By: Robert Siscoe
As Louie mentioned, our replies are getting a bit longer, but I would encourage those interested in this topic to stay with us as we are now getting into important material.
Regarding Canon 194, Louie wrote: “According to Can. 194, the removal [from office] ‘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.”
The commentary I provided by Beal et al. which says a declaratory sentence is required from the competent ecclesiastical authority for the loss of office to be effective, is exactly how Canon 194 was explained to me a few years ago by a canon lawyer (and Traditional priest). It is also perfectly consistent with common legal practice concerning mixed questions of fact and law whereby questions of fact must be established by the competent authority before the law can be applied to the fact.
A person who publicly defects from the Faith (question of fact) is removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself (question of law), but the removal does not occur until the proper authority establishes the fact (and, in this case, also declare it). That’s how a mixed question of fact and law works. And while it is true that this canon does not apply to the Pope, it does show the mind of the Church concerning this matter.
Louie: “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.
What we are discussing is whether Francis has lost his office for heresy. His acceptance as Pope by the Church guarantees he was validly elected, but the adherence of the Church to him as head (the entire ordinary and universal Magisterium) provides infallible certitude that he has not lost his office. This traditional doctrine, which cannot be denied, is how the Cardinal Billot (who drafted the encyclical Pascendi) refuted the claims of Savonarola, who maintained that Pope Alexander VI – “who didn’t even believe in God” – had lost his office for heresy. Near the end Savonarola implicitly admitted that he had been mistaken.
Navigating the current Passion of the Church is a balancing act in which a deviation in either direction results in serious error, if not formal schism and heresy. Publicly rejecting Francis as Pope, not only requires the rejection of traditional doctrine, but it also leads rapidly to a rejection of the entire visible Church (and hence formal schism). This latter error requires the adherent to either reject the Church’s attribute of indefectibility, or else redefine the term to mean something other than how the Church understands it (which is the same tactic employed by the Modernists to promote their errors). For example, rather than understanding indefectibility to mean that the visible society – the hierarchical institution itself – will never be overcome by heresy, they will say it only means there will always be “true believers” in the world, which is the Protestant definition of indefectibility.
The error of Sedevacantism (and loss of faith in the Church) has caused Bishop Sanborn to go so far that he forbids his seminarians to hold that there are any bishops today with ordinary jurisdiction. This position is absolutely incompatible with the Church’s indefectibility, since it means there is no longer a legitimate hierarch. How right St. Jerome was when he said true schism always leads to heresy. And in a recent video, Fr. Cekada said he would have rejected whoever was elected Pope during the previous conclave, which makes sense for a person who has completely lost his faith in the Church. This brings up another point: today we usually associate heresy with those on the “left,” but if you study the heresies of the past, you will find that many were due to an excess to the right.
We must judge the current situation of the Church in light of traditional doctrine. If we do so, we will remain on solid ground and will not be led astray, either to the left or to the right.
In light of the Church’s traditional doctrine concerning dogmatic facts, we know that the Pope remains pope as long as he is recognized as Pope by the Church – even if he is judged to be a heretic by private judgment (which was the case with a number of Popes from the past). And regarding the entire Church (not just the Pope) we know, based on the doctrine of indefectibility, that it may suffer persecution from infiltrators within and from enemies without, and may even undergo a passion similar to that which Christ endured (and, like Christ, become virtually unrecognizable in its human nature), but the visible society of the Church – the institution – will never be completely overcome by heresy, nor will it morph into an entirely New Church.
The “R&R” position, which is the correct position to hold in the current crisis, strikes the proper balance between the two extremes of indiscrete obedience and formal schism, and does not require the rejection of any traditional doctrine or dogma (when they are properly understood). The same cannot be said for the error of Sedevacantism.
“The case of Pope Francis is entirely unprecedented; not just among the post-conciliar popes, but all popes.”
The primary difference between Francis and his recent predecessors is that Francis is doing to Catholic morality what they did to ecclesiology, the Mass, and other matters of the Faith. And the reason for the strong reaction we are seeing against him is no mystery: it is due to the fact that the conservative Catholics, who’s main focused has always been moral issues (such as abortion), are shocked at seeing a Pope undermine the teachings that they have fought for, just as Traditional Catholics were rightly shocked at seeing the other recent Popes do the same with Catholic doctrine and the Mass.
Another issue with Francis is that he is generally more scandalous and disgraceful in his words and actions than were the other recent Popes, and hence the average Catholic’s sensus fidelium is more offended and even repulsed by him.
But if we judge this latter point in light of history, we will know that there have been plenty of extremely scandalous popes of the past, such as those of the 9th and 10th centuries. If the daily activities of these popes had been transmitted visibly into the home of the average Catholics in those days, they too would have been scandalized, and their sensus fidelium would have been grievously offended.
Pope John XII
How many Catholics of the 10th century would have been tempted to reject the legitimacy of Pope John XII, for example – the teenage pope whose dad got him elected, and who was accused of murder, rape and other unspeakable crimes – if his scandals were pumped into their house daily and could be viewed over and over again online? How many would have entirely lost the faith due to his scandals?
And regarding evidence of pertinacity, don’t forget that John Paul II was also sent a dubia, which requested that he reconcile Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty with that of his pre-Vatican II predecessors. John Paul II never directly responded. Instead, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replied a year and a half later, and the response failed miserably to reconcile the two. If Francis’ failure to reply to the dubia (concerning moral issues) renders him a formal heretic, why didn’t John Paul II’s failure to reply to the dubia (concerning doctrinal matters) render him a formal heretic?
And John Paul II put his erroneous teaching of religious liberty into practice – for example, by encouraging public mortal sins against the First Commandment (false worship) as a path to “world peace” during his Assisi Prayer meetings – just as Francis is trying to do with his erroneous teaching on moral issue.
In the case of both of these Popes, their actions and failure to respond to the respective dubias may have led individual Catholics to conclude that they were in heresy, but that does not suffice for a Pope to be guilty of the crime of heresy, which is necessary for him to lose his office (as Wernz-Vidal and everyone else teaches). Just because someone is personally convinced that Francis has committed the sin of heresy does not mean he has lost his office.
And to defend Wernz-Vidal and the other theologians and canonists from potential accusations of HERESY! by Fr. Kramer (who accused myself and John Salza of heresy for holding the same position), the crime of heresy does not cause the loss of office due to any ecclesiastical censure; it precedes the fall from the Pontificate which happens by a direct act of Christ.
Francis Is Not a Notorious Heretic
Theologians are virtually unanimous in holding that it requires notorious heresy for a Pope to lose his office. As of now, Francis does not meet the definition of a notorious heretic (either by law or fact), and neither did any of his recent predecessors.
Notorious by Law: A person becomes a notorious heretic by law when he is declared a heretic by the Church. When Suarez said a Pope who is declared a heretic “is ipso facto and immediately deposed by Christ,” he meant that when a Pope is “notorious by law,” he is immediately deposed by Christ. Clearly, Francis is not notorious with a notoriety of law.
Notorious by Fact: A person is notorious with a notoriety of fact, not simply when it is widely known that he holds a heretical doctrine (the matter), but when the imputability of the crime, or guilt (the formal aspect), is also widely known, and so clear that “that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse” (Canon 2197.3). Francis is not notorious is with a notoriety of fact. This is proven by the fact that the Cardinals are asking him to clarify his position, which would not be the case if he were so evidently guilty of the crime of heresy that “no clever evasion was possible”.
Now, if Francis was directly accused of heresy (not a lesser error), and if he remained hardened in his heresy following “solemn and public warnings” by the College of Cardinals, he would then be notorious with a notoriety of fact (or “explicitly a heretic,” to use the words of Francis de Sales) since at that time no clever evasion would be possible, and no legal excuse would excuse.
Why are these definitions important? Because all the quotes Sedevacantists cite saying a Pope will lose his office if he becomes a “notorious heretic” do not help their case, since Francis does not meet the definition of the term.
As of now, Francis is only “suspect of heresy,” and like all others who are suspect of heresy, he has retained his office. This explains why even the Cardinals who are opposing him recognize him as Pope.
Preliminary Points
Before discussing the teaching of Ballerini, we will begin with a few theological points:
- The Church has no authority over a pope, even in the case of heresy. If a Pope is deposed, it is Christ who authoritatively deposes him, not the Church. The phrase “authoritatively deposes him” refers to the act of separating the man who is Pope (the matter) from the Pontificate (the form). This can only occur by an act of Christ.
- When theologians and canonists speak of the Church “deposing a pope,” they do not mean authoritatively deposing him. They are referring to the process itself, and the ministerial acts performed by the proper ecclesiastical authorities (such as the formal warnings), which precede Christ authoritatively separating the man from the Pontificate.
- There is nothing that man (a finite creature) can do to directly cause God (an infinite being) to act. Hence, there is nothing that a Pope can do, and nothing that that the Church can do, to directly cause Christ to separate a Pope from the Pontificate. The actions of man (i.e., a pope falling into heresy, the Church declaring him a heretic, etc.) are merely the dispositive cause. They dispose man for Christ to act, but they do not cause Christ to act.
- Now, because there is no metaphysical incompatibility between heresy and ordinary jurisdiction (as there is, for example, between mortal sin and sanctifying grace, and between the sin of heresy and supernatural faith), Christ can, if He so wills, sustain a heretical Pope in the Papacy for as long as he chooses. This explains why Fr. Laymann taught that as long as the Church tolerates a heretical Pope he remains Pope, and it explains why some theologians have been able to defend the position that no matter how heretical a Pope may become, he will never lose the Pontificate. Bellarmine discussed this latter opinion and only referred to it as “exceedingly improbable,” not as certainly false, which it would be if there was a metaphysical incompatibility between heresy and papal jurisdiction.
- The Church’s teaching concerning dogmatic facts, and reason itself confirm that Christ will not secretly depose a Pope without the Church being involved in the process (or at least knowing about it). If He did, the man lawfully elected Pope and recognized as Pope by the entire Church could do what a true Pope could never do – namely, “infallibly” bind the Church to heresy. This unspeakable evil would only be possible if Christ, by a hidden act, severed the bond uniting the man to the Pontificate, thereby removing from him the charism of infallibility.
- The teaching of St. Paul to Titus about avoiding the heretic “after the first and second admonition” (Titus 3:10) is ancient ecclesiastical legislation, in which the earlier teaching of our Lord, “if he refuses to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen” (Mt. 18:17) is applied to those accused or suspected of heresy. The person is warned by the ecclesiastical authorities, and if he refuses to “hear the Church,” (i.e., heed the warnings) he is to be avoided. Hence warnings issued to those suspected of heresy is part of divine law (Titus 3:10), and is based on the explicit teaching of Christ (Mt 18:17).
BALLERINI
By way of introduction, it should be noted that Bellerini is arguing that a pope who “defends heresy,” even privately, can be deposed, and that it is not necessary for a general council to be convened for the loss of office to occur. This latter point, which is disputed by theologians, falls into the category of a “question of law” that the Church alone has the authority to decide. Ballerini does say, however, that a general council may be convened, but, if so, it will take place after the heretical Pope has already lost his office. We will comment on the pertinent sections of Bellerini now, including an important point that Louie did not cite, and which proves his interpretation was not correct.
“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.”
As we can see, according to Ballerini, if a Pope were to remain hardened in heresy after a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, the Roman Clergy or Synod, he would “pronounce sentence upon himself,” thereby becoming notorious with a notoriety of fact. He would do this by his own act of contumaciously holding to heresy in the face of solemn warnings by the Church.
The term “contumacious” does not simply mean adhering to a heresy with pertinacity; it means stubbornly persisting in heresy in opposition to lawful authority (i.e., the Cardinals, etc.), even if the lawful authority in question is issuing a correction as a matter of charity, rather than jurisdiction (which we will discuss below).
Needless to say, Ballerini’s teaching in no way helps Louie’s position since Francis has not persisted in heresy following any “solemn and public warnings” from the Cardinals, etc. The dubia, which merely requested that he clarify certain points, is in no way equivalent to an ecclesiastical warning/correction.
Warning vis-à-vis Dubia
A warning (monitio) differs essentially from a dubia. A warning can come from the law itself (“though shalt not commit adultery”) or from an ecclesiastical judge (monitio canonica). In the case of heresy, the purpose of the ecclesiastical warning is to correct the offender and provide him with an opportunity to remove the cause of suspicion. It must be issued by a lawful authority, name the offender, specify the offense (i.e., what heresy was professed), and, in the case of heresy, clearly state that the offender must reject the stated heresy and affirm the Catholic truth opposed to it.
A dubium is something entirely different. It is an official request for an authoritative and final response from the Holy See on a doctrinal, liturgical or canonical question. A dubia is not an accusation, nor does it specify an offence, but merely seeks clarity concerning an objective fact (dubium facti) or a law (dubium juris). For example, are baptisms administered by Mormons valid, given the fact that the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost have a different meaning for Mormons? A dubia would seek clarity concerning this “question of law.”
When Ballerini spoke of “a solemn and public warning (monitionem) by the Cardinals, the Roman clergy, or a Synod,” he was clearly speaking of a canonical warning (monitio canonica), not simply a request for clarification (dubia), or a request by theologians that the Pope condemn certain propositions (which is what the letter from the 45 theologians was).
Titus 3:10 Applies Even to Private Individuals
When Ballerini says the teaching of St. Paul to Titus (i.e., “avoiding the heretic after the first and second admonition”) applies “even to private individuals,” all he means is that even a private person can warn someone that they are in heresy and then personally avoid them if they persist. Such avoidance would be justified as a matter of conscience and self defense. That’s all Ballerini is saying. But a private warning, since it does not come from lawful authority, is not equivalent to a monitio canonica.
Ballerini does not mean that if a private person judges that a Pope (who has not been warned by the proper authorities) “must be avoided,” it means the Pope has already lost his office. There is no logical connection between the two propositions. It will become clear that this is not what Ballerini meant as we go forward, but first we need to address another important point.
Manifest or Public Dogma
Ballerini: “For the person who, admonished once or twice [by the proper authorities], does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma (dogmati manifesto aut definite) – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity ….”
For an opinion to be qualified as heretical, it must be contrary to a “manifest or public dogma” (i.e., a revealed truth that has been defined by a solemn decree or definitively proposed by the force of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium). This is an important point since heresy is often used in a broad and imprecise sense to refer to any error against the Faith, whereas, strictly speaking, for a proposition to be qualified as heretical, it must be a direct denial of “a manifest or pubic dogma”. Not all errors – even serious errors that are clearly false – are qualified as heresy. Ballerini confirmed this when he said:
Ballerini: “The present question, then, pertains only to the case in which the Pope, deceived in his private judgment, believes and pertinaciously asserts something contrary to an evident or defined article of faith, for this is what constitutes heresy.”
For a proposition to be heretical, it must be a clear and unambiguous denial of “an evident or defined article of faith,” not simply a teaching that seems heretical, or that logically leads (by additional steps of reasoning) to the denial of a dogma. The former is only qualified as “savoring heresy (haeresim sapiens), while the latter is classified as “erroneous in theology” (propositio theologice erronea). A hundred serious errors against the faith do not add up to a single heresy.
But what about Amoris Laetitia? In the opinion of Cardinal Burke, due to the ambiguous wording of the document, it is difficult to qualify any of its teachings as even materially heretical. There’s no question that there are propositions that logically lead to heresy, and that savor heresy, but that’s not enough.
Regarding the document on “theological notes” by the 45 theologians, it does not assert that any proposition in Amoris Laeitia is directly heretical, but only say “if understood as meaning X” etc. it would be heretical. And the purpose of the document wasn’t to accuse Francis of heresy (and hence was not equivalent to a non-canonical warning), but only requested that he definitively condemned the propositions “if understood as meaning X” as being formally heretical.
This is not to defend Francis or Amoris Laetitia, but only to note that before he can be accused of pertinaciously holding to a heresy, it would have to be shown that the doctrine he is holding to with pertinacity is qualified as heretical. If he is only persisting in a propositio theologice erronea, or in a doctrine that “savors heresy,” that is not enough for him to lose his office for heresy – even if he is truly guilty of the internal sin of heresy (which would be known with certainty to God alone).
