumacy, or contempt of court, is an obstinate disobedience of the lawful orders of a court. Simple disobedience does not constitute contumacy. Such crime springs only from unequivocal and stubborn resistance to the reiterated or peremptory orders of a legitimate court, and implies contempt or denial of its authority.”
Given that no court has legitimate authority over the pope, in such a case, it is the Divine authority with which the immutable truths of the faith in question are taught by the Church (the dubia cites Sacred Scripture and Tradition) that is being stubbornly resisted with obstinate disobedience.
Question: What is the purpose of the public proclamation of which Ballerini writes?
It is simply to make known what the heretic (in this case, Francis) “had [already] pronounced against himself.”
The motive behind this proclamation is very plain; it is for the good of souls – “that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him.” [emphasis added]
Ballerini is clearly suggesting that some of the more well-formed and informed among the faithful (due to the public nature of the matter under discussion, even given the relatively inefficient means of communication that existed in his day) will already have been “able” to know that the pope has fallen into heresy and “therefore must be avoided.”
The proclamation is primarily for the benefit of “the rest.” (Of course, it will also serve to pave the way for the official calling of a new conclave in order to fill the vacant See of Peter.)
Furthermore, one notes that the proclamation of which Ballerini speaks is intended, not to issue a sentence against the heretic, but rather to announce “the sentence which he [the pope] had pronounced against himself.” (NB: “pronounced” – past tense; i.e., he has already been sentenced.)
Question: What exactly does the sentence entail?
“In a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” (NB: “had” – past tense; i.e., the abdication has already taken place.)
At the outset of his treatment, Ballerini made it clear that among those capable of “knowing” that this man must be avoided – even apart from any proclamation from the proper authorities – includes ordinary faithful:
“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).”
In the present case, the cardinals and bishops have a sacred duty before God to make a public proclamation that all may be equally on guard against Francis.
If they do not, or if they delay in doing so, their failure will in no way undo the reality of what has already taken place, which, in my opinion, suffices to meet the requirements suggested by Fr. Pietro Ballerini for Francis to cut himself from the body of the Church, condemn himself by his own judgment, pronounce a sentence against himself, and in a certain way abdicate the Pontificate.
At this, I believe it has been sufficiently demonstrated that it cannot be said of my opinion, even though it stands open for criticism, finds no support among the Church’s venerable theologians.
So, where do we go from here?
The questions that we’ve yet to address in the case of a heretical pope are perhaps the most crucial of all:
When might we expect Christ to remove the papacy from such a man?
Does the Church have a role to play in facilitating this removal?
If so, what precisely is it?
To this end, Robert quotes Suarez:
“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.”
Moving forward, it is going to become necessary for us to clarify exactly what “the judgment and sentence of men” and “advancing a declaratory sentence against…” might look like with respect to a pope over whom no man has authority – the same that Ballerini describes as one who judges and sentences himself.
This, I believe, is where the rubber meets the road in this discussion. I look forward to whatever clarifications Robert may be able to provide, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his efforts thus far!
Click here for Point / Counterpoint 3: Robert Siscoe
These posts require a great deal of time and effort to produce. If you find them helpful, please consider that your support will help us to continue the discussion.
Excellent article. I still dont understand how Suarez opines that God must wait for the judgement of man before a pope is known to be a heretic (obviously this is crazy talk). I have to assume, reading the above quote, that the very fallible Suarez simply failed to say what he actually wanted to say. Maybe Im totally nuts, but this makes zero sense to me with the way he worded it.
I wonder if the Ottaviani Intervention was Paul 6’s warning. He was obviously pertinacious in promulgating his protestant rite.
Light-in-the-loafers Montini needed to be warned about much more that that. And we wonder why our Church is the mess it currently is.
THAN that.
Ballerini goes on to say that the Pope who would fall into public heresy would no longer be Pope:
[QUOTE][size=10pt]“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:…..”[/size][/QUOTE]
Which is what St. Bellarmine holds as the “true” solution to the question:
[QUOTE][size=10pt][B]Chapter XXX: The Last Argument is Answered, Wherein the Argument is Taken up, Whether a Heretical Pope can be Deposed[/B]
The tenth argument. 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…..
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined?
[B]Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope. [/B]…………………[B].Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto.[/B] Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right” [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics” …………………[B]Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: [/B]whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church.[/QUOTE]
I believe Paul VI received a formal accusation of heresy from Abbe de Nantes. There was no response and de Nantes received a suspension of his faculties for his efforts.
With no reflection on your work, Louie, I’m worn out with the Francis boondoggle. Unless the headline reads; “Francis Has Been Deposed” or ‘Francis Is Stepping Down’ or “Francis Is Deceased” I will never waste my time reading another story about this Joker called Pope.
“What more are you expecting in the way of admonishing and warning Francis?”
My impression has been that the members of the hierarchy who have criticized the errors of Amoris Laetitia have gone out of their way to avoid formally imputing those errors to Pope Francis, himself (and very frequently, even to the text itself, observing instead a problematic “interpretation” of the text). Consider that Cardinal Burke expressly did not consider the dubia, themselves, a formal admonition of Pope Francis – instead saying “that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error” if they were not answered.
That, then, is what I am waiting for, or something like it. “[A] solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman clergy or even by the Synod” that the corresponding one or more of those groups expressly considers to be such – not a statement that I personally think the Pope should understand to be such, even despite a contrary understanding expressed by the ones actually making the statement.
Something along the lines of: “Francis, you have publicly favored [insert errors here]. If you do not publicly abjure these errors immediately we will consider that you have, according to your own judgment, separated yourself from the Catholic Faith and lost your supreme office.” That would fit the bill – something unambiguously communicating that: 1) the Pope, himself, is being accused of favoring the error(s) in question; and 2) failure to abjure the errors would be taken to indicate his loss of the Catholic Faith.
Suarez died in 1617. He didn’t have the “pleasure” of meeting Bergoglio. Perhaps, his advice today would be: “Throw the bum out!”. Now you’re talkin’!!
Hang in there OldTradCat. Never despair my friend.
The method or process of admonishing the pope and warning the faithful to avoid is naturally subjective and therefore open to many forms and opinions. But Louis makes the objective argument that the heretic has already lost his office and no declaration was needed for that particular judgment other than Bergolio being pertinacious in his denial of the Faith (which no one other than a modernist would deny). In essence, the See of Peter is of now vacant according to this line of reasoning.
AL is not the problem here though. The entirety of the vatican 2 council is the problem. This “dubia” is aimed at nonsense. Of course AL is a dereliction of all that we know to be Catholic (duh)…but why do these “good cardinals” continue to refuse to denounce that which was set forth in the satanic v2 council? So many continue to not recognize the true issue; AL is NOT the issue.
This is my thinking regarding our great theologians as well….God bless them, but none of them lived in our times. No theologian who ever lived in the past could have possibly seen what this world has morally devolved into. We live in a world where we glorify sexual perverts and kill our unborn children…..and we have a “pope’ who says that we shouldnt really dwell on it. None of our great theologians could have ever foreseen these abominations.
Let’s face it – there is no-one above the Pope & as long as that fact stands it is useless quoting from other sources e.g. saints & theologians that lived in past times, in order to try & make sense of what has happened the Papacy. The CC was taken over by usurpers at the time of Vatican II and this is the outcome. We have been forewarned of these times, especially Satan’s hundred years of destruction against the Family. The formal correction ventured by Cardinal Burke doesn’t appear to be forthcoming any day soon – probably because of insufficient numbers who are willing to put their jobs on the line – & would most likely only warn the faithful of the likelihood of PF being a heretic & so avoided, but as we still have to have a validly elected pope so what then? The Hierarchy is almost totally Modernist so another PF is very likely to be the outcome of any election were it to take place now. Divine intervention is totally necessary to drive out the present incumbents & their supporters & visionaries have spoken of the types of chastisements we still must face. Our Lady has told us we must pray the Rosary & do Penance,Penance, Penance.
Matthew 5:37
37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Seem like Fr Suarez got into a little hot water himself by saying basically that the people have the right to rise up and depose a tyrannical government. He got some nasty push back from the divine-right-of-kings crowd. Seems like he favored people removing a bad king, but didn’t seem to want to give the people the same privilege when it came to a bad Pope.