The Pope Loses His Office After The Solemn and Public Warnings
Even if it can be shown that Francis has professed a heretical doctrine (not a lesser error), according to Ballerini, he will not lose his office unless he remains hardened in heresy AFTER being warned by the proper authorities – that is, until he is contumacious.
How do we know this? Because Ballerini explicitly states that whatever is done by the Church against the erring Pope, before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy (ante declaratam ejus contumaciam et haeresim) is done as an act of charity, not jurisdiction (caritatis, non jurisdictionis). Why an act of charity, rather than jurisdiction? Because as long as he remains pope, the Church is unable to exercise any acts of jurisdiction against him. Louie himself acknowledged this point when he wrote:
“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.”
With this in mind, let’s read what Ballerini wrote. After saying that a Pope who remained hardened in heresy after “a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, the Roman Clergy or a Synod,” would “pass judgment upon himself” and would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed (so that all would be on guard against him), he wrote:
“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 his heresy and contumacy are declared, in order to call him to reason [i.e., “solemn and public warnings”], would constitute an obligation of charity, not of jurisdiction”.
Notice, he doesn’t say whatever would be done against the erring Pope “before individual Catholics personally judge that he should be avoided would be an act of charity.” No, he says “whatever would be done against him before his heresy and contumacy are declared … would constitute and obligation of charity.”
What this proves is that, according to Ballerini, the fall from the Pontificate occurs after the “solemn and public warnings,” not simply when he is deemed to be pertinacious by private judgment. This teaching of Ballerini is perfectly consistent with what the theologians have taught since at least the 12th Century, when the question of how to depose a Pope was first being hotly debated. For example, in Die Summa Decretorum des Magister, Rufinus, the 12th Century Decretist, wrote:
“A Pope cannot be declared a heretic unless he persist in error after a second and third warning” (Commentary on “Si Papa” from Gratian’s Decretum).
And this is referring to canonical warnings (monitio).
Two Declarations
Ballerini seems to refer to two distinct declarations: 1) a “declaration of heresy and contumacy;” and 2) a “declaratory sentence” that is issued by the council, if one were called.
Regarding the first, when Ballerini says whatever (quidquid) is done against the erring Pope before his heresy and contumacy are declared are acts of charity, it suggests that Ballerini did not believe God would authoritatively depose the heretical Pope until his heresy was declared (at which point he would be “notorious by law”). If so, it means Ballerini holds the same opinion as Suarez (the common opinion of the day).
Objection Answered
Objection: But Ballerini said by remaining hardened in heresy after the warnings, the Pope would essentially abdicate the Pontificate. Therefore, he must have meant that he would lose his office at that moment (after being warned), and not at time when his heresy and contumacious is declared.
Answer: Not necessarily. This is evident from the fact that the common opinion of the day (an opinion shared by both Bellarmine and Cajetan), was that a Pope who truly abdicated (“resigned”) would only cease to be Pope when the abdication was accepted by the Church. Cajetan explained this as “a double consent of the human will” (the will of the Pope abdicating, and the will of the Church accepting) which would precede the act of the Divine Will, which separates the man (the matter) from the Pontificate (the form).
As applied in the case of “abdication” due to papal heresy, the pope would manifest his will by remaining hardened in heresy in the face of the public and solemn warnings. The Church would manifest its will by declaring him a heretic. Following this “double consent,” Christ would act by authoritatively by deposing him.
The same double consent of the human will, preceding the act of the Divine Will, is how a man is made Pope during the Conclave. The will of the Church is manifest by electing him as Pope. The will of the one elected is manifested when he accepts. Following the double-consent, Christ authoritatively joins the man to the office and he becomes Pope. The reverse happens when the Church “deposes” a Pope.
Whether Ballerini held that Christ would act by deposing the Pope immediately after the declaration of heresy and contumacy was proclaimed (when he was notorious by law), or just before (when he was notorious by fact), is not clear, but what is certain is that Ballerini believes that the erring Pope will remain Pope until after he shows himself hardened in heresy following the “solemn and public warnings” (since only then would he be “contumacious”); and at least up to the point in which the proper authorities are prepared to issue the declaration of contumacy and heresy (since whatever is done before the declaration, which would include moments before, is an act of charity).
Conciliar Sentence
After mentioning “the declaration of heresy and contumacy,” Ballerini then explains what would happen if a general council were convened. He wrote:
Ballerini: “but afterwards, when his departure from the Church has been made manifest, if any sentence should be passed against him by a council, it would be passed against one who would no longer be Pope, nor superior to a council.”
Notice that he refers to the declaration from the council is being optional (“if any sentence should be passed … by a council”), whereas he refers to the declaration of heresy and contumacy as being necessary (“he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed,” etc.).
What seems clear is that Ballerini is referring to two different declarations: a necessary declaration that precedes the loss of office, and an optional Conciliar declaration that follows the loss of office. In the quotation Louie cited from an article I wrote, when I said “the fall would take place before the declaratory sentence was issued,” I was referring to the declaration from the council, if one were called (according to the opinion of Ballerini).
Summary
In light of what we have seen, let’s consider the sequence of events in Ballerini’s teaching to see if it supports Louie’s position that Francis has lost his office for heresy.
- The Pope “defends heresy” – not a lesser error, but heresy.
- He is issued a solemn warning by the Cardinals, the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod. Up to this point he remains Pope, since whatever the Church does before the declaration of contumacy (which hasn’t happened yet) is an act of charity. If he refuses to “hear the Church” (by remaining hardened in heresy after the solemn warning), he “passes sentence upon himself” and becomes notorious with a notoriety of fact.
- The Church then declares his contumacy and heresy and Christ authoritatively deposes him. (Perhaps this order could be reversed.)
- If a general council is convened, it would issue a declaratory sentence against the former Pope.
In the case of Pope Francis we are not past point number one, which means, according to Ballerini’s opinion, Francis is still the Pope.
Conclusion
What is clear is that Ballerini’s teaching in no way supports Louie’s position, but instead contradicts it, since the loss of office occurs if the Pope remains hardened in heresy “after solemn and public warnings” (monitio canonica) by the proper authorities, which has not happened with Francis. Francis’ failure (at least to date) to respond to the dubia, which is not an accusation of heresy or a non-canonical warning, does not suffice to render him “contumacious,” or notorious with a notoriety of fact. Just because a layperson personally thinks a Pope (or any other cleric) “must be avoided” in no way suggests that he has lost his office. On the contrary, according to canon law, a cleric who is suspected of heresy will retain his office until he is warned twice, and even after that as long as the Church chooses to tolerate him.
Furthermore, we have infallible certitude that Francis is the Pope due to the fact that the Church (the entire OUM) recognizes him as Pope. The great Cardinal Billot teaches that if the universal Church were to adhere to a false Pope as its head, the gates of hell would have prevailed.
At this time, even the authorities who are speaking out the strongest against Francis recognize him as Pope. None of them (and they cannot all be dismissed as “unformed and un-informed” Catholics) claim he has lost his office for heresy, nor have they accused him of heresy (but only of “serious errors” to use Burke’s terminology).
Additionally, because the Church has never determine precisely when a heretical Pope will lose his office, even if Francis is issued a canonical warning, and even if he is declared a heretic by the Church (thereby rendering him notorious by law), the laity could still not publicly declare that he lost his office, since some reputable theologians maintain that an additional step would be required before Christ would act by authoritatively deposing him. Burke may not personally agree with these theologians, based on what he said in a recent interview, but until the Church settles the matter it remains an open question.
The loss of papal office involves questions that private judgment simply cannot resolve. This explains why the manualist Jean-Marie Herve wrote:
“Given that, as a private person, the Pontiff could indeed become a public, notorious, and obstinate heretic … only a Council [the Church] would have the right to declare his see vacant” (Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1952, I.500, p. 495).
While theologians have debated precisely how and when a heretical Pope would lose his office, I know of no theologian or canonist who has ever disagreed with Herve concerning who alone has the authority to declare the see vacant. Yet every single Sedevacantist apologist, without exception, not only rejects this undisputed teaching in theory, but in also in practice. It is one thing for a Catholic to have the private opinion that Francis is a heretic, and quite another to publicly declare that he has lost his office for heresy.
I will end by asking Louie to provide even one authoritative citation supporting his position that a member of the laity can judge the Pope to be a formal heretic, and then publicly declare that he has lost his office while the Church continues to recognize him as Pope.
Click here for Point / Counterpoint 3: Verrecchio
Thank you, Mr Siscoe. The solemn and pubic warnings from bishops needs to happen as soon as possible.
Two questions if I may Mr. Siscoe.
Do you view the ‘extended papacy’ as authentic?
How can a Pope & Hierarchy circumvent the Ten Commandments, Magisterium & Tradition of the CC without causing their demise?
Thank you in advance.
Let’s see if she gets an answer to her excellent question.
Mr Siscoe wrote:
“Furthermore, we have infallible certitude that Francis is the Pope due to the fact that the Church (the entire OUM) recognizes him as Pope.”
The entire Conciliar Church may recognize him as Pope, but those who hold the true Catholic faith do not universally recognize him as Pope. This legalistic back and forth serves no purpose but to obfuscate basic facts. The first basic fact being that there is no way on God’s green earth that the hierarchy in Rome, in the local diocese, and at the local parish level is Catholic anymore. Therefore Francis is the leader of a heretical sect. Let those heretics deal with Francis. The sooner trads admit this fact, the sooner a true restoration can begin. This insistence in assigning a Catholic identity to the modernist hierarchy does nothing but prolong the crisis and confusion.
And then what, Lynda? The best outcome that is possible is the removal of Francis and installation of a modernist conservative. Either way Rome ends up with a heretic in charge.
Mr Siscoe also writes:
“His acceptance as Pope by the Church guarantees he was validly elected.”
This is not true either. Only a Catholic can be elected Pope of the Catholic Church. It is obvious that Francis was a modernist before he was elected and therefore inelligible for election. Mr. Siscoe’s whole argument is based on the assumption that a modernist can be a Catholic. That is the debate he should be having. The debate as to whether a true Pope can then fall into heresy and then how the Church responds is quite interesting and in my opinion has never been definitively settled. But to apply this to the last several “popes” is immaterial since by their own profession, JP2, B16, and Francis were professed modernists before assuming the papacy of the modernist sect.
The SSPX is the best example of Catholics that stand fast and hold to tradition. The SSPX uses the Latin Rite Missal of 1962. To go any further liturgically, would be to reject the infallible Bull Quo Primum of Pope St Pius V and the dogmatic Canons of the Council of Trent regarding the Holy Mass. The SSPX also recognizes the universal reality of the canonically elected Pope in Rome.
I don’t know what Missal the Sedevacantists use. If they use a Missal older than 1962, they violate the rules of self defense set forth in Canon Law. They already reject the Pope. This unlawful act of private judgement makes the Sede guilty of heresy.
The irony is that the Sedevacantist rejects the heresy of Modernism and is himself guilty of heresy. A loyal Catholic has to find the right balance. A loyal Catholic has to accept the successor of Peter, because if nothing else, the Pope is the link in an unbroken chain.
Who is Bellerini, and why should we care what he thinks? Or rather. what he thought, on the subject of the deposition of a Pope?
I do think, however, that Mr. Siscoe’s question for Louie at the end of the article is very appropriate. Can Louie please provide even one authoritative citation supporting his position that a member of the laity can judge the Pope to be a formal heretic, and then publically declare that he has lost his office while the Church continues to recognize him as Pope? A very good question.
Is Louie going Sede? I hope not.
It is a red herring question because no one at all can judge a Pope. Surely someone who professes such a great deal of knowledge on this subject like Mr. Siscoe would know the answer. And being a good lawyer, he only asks questions when he already knows the answer.
You don’t believe that trads should be allowed to debate this subject. The standard Sede belief is that only when all trads become dogmatic Sedes can there really be a change in the Church, because then then Rome will have to listen to the Sedes. That’s why Sede’s are so obsessive about monopolizing trad forums and blogs – they feel it is their duty to convert all trads to Sedevacantism. Well, it’s not going to work. WE ARE going to keep debating these topics, no matter how many Sedes try to stop the process of debate.
I am all for debate. You are accusing the sedes of being dogmatic when its usually the other way around. I believe its Mr. Siscoe who called sedevacantism a heresy. I am partial to the sede position because of its logic. I do believe in many posts I say that the issue has not been definitively taught by competent authority so until that time there is no sin in holding one opinion or another.
How do you “restore” a church if there is none? Wouldn’t it be more like starting a new one from scratch?
To accept the 1962 MR one has to accept John 23 as a pope. I believe most sedes do not consider him a true pope so why would they accept his mass? If sedes believe that Pius XII was last true Pope then by rules of self defense they should accept his liturgical changes and not John 23’s.
What about apostolic succession? Isn’t that one of the four marks of the Church?
And some sedes don’t believe Pope Pius XII was a true pope either and probably have some legitimate reasons to believe that.
Yep, the legacy of PJPII The Great lives on.
There are three theories.
1. Divine Intervention
2. A heretical Pope renounces modernism and professes the true faith
3. An imperfect council.
And unity of faith is one of those marks too. Try and find that nowadays.
It just goes to show that the dogmatic fact is the necessity of the office of the papacy, not whether its occupied or not. History has many examples of vacancies lasting months or years and other examples of two or three popes at the same time.
Imo, the burden of proof is on the side that’s trying to prove the pope isn’t the pope so they would have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they’re right and as far as I’m concerned that hasn’t happened. Here’s another thing, this stuff can be quite confusing and complicated and I don’t think God would require us all to have doctorates in Canon Law in order to figure out whether we have a Pope or not. Really, how many people with families and jobs even have the time to read all this stuff?
Maybe some can but I can’t buy into those 3 theories. Anyway, “heretical pope” is an oxymoron for sedes so thats not possible and if there’s no legitimate hierarchy left how can there even be an “imperfect council”? and Divine Intervention just seems like a “grasping at straws” answer.
It’s really not about whether there’s a pope or not but if there’s a hierarchy. If not than, imo, there’s no visible Church. This probably happened if we didn’t have a pope for 60 years but like i said before I don’t believe it did.
@Johnbilbee: Are you saying that all that has to be believed by faith (e.g., that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Our Lord’s Church) has to at all times be confirmed by the exercise of our human reason? You might want to acquaint (I hope its not a case of reacquaint) yourself with this canon from Vatican I:
–
“If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God: let him be anathema.”
–
More from Vatican I: “For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight.
–
Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.”
It certainly is a mystery what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. Visibility doesn’t mean the whole world has to see it. Remember, at one time the Church was just 12 men in an upper room.
Exactly what heresy is a sedevacantist guilty of?
@Johnjobilbee: Is Pope Francis your “living rule of faith”, and do you consider him the “visible sign of unity” in the Church?
Sorry, I’m not exactly sure what it was I wrote that you’re responding to.
LONGSUFFERING
It would appear from the article that there opens up for all readers the tremendous opportunity to develop in the understanding and practice of this virtue…
—–
long-suffering
having or showing patience in spite of troubles, especially those caused by other people
patient, uncomplaining, forgiving
Good questions, but it still doesnt prove that a non Catholic can be head of the Catholic Church. I would rather defend the former position than keep trying to explain how Francis is a Catholic. Francis does not profess the true faith. I dont think there is a soul in this forum that disagrees with that statement. So if you believe that Francis does not profess the Catholic faith then you must logically conclude that Francis is not Catholic. If Francis is not Catholic then I cannot envision any argument that concludes that he is the head of an organization that he is not a member of.
Johnjobilbee said this:
–
“It’s really not about whether there’s a pope or not but if there’s a hierarchy. If not than, imo, there’s no visible Church. This probably happened if we didn’t have a pope for 60 years but like i said before I don’t believe it did.”
–
Johnjobilbee starts with his reason to measure what he believes by faith – so if there is an apparent contradiction between what he “believes by faith” and his reason he will twist what he “believes by faith” to comport with his reason. The result? He believes that “the gates of hell have not prevailed against Our Lord’s Church” while an apparent heretic holds the head teaching office of Our Lord’s Church. Cognitive dissonance much?
–
I think its much harder to prove that Francis is Catholic.
St Cyprian: the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and the Bible are my “living rule of faith” and Pope Francis is the “visible sign of unity” in the sense that we all accept him as our pope. I would say he’s the “visible sign of where the Church is” but not necessarily of unity. Is this a trick question?
You said this:
–
“How do you ‘restore’ a church if there is none? Wouldn’t it be more like starting a new one from scratch?”
–
(The Pope is the Patriarch of the West)
The Fourth Council of Constantinople forbids the act of separating from one’s Patriarch, based on allegations of a crime, prior to a judgment from the proper ecclesiastical authorities. This clearly demonstrates the mind of the Church, which requires that such judgments be rendered by the proper authorities, and not by private judgment. The Council also forbids removing one’s Patriarch’s name from the Mass, based on allegations of a crime, prior to a judgment by the Church.
The Council considered these acts to be so serious that it formally decreed that if any bishop or priest violates the teaching, they are immediately suspended; and if layperson and monk violated the teaching, they incur excommunication.
The Following is Canon 10 from the Fourth Council of Constantinople:
“As divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault,’ and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.
I think he is saying faith and reason cannot contradict each other. For example, our faith says the Church is indefectable. If our reasoning says the church defected then we have a contradiction. We must then explain this situation without contradicting our faith. So if the explanation means accepting the premise that the church that defected is no longer the church and that the Church that is indefectable is somehow hidden from ones view, then one must alter ones reasoning and not ones faith. So as painful as it seems, the sedevacantist position alters reason so that it no longer contradicts faith. To continue to dedend Francis as Pope and the NO church as the Catholic Church is to live a contradiction between reason and faith. I rather live the mystery as to where and how and when Christ will restore His true Church.
What you describe is a canonical crime and not a heresy. Heresy is to deny a dogma or doctrine of the faith. Heresy is not disobedience of a law.
Uh, why is this “debate” continuing? You mean developments since the last post in this series aren’t enough to demonstrate that Louie has proven his anti-pope point? Even Cardinal Burke, now in the crosshairs of this evil pretender, says that if a pope is a heretic he ceases to be pope. This is all very scholarly, but I’ll stick with reason directed by the 10 Commandments and the Catechism (pre-VII, that is). I’m less concerned about whether Jorge Bergoglio is pope than I am about whether he is Catholic.
Cardinal Billot had this to say about a true Pope being “living rule of faith”:
–
“For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows . . .”
–
Do you accept Pope Francis as your “living rule of faith”?
St. Cyprian is confusing the Pope with the Church. They are seperate entities. The Pope isn’t the Church he’s just the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. The pope can defect without the whole Church defecting. Now if Jesus defected we’d have a problem because he IS one with the Church. The Pope is not Jesus or the Church. That’s why Church has always taught follow Bible and Tradition. It’s not Bible and the Pope or the Pope and tradition.
Tom,
If no one at all can judge the pope, why are you judging the popes both previous to their election of being heretics ineligible for election, and after their election of being heretics, and therefore not popes?
Robert’s question is hardly a red herring, and the entire debate boils down to this question, which is why sedes either run from it, or in your case, say it’s a red herring. As a matter of fact it’s the killer question, and if Verrechio can’t answer it (and he can’t, nor can you Tom. If you disagree, now’s you chance to answer the question), then Verrechio should just raise the white flag and end this debate, because it’s over right there.
A judgment has to be made by the Church authorities (not laymen) in order to correct the situation, and if one’s private judgment contradicts the Church’s judgment, he is wrong. It’s as simple as that. And since the Church’s judgment is that the last six popes were validly elected, who held their office as popes, then we are obliged to acknowledge the Church’s judgment, since to do otherwise is certainly mortal sin. Pope Boniface VII said, “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.” This quote only makes sense if the Roman Pontiff is the Roman Pontiff according to the Church’s judgment. There is no clause here saying one can be subject to him if one decides he’s an antipope or not.
Now quoting Siscoe, “…the Church does indeed have the authority to judge papal heresy (the matter of heresy), and also the authority to establish and declare that the Pope is guilty of the crime of papal heresy (which includes the form of heresy, or pertinacity), which merely shows that the Pope is already judged – without, however, exercising jurisdiction over the Pope.” For those interested, this quote is found here, and it’s worth reading in it’s entirety:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantistwatch-novusordowatch.html
Tom A: how about maybe Johnjobilbee’s reason isn’t infallible? You’re assuming that there has to be a contradiction, but maybe Johnjobilbee’s reason is faulty.
–
Regarding the visibility of the Church, remember Our Lord’s teaching on the paucity of faith among his own people, his warning that unless the days be shortened even the elect would be fooled, and his questioning about whether upon his return he would find faith. I take all of these as a warning that there may yet be a visible Church, but it may be difficult to find, especially since in the end St. Paul warns that due to not loving the truth the Almighty will send the people the operation of error that they would believe lying. In such an age, do you think it will be easy to find the Church, even if it is visible, and especially if one is relying upon reason and not faith to find it?
Not so fast Johnjobilbee: You were clearly implying that the apparent lack of an hierarchy due to a lengthy papal interregnum means that Our Lord’s Church would have failed. I was not confused about anything.
St. Cyprian writes :”He believes “the gates of Hell have not prevailed against Our Lord’s Church” while an apparent heretic holds the head teaching office of Our Lord’s Church. Cognitive Dissonance much?” Guess what? Just because an “apparent heretic” holds the head teaching office of Our Lord’s Church doesn’t automatically mean “the gates of Hell have prevailed against Our Lord’s Church”, as I said above the Church is not the Pope and the Pope is not the Church, two seperate entities. So at best it means the “gates of hell have prevailed over the Pope” but not the Church.
@Johnjobilbee: One other thing – you did not answer my question about whether you consider Pope Francis your living rule of faith in the appropriate place. I ask that you do so especially since I provided a quote from Cardinal Billot the import you of which are apparently attempting to escape.
St. Cyprian: instead of questioning my two questions could you try answering them with something that makes a little more sense, in all due respect, than Tom A’s answer.
True, maybe there’s growing unity in those oppossing. pope Francis.
@MSS: You said this:
–
“A judgment has to be made by the Church authorities (not laymen) in order to correct the situation, and if one’s private judgment contradicts the Church’s judgment, he is wrong. It’s as simple as that.”
–
(1) Which Church authorities in your estimation HAVE THE JURISDICTION to make such a judgment, and (2) what document of the Church do you rely upon to establish that such Church authorities do, in fact, have jurisdiction?
“I’m less concerned about whether Jorge Bergoglio is pope than I am about whether he is Catholic.” – “Trad”Professor
You can’t have one without the other.
@Johnbilbee: Since you won’t answer my question from above I will reproduce it here, along with the quote from Cardinal Billot:
–
“Cardinal Billot had this to say about a true Pope being ‘living rule of faith’:
–
‘For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows . . .’
–
Do you accept Pope Francis as your “living rule of faith”?
St. Cyprian, I hope what Card. Billot means by “adhesion” is that we must adhered to the Pope when he speaks infallibly otherwise he’s falling into the error of what protestants mistakenly believe we practice: that the pope is impeccable and we must follow everything he says or does.
St. Cyprian, I was really just wondering that if there wasnt a Pope for last 60 years there would be no hierarchy, apostolic succession or visible Church and how could one “restore” it if it doesn’t exist to begin with so you would have to start a new one and how would that happen and how is that scenario consistent with Scripture, Tradition, or approved prophecies from the past?
Another thing is I thought the Church was suppossed to be a monarchy and if laypersons can depose a Pope doesn’t it turn more into a anarchy or democracy where the people now decide and have the right to decide who is and isnt Pope rather than those in authority. The whole structure of the Church in the way Jesus established it would be destroyed. If Jesus wanted us to have the authority to depose of Popes wouldn’t he have given us the authority to appoint them too? It doesn’t make sense to me.
I hope the next most important issue and debate will be whether canonizations are infallible or not. I think not myself.
@Johnjobilee: You said this:
–
“Just because an ‘apparent heretic’ holds the head teaching office of Our Lord’s Church doesn’t automatically mean ‘the gates of Hell have prevailed against Our Lord’s Church’, as I said above the Church is not the Pope and the Pope is not the Church, two seperate entities.”
–
You seem to imply that whether the Pope is a heretic or not is of no import to the question of whether the Church has defected. Cardinal Billot, in contrast, believed that it is of fundamental importance to the question of Church indefectability whether a papal claimant is a heretic. He believed that it is impossible for the Church to adhere to a heretic pope for, if it did, it would be adhering to a false rule of faith – indicating that the gates of hell had, in fact, prevailed over it:
–
“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: ‘THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT’; and ‘BEHOLD I SHALL BE WITH YOU ALL DAYS’. FOR THE ADHESION OF THE CHURCH TO A FALSE PONTIFF WOULD BE THE SAME AS ITS ADHESION TO A FALSE RULE OF FAITH, SEEING THAT THE POPE IS THE LIVING RULE OF FAITH WHICH THE CHURCH MUST FOLLOW AND WHICH IN FACT SHE ALWAYS FOLLOWS, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later . . .” [Caps added for emphasis]
–
So in your own small way by not treating the pope as your “living rule of faith” you are witnessing to the fact that the Church has, in fact, not defected.
As stated previously, no one can judge a Pope. Now when it comes to Bergolio et al, since I do not consider them Catholic based on what they profess, then I am not judging a Pope. Thats how I would answer your “killer” question. And since the modernist conciliar church no longer professes the Catholic faith, they can make all the claims they wish and it would matter not to anyone who knows and professes the Catholic faith. Are you so unsure of what the Church teaches that you cannot reason for yourself that what comes out of Rome these days is no longer the Catholic faith? Did not Fatima say the faith in Rome would be lost and held in Portugal? It is not beyond reason to believe that Rome has apostasized and the Church no longer resides in Rome. It is beyond reason to believe that a man who does not profess the Catholic faith can be the head of the church he is no longer a member thereof.
Johnjobilee: With those appeals to reason, are you trying to cast doubt among the faithful? I hope not.
No longer being Catholic in the spiritual realm by dint of sin of heresy by necessity happens quite some time before loss of membership of the Church in the temporal body and loss of papal office can occur.
Here is a hypothetical question for those who think I am judging the Pope. If I were to go to my local Novus Ordo church and sit down next to someone in the pew who considered themselves catholic and I asked that person a few questions like do you believe in birth control or gay marriage or the Real Presence, etc. And if they answered contrary to Church teaching, would I be sitting next to a Catholic?
Tom A: Let MSS answer the question. I didn’t ask this question without knowing the answer.
Common sense truth.
St. Cyprian, I answered your Card. Billot question above before where you originally posted it. The thing is you keep answering my questions with questions but never any answers. Why not?
” Our Most Merciful Redeemer, after He had wrought salvation for mankind on the tree of the Cross and before He ascended from out this world to the Father, said to his Apostles and Disciples, to console them in their anxiety, “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. xxviii, 20). These words, which are indeed most pleasing, are a cause of all hope and security, and they bring us, Venerable Brethren, ready succor, whenever we look round from this watch-tower raised on high and see all human society laboring amid so many evils and miseries, and the Church herself beset without ceasing by attacks and machinations. For as in the beginning this Divine promise lifted up the despondent spirit of the Apostles and enkindled and inflamed them so that they might cast the seeds of the Gospel teaching throughout the whole world; so ever since it has strengthened the Church unto her victory over the gates of hell. In sooth, Our Lord Jesus Christ has been with his Church in every age, but He has been with her with more present aid and protection whenever she has been assailed by graver perils and difficulties. For the remedies adapted to the condition of time and circumstances, are always supplied by Divine Wisdom, who reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly (Wisdom viii, 1). But in this latter age also, “the hand of the Lord is not shortened” (Isaias lix, 1), more especially since error has crept in and has spread far and wide, so that it might well be feared that the fountains of Christian life might be in a manner dried up, where men are cut off from the love and knowledge of God. …”
Miserentissimus Redemptor Encyclical on Reparation to the Sacred Heart
Pope Pius XI
May 8, 1928
You think that you can just ignore what a Pope teaches when he isn’t speaking ex cathedra? Where did you get that idea from? This is what Monsignor Fenton had to say:
–
“Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.
–
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.”
–
Citation:
–
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
–
Okay, additionally St. Thomas explains that those who render a public judgment, that they have no authority to make, are guilty of judgment by usurpation, which is a mortal sin.
St. Cyprian,
No ecclesiastical authority has jurisdiction OVER a Pope.
Regarding who has the authority to establish the crime and declare it, the Church has never settled the question, and consequently there is no Church document to cite. Some say it would have to be a general council, others say it can be the Cardinals, or perhaps a local synod, but what is obvious is that it will have to be members of the teaching Church, since these are the lawful authorities in the Church. In reality, however the Church chose to handle the situation would suffice.
Now that I’ve answered your question, I’d like you to answer Roberts to Louie, to which I’ve not gotten a reply to yet?
This is taken from your post on encyclicals: “Ulimately, however, the assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, IT IS POSSIBLE that this teaching (proposed in the ENCYCLICAL letter) IS SUBJECT TO ERROR.” Rest my case.
Well, St. Cajetan said this and other saints have said things quite similar: “One must resist a Pope who openly destroys the Church.” Seems to contradict your quote from Card. Billot.
Where exactly in my quote is there any indication that the possibility of error means that assent is not mandatory? You are misleading the faithful. Both categories of teachings require assent, just at different levels.
–
Further, this is not the final word by Monsignor Fenton on the issue. He also wrote the following article which discusses Humani Generis.
–
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/allocution.htm
–
“The first question to be considered is this: Can a speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the universal Church?
–
The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father’s encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950. According to this document: ‘if, in their ‘Acta’ the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves.’
–
Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his ‘Acta’ are authoritative. Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the ‘Acta’ of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis. Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father’s ‘Acta’ is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.”
@Rushintuit: Provide us with an example of a lay sedevacantist that has issued a formal judgment seeking to bind the universal Church. You are conflating withdrawal of obedience/avoidance with public judgment. You do that on purpose because the guileless faithful believe your false claims that they are usurping lawful Church authority when they use their reason to avoid heretics. Withdrawal of obedience/avoidance IS NOT EQUAL TO the usurpation of the lawful authority of the Church no matter how many times you wheel out that canard.
@MSS: You said this:
–
“Regarding who has the authority to establish the crime and declare it, the Church has never settled the question, and consequently there is no Church document to cite.”
–
You err by implying that the Pope is subject to canon law – there is no crime to establish – the Pope loses office as a matter of divine law. Would you mind rephrasing your statement – if you can – so that it is not erroneous? Right now the only thing that has been established is that you don’t understand that a Pope is not subject to canon law.
Plus faith really had nothing to do with my comments. They were all based on reasoning or things like taking into account what Jesus said, how the Church has always functioned, what others have written, logic common sense, etc. For example you state it’s by faith I believe that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” Not really, yes it’s by FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST that I even care that He said that to begin with but interpreting what He meant when He said that was based totally on reason not faith. So when I conclude based on reason what Jesus meant to say about gates not prevailing and than my reasoning also tells me there can’t be a visible, apostolic succeeding Church if there hasn’t been a Pope for 60 years the conclusion that there must be a pope the last 60 years is totally based on reason not faith at all. Even though you probably disagree with my conclusion I still don’t see where my faith gets in the way of or influences my reasoning.
How exactly are they contradictory other than in the sense that Cajetan apparently didn’t understand that the fact of resistance to a Pope demonstrates that the faithful have not accepted him as Pope. In other words, if Cajetan were made aware of the dogmatic fact argument, he would have to admit the resistance to a Pope means the faithful are not adhering to the Pope meaning he is no Pope at all.