There is no one above an ACTUAL pope, true. Not to beat the same dead horse, but bergoglio likely hasnt been a Catholic since he was a little kid (if even then). He could have never possibly been a pope when he was “elected”. He didnt start rejecting the Catholic Faith after the election. His election was invalid to begin with.
The only admonishments I’ve seen are of the four Cardinals being admonished by Francis’s flunkies.
But the whole point is what if he isn’t the pope? If he’s a heretic (obviously he is) then is he no longer pope, or never pope in the first place if heretical when “elected?” If so, then he’s above no one.
This discussion might make sense if Pope Francis was the bad apple in an otherwise healthy Church. But, the entire Vatican II Sect is a counterfeit church with maybe a handful of exceptions. Get rid of Francis and the Cardinals will elect another like minded Modernist.
The moral authority of the Catholic Church continues in her unchangeable dogma, Sacraments and tradition. That cannot change no matter who sits on the Throne of Saint Peter. If there is even the slightest chance that I could put myself in Mortal Sin or Heresy by making a private judgement about Francis, then I will err on the side of caution.
“but we still have to have a validly elected pope”
Well actually we don’t have too. There is a thing called an Interregnum. No where is it written how long it can last. The other point you make is “validly elected.” A very good case could be made showing Bergolio’s election not being valid based on the coordination before the election, the questionable resignation of Ratzinger, and Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus. Those are the legal arguments. Commin sense should tell every trad in the world that this clown cannot be Pope because he isnt even Catholic. In fact he is horribly anti-Catholic. Why is there still doubt?? St Paul told us in Sacred Scripture to avoid these heretics like the plague. So why this continious naive hope that the concilior heretics are suddenly going to see the light and admit their error? It is 50 years beyond time to move on. I am afraid the good Archbishop did all of us a great disservice by continuing to recognize apostate Rome as legitimate authority. It was a strategic blunder for the traditional movement.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. So I guess your position is that of Yogi Berra. When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
It’s not the heat, it’s the humility. Happy Festivus!
Christ told us that the Father would not give us snakes if we ask for bread. Holy Mother Church is the spotless bride of Christ. How can any of you think for one moment that what we currently have in Rome is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. If you believe that than you are in effect saying the spotless bride of Christ is a filthy whore. Also, I am tired of hearing folks say that we have to suffer this indignation of Francis because God wills it. The Church is our source of truth. There is no way when we ask our Father for bread and for truth that He gives us the novus ordo freak show. God the Father is a loving father who still deigns the salvation of those who follow Him. Yes we will suffer, but not at the hands of His Church. If going to Mass is a chore and a burden to suffer the NO atrocities then you are not at Mass, you are at a protestant anti-Mass. He still gives us the bread we ask for where ever we find Tradition. Rome today offers nothing but snakes and poison. Why do you look for life amongst the dead? It is time that Siscoe et al stop confusing the faithful. It is time the SSPX step up to the plate and do what was needed 50 years ago. Its time the sedes unite with the resisters. Modernist Rome is gone and finished and will eventually end up in the dustbin of history. I am not waiting around the get the stench of death in my pores. Avoid all things concilior. The faithful demand a True Pope. Traditional Bishops, its your job to give us one.
The sedes and resisters are legends in their own minds and nowhere else. They have zero influence on the Novus Ordo Sect. The SSPX on the other hand, does all of the heavy lifting on behalf of catholic Tradition.
Why do you find any value in influence with the novus ordo sect? They preach a false gospel and are to be avoided in the same manner we avoid the errors of Luther and the evil sects he spawned. I truly respect the SSPX but they should not look to modernist Rome for legitimacy.
Arent you a resister?
In my post, I am giving my answer to a question asked by Louis in this post. From the way in which he posed the question, I assume that Louis accepts the necessity of some kind of prior admonishment (as per Fr. Ballerini, who Louis says “influenced me heavily”) as a precondition of concluding that the Pope has, himself, indicated his loss of office.
AL is certainly a problem, although I agree it is not the only problem, the earliest problem, or the biggest problem. Certainly one would like to see a significant group of Cardinals admonish the Pope for favoring erroneous teachings on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, etc. Humanly speaking, that seems pretty unlikely.