If you’re right than this quote that I’m sure you have heard before makes no sense: “One must RESIST the Pope that openly destroys the Church.” ~ St. Cajetan
Before I go to sleep I’m interested in seeing how you’ll jimmyakin-spin this famous quote of St. Robert Bellermine, Doctor of the Church, to conform to your sedevacant beliefs. “Just as it licit to RESIST a Pontiff who attacks the body, so it is licit to RESIST him who attacks souls, or who disturbs the civil order, or above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. It is licit to RESIST him by NOT DOING WHAT HE ORDERS. and by impeding the execution of his will.” ~ St. Robert Bellarmine. JUST like St. Cajetan notice he doesn’t say its LICIT TO DEPOSE but LICIT TO RESIST by NOT DOING WHAT HE ORDERS, well why would we have to do what he orders if he’s not the pope anyway because we already resisted him which would mean he’s no longer the pope? Your position just doesn’t hold water with these quotes. Remember , licit to RESIST not DEPOSE, to RESIST but nothing,nada, zilch about DEPOSING. Oh and you still haven’t answered any of my questions. Not one.
Yes, because just like it is with the pope we don’t have the authority to excommunicate them. Or pro-abort politicians for that matter. Even though we know in God’s eyes, objectively speaking, they are out. technically they are still members until someone with their God-given authority declares otherwise.
I gave you the opportunity to make the correct distinctions by not making them myself and appearing to agree with you and you failed to make them. I wonder why you did not make them?
–
If a Pope is making isolated evil commands not involving the faith and that do not result in the universal Church withdrawing their adhesion from him, I agree that he can be resisted without losing his office.
–
I doubt that St. Robert would argue, though, that if the universal Church withdrew their adhesion from him because his evil acts although not subverting the faith – became so numerous and so public that the faithful could not understand how such a wicked man could be Pope – that he would nonetheless remain Pope.
–
But that isn’t the question here. Pope Francis is a heretic. According to St. Robert’s fifth opinion a manifest heretic loses office ipso facto as a matter of divine law. Heresy is an objective fact that can be determined by any properly catechized Catholic. My recognition that the Pope is professing heresy is a finding of fact, not a judgment. I know that the Almighty has constituted his Church so that to remain in it the faithful have to at all times to profess the faith whole and undefiled. The result is that anyone who publicly professes heresy judges himself a heretic and casts himself outside the Church. Pope Leo XIII taught that anyone outside the Church cannot command in the Church. So what is your point? There is no contradiction between my position and how the fifth opinion of St. Robert has been reflected in the doctrine and law of the Church over the centuries.
–
And that is why I asked you whether you treat Pope Francis as your living rule of faith. If you do not, your lack of adhesion to him in matters of faith is evidence that he is not be Pope if there are enough people like you.
–
And finally, what I set forth here has been confirmed by Cardinal Burke – that the Pope loses office by his own profession of heresy – so it appears that it is you who is in the wrong.
There, you just admitted my point and the point of every sedevacantist. You said that “Even though, objectively speaking, they are out.” I will agree with you all day long that subjectively speaking we have no power to judge anyone or declare anything or excommunicate anyone. For these subjective issue require authority. That is why God is ultimate judge because he subjectively knows all. Us mere mortals can only observe objectively. So when someone declares and professes openly that they no longer profess the Catholic faith, we must believe them for we cannot then subjectively say they perhaps didnt mean what they said. We must leave all subjectivity with God and His Church and only deal in what objective truth we observe. For the sake of our own salvation and those of our families we must make objective judgments as to whether or not what we are hearing from the pulpit is Catholic or not. If it is not, then we must for salvations sake avoid that place for it no longer professes the Catholic faith and objectively is not Catholic.
The reason why sedevacantists and R&R trads will never agree is because sedes approach the problem from a theological objective view while R&R trads see it as a canonical subjective issue. We are talking past each other at every oppurtunity.
Why is there not a reply indicator under each box, enabling one to reply under their comment box? What a screwy setup. My comment is intended for St. Cyprian over Tom’s comment box.
St. Cyprian,
I no more implied the pope is subject to Canon Law than did Siscoe when he repeated numerous times in his articles the pope is not subject to the positive law, and cannot incur an excommunication. And at the same time, he has always said the church must establish the crime before the pope loses his office. This is precisely why I sent you and Tom the link proving that the Church can judge the pope in the case of heresy. Since you are vigorously avoiding the question asked by Siscoe to Louie, I’ll ask one more time. Can you provide even one authoritative citation saying an individual can privately judge the pope to have lost his office, against the Church’s judgment that he continues to be a pope holding office? If you don’t answer this time, and persist in your error that the pope is an antipope, I’ll have to conclude you are a person of ill will. I don’t intend to waste more time here with someone who refuses to admit to being wrong.
MSS, How about the part where St Paul tells us to avoid anyone preaching a gospel different than the one given even if it appears as an angel from heaven. Authoritative enough? And seeing how we are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, I see no way how we can avoid someone we are subject too.
I wonder if Mr Siscoe or any other R&R trad would let Francis teach his kids or grandkids’ CCD class? If not, why not? Is he not the highest teaching authority of the Church?
If you would ask the typical Catholic in the N.O. what do you think of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, I believe the answer would be: “Who? What?”. My point is that the SSPX deserves much credit for preserving the true faith, especially the true liturgy, but the leadership is not aggressively Militant. They seem to confine their apostolate primarily within their own organization. While this does much good, I sincerely wish they would become more mainstream. Where are their ads in local papers, TV outreaches, billboards etc. I am basically talking about the SSPX leadership, not individual priests or faithful members. Have they PUBLICLY spoken up about the Dubia, the Presidential election, the errors of Francis? Does anyone see my point? I would love to be corrected by anyone who is more intelligent and more informed. Thank you.
The info I posted here is taken from the first post in this series.
They are an elite priestly body of men who do not show the grit & determination of their founder. Admittedly the Modernist leadership of the CC since VII has been antagonistic towards them as to be expected but then the followers of Christ have always suffered trials & persecution of one sort or another since the time of the First Apostles. If they are to be fully regularised they must have the faculties to run parishes according to the Old Rite which was never abrogated, but nonetheless not allowed by NO Bishops, with the result that in some parts of the world they are free to minister while in other parts they are not. They should never have been content with this situation as it prevented them from being known to the majority of Catholics who, if they could have had access to the Old Rite, would have been fully supportive.
I don’t know if it would be feasible to have two officials rites in the CC – one working against the other so to speak, but that is happening anyway. It is not satisfactory, though, that some Catholics are enabled to continue in the faith of our fathers while others cannot. It is not charitable nor is it Catholic.That question hasn’t been properly answered yet & I hope Bishop Schneider & Archbishop Pozzo will be able to enlighten us as to when it will be.
Your most recent post is self-contradictory. First, you rightly admit that no subordinate has the jurisdiction to judge the Pope, and that the Pope is not subject to canon law. That means no one has the power to try and to judge (i.e., jurisdiction over) the Pope for an ecclesiastical crime, e.g., a delict of heresy.
–
Next you argue that some agency of the Church has the authority to establish and declare that the Pope has committed a crime and therefore has lost his office. The first problematic aspect of this statement is your reference to “crime”. What “crime” exactly did you have in mind? You have already admitted that the Pope is not subject to canon law, so he cannot be tried for crimes set forth in canon law. So which “crimes” are being established? Where exactly are these “crimes” set forth?
–
What you are doing here I believe is obfuscating that the public sin of heresy – the existence of which any properly catechized catholic can observe – is enough to establish that the Pope has, in fact, lost his office. The proper analysis requires that you call it what it in fact is – a sin. Using “crime” and “sin” interchangeably – if that is, in fact,what you are doing – is erroneous and misleading.
–
The second problematic aspect of your statement that some agency of the Church has the authority to establish that a crime has been committed and to declare that the Pope has lost his office as a result is your reference to “authority to establish and to declare”. This sure sounds like the power to judge, i.e., JURISDICTION. You have admitted that no agency of the Church has the power to judge (JURISDICTION OVER) the Pope, and a few sentences later you claim that an agency of the Church does have the power to judge the Pope, except you call it “establishing that a crime has been committed” and “declaring the fact” of the crime. That is a distinction without a difference.
–
Since you apparently don’t understand that you are arguing that some agency of the Church has retained jurisdiction over the Pope I will bring to your attention those provisions of Vatican I which condemn your position:
–
“8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
–
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or THAT HE HAS THE PRINCIPAL PART AND NOT THE ABSOLUTE FULLNESS, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Careful analysis of these paragraphs indicates that no jurisdiction that is superior to that of the Pope is preserved in any agency of the Church FOR ANY REASON, including to try and to judge the Pope if he becomes a heretic. In fact, it is an anathematized error merely to make such a claim, e.g., to argue that the Pope “has the principal part and not the absolute fullness of the supreme power” of jurisdiction so that some agency of the Church maintains sufficient jurisdiction over the Pope to try him if he becomes a heretic.
Siscoe does not present the true position of the sedevacantists. If you want to know their position, go to their sources. Novusordowatch.org and Bishop Sanborn’s website http://www.fathercekada.com.
Listen to Novusordowatch’s tradcasts are worth listening to.
I give you credit Tom A. I am basically done on this site when it comes to arguing the common-sense sede, de-fide point of truth. Their “pope’ promotes the mortal sin of adultery…..what is the point of debating with them anymore? As long as they call mr bergoglio a “pope” then they are lost. They live to deny the Catholic Faith….you need to stop wasting your time on them…they have seen the Truth and have turned their backs on it. For some reason they are hung up on the falsity that a heretic can be elected the leader of a heretical sect and STILL be called a true pope. Unreal.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“In reality it is an extraordinary gift that God has made us in giving us the Pope, in giving us the successors of Peter, giving us precisely this perpetuity in truth communicated to us through the successors of Peter, that must be communicated to us through them. And it seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in any way to transmit the truth that he is obliged to transmit. Indeed, without virtually disappearing from the line of succession he cannot fail to communicate that which the popes have always communicated, the Deposit of Faith which does not belong to him alone.
The Deposit of Faith does not belong to the Pope. It is the treasure of truth which has been taught during twenty centuries. He must transmit it faithfully and exactly to all those under him who are charged in turn to communicate the truth of the Gospel. He is not free.
But should it happen because of mysterious circumstances which we cannot understand, which baffle our imagination, which go beyond our conception, if it should happen that a pope, he who is seated on the throne of Peter, comes to obscure in some way the truth which it is his duty to transmit or if he does not transmit it faithfully or allows error to darken truth or hide it in any way, then we must pray to God with all our hearts, with all our soul, that light continues to be thrown on that which he is charged to transmit.
And we cannot follow error, change truth, just because the one who is charged with transmitting it is weak and allows error to spread around him. We don’t want the darkness to encroach on us. We want to live in the light of truth. We remain faithful to that which has been taught for two thousand years. That what has been taught for 2,000 years and which is part of eternity could change is inconceivable.
Because it is eternity which has been taught to us. It is the eternal God, Jesus Christ eternal God, and everything which is centered on God is centered on eternity. Never can the Trinity be changed. Never can the redemptive work of Christ through the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass be changed. These things are eternal. They belong to God. How can someone here below change those things? Who is the priest who feels he has the right to change those things, to modify them? Impossible!
When we possess the past we possess the present and we possess the future. Because it is impossible, I say metaphysically impossible, to separate the past from the present and future. Impossible! Then God would no longer be God! God would no longer be eternal! God would no longer be immutable. And there would be nothing more to believe in. We would be completely in error.
This is why, without worrying about all that is happening around us in these times we ought to close our eyes to the horror of this drama we are living through, close our eyes and affirm our Creed, our Ten Commandments, meditate on the Sermon on the Mount which is also our law. We must attach ourselves to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to the Sacraments awaiting the light that will shine around us again. That is all. We must do this without becoming bitter or violent in a spirit that is unfaithful to Our Lord. Let us stay charitable. Let us pray, suffer, accept all the trials, everything that happens, everything that God sends us. Let us do as Tobias did. Abandoned by everyone as they went to adore the golden calf of the gods of the pagans, he remained faithful. Still, he too could have thought that, since only he remained faithful it might be that he was mistaken. But no, he knew that whatever God had taught to his forebears could not change. The truth of God existed and could not change. And so it is with us. We too have to rely upon the truth that is God yesterday, today and tomorrow. Jesus Christus heri, hodie et in secula.
And that is why I say we must retain our confidence in the papacy. We must retain confidence in the successor of Peter in so far as he is the successor of Peter. But if it should happen that he were not perfectly faithful in his duties, then we must remain faithful to those who were the successors of Peter and not to him who is not the successor of Peter. That is all. His duty is to transmit the Deposit of the Faith.”
Archbishop Lefebvre:
(…)”But God has wanted it this way. He continues to try us. Very well, if that is His will so it must be and we must continue to carry the cross. It is not because He imposes crosses that we may abandon Him. On the contrary, we may not abandon Our Lord. We must follow Him.
And so, my dear friends, be faithful ‑ faithful to the Pope, successor of Peter when he shows himself to be truly the successor of Peter. Because that is what a pope is and it is in this sense we have need of him. We are not the people who want to break with the authority of the Church, with the successor of Peter. But neither are we people who want to break with twenty centuries of tradition in the Church, with twenty centuries of successors of Peter!
We have made our choice. We have chosen to be obedient in the real sense, obedient to what all the Popes have taught for 20 centuries and we cannot imagine that he who sits on Peter’s throne does not want to teach these things. Well, if that is the case then God will judge him. But we cannot go into error because there is a kind of rupture in the chain of the successors of Peter. We want to remain faithful to the successors of Peter who transmitted to us the Deposit of the Faith. It is in this sense that we are faithful to the Catholic Church, that we remain within it and can never go into schism. Since we are attached to twenty centuries of Faith we cannot make a schism. That is what guarantees for us the past, the present and the future. It is impossible to separate the past from the present and the future. Sustaining ourselves with the past we are sure of the present and the future.
So have confidence! Ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to help us under all circumstances. She is as strong as an army arrayed for battle. She who suffered as Queen of Martyrs at the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And will we not follow Our Blessed Mother and with her be ready to suffer martyrdom so that the work of redemption can continue?”
The vatican 2 popes are not blind to error nor are they simply too stupid to know God’s Truth. My gosh all of them who have been elevated to that (undeserved lofty and FALSE position) are SO much more intelligent than any of us. They are EVIL. They always were EVIL and continue to be EVIL. There is NO good in any of the vatican 2 false popes as they have ALL subscribed to a protestant religion which FULLY contradicts our Lord’s one true Catholic Faith. Why in the world are trads (primarily the sspx) still defending this protestant filth? The more you learn of the Faith…as is your Catholic duty. (St John Vianney)…the more you will be beholden to.
4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness;
with you, evil people are not welcome.
5 The arrogant cannot stand
in your presence.
You hate all who do wrong;
6 you destroy those who tell lies.
The bloodthirsty and deceitful
you, Lord, detest.
Psalm 5:4-6
Proverbs 6:16-19
16 Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief,
19 A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren
Proverbs 6:16-19
Note that seventh thing…sowing discord among brethren- is a thing the Lord’s soul DETESTS.
Thank you siscoe for what? He and salza defend bergoglio, who in turn defends transvestite deviants. Let the masonic salza and his buddy siscoe go where they may. They are looking to make money….they arent Catholics.
Rich, thank you for the excellent example of what sedevacantism is about: Lies and character assassination. Will over intellect. Emotion, of the worst kind, dominating debate.
–
You & I both know that you’re committing the sin of calumny above, since John Salza publicly renounced freemasonry many, many years ago and in fact has written books exposing its errors, evils, and incompatibility with the Catholic faith. (And Mr. Siscoe? Never affiliated with it in any form, I am quite sure.)
–
Here is a bit of what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about calumny:
–
“In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction.”
–
Yes, I know you & some of the least savory sede leaders (the ones you’re following, evidently) assert that he “must still be a mason” because, well, he’s not a sedevacantist! He’s “defending” Pope Francis. What absolute inanity. Any thinking person can see this is absolutely nonsensical – and, since there is absolutely zero evidence that Salza is a mason, to claim so publicly is indeed *calumny*.
–
As for them “defending Bergoglio,” this again speaks to the heart of sedevacantism. Salza, Siscoe, & the entire Recognize & Resist movement, which includes the SSPX, are and always have been *all about* attacking the errors of Pope Francis as well as his predecessors. Again, anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of this.
–
But, no, we won’t let our emotions lead the show and declare the Pope to not be the Pope, since that simply isn’t the case.
Sorry to see you misunderstand things, professor. You completely misunderstood Burke. The good Cardinal knows very well that a pope being a “heretic” in the sense that matters means *he has been judged so by the Church*. That is what Bellarmine taught, and absolutely no theologian, ever, taught that private persons could decide pertinacity in heresy, thus depriving a pontiff or any other prelate of his office.
–
I’m going to cut & paste from a recent comment of mine in another forum:
–
A “manifest heretic,” by definition, means someone judged such *by the Church*. That is what the theologians have taught, all of them, and that is the critical piece missing from the analysis above. I can’t decide who is a manifest heretic. Fr. Cekada doesn’t have the authority to decide, nor does Bishop Sanborn, nor does Mario Derkson.
–
As Bellarmine explained, as the Church is involved in binding a man to the form of the papacy, so must She be involved in separating him from it, should that occur.
–
I think this is covered here:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
–
The problem with the sedes is they constantly quote very selectively, giving the impression that their position is supported, when it is not.
–
(Think about it for a moment: Could the Church really work the way you’re suggesting? What if Pius V became a public heretic (by *someone’s* opinion), but for some reason this wasn’t recorded by history, and thus Trent was never actually ratified? Now what is certain in the Church?)
–
As for what is the “true opinion,” the Church has not ruled on these matters, so, unless you claim the charism of infallibility, we don’t know. But that doesn’t matter, because the *only* differences amongst all the major theologians who ever spoke on the topic is whether or not a judgement by the Church is necessary to declare a manifest heretic pontiff deposed or not – all agree beyond any doubt that there must have been a judgement to declare his heresy manifest in the first place.
–
In addition to the above, it is necessary to keep two critical distinctions in mind in these matters:
–
— The Body vs. the Soul of the Church. Occult heretics are not separated from the Body (and, again, formal heresy requires either direct rejection of the Church (“I am no longer a Catholic; I reject the Catholic Church”) or an ecclesiastical judgement of pertinacity.
–
— The sin vs. the crime of heresy. The sin, which lies in the internal forum which is judged only by God, does not sever from the Body. Crimes are established by the Church.
–
I understand these things can be quite confusing; we all should not have to be theologians to navigate this crisis. But, we don’t, because they have spoken.
If you believe the “Conciliar Church” is not the Catholic Church, you’re professing heresy.
–
The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
You put it mildly. “Attacking the errors….” They are not simply errors, they are heresies to anyone who knows their catechism. It is frustrating to see so much effort and time being squandered by so many who insist on calling non-catholics, Catholic. I dont know why so many trads refuse to acknowledge that the Schism has already happened. Why do so many stick with the heretical sect that managed to retain legal ownership to the property deeds? Of course its time to continue resisting the heretics, but its time some folks in the trad movement to “recognize” a heretic when he openly professes his heresy.
This is “not true”? It is what the theologians have taught, uniformly, with no contention, but you can just say it’s “not true”?
–
Siscoe was, of course, talking about dogmatic facts – practical aspects of dogmas that must be regarded as infallible if the dogma itself is to be meaningful. The election of a pontiff is one such area, because if the Church could not rely on the fact of pope being legitimate, nothing in the Church would ever be certain. What if Pius V was not really a pope but nobody knew it, and so Trent was never actually ratified and its dogmas are null? See where this goes?
–
This is some of what Cardinal Billot had to say: “Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: ***the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself***. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ (…) As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of anycondition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
–
What this means is that we have to be able to rely on the public acceptance of pontiff (especially by the episcopate) as a guarantee that he is actually pope, period.
–
It may be have “clear Francis was a modernist” to you, a private individual with no authority, but your statement is meaningless anyway. To be deprived from office, a pontiff’s heresy must be established (pertinacity of will) BY THE CHURCH, not by any private individual. That is was every single theologian has taught – every one, including Bellarmine.
–
“Mr. Siscoe’s whole argument is based on the assumption that a modernist can be a Catholic.” Actually, you have a basis of gross oversimplification regarding Catholic doctrine. Here are some things you appear to have not considered (the same things, coincidentally, the sede leaders misunderstand and ignore):
–
— The sin vs. the crime of heresy. The former lies in the internal forum and is judged only by God. The latter is judged, by definition, *by the Church*. There has, of course, been no such judgement by the Church regarding Pope Francis, as yet.
–
— The Body vs. the soul of the Church. Ecclesiastical office lies in the realm of the former. As a matter of fact, the theology of the Church came to the conclusion that the sin of heresy does not separate one from the Body. If that were the case, no one would ever have any knowledge of who was a member of the Church, including any prelate, including any pope.
–
Francis is a member of the Church, united to the Body, because he is baptized Catholic under not convicted of any ecclesiastical crime. These are the facts. This doesn’t mean you have to like him, or think he is a good pope, by any means.
The set of defined dogmas of the Catholic Church is exactly the same now as in 1958.
“It just goes to show that the dogmatic fact is the necessity of the office of the papacy, not whether its occupied or not. History has many examples of vacancies lasting months or years and other examples of two or three popes at the same time.”
–
“It certainly is a mystery what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. Visibility doesn’t mean the whole world has to see it. Remember, at one time the Church was just 12 men in an upper room.”
–
Tom, no offense, but comments like this illustrate that you should be willing to do a lot more learning regarding the theology of the Church.
–
Your first statement is nonsensical. The dogmatic facts in question concern the public acceptance of actual popes – the binding of the man to the office. The office of the papacy IS the dogma connecting to these facts.
–
More importantly, you completely missed the point. What the theologians taught (this was never a point of any contention) is that the public acceptance of a pope by a moral unanimity of the Church is a guarantee he is a true pope – such obviously did NOT occur in the (very few) instances of multiple claimants to the papacy. In those cases there was (be definition) no moral unanimity.
–
The Church has taught – this is de fide (Vatican I) – that the office of the papacy will have perpetual successors: “Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
–
Fr. Berry (whom sedes quote) explains that the popes, “form an unbroken line,” and that, “the Church must *ever have a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” In the cases of multiple claimants there was still a single true pope, though in those cases – and those only – his identity was NOT publicly known (until the matter was settled *by the Church*).
–
Regarding visibility, the theologians teach that once the Church achieved formal visibility throughout the world (formal visibility entails the Church being able to be identified for what She is – the true Church – by Her four marks) – this property cannot be lost. The fact that at its beginning this fact of universal formal visibility did not exist is not relevant.
–
Read “True Or False Pope,” or read the articles on the website at least. You will learn a lot, I promise.
Cyprian, you are one of the more impressive sophists I’ve encountered.
–
Sedes don’t issue “formal judgments” (what would that look like?), they just DECLARE, on their own authority, that men who were & are accepted by the Catholic Church – the very same visible, hierarchical Church that Christ founded (point of fact) – as pope were and are not popes. This, in fact, is EXACTLY what the Fourth Council of Constantinople condemned, in an even broader sense (any bishop). Let’s take a look at that again:
–
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
It is patently ridiculous for you to try to convince people that you are other dogmatic sedevacantists are not violating this censure, or St. Thomas’ teaching against “judgement by usurpation” more generally.
–
Specific withdrawal of obedience – material separation – is the situation the SSPX have been forced in to (by adherence to divine law), not what the sedevacantists are preaching. They are preaching formal separation from the “false Vatican II church,” declarations that the popes are not popes, and more. Everyone knows this.
–
As for heresy and loss of office, again, according to every theologian that has ever uttered a word on the subject – as well as common sense – it is formal heresy that is relevant and this (pertinacity of will) is something the Church must establish. But you know that.
Again your ignorance of these topics is demonstrated: The common opinion among the Churches theologians, popes, and canon law itself (si papa) is that heresy is the only exception whereby the First See can be judged by the Church. References are very easy to locate.
No, Tom, actually the Recognize & Resist movement simply considers all the facts, while the dogmatic sedes consider a subset: They selectively quote theologians and generally completely ignore critical distinctions such as the internal vs. external forum, Body & Soul of the Church, and sin vs. ecclesiastical crime.
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch.html
Your statement indicates you don’t even understand the semantics of the phrase “recognize & resist.” (Hint: That second word.)
Yeah, right.
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch.html
Yes, Rich, I realize you are “frustrated”; emotions causing the will to override your intellect explains a great deal of the sedevacantist phenomena.
My blood presure doesnt rise in the slightest when I talk about Salza and Siscoe. They are what they are and I am well aware of it. BTW, have you ever visited the :true or false pope” site? Maybe it’s just me, but they don’t come across as being very friendly. Maybe the pot here calling the kettle black?
I misspoke on one thing that I said and I apologize for it. I should have phrased my last words thusly: They arent ACTING AS Catholics.
The SSPX have legit bishops and there are a number of sede bishops who are legit as well. There is most certainly still a “legitimate hierarchy” that exists, and will continue to exist as more legitimate priests are consecrated as bishops. Christ’s ACTUAL Church will never fail, just as He promised us.
I fully understood his point. Your condescension, as knowledgeable as you are, does you a disservice. Recognition and Resistance, on matters of dogma and morality, to a valid Catholic Pope is a mortal sin.
Im assuming you are getting paid by them for your countless plugs? Newsflash…..if we havent read it by now we arent going to. Last I heard, they are still, while darned smart, very fallible.
You misspeak virtually every time your fingers hit keyboard here. In the post in question you “misspoke” by calumniating Salza & Siscoe: By asserting they are freemasons, by stating they are not Catholic, and by stating they are in this “for the money.” (If only you knew what an utterly ridiculous one especially that last one is.)
–
Now, if you’re going to soften one of them to “not acting as Catholics,” you’re still far off the mark. They’re providing quite an excellent service to Jesus Christ and His Church by combatting the errors and evil of dogmatic sede vacantism.
They’re not “friendly”? If you want the Church Of Nice, Rich, you should seek out the most liberal nearby Novus Ordo parish.
–
Sometimes the tone is sharp, to be sure. This is a subjective area. The people they are combatting – Fr. Cekada, Mario Derkson, Lane, etc. – have, in my opinion, shown a stunning lack of charity and lack of intellectual honestly, especially in the first two cases above, for many years. They have been the worst type of bullies to anyone who could not toe their line of private judgement (anyone who knows what the Church really teaches on these matters, basically). They have caused great scandal and are reaping what they sowed.
I’m being condescending by pointing out that Tom doesn’t understand the essence of the Recognize & Resist position, but then you declare it a “mortal sin”? I think Tom should do more study before finding the confidence to proclaim that the man the entire Church and the entire world recognizes as the Pope is not really the Pope. In any case, if I am not always as charitable as possible – and perhaps I am not – that’s unrelated to the argumentation here, which is what matters.
–
As for resisting the errors of prelates (who are actually prelates) being “mortal sin,” where are your references on that? Nowhere, as usual. As a matter of fact, the teaching of the Church is that Catholics *should* resist prelates teaching error, and publicly correct them. I’ll go ahead and give a few references right now (forgive me from copying from a past post of mine).
–
Sedevacantists like the papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio because they think it justifies their position. However, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio speaks of *valid popes*: “the Roman Pontiff… who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the faith”. Here we have a veritable R&R proof-text, don’t we? We have a Supreme Pontiff telling us in a papal bull no less that the faithful should, indeed, “contradict” (resist) a pope who has “deviated from the faith”.
–
Implicit in the statement is the notion that human beings must be willing to use their intellects to determine what is congruent with the defined, infallible Faith and what is not. He is to be resisted, but certainly there no justification for declaring him deposed.
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from De Membris Ecclesiae, as quoted in True Or False Pope, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, *the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings*” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
I make my money writing software. You’re again committing calumny, but it is pretty clear you aren’t much concerned with such things. (This is again in keeping with the sede spirit: Judge everyone – including even “deposing” popes & bishops from their ecclesiastical offices via magic – except the guy in the mirror.)
–
I debate not for you, but for the audience here. (An old mentor of mine, who taught Thomistic philosophy for 40 years, taught me that.)
–
Me, Salza, & Siscoe are all very fallible indeed, which is why we rely on what the Church teaches, and don’t pretend to be able to depose popes before She does.
With no offense intended, your implicit chain of logic here is extremely simplistic, completely ignoring several critical factors, and also – rather clearly, just by the text – driven by emotion.
–
*The* pope – the man the visible, apostolic Church Christ founded has accepted as pope, making this a dogmatic fact that cannot be denied without sinning against the theological virtue of Faith – is indeed essentially promoting adultery, of a sort, or at the very least giving it a pass, and this indeed implies a horrible crisis in the Church.
–
Your root error is the common sedevacantist one: A total failure to distinguish between the sin and the crime of heresy. The former lies in the internal forum which, as the Church and common sense teaches, only God can judge. The latter, by definition, is something the Church declares. There’s been no declaration of pertinacity in heresy by the Church against Pope Francis. (The Church teaches that heresy is the one exception for which a pope can be judged by the Church.)
–
Though I, myself, don’t think it is the case, it is possible that Pope Francis is seriously confused about Church teaching, or suffering from a mental handicap, etc. In other words, it is entirely possible he has not rejected the Church as Teacher of the Faith, which is actually the defining element of formal heresy according to the Church.
–
As Bellarmine teaches, as the Church binds a man (matter) to the office (form) of the papacy, so must She be involved in severing that bond, should such a thing occur.
–
And, as Bellarmine and every single other theologian – without exception – who taught on this matter agree, the Church must, at the very least, warn a wayward pontiff, twice, then make a declaration of formal heresy, which is what predisposes him to be severed from the office of the papacy. (Where the theologians disagree is whether the pope falls from his office directly from *this* declaration, or whether another, by an imperfect council, specifically stripping him, is necessary.)
–
What you preach leads immediately to both anarchy and heresy. The former, because anybody, really, can decide “the pope is now a heretic,” the latter, because your position denies the visibility of the Church, one of Her necessary attributes. The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestant definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
These are some of the reasons we have to move beyond the, “The pope said something that sounds heretical – he’s not the pope!” mindset.
I’m just going to repeat some of my last response to your post here, which is more of the same (but even more emotional).
–
With no offense intended, your implicit chain of logic here is extremely simplistic, completely ignoring several critical factors, and also – rather clearly, just by the text – driven by emotion.
–
Your root error is the common sedevacantist one: A total failure to distinguish between the sin and the crime of heresy. The former lies in the internal forum which, as the Church and common sense teaches, only God can judge. The latter, by definition, is something the Church declares. There’s been no declaration of pertinacity in heresy by the Church against Pope Francis. (The Church teaches that heresy is the one exception for which a pope can be judged by the Church.)
–
Though I, myself, don’t think it is the case, it is possible that Pope Francis is seriously confused about Church teaching, or suffering from a mental handicap, etc. In other words, it is entirely possible he has not rejected the Church as Teacher of the Faith, which is actually the defining element of formal heresy according to the Church.
–
As Bellarmine teaches, as the Church binds a man (matter) to the office (form) of the papacy, so must She be involved in severing that bond, should such a thing occur.
–
And, as Bellarmine and every single other theologian – without exception – who taught on this matter agree, the Church must, at the very least, warn a wayward pontiff, twice, then make a declaration of formal heresy, which is what predisposes him to be severed from the office of the papacy. (Where the theologians disagree is whether the pope falls from his office directly from *this* declaration, or whether another, by an imperfect council, specifically stripping him, is necessary.)
–
What you preach leads immediately to both anarchy and heresy. The former, because anybody, really, can decide “the pope is now a heretic,” the latter, because your position denies the visibility of the Church, one of Her necessary attributes. The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestant definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
These are some of the reasons we have to move beyond the, “The pope said something that sounds heretical – he’s not the pope!” mindset.