We Catholics in 2016 are now supposed to figure out whether or not what a supposed valid pope, or a supposed valid Catholic council , tells us is Catholic or not. Sorry, but thats not how the actual Catholic Church works. The longer that bergoglio claims to be” pope” the more I cant believe that I didnt become a sede prior to his bogus “papacy”. This vatican 2 thing is a total disgrace and bergoglio is playing it to the hilt.
If there is no-one above the pope & theologians, canonists, the people of Rome & the CC worldwide have accepted PF to be validly elected, how can he be deposed as a heretic? Who can prove he hasn’t been a Catholic since his youth, that he was/is a member of the Masonic Order &/or the Communist Party, making his election invalid? All the arguing is for nought if no proof for these allegations can be found. The formal correction spoken of by Cardinal Burke may be of some use in that it could open the eyes & ears of Catholic pew-sitters, but whether it will have the desired effect of unseating the present occupant of the Throne of Peter is quite another matter.
Although I understand that some sedevacantists deny it (with their catchy “recognize and resist” label), there is an important, principled difference between: a) publicly declaring Francis an anti-pope; and b) refusing to countenance the NO debacle. You can do b) without doing a), just as any inferior can rightfully disobey a superior in certain matters without opining on whether the superior has lost his office. It’s the difference between saying, “You don’t have the right to command me to do this,” and “You don’t have the right to command me to do anything.”
Im pretty sure that we sede’s just outright reject the vatican 2 religion entirely. Its really not too complicated. Im not sure exactly who came up with the R&R label, but it is entirely apropos regarding Catholics who believe that the sitting “pope” is an actual pope, but yet denounce almost everything he says.
OldTradCat, I’m with you. I won’t say I’m entirely done, but I’m medium well.
I’ve got to find something else to read about. Hope for the four Cardinals take the next step.
“Why do you find any value in influence with the novus ordo sect?”
The crux of the matter is this, there are billions of Catholics and only God knows how many are following their Novus Ordo clergy in good faith. Nobody can judge these souls except God. That is why the SSPX is there defending tradition.
People keep trickling into SSPX Chapels and discovering true Catholicism. The flawed FSSP and ICKSP folks are flourishing because the SSPX won’t give in. Lefebvre saved the Latin Rite by making sure there would be a steady supply of Catholic Priests.
St. Bellarmine says a similar thing. He says that just like a man was made Pope by God with the consent of men, he will not remove him from office without the consent of men.
I fail to understand the thinking that God would need man to determine right and wrong. Again, maybe Im just not smart enough to understand the thought process here. I welcome all opinions.
A few points:
1. Ballerini’s opinion is a valid opinion, but it is in the minority.
2. The “warnings” have been a little soft, normally saying that Francis said something ambiguous and only “possibly” heretical.
3. All of the Bishops still accepts Francis as Pope and it could easily be argued that a moral unanimity of the faithful still accept Francis as Pope. So, it is arguably a dogmatic fact that Francis is Pope.
Modernists accepting a modernist as pope. What did you expect?
Its SO FAR from a “dogmatic fact” that george is a pope that it is laughable. This guy would have been burned at a stake not even 400 years ago.
Well perhaps there is some value or some plan by God himself to establish the FSSP/ICK, and the SSPX, and the sede independents, if only to draw the faithful away from the concilior sect. God knows the human nature and gives souls stepping stones on their journey to the truth. I know my journey out of Novus Ordo land would not have been possible without the intermediate steps of indult masses to SSPX masses to finally rejecting all things concilior.
Thanks Louie for your comments. I would just note a couple things similar to Critical Thinker’s comments.
*You directed your viewers to Robert’s Fr. Kramer article. The only problem is that you missed the part where Robert said in reference to the Ballerini quote, ” If the Pope persevered in his heresy following the warning, he would thereby manifest his pertinacity and hence be considered a “manifest heretic” according to the judgment of the Church.” Robert didn’t say according to the private judgment of laymen only. If the pope proved to be undeniably obstinate after the warnings, at a General Council (more on that in a minute), both the Church authorities and laymen should agree as to the fact. Yet the judgment of the four Cardinals is that Francis is still the pope, not an antipope.
*Robert’s first article answered your Counterpoint II article insofar as it still isn’t certain the major premise has happened (that Francis has judged himself a formal heretic). As far as the Church’s judgment is concerned, the major premise has not occurred, in spite of one’s private judgment that it has.
*The reason it isn’t certain that Francis has judged himself a formal heretic, is the Cardinals have only asked for a clarification, (this is not equal to a warning yet) to which they will eventually issue a formal act of correction (which could include a warning). And historically speaking, which is still applicable today, the warnings and deposition must take place at an General Council, which is the only setting that can declare the See vacant, not simply after a few Cardinals make a public correction, or simply through a Provincial Council the way Suarez believed. Quoting John of St Thomas: “… we should say that this handling of the deposition of a Pope, as regards the declaration of the crime, pertains in no way to the Cardinals, but to a general Council. This is evident, first of all, from the practice of the Church; for in the case of [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols, a Synod was convoked to discuss his cause, as we gather from the chapter Nunc autem, distinction 21. And in the case of the schism in which there were three putative Popes claiming obedience the Synod of Constance was gathered to sedate the schism. Also, in the case of Pope Symmachus, the Council of Rome was gathered to discuss the accusations that had been made against him, as Antonius Augustinus relates in his treatise on law (epitome juris de pontifice maximo, titulo 13); and the canons cited above testify that the Popes who wished to purge themselves of certain charges brought against them did so in the presence of Councils. Secondly, it is also certain that the power to handle the causes of Popes, as well as those things that pertain to their deposition, has never been entrusted to the Cardinals; hence, it remains in the deposit of the Church, whose authority is represented by a general Council; for only the election of Popes has been committed to the Cardinals, and nothing more, as can be ascertained by reading the citations from canon law that we have provided in the first article [of this disputation]. (…)” Because this is the way the Church has dealt with this traditionally, it would be a stretch to say something less than a General Council would be required. Regardless of how one wants to claim it would happen, the Church still recognizes Francis, and a process of reelection hasn’t begun. Again, the Church’s judgement is all that counts. I can call the pope an antipope all day, but I’m only deceiving myself if I do.
*Ballerini, Coronata, and Beste to name a few, contradicted Bellarmine, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, and Cajatan who held the common opinion that at least a declaratory sentence must precede the loss of office. The Church hasn’t said one way or the other, but the common opinion would be the better option. If it “could be held” in the case of Ballerini that a declaratory sentence isn’t necessary to be issued in the eyes of the Church authorities, then they would have to begin an immediate process of reelection, because a failure to issue a declaratory sentence and/or immediate replacement of a pope via a conclave, would amount to a secret deposition on God’s part, since without a declaratory sentence and immediate action, laymen would lack certainty of the fact that the pope no longer holds office. As Robert reminded us, “For if Christ were to secretly deprive a heretical Pope of the pontificate while the Church still tolerated him as Pope and recognized him as such, we would never know for sure if and when a Pope lost his office for heresy, or which of the Popes of the past drifted into heresy and secretly lost their office. And this would paralyze the Church, since any ostensibly legitimate act of the Pope would be uncertain. With fallen human nature as it is, such uncertainly would quickly lead to confusion and division…” This is why John of St. Thomas said it couldn’t be held that a pope would lose his office before a declaratory sentence.
*So we know if the pope is pope, because the Church decides, and if my judgment contradicts the Church’s judgment, then I can be certain I am wrong. If we are not subject to the pope whom the Church authorities recognize as such, we are not faithful Catholics, nor should we be considered members of the Church. One of the three visible bonds that makes one a member of the Church is submission to the Pontiff. Further, Boniface VIII said in Unam Sanctum, “We declare, say define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” He didn’t say be subject to the Roman Pontiff according to whether or not I decide he’s the Pontiff, but rather be subject to the Roman Pontiff because it’s the church’s judgment that the Roman Pontiff is the Pontiff. If I say he’s an antipope, not only do I make no sense of the quote, but I also commit mortal sin by not remaining subject to him whom the Church (not me) recognizes as Pontiff.
You have heard Francis speak and read what he wrote? Do you think whatbhe said and whatbhe wrote is heretical?
St Bellarmine said many things because he offered 5 different opinions. Everyone loves to quote him because you can always find something to help your position. Someone correct me here if I am wrong but I thought Bellarmine said the 1st opinion was the most probable even though it was not commonly held. The first opinion is the simplest, it states that God will never let a Pope fall into heresy. So either what he says is not heresy or he wasnt the pope to begin with if he said something heretical.