Cyprian: “Cardinal Billot had this to say about a true Pope being “living rule of faith”:
–
“For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows . . .””
–
This is a complete red herring: The Cardinal didn’t say a thing about how a “false Pontiff” is determined. He did say this, though: “Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: ***the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself***. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ (…) As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of anycondition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
–
There’s that darned dogmatic fact problem again for you sedes. Oh, those pesky teachings of the Church.
I am only concerned with spreading the Catholic Faith. I denounce the vatican 2 religion just as I do any other false religion….this is not calumny, this is simply my Catholic duty. Maybe your Thomistic older bud should have taught you that.
“Good questions, but it still doesnt prove that a non Catholic can be head of the Catholic Church. I would rather defend the former position than keep trying to explain how Francis is a Catholic. Francis does not profess the true faith. I dont think there is a soul in this forum that disagrees with that statement.”
–
In point of fact, a baptized Catholic is part of the Body of the Church unless and until he is severed from it by excommunication – a canonical act of the Church – or he publicly renounces it. Neither applies to Pope Francis, currently.
–
The *sin* of heresy deprived one entirely of the theological virtue of Faith, plunges the soul into moral sin, and severs him from the Soul of the Church. These are separate elements of the same entity.
–
The theologians recognize that if the sin of heresy severed one from the Body of the Church, no one could ever know who was really a member – or what prelate really held his office. The Church would be a free-for-all where every person could decide if his bishop had lost his office or not – in other words, sedevacantism. And if that were the case, nothing in the Church would have ever been certain.
Cyprian: You lecturing Jon on faith vs. reason because he pointed out that there’s no mechanism to “restart” the Church after it’s disappeared is quite rich. (Sophistic, even.)
–
More pertinent is the fact that sedevacantism leads to the heresy of denying the visibility of the Church, which you’ve pretty much made clear here.
–
I’ll repeat this. The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestant definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be formally visible.)
Johnjobilbee said this:
–
“It’s really not about whether there’s a pope or not but if there’s a hierarchy. If not than, imo, there’s no visible Church. This probably happened if we didn’t have a pope for 60 years but like i said before I don’t believe it did.”
–
Cyprian: “Johnjobilbee starts with his reason to measure what he believes by faith – so if there is an apparent contradiction between what he “believes by faith” and his reason he will twist what he “believes by faith” to comport with his reason. The result? He believes that “the gates of hell have not prevailed against Our Lord’s Church” while an apparent heretic holds the head teaching office of Our Lord’s Church. Cognitive dissonance much?”
–
I’ll say it again: You’re either a sophist to the extreme or enormously confused. Every post is a taunt without definitive content that appears – to me at least – to be designed to do nothing but sow confusion.
–
It’s a good thing you used the word “apparent” above – apparently some part of you recognizes the fact that you don’t have the authority to declare the pope a manifest heretic? No, you do not: Only the Church can do that, as every single theologian, including Bellarmine, who ever spoke on the subject declared. We’re speaking of the ecclesiastical *crime* of heresy, which is was in pertinent regarding public office, not the sin of heresy, which resides in the internal forum.
–
You may have lost faith in the Church – for the Catholic Church today is still absolutely still the same visible, apostolic Body it was in 1958 – but not all of us have. Francis has never attempted to promulgate his errors de fide. He is being resisted, and he *may* be deposed after a declaration of pertinacity in heresy, but this has not yet occurred. Those are the facts.
Cyprian: “(1) Which Church authorities in your estimation HAVE THE JURISDICTION to make such a judgment, and (2) what document of the Church do you rely upon to establish that such Church authorities do, in fact, have jurisdiction?”
–
Are you really so unfamiliar with the teachings of the Church, for all your bluster here and for everything that’s been presented to you in the past? It is the common opinion of both the theologians and the papal office that heresy is the one exception for which a sitting pope can be judged by the Church.
–
Here are two references:
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
What is this idea that you guys cling to, about ” if the world accepts someone as a pope then he is surely a pope?” if bergoglio tomorrow claimed that satan is God, and the world (in general) accepted it, would he continue to be a valid pope? This premise…that if the masses say yea then it is yea….is so much garbage. As smart as I know you to be you really need to STOP using this baseless argument when it comes to proving whether or not a certain man is a valid pope.
A heretic separates themselves from the Catholic Church, and one who is separated from the Catholic Church cannot possibly be the head of it. My younger kids have no problem getting this common sense tenet…..and my “younger” kids are all younger than 18. But YET s and s need to write a 700 page book rejecting this simple fact. Jorge cannot be a pope because he is not a Catholic….he is not a Catholic because he is a heretic…..he is a heretic because he sets forth teachings that oppose Catholicism. See how easy it is to understand the sede POV?
Tom: “As stated previously, no one can judge a Pope. Now when it comes to Bergolio et al, since I do not consider them Catholic based on what they profess, then I am not judging a Pope.”
–
“… I do not consider them Catholic… I am not judging…” LOL! Do you not see the ridiculous irony in that statement?
–
As for the first sentence, again, it is the common opinion of both the theologians and the papal office that heresy is the one exception for which a sitting pope can be judged by the Church.
–
Here are two references:
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
To drive the point home, since you keep repeating it, you’re completely wrong that the pope cannot be judged – or at least forced to judge himself – in the case of pertinacious heresy. You appear to be totally unaware of this.
–
Here are those two references again, and there are more (I’m keeping this succinct):
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
So much for your “careful analysis.” But then you’re not a trained theologian, are you?
Catholic Thinker said this:
–
“— The Body vs. the Soul of the Church. Occult heretics are not separated from the Body (and, again, formal heresy requires either direct rejection of the Church (“I AM NO LONGER A CATHOLIC I REJECT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”) or an ecclesiastical judgement of pertinacity.”
–
Pope Leo XIII said this:
–
“In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, CAN IT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO REJECT ANY ONE OF THESE TRUTHS WITHOUT BY THAT VERY FACT FALLING INTO HERESY?-WITHOUT SEPARATING HIMSELF FROM THE CHURCH?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?” Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
–
Pope Leo XIII sets forth here that rejection of a single one of the truths of the Church is enough to fall into heresy and to seperate oneself from the Church. Do you even realize you are contradicting him by arguing that an heretic has to do something different from what Pope Leo XIII described?
@Catholic Thinker: Where did I deny the visibility of the Church?
I truly enjoy your posts. As far as people like “a catholic thinker” , I wouldnt recommend losing sleep over them. They live and die with siscoe and salza…..one is a 32nd degree mason and the other is a lawyer….and all lawyers make their money through lies.
@Catholic Thinker: What facts in your estimation establish that the faithful adhere to Pope Francis as the “living rule of faith”?
@Catholic Thinker: What facts do you rely upon to conclude that the faithful adhere to Pope Francis as “the living rule of faith”?
Do you think I forgotten my response to you from last year? Those laws arose out of schism of a superior not heresy. I provided you with two examples where Popes specifically empowered the faithful to withdraw their obedience with impunity from an heretical papal usurper – the first being Cum Ex Aposolatus Officio and the second a constitution of Pope Julius II involving simoniacal claimants. Both permitted the faitthful to withdraw their obedience and avoid an heretical papal usurper (since Pope Julius II apparently considered simony to be a species of heresy) in the absence of a Church declaration. “Impunity” means that to the extent that a prior law (like the one you are referring to) of the Church may have subjected the faithful to a criminal sanction they were to be held as faultless for the mere act of withdrawing their obedience and avoiding the papal usurpers.
@Catholic Thinker: Are the references you are relying upon binding on the faithful?
–
I rely upon these provisions of Vatican I for my position:
–
“8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
–
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or THAT HE HAS THE PRINCIPAL PART AND NOT THE ABSOLUTE FULLNESS, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” [Caps added for emphasis]
–
I believe these provisions are binding on the faithful. Do you disagree with that? They also provide that no jurisdiction is preserved in any agency of the Church that is superior to that of the Pope to try and to judge the Pope (actions where jurisdiction would be exercised over the Pope) were the Pope to become a heretic. Do you disagree with my conclusions regarding these provisions? Does anything else in Vatican I contradict my claim about the import of these provisions? Since the above provisions of Vatican I are so clear, and since I believe they are binding on the faithful, I don’t see how you can maintain your apparent position that an agency of the Church can exercise jurisdiction over the Pope by trying and judging him for the sin of heresy.
@Catholic Thinker: Do you even understand the concept of jurisdiction? For some agency of the Church to perform an action where they try and judge the Pope for a crime, or to force the Pope in some way to admit that he committed a crime that agency would have to be exercising jurisdiction that agency possesses over the Pope.
–
If the agency of the Church does not possess jurisdiction it can do nothing, But I am sure you really understand the argument because you continually argue that the faithful are usurping the authority of the Church when they allegedly judge and declare the Pope to be a heretic. Well, guess what = Vatican I in this instance spells out there is nothing to usurp!
@Catholic Thinker: You are the one claiming that sedes are usurping the authority of the Church by issuing a declaration that seeks to bind the Church to their decision regarding the Pope.
–
A declaration issued by the Church I assume has a particular form and for a lay sede to be guilty of what you are accusing them of, wouldn’t they have to adopt that form?
–
Otherwise, isn’t what you are doing is analogizing some action or actions of sedes who do not palm off a declaration written by themselves but do something else as being like or similar to writing such a declaration?
–
For instance, when Father Jenkins states that “he can’t definitively state that Pope Francis is not the Pope, he just doesn’t see how it is possible in view of all that he has done how he can be the Pope”. is Father Jenkins making a declaration like you claim?
Cath Thinker, you keep using the phrase dogmatic sedevacantist. Surely you know that there are sedevacantists who are not dogmatic about it. You use your brush to dismiss the whole opinion of “occupancy” by labelling everyone as dogmatic. Thus you become the dogmatic one insisting that the See of Peter is occupied. The real evil is the modernist heretics pretending they are Catholic. Focus some of your wrath in that direction for a change. Not a Catholic soul alive really knows the objective state of the post V2 Church. To say one does only proves one is a fool. So just as a dogmatic sedevacantist is foolish for his proclamation, so are dogmatic sedeplenists for their proclamation. Until there is a Pope who speaks and teaches like a Catholic, have and defend any opinion you choose, but stop already with your dogmatic proclamations on this issue. There simply is not any definitive authoritative teaching on this issue. Just lots and lots of opinions.
God bless your patience. Thank you for putting out the objective information for the umpteenth time. We are all traumatised by the general apostasy and terrible suffering we’re undergoing. We need to be patient with and supportive of, each other. Lord God, help us.
Cath Thinker, time will make this argument mute since when Benedict dies so will the last “pope” ordained in the old rite. Bergolio received both ordination and consecration after 1968, so I am assuming the new rites of ordination was used. They are ambigious and lead to doubt. We cannot even be sure this clown is a priest, let alone Pope. I know a non priest or Bishop can be elected Pope, but at some point they need to become a true Bishop in order to assume office. What is your opinion of the new rites of ordination? What of Pius XII’s declaration of necessary form? Do you see this as a problem?
If you seek patience, you will find no better example than the cross
St Thomas Aquinas
Tom,
–
“Dogmatic” refers to the sede leaders and those here (such as Cyprian and Rich, for example) who insist that their position is, in fact, correct: That the pope is not the pope and that this is a matter of public fact. Most of these folks go much farther and call those those who maintain formal union (as opposed to material resistance) with the Holy See (as unholy as its been behaving lately) “false traditionalists,” “not Catholic,” and worse.
–
(Look at a post from Rich towards the bottom here – he’s calling anybody who maintains union with the See of Peter crazy, more or less. That’s the way he sees it. “Dogmatic” is an accurate adjective, though, again, it’s meant to refer mainly to sede leaders.)
–
If you’re implying that you’re not certain in your position, that’s great. There have been many, many people led astray by the sedevacantist leaders, via their selective quotation, ignorance of the full theology on critical subjects, and appeal to will over intellect using cynicism, bitterness, anger, and bullying of opponents.
I responded to the wrong post above.
–
Tom,
–
“Dogmatic” refers to the sede leaders and those here (such as Cyprian and Rich, for example) who insist that their position is, in fact, correct: That the pope is not the pope and that this is a matter of public fact. Most of these folks go much farther and call those those who maintain formal union (as opposed to material resistance) with the Holy See (as unholy as its been behaving lately) “false traditionalists,” “not Catholic,” and worse.
–
(Look at a post from Rich towards the bottom here – he’s calling anybody who maintains union with the See of Peter crazy, more or less. That’s the way he sees it. “Dogmatic” is an accurate adjective, though, again, it’s meant to refer mainly to sede leaders.)
–
If you’re implying that you’re not certain in your position, that’s great. There have been many, many people led astray by the sedevacantist leaders, via their selective quotation, ignorance of the full theology on critical subjects, and appeal to will over intellect using cynicism, bitterness, anger, and bullying of opponents.
Cyprian quotes Pope Leo XIII (but, Cyprian, how are you sure he was a true pope?): “In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, CAN IT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO REJECT ANY ONE OF THESE TRUTHS WITHOUT BY THAT VERY FACT FALLING INTO HERESY?-WITHOUT SEPARATING HIMSELF FROM THE CHURCH?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?”
–
Thanks for making my point once again. Do you really think that Catholic theology is a matter of “proof-texting”? Reading in the small? (Are you a former fundamentalist Protestant, by any chance?)
–
The *sin* of heresy (as opposed to the crime, which is declared by the Church) separates one from the Soul of the Church be divesting oneself entirely of the virtue of Faith, and sanctifying grace. As I’m sure I’ve pointed out elsewhere here, this lies in the internal forum which is, by definition, unrelated to the external forum where ecclesiastical office lies. You’ve done absolutely nothing more than completely ignore my point.
–
Because Pope Leo did not stop to specifically elucidate these distinctions in his statement does not mean he didn’t understand them – that’s just your rash, willful inference. Did the Pope here state that the “separation” he speaks of removes one from the visible Body and thus from ecclesiastical office? Obviously not.
–
Here is some theological material on the Body of the Church, etc.:
–
The eminent 20th theologian Msgr. Fenton points out that Bellarmine’s teaching, that the virtue of Faith is *not* necessary for membership *in the external forum* (the Body) is the common opinion in the Church: “The opinion that a man devoid of faith can be a real member of the Catholic Church is recognized, even by those who do not accept it, as being more commonly held than the opposite… it has a privileged status in the field of Catholic theology” (American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXII, #3, p221, as quoted in “True or False Pope”).
–
Pope Piux XII in “Mystici Corporis Christi” teaches the same. This is for starters.
–
Your view collapses to null, because the quote snippet you offered does not make a distinction between private & public heresy. This means that you’re implying private (occult) heretics are cut off from the Church, which means that for all you know Pope Leo XIII lost his office due to some private heresy and his words have no binding force at all. See what a mess sedevacantism is?
And I see Rich is also obstinate in his *mortal sin of calumny*. Rich, you’re well aware that Salza rejected masonry well over a decade ago and wrote books attacking it and exposing its errors. We’ll all be judged for every thought, word, and deed, Rich – you should really spend some time looking in the mirror and Rich and less spewing lies and venom here.
Seriously? Ok, St. Cyprian, where is the visible Church *now*? Where is the Body that Jesus Christ founded, on Peter, with a an unbroken apostolic line leading back to him and the other apostles. Is it the Church that Pope Francis presides over, or some other group? If the latter, does that group bear the four Marks and three Attributes? Keep in mind that this group must have existed since the time of Christ and be formally and universally visible, such that men can recognize it as the true Church. Is it Fr. Cekada’s club? Is it the invisible group of sedevacantist believers? Please tell us. (And, note, I have not directly specified *all* its requirements above.)
The supreme pontiff binds the faithful in faith & morals only when he declares his intent to, using formal, unequivocal language. Pope Francis has done this zero times thus far.
–
Here is a bit of material regarding levels of assent required to various types of magisterial teachings:
–
Dom Paul Nau. O.S.B. says of “the attitude Catholics should have towards statements of the Ordinary Magisterium”: “that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, **unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty of involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught**.”