God does not NEED a man to determine right and wrong, just like he does not NEED a man to forgive our sins. But He has chosen to do it that way. Because He has chosen to do it that way it is WE who need the man for the given task. Do not put a limit on what God may tolerate. He will draw a greater good. Our part is to recognize and resist, as it ever was. We do not consent to the evil that comes from the person in authority. To do that, do not need to say that the person lost the authority. What matter if the degree of evil is greater? If the theologians did not foresee this, Our Lady has certainly referred to it in several of her apparitions, such as Good Success and La Salette and Akita. Our Lady did not say to depose Popes. Rather, at Fatima She said to pray for the Pope.
That’s just it – not many people are asking God for Truth and for the NO Church to stop, for good and holy priests and a holy Pope, and those who pray for this, are not praying hard enough.
So God allows this to happen, until enough of us pray, fast and do penance as requested at Fatima by the Mother of God.
A public declaration of the fact that he has distanced himself from the CC by his blasphemous teaching & heresies (listed for all to see) is absolutely necessary. How else can the public know for sure he is a heretic/apostate. It has to be transparent.
I absolutely view him as a heretic & his minions as well, but the problem lies in the fact that there is no rule to govern what to do with an heretical/blasphemer/apostate pope. Blind obedience to the holder of the Petrine office is preventing most Cardinals & Bishops from coming out & publicly joining the four Cardinals Dubia & probably the same is happening at present regarding the formal correction, which must, IMO be issued immediately & not left until after Christmas.
As I have already said, theologians, canonists, people of Rome & the worldwide CC have accepted the validity of his election to the Petrine Office. Until someone can provide absolute proof of his having lost the True Faith prior to his election as pope (member of Masonic Order, card-carrying Marxist, Mental instability, etc.) he is a valid pope in the eyes of the Church. Personal opinions, even those of past saints who knew nothing of our problems to-day, don’t cut the ice. We need to pray that the scales drop from the eyes of the entire Hierarchy in order to get rid of the Modernists that have taken over the Vatican. Fr. Amorth said that the Vatican reeked of Satan!
Pope Emeritus abandoned the Petrine Office whether it was by force or, as he alleged many times, for health reasons doesn’t really matter. He’s gone & IMO was a Modernist anyway who had great input into VII, the source of all this evil. The extended papacy of which Archbishop Gänswein spoke is not in keeping with Tradition & is also another Modernist invention. We must deal with facts as presented to us – PF is (until PROVEN otherwise) a validly elected pope. It is up to those who elected him to that Office to rectify matters. We, the laity, have no power & bringing up absurd propositions based on clutching at straws will not remove him. PROOF is needed & until now none has been garnered.
They have to look to Rome for legitimacy as that is where St. Peter lay the foundations of the CC. It is there both he & St. Paul gave their lives for the Church of Christ & are both buried. That is where all the saints as well as our own ancestors looked to for the Truth & guidance. These times will pass as they did before & we will be free of these deviants. Our Lady’s promised that she will intervene when all seems lost & Her Triumph will follow in order to bring back souls. She never instructed us to leave Rome but to pray for the Pope. She also said he would in the end consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.
While I hold great respect for Traditional Orders in holding to the Old Rite, which will definitely be a great blessing when order has returned to the CC, they fall short in their ministry to mankind because they have not got direct faculties as yet. They are dependent on NO Bishops to even say Mass within their Diocese & even the more traditionally-minded Diocesan priest is afraid to say TLM on account of the backlash from his Bishop so it is not said generally for that reason.
I am greatly disappointed that not one of their reputed fifty backers within the Curia have come forward to support the Dubia & Bishop Fellay has fallen extremely silent of late. I wonder why?
Another view offered just today and he sides with Louie. Though he does not take the position of Louie just yet with Francis.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/
pigg0214,
Dr. Peters, who wrote the article you linked, quoted theologians who believed the pope would lose his office before a declaratory sentence is issued. But did any of those theologians say laymen could judge the pope an antipope, when the Church itself continues to recognize him as pope? The answer is no, they didn’t. And even if it could be held that a pope could lose his office “upon the fact” of manifest heresy (according to the Church’s judgment) previous to a declaratory sentence, both the Hierarchy and lay faithful would have to agree to the fact, otherwise if a layman decides the pope is an antipope, while the Church continues to recognize him as pope, that layman is certainly wrong. This is precisely why Verrechio is wrong. The four Cardinals and majority of the hierarchy continues to recognize him as pope. If you disagree, and think private judgment can declare a pope a heretic (like Louie) when the Church itself recognizes him as a pope, where does Fr. Wernz who was cited in the article, or any of the “more recent” theologians quoted say that, or better yet, can you cite any Magisterial document affirming that laymen can declare such a thing when the Church continues to recognize him as the pope holding office? If not, that alone proves Verrechio is wrong, and Siscoe is right.
As well, Dr. Peters’ article is ok until one recognizes serious blunders when reading his explanation of the fourth opinion. First he adds Suarez and Cajaten together as holding the fourth opinion, which is false. Cajetan held the fifth opinion along with Bellarmine. Next, he adds words that are not in the actual wording of Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifici, and ends up twisting what Bellarmine actually believed. Peters says this:
“The fourth view, with Suarez, Cajetan, and others, argues that a pope is not, even upon the fact of manifest heresy, deposed, but that he can be and must be deposed upon a sentence (at least a declaratory one) of crime. ‘This view in my judgment cannot be defended’ as Bellarmine teaches.”
Here’s what the fourth opinion actually says:
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3) who orders that the haretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. …”
Notice Peters adds “… he can and must be deposed upon a sentence (at least a declaratory one) of the crime. ‘This view in my judgment cannot be defended’ as Bellarmine teaches.” Unbeknownst to Dr. Peters, is Bellarmine, along with Suarez, almost certainly believed a declaratory sentence was required before the pope ipso facto lost his office. Quoting Siscoe’s book on pg. 274, he said:
“There is another point we should mention. As we have seen, Suarez explicitly taught that a declaratory sentence of the crime is necessary before Christ would act by deposing a heretical Pope, whereas Bellarmine simply states that the crime must be ‘manifest,’ without specifying if it must be ‘manifest’ to the Church by a declaratory sentence. Because Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifici did not specifically address whether the Church must issue a declaratory sentence of the crime, Sedevacantists [and Dr. Peters] have assumed he did not require a declaration of the crime before a Pope would lose his office for heresy. But this is a rash speculation on their part, and injurious to the good name of St. Bellarmine. The reason is because, as Suarez noted, requiring a declaratory sentence was the common opinion during the day in which he and Bellarmine lived; and, as sedevacantists themselves like to point out (when it helps their position), departing from the ‘common opinion’ of the theologians is, at minimum, an act of imprudence and possibly a mortal sin.
Therefore in charity the sedevacantists should presume that Bellarmine indeed required a declaratory sentence before the Pope would lose his office. Simply because he didn’t directly address the matter (at least not within the snippets posted on sedevacantist websites) is no reason to think he departed from the common opinion of his fellow theologians, Furthermore, John of St. Thomas, a contemporary of Bellarmine, who knew his position well, stated that Bellarmine did in fact hold the common opinion that a heretical Pope would have to be ‘declared incorrigible’ before he would be deposed immediately by Christ. … He wrote, ‘Bellarmine and Suarez, however, believe that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and has been declared incorrigible, is deposed immediately by Christ the Lord, and not by any authority of the Church.’ ”
Dr. Peters’ misunderstanding of Bellarmine is used as the basis for his other arguments when he says “…But he cannot be deprived of his power by a merely declaratory sentence.” And then, “therefore a general council cannot pass a declaratory sentence by which a Roman Pontiff is actually deprived of his power; for that would be a sentence laid by an inferior against the true Roman Pontiff.” Followed by his main argument, “in sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregareded…” As has been mentioned, the Church itself has not said whether the pope loses jurisdiction simply “upon the fact,” or after a declaratory sentence, so that statement is speculation.