–
Dr. Ludwig Ott: “The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activitiy is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless, normally they are to be accepted with an inner assert which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is ‘reverent silence’, does not generally suffice. **By way of exception the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives with a positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.**”
–
Not infallible == the possibility for error exists; that’s a tautology. Since only a complete idiot would assert that God demands men to believe error, it follows that the exception elucidated above must indeed exist. And they do.ere obligated to do so? You don’t appear to have any theology here beyond “Pope ‘good’ else not pope.”
Since you repeated your question I’ll repeated my answer.
–
The supreme pontiff binds the faithful in faith & morals only when he declares his intent to, using formal, unequivocal language. Pope Francis has done this zero times thus far.
–
Here is a bit of material regarding levels of assent required to various types of magisterial teachings:
–
Dom Paul Nau. O.S.B. says of “the attitude Catholics should have towards statements of the Ordinary Magisterium”: “that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, **unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty of involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught**.”
–
Dr. Ludwig Ott: “The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activitiy is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless, normally they are to be accepted with an inner assert which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is ‘reverent silence’, does not generally suffice. **By way of exception the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives with a positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.**”
–
Not infallible == the possibility for error exists; that’s a tautology. Since only a complete idiot would assert that God demands men to believe error, it follows that the exception elucidated above must indeed exist. And they do.ere obligated to do so? You don’t appear to have any theology here beyond “Pope ‘good’ else not pope.”
“I provided you with two examples where Popes specifically empowered the faithful to withdraw their obedience with impunity from an heretical papal usurper – the first being Cum Ex Aposolatus Officio…”
–
It’s long been rather amazing that sedes claim Cum Ex as their own, given that it very clearly speaks of *true popes*, not “usurpers as you wistfully claim.
–
“In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”
–
That’s “the Roman Pontiff” – not a “usurper,” “false pope,” etc. This bull is, of course, a testament to the recognize & resist position.
–
When it speaks of heresy, as in, “…convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism..” we know it’s speaking of the CRIME of heresy – which, by definition, is determined BY THE CHURCH, of course (note the word “convicted”).
–
Implying – as you clearly are – that Paul IV was implying the SIN of heresy (which lies in the internal forum and is judged only by God) severs one from ecclesiastical office (in the external forum) leads immediately to madness. What if Paul IV embraced some heresy? What of his bull then? What about Pius V and his ratification of Trent? What if St. Peter fell into heresy before his death the Church ended with him?
–
That’s enough for now. You display again & again here the self-contradictory illogic of the sedevacantist position. I thank you for that, as it is illustrative for the audience.
Rich – and I apologize to the audience for descending into the subjective here – you sound like you’re 12 years old. Honestly.
–
Your rejection of the “Vatican II Church” is a rejection of Catholic Church, which Jesus Christ founded. That Church, in 1958 or 1965 or whatever, did not suddenly, magically transform into another Church. To make that claim it to deny either the Church’s indefectibility or Her visibility, which is heresy either way.
This “idea we cling to” is part of Catholic theology, Rich. You seem to prefer your emotions to it.
–
Dogmatic fact – see above.
–
Only the crime of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church, and Pope Francis has not (as of yet) even been charged with any such ecclesiastical crime – see above.
–
You can’t decide the Church’s theology is simple enough for bumper stickers because you want it to be. You don’t read. You don’t understand. You don’t debate, or make real arguments. You just make a fool of yourself, frankly, but that’s fine – this is for the audience.
God bless you too & your efforts here, Lynda.
Cyprian: “Do you even understand the concept of jurisdiction? For some agency of the Church to perform an action where they try and judge the Pope for a crime, or to force the Pope in some way to admit that he committed a crime that agency would have to be exercising jurisdiction that agency possesses over the Pope.”
–
The theologians and *actual popes* have taught that heresy is the *one crime* for which a sitting supreme pontiff can be judged by the Church (or, more accurate, forced to judge *himself*). You haven’t been paying attention. References are above, and easy to find elsewhere.
@Catholic Thinker: That must mean that Pope Leo XIII was speaking about manifest heresy by implication. We have had this argument before. You know I know the distinctions, but you are pretending that I don’t in an effort to discredit me.
–
You apparently claim that occult heresy only separates one from the soul of the church. That isn’t what were interested in here – we’re discussing the publc, manifest acts of Pope Francis.
–
Regarding Mystici Corporis Christi Pope Pius XII had this to say:
–
“Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi said this about the sin of heresy: ‘For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.'”
–
Why are there single quotes around the quote from Pius XII? Because I am quoting myself from 2015 when this came up before and I brought this quote from Mystici Corporis Christi to your attention.
–
Here Pope Pius XII states that heresy, apostasy and schism SEVER A MAN FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH. Again Pope Pius XII must by implication be speaking of sins that have become manifest.
@Catholic Thinker: Since you didn’t answer my response from above I repeat it here:
–
“@Catholic Thinker: Are the references you are relying upon [si papa and Pope Adrian] binding on the faithful?
–
I rely upon these provisions of Vatican I for my position:
–
‘8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
–
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or THAT HE HAS THE PRINCIPAL PART AND NOT THE ABSOLUTE FULLNESS, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.’ [Caps added for emphasis]
–
I believe these provisions are binding on the faithful. Do you disagree with that? They also provide that no jurisdiction is preserved in any agency of the Church that is superior to that of the Pope to try and to judge the Pope (actions where jurisdiction would be exercised over the Pope) were the Pope to become a heretic. Do you disagree with my conclusions regarding these provisions? Does anything else in Vatican I contradict my claim about the import of these provisions? Since the above provisions of Vatican I are so clear, and since I believe they are binding on the faithful, I don’t see how you can maintain your apparent position that an agency of the Church can exercise jurisdiction over the Pope by trying and judging him for the sin of heresy.”
–
What is your reply to my questions?
Cyprian, you misread & twist Vatican I to your position – this is a lot of wishful thinking and nothing more.
–
As for what is binding, the Church has no official process (law) or infallible teaching (faith) regarding how a heretical pope may be disposed. There are elements that *all* theologians and popes are consistent on, most importantly that there must be a formal judgement, by the Church, of the crime of heresy before a pope is or can be disposed. Beyond that there are varying opinions.
–
Vatican I does absolutely nothing for the sede cause (just as NO theologian, pope, council or teaching of the Church in any form does). I spoke to this several times already, but here it is: The theologians, and even popes – all who have spoken on the matter – agree that a sitting pope CAN be judged for the crime of heresy (or be forced to judge himself, which is a more accurate way to put it). Here are some references – again:
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from De Membris Ecclesiae, as quoted in True Or False Pope, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, *the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings*” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
“There is an agreement among the Doctors on the fact that the Pope may be deposed in case of heresy. A specific text is found in the Decree of Gratian, Distinction 40, chapter ‘Si Papa,’ where it is said: ‘On earth, no mortal should presume to reproach the Pontiff for any fault, because he who has to judge others, should not be judged by anyone, unless he is found deviating from the Faith’ (Pars I, D 40, c. 6). This exception obviously means that in case of heresy, a judgment could be made about the Pope. The same thing is confirmed by the letter of Pope Hadrian, reported in the Eighth General Council…”
–
Pope Innocent III: “For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God [i.e. first see is judged by no one], for the slightest sin committed in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.”
–
You spend all your time here battling Salza & Siscoe yet it seems you’ve never read a word they’ve penned. (OTOH, I’ve spend enough time on sede websites to last two lifetimes.)
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantistwatch-novusordowatch.html
@Catholic Thinker:
–
“Only the CRIME OF HERESY SEVERS ONE FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, and Pope Francis has not (as of yet) even been charged with any such ecclesiastical crime – see above.” [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Pope Pius XII:
–
“For not every SIN, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature TO SEVER A MAN FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH AS DOES SCHISM OR HERESY OR APOSTASY .” [Mystici Corporis Christi [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Again Catholic Thinker is contradicted by a Pope.
Your reply is a non-sequitur.
–
First, I asked that you set forth the facts that establish there is adhesion to Pope Francis as the living rule of faith to a moral certitude.
–
Relevant facts could consist of the Letter of the 45 theologians who apparently identified heretical propositions in Amoris Laetitia. Such facts would indicate that there isn’t adhesion to Pope Francis as the Living Rule of Faith, meaning the dogmatic fact argument doesn’t establish Pope Francis as a Pope-in-fact.
–
Second, you apparently chose here to contest my claim that the faithful owe assent to teachings of the Pope that are not proclaimed with the charism of infallibility. I did not say that the faithful owe assent to error apparent in such teachings of the Pope I stated that the possibility of error appearing in such teachings did not relieve the faithful of the duty to assent to such teachings as a matter of principle.
@Catholic Thinker: This is what Coronata – a canonist of the 20 century – had to say about the situation of a heretical pope, a quote I have brought to your attention on several occasions:
–
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: […] c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, BY DIVINE LAW, FALL FROM OFFICE WITHOUT ANY SENTENCE, INDEED, WITHOUT EVEN A DECLARATORY ONE. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, BEFORE ANY CONDEMNATORY SENTENCE (WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE ANYWAY) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, 3I6) [Emphasis added]
–
Why did Coronata believe a condemnatory sentence was impossible? He was speaking after Vatican I. The DE FIDE proclamations of Vatican I brought to your attention by me foreclosed the alternatives you are proposing because those alternatives are dependent on the preservation of jurisdiction in some other agency of the Church besides the Pope to try and to judge the Pope were he to become a heretic. Coronata apparently believed that due to this lack of preservation (I doubt any agency ever had such jurisdiction) the Pope cannot be tried and judged for a crime, even the crime of heresy.
@Catholic Thinker:
–
My understanding of Siscoe and Salza’s argument is that they contend that a Pope can be tried for heresy or apostasy by a subordinate agency of the Church. Although in this post they try to hide that they are arguing that a subordinate agency of the Church can try the Pope, when they speak of the “authority to establish that a crime has been committed and to declare the crime” they are speaking of jurisdiction. For instance, an aspect of jurisdiction is the authority to issue a binding decision. By arguing that only a council of the Church can issue a binding decision on the status of the Pope they are arguing that such a council has jurisdiction.
–
My reference to the provisions of Vatican I reproduced above indicate that no jurisdiction was preserved in any other agency of the Church besides the Pope to try the Pope should he fall into heresy. Rather, Vatican I proclaims as follows: “The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon” and “if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church . . . let him be anathema”. Hence, even if some agency of the Church disagrees with the Pope regarding some issue of faith or morals. that agency has no jurisdiction or access to another agency that does have jurisdiction over the Pope to contradict the Pope’s decision, or to try the Pope were his teaching to be heretical.
@Catholic Thinker: In replying to one of my posts above you stated as follows:
–
“Cyprian, you misread & twist Vatican I to your position – this is a lot of wishful thinking and nothing more.
–
As for what is binding, the Church has no official process (law) or infallible teaching (faith) regarding how a heretical pope may be disposed. There are elements that *all* theologians and popes are consistent on, most importantly that there must be a formal judgement, by the Church, of the crime of heresy before a pope is or can be disposed. Beyond that there are varying opinions.”
–
What you don’t understand is that a binding proclamation of the Church can BY IMPLICATION foreclose alternatives that have been proposed by theologians in the past for handling a situation. The alternatives you made reference to in your posts depend on jurisdiction being preserved in some agency besides the Pope to try the Pope should he become a heretic.
–
Vatican I dogmatically proclaimed that no such jurisdiction was preserved. Hence, it is no longer possible to argue for these alternatives. The only possible argument you can make is that Vatican I DID make such an exception.
–
That is why I brought the quote from Coronata to your attention because Coronata specifically states that a condemnatory sentence of the Pope is impossible even if he were to become a heretic.
–
Now one can argue the reason I thought Coronata believed it was impossible – no subordinate has jurisdiction over the Pope for ANY reason – isn’t what Coronata had in mind. But recourse to other authorities clearly indicates that this must have been what Coronata had in mind.
–
For example, in the 1917 Code of Canon Law the Church conformed the law of the Church to those provisions of Vatican I made reference to above what it adopted Canon 1556 – “The first see is judged by no one.”
–
Another canonist in his commentary on the canon law of the Church had this to say about Canon 1556:
–
” The Primatial See can be judged by no one (Canon 1556). The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. THE VERY IDEA OF THE TRIAL OF A PERSON SUPPOSES THAT THE COURT CONDUCTING THE TRIAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, BUT THE POPE HAS NO SUPERIOR, WHEREFORE NO COURT HAS THE POWER TO SUBJECT HIM TO JUDICIAL TRIAL.”
–
(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952, n. 1549, p. 225) [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Do you understand now why I questioned whether you even understand the concept of jurisdiction?
@Catholic Thinker: I propose that anyone who is still interested in this post should compare this post by Siscoe and another post that appeared in The Remnant on January 11. Here is the citation to the Remnant piece by Salza:
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2981-pope-francis-refuses-to-answer-the-dubia-what-happens-next
–
I defy anyone who is following this issue to argue that Siscoe and Salza are taking consistent positions in their AKACatholic and Remnant posts.
–
For example, John Salza in his Remnant piece states as follows:
–
“ECCLESIASTICAL WARNINGS ARE ISSUED BY THE CARDINALS (WHO ARE THE NEXT HIGHEST AUTHORITIES IN THE CHURCH) WHICH ACCUSE THE SUSPECT OF HERESY AND REQUIRE HIM TO RESPOND WITH A CORRECTION OF HIS ERRORS WITHIN SIX MONTHS [2] This is what Cardinal Burke was referring to in his interview with the National Catholic Register when he said: ‘There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.’ IF THE POPE WOULD FAIL TO RESPOND TO THESE WARNINGS, THE CHURCH WOULD PRESUME THAT THE POPE IS INCORRIGIBLE AND HARDENED IN HIS HERESY.
–
As we explain in detail in our book True or False Pope?, the CHURCH’S ABILITY TO WARN AND ULTIMATELY JUDGE A POPE FOR HERESY BY ESTABLISHING HIS PERTINACITY was taught by Pope Innocent III, Pope Adrian, St. Bellarmine,[3] Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, the famous Decretal Si Papa,[4] and others, and REMAINS THE COMMON TEACHING OF THE CHURCH’S DOCTORS AND THEOLOGIANS. Establishing a Pope’s pertinacity is more difficult than judging the matter of heresy (e.g., the teachings), because it involves something that exists within the internal forum (the realm of conscience). If a person does not openly leave the Church, or publicly admit that he knowingly rejects what the Church definitively teaches on faith or morals (neither of which Francis has done), pertinacity would need to be established another way. The other way, according to Divine law and canon law, is by issuing an ecclesiastical warning to the suspect or, as Cardinal Burke described it, a ‘formal act of correction’.
–
An ecclesiastical warning serves as an effective means for establishing pertinacity, since the response will determine, with a sufficient degree of certitude, whether or not the person who has professed heresy (not a lesser error) is truly pertinacious (he is consciously departing from a dogma of Faith), rather than merely mistaken – which still might be a sin, but not necessarily the sin of heresy. BECAUSE PERTINACITY IS ITSELF A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF HERESY, IT DOES NOT SUFFICE THAT ITS PRESENCE BE PRESUMED, ESPECIALLY BY CATHOLICS WITH NO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY; IT MUST BE PROVEN, AND BY THE CHURCH’S AUTHORITIES. The ecclesiastical warnings accomplish this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance.” [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Careful examination of these paragraphs clearly indicates that John Salza is presenting a description of Church law and legal procedures that would persuade an unsuspecting reader that a subordinate agency of the Church does, in fact, have jurisdiction over the Pope and that canon law does apply to the Pope.
–
In the first paragraph reproduced from Salza’s Remant article he writes “ECCLESIASTICAL WARNINGS ARE ISSUED BY THE CARDINALS (WHO ARE THE NEXT HIGHEST AUTHORITIES IN THE CHURCH) . . .” The clear implication of this statement is that subordinate Cardinals can exercise jurisdiction over the Pope by issuing canonical warnings to him, and the reason they can do this is because they are THE NEXT HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.