Peters then says, “I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis.” This is completely irrelevant, if not untrue. Cardinal Journet, who lived after Wernz, considered John of St Thomas’ works more penetrating than Bellarmines. What does that tell us? And S.B. Smith who lived just before Wernz, brought up the issue of how a heretical pope loses office to Rome, to have his work reviewed, and the two canon lawyers at Rome said the exact opposite of Wernz-Vidal. Again, quoting Robert:
“The following is from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1893), by the canonist, S.B. Smith:
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
“Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church – i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.”[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif]
Fr. Smith’s book was meticulously reviewed by two canonists in Rome who noted several inaccuracies that required revision, but nothing objectionable was noted about the above citation, which remained in all of the future editions. What this proves is that, contrary to what the Sedes claim, nothing in Vatican I prohibits the Church from declaring a Pope guilty of heresy. Now, whether one holds that the fall from office occurs, technically, just before the declaratory sentence is issued, immediately after it is issued, or after the Church performs a separate ministerial act, is fine, since this is disputed by the theologians and the Church has never settled the matter. But what is important is that as long as the Church is tolerating a heretical Pope, and continues to recognize him its head, he remains a true and valid Pope; and no Sedevacantist apologist has ever produced an authoritative citation that says otherwise.”
Notice Robert ends by reminding us that the Church has the final say in the matter regardless if the loss of office occurs before or after the declaratory sentence. If I say Francis is an antipope, while the Church continues to recognize him as such, I am infallibly wrong. This is not hard to figure out. If nothing else, maybe this debate will bring this point out and settle the confusion people are having.
MSS, you wrote “But did any of those theologians say laymen could judge the pope an antipope, when the Church itself continues to recognize him as pope?”
Are laymen to abstain from any critical thinking? Are we, as a whole, stupid?
So, we’d have to stop being informed, stop studying and avoid forming a judgment until the clergy finally comes to a decision? Then we should receive the decision of “the Church” – by which you only seem to refer to the clergy while excluding the laity? Wow!!!!! What do you think of saint Catherine of Siena or Joan of Arc?
Bergoglio is a manifest heretic and as such no longer pope, if he ever was: two popes? St. Gallen Mafia? His work is simply destructive. It will be rescinded: Mitis Iudex Dominus Jesus (catholic divorce anyone?), LS, AL, and the vicious Vultum Dei quaerere…
Chris R,
Look, I appreciate your concerns. They’re the same as mine. But I think we disagree as to who ultimately decides this thing. For example, did St. Catherine of Sienna or Joan of Arc declare the pope to be an antipope? Would they ever attempt to do such a thing, apart from a Church judgment? I doubt it. Can I ignore John of St. Thomas, who I personally believe understood this issue better than all the theologians put together, who said it couldn’t even be held that a pope would lose his office before at least a declaratory sentence was issued? Similarly, its very likely Verrechio didn’t even interpret Ballerini right, and I actually came to the same conclusion Verrechio did that Ballerini thought a declaratory sentence wasn’t required. But, according to Robert’s book, Ballerini actually believed a declaratory sentence was required before the loss of office occured. What will Verrechio do if Robert replies showing this to be the case with Ballerini? And if it is the case, what does this tell us about privately judging what we think the theologians taught, when we don’t even get them right? I am also aware that my opinion cannot usurp the judgment of the Church. It would be nice if it did, but Robert rightly called that judgment by usurpation in his first article, which is mortal sin, to which the 4th Council of Constatinople attached an excommunication to, to those who would do such a thing, and then act of it. How is Robert wrong as to either point? I’ve heard dead silence as to both points. How are we not usurping authority if we declare Francis an antipope? And if we publicly defect the way the sedes have, is it worth condemning myself by incurring an excommunication? I asked, and I’ll ask again, can you cite a magisterial document affirming that laymen in the pew can declare bishops (the pope being the head bishop) to have lost their office, when the Church itself considers them bishops still holding office? If not, I think this discussion is already answered
I don’t know if anyone caught a blunder I made. Apparently not, because no one corrected me. In a previous post, I meant to say Suarez held the fifth opinion along with Bellarmine, but I accidentally said Cajatan held the fifth opinion. I just thought I ‘d correct that for those who might be scratching their heads in confusion. Dr. Peters, in the article mentioned, made a common error, when he put Suarez and Cajatan together as holding the fourth opinion, but it’s not the case.
So God did choose in his (mysterious) wisdom. Very hard to accept it in practice in such a terrible situation as we now flounder in. Lord, have mercy. Holy Spirit come to our aid. Reparation!