–
First, the warning process is established in canon law, and DOES NOT APPLY TO THE POPE BECAUSE HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO CANON LAW. At best, the warning process can be appealed to by analogy, but it is not mandatory or controlling since the Pope isn’t even subject to canon law.
–
Second, just because the Cardinals are next in line to the Pope does not mean that they can exercise jurisdiction over the Pope, even in the limited circumstances of papal heresy. I don’t know why Salza phrased this sentence in the manner he did, but it sure seems like he was seeking to give the readers a false impression that the hierarchy of offices in the Church somehow overcome the fact that the Pope is the supreme ruler of the faithful, and has the fullness of power in ruling the Church. Subordinate Cardinals have no power over the Pope.
–
In the second paragraph Salza makes this claim: “THE CHURCH’S ABILITY TO WARN AND ULTIMATELY JUDGE A POPE FOR HERESY BY ESTABLISHING HIS PERTINACITY was taught by Pope Innocent III, Pope Adrian, St. Bellarmine,[3] Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, the famous Decretal Si Papa,[4] and others, and REMAINS THE COMMON TEACHING OF THE CHURCH’S DOCTORS AND THEOLOGIANS”. This is an unmitigated howler. In this thread I made reference to dogmatic proclamations of Vatican I and Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code of Canon law that together establish that the First See is judged by no one, and that no jurisdiction is accorded ANY SUBORDINATE AGENCY OF THE CHURCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING THE POPE. In view of these teachings how can John Salza state that this is still a matter of opinion? The provisions of Vatican I are dogmatic! There is an ugly word starting with “h” that describes the unorthodoxy of Salza’s position.
–
Regarding his claim that a Pope can be judged for pertinacious heresy remaining the common opinion of theologians, Coronata and Woywod and a host of others clearly contradict this claim. I repeat the quote from Woywod here:
–
The Primatial See can be judged by no one (Canon 1556). The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. THE VERY IDEA OF THE TRIAL OF A PERSON SUPPOSES THAT THE COURT CONDUCTING THE TRIAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, BUT THE POPE HAS NO SUPERIOR, WHEREFORE NO COURT HAS THE POWER TO SUBJECT HIM TO JUDICIAL TRIAL.”
–
(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952, n. 1549, p. 225) [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Did Salza even consider Vatican I and Canon 1556 before he formulated his position?
–
If there is any doubt that Salza is arguing that the Pope is subject to trial by the Church it is dispelled by this claim in the third paragraph reproduced above: “BECAUSE PERTINACITY IS ITSELF A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF HERESY, IT DOES NOT SUFFICE THAT ITS PRESENCE BE PRESUMED, ESPECIALLY BY CATHOLICS WITH NO ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY; IT MUST BE PROVEN, AND BY THE CHURCH’S AUTHORITIES”. If Salza claims elsewhere that he denies that the Pope is subject to subordinate agencies of the Church, this only proves that he is taking contradictory positions as his piece proceeds. The positions nonetheless remain contradictory and irreconcilable.
Well said Cyprian.
FYI, Salza has a new article that’s pertinent here:
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2981-pope-francis-refuses-to-answer-the-dubia-what-happens-next
You’re a broken record. Did Pope Leo XIII indicate he was speaking regarding ecclesiastic office here? Because he made no distinction between the sin & the crime, the internal & the external, the Body & the Soul, does not mean he had no understanding of these things, but only that he was using a generalization.
–
You can’t proof-text popes and create your own theology from it. The Church has spoken more specifically to the matters I referred to, but you ignore that, in favor of cherry-picking quotes to support what you want to believe.
–
On the face of it, this quote quite clearly includes private (occult) heretics. Again, if we interpret as you do, we are left with the conclusion that any pope could have lost his office office at any point due to some private heresy. Thus, absolutely nothing in the Church is certain, least of all your cherry-picking of popes.
–
You demonstrate again & again that sedevacantism is ridiculous position and a matter of will over intellect.
This is, of course, a question Cyprian cannot answer. None of the sede leaders attempt to do so. Instead, as I pointed out, they retreat to the heretical, Protestant definition of the Church.
“First, I asked that you set forth the facts that establish there is adhesion to Pope Francis as the living rule of faith to a moral certitude.”
–
Um – what? Your question is a red herring that you pulled out of thin air. What does it have to do with anything? Every single thing the theologians teach about dogmatic fact related to the acceptance of a pope as pope is *just that* – that is he accepted TO BE THE POPE by the bishops at large. Yes, indeed, that has occurred, and you’re a fool if you deny it and introduce a novel, sophistic, unrelated question..
–
It is curious how sedes will grasp at any straw within reach to justify their willful, obstinate anti-Catholic position. You reference the 45 theologians who question AL – *every one of whom believes Francis to be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church*, for that is how they address him. This buys you nothing.
–
I, and every other sensible Catholic, also question AL’s ambiguous and quite possibly materially heretical statements. But the pertinent question regarding that is whether or not the pope has been convicted of the ecclesiastical *crime* of heresy, and everyone knows he has not.
Nope, this is just Mr. Cyprian inventing his own theology by proof-texting as he pleases.
–
The sin of heresy necessarily precedes a formal judgement of it (the crime). Because a pope does not spell out every detail of a canonical process every single time he speaks on a subject does not mean these do not exist. Your proof-texting and reading in the small is as bad as the Protestants’.
–
Did the pope speak one word here regarding ecclesiastical office? Did he SAY, “The SIN of heresy causes a pope to fall from his office”? Of course not – that is entirely your inference.
–
If you are right, and Pope Pius XII meant that the SIN of heresy does cause a pope to fall from his office, **nothing the Church has ever taught is certain**, since the teaching or promulgating pope could have been a non-pope at the time, unbeknownst to all, due to the sin of heresy.
–
See what a bunch of nonsense that is? Do you really think that is the Catholic Church?
As usual, you believe that voluminous material will make your case. It does not.
–
What I’m doing is presenting teachings that bear directly on the matter at hand – which are generally short & sweet – while on the other hand, you’re presently volumes *you believe, by your own inference*, support your case, when in fact they do not.
–
In other words, you’re creating your own theology. Private judgement is your game, as always.
–
No matter how many popes and councils you quote, none of which were speaking directly to the topic at hand, you can’t undo the impossible issues with dogmatic sedevecantism (denial the Church’s visibility/indefectibility, denial of dogmatic fact, conflation of sin & crime of heresy, direct contradiction of all the theologians who have spoken directly to the issue, and more).
–
So, here we go, to your specific points.
–
The supreme pontiff having supreme juridical authority on earth does not preclude him judging himself for heresy by remaining obstinate in the face of warnings. This is what the theologians and popes have taught.
–
First you pretend to hold relevant only what is binding on the faithful – even though what you quote doesn’t speak to the issue at hand (a pope falling from office) directly – then you quote Coronata. Once again: Notorious here is DETERMINED BY THE CHURCH. Cornata is merely stating the Jesuit opinion, that there is no need for a subsequent, specific judgement of *loss of office* after the judgement *of the crime of heresy*. You clearly do not understand this.
–
**Everyone agrees that a pope has supreme juridical authority over the Church on Earth.** This was believed & understood in Bellarmine’s day – the formalization of the dogma wasn’t its invention.
–
But, if you’re right, then nothing in the Church is certain, since any private individual can decide who is and is not a pope at any time by deciding what is and is not heresy.
–
Now, to explain what you see (optimistically?) as a hopeless contradiction between Salza & Siscoe. First, you imply that they are not even consistent, either individually or together, over time (“I defy anyone who is following this issue to argue that Siscoe and Salza are taking consistent positions in their AKACatholic and Remnant posts”) , but then do not provide even a hint of what you were talking about further on. Instead, you merely suggest that Mr. Salza is not familiar with Vatican Council I because he does not, like you, offer his own private interpretation of it. You present, again, voluminous quotes to the effect that the supreme pontiff has supreme juridical power over the Church Militant – something that everyone is aware of – apparently satisfied that this undoes Bellarmine, Suarez, Pope Adrian, Pope Innocent III, and the other authorities who have taught that a pope can, in fact, be judged for heresy!
–
This is how ridiculous your position is: **You insist that the Church cannot judge a pope for heresy, but YOU can!** YOU can determine when a pope is, in fact, pertinacious in heresy – meaning he has willfully rejected the Church as the rule of faith as opposed to just being mistaken, confused, intellectually blind, insane, etc. – but the Church cannot! Can a more preposterous position be imagined?
–
Dear Reader – please see above where I have provided ample demonstration that the Church has always taught that, in the singular case of heresy – this being a mortal sin against the faith – a sitting pontiff can be judged by the Church (or judge himself based on the Church’s pressing), even though he does possess juridical authority over that Church.
–
What you need to do is slow down and think a bit. You’ve implied above, over & over, that even the sin of heresy – by at least some of the quotes you provided even if it’s entirely *private* – causes a pope to lose his office. Once again, if what you think is true, nothing in the Church can be known with moral certainty: No dogma and no anathema. That is because all are either proclaimed or ratified by a pope, and according to your novel teaching no Catholic can ever really know which popes in history were really pope or not – at least not unless they use their own, private, judgement to examine all their thoughts, words, and deeds.
–
Is this just a game to you? How can anyone believe such things? Is this the Catholic Church you apparently claim to love?
@Catholic Thinker:
–
You said this:
–
“I, and every other sensible Catholic, also question AL’s ambiguous and quite possibly materially heretical statements. BUT THE PERTINENT QUESTION REGARDING THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE POPE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL *CRIME* OF HERESY, AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT HE HAS NOT” [caps added for emphasis]
–
So Catholic Thinker professes that the Pope does not have the fullness of jurisdiction in the Church, despite Vatican I which anathematizes such a proposition. Since the Pope does not have the fullness of jurisdiction, according to Catholic Thinker, another agency of the Church can try the Pope for heresy, since such agency has jurisdiction over the Pope.
–
Woywod made this comment on Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law in his commentary on the Code:
–
“The Primatial See can be judged by no one (Canon 1556). The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. THE VERY IDEA OF THE TRIAL OF A PERSON SUPPOSES THAT THE COURT CONDUCTING THE TRIAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, BUT THE POPE HAS NO SUPERIOR, WHEREFORE NO COURT HAS THE POWER TO SUBJECT HIM TO JUDICIAL TRIAL.”
–
(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952, n. 1549, p. 225) [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Catholic Thinker: Do you think Rev. Woywod got it wrong?
Already covered elsewhere. You’re inventing your own theology. The Church has already taught on this matter.
–
I know you’ll never give up – people like you always have to have the last word. You can have it, as I debate for the audience.
@Catholic Thinker: I repeat my quote from above since it is most relevant to your condemned position:
–
“@Catholic Thinker:
–
You said this:
–
‘I, and every other sensible Catholic, also question AL’s ambiguous and quite possibly materially heretical statements. BUT THE PERTINENT QUESTION REGARDING THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE POPE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL *CRIME* OF HERESY, AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT HE HAS NOT’ [caps added for emphasis]
–
So Catholic Thinker professes that the Pope does not have the fullness of jurisdiction in the Church, despite Vatican I which anathematizes such a proposition. Since the Pope does not have the fullness of jurisdiction, according to Catholic Thinker, another agency of the Church can try the Pope for heresy, since such agency has jurisdiction over the Pope.
–
Woywod made this comment on Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law in his commentary on the Code:
–
‘The Primatial See can be judged by no one (Canon 1556). The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. THE VERY IDEA OF THE TRIAL OF A PERSON SUPPOSES THAT THE COURT CONDUCTING THE TRIAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, BUT THE POPE HAS NO SUPERIOR, WHEREFORE NO COURT HAS THE POWER TO SUBJECT HIM TO JUDICIAL TRIAL.’
–
(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952, n. 1549, p. 225) [Caps added for emphasis]
–
Catholic Thinker: Do you think Rev. Woywod got it wrong?
I’m not making anything up. I’m juxtaposing your argument next to that of a published canonist. Your argument is with the canonist. That is why I asked you whether Rev. Woywod was mistaken in his conclusion.
@Catholic Thinker: You said this:
–
“On the face of it, this quote quite clearly includes private (occult) heretics. Again, if we interpret as you do, we are left with the conclusion that any pope could have lost his office office at any point due to some private heresy. Thus, absolutely nothing in the Church is certain, least of all your cherry-picking of popes.”
–
You apparently don’t understand the concept of implication. Obviously the Pope was speaking about manifest heresy because as you have educated the reader some theologians believe that occult heresy only separates one from the soul of the Church. Since the Pope clearly states that the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church he must not be speaking about occult heresy but manifest heresy!
You are arguing as if I denied the visibility of the Church. Where did I do that?
@Catholic Thinker: You said this:
–
‘The sin of heresy necessarily precedes a formal judgement of it (the crime). BECAUSE A POPE DOES NOT SPELL OUT EVERY DETAIL OF A CANONICAL PROCESS EVERY TIME HE SPEAKS ON A SUBJECT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE DO NOT EXIST. Your proof-texting and reading in the small is as bad as the Protestants’.” [Caps added for emphasis]
–
So are you admitting that the when Siscoe and Salza write about “the papal crime of heresy” or the “ecclesiastical crime of heresy committed by a Pope” those crimes are not set forth anywhere in the legislation of the Church?
=
For the readers who may not understand this distinction Siscoe and Salza are NOT writing about canon law when they discuss the alleged “papal CRIME of heresy” or the “ecclesiastical CRIME of heresy committed by a Pope” because they admit that the Pope is not subject to canon law. Hence, it is not the “crimes” set forth in canon law that they are discussing when they write about, e.g., the papal CRIME of heresy. They are apparently supposing another category of crimes not set forth in canon law must exist.
–
Are you sure Catholic Thinker that Siscoe and Salza because they are not trained theologians or canonists are not confusingly and in error using “sin” and “crime” interchangeably? Or are they speculating that such crimes must exist without telling anyone that it is just their speculation?
–
Right now the only thing that has been established by your apparent statement that such alleged crimes have not been written down anywhere is that they are effectively invisible. How can they be fairly applied if they are invisible (i.e., unknowable) to those who are subject to them?
Around & around the circle you go. Are you familiar with that popular working definition of insanity – doing (or saying) the same thing again & again and expecting different result.
–
Your objection has already been spoken to – the crime of heresy is a special case because it is the one sin by which a pontiff can sever *himself* from the Church. I know you don’t like it, but THAT’S WHAT ALL THE THEOLOGIANS AND POPES WHO HAVE SPOKEN ON THE ISSUE HAVE SAID.
–
I have one more reply to you here and then I am done – with this blog post, that is. I am quite satisfied to allow the discerning reading, ones using their God-given intellect and love of the Church – to decide who is making sense here and who is not.
First of all, quite obviously the inference you drew from my quote is invalid. In fact, you completely missed the point. The point is that your entire tactic of “proof-texting” is simply invalid exegesis. Just like one cannot read 1 Tim 2:5 (“For there is but one God and but one Mediator between God and men–Christ Jesus…”) and insist, as the Protestants do, that there are no other mediators (but subordinate to Christ), one cannot read a pope saying that the sin of heresy severs one from the Church and conclude what you do: That he was specifying every detail regarding the subject in one sentence. You aren’t the infallible interpreter of papal snippets.
–
A strong hint for you, once again, is that the theologians (and popes) that have spoken directly to the issue of a heretical pope and loss of office have, to a man, taught what we’re saying and not what you’re saying.
–
You keep completely ignoring, among other things, the fact that your position leads immediately to a complete undoing of the Church: Nothing would be certain.
–
Salza & Siscoe’s work has been firmly endorsed by numerous eminent theologians, as you should know if you had any knowledge of this subject. Are you claiming to be a “trained theologian”? Again, you’re the one here making inferences from general statements as you please instead of looking at what’s been taught regarding EXACTLY this question (if, how, and when a heretical pope loses his office).
–
“Right now the only thing that has been established by your apparent statement that such alleged crimes have not been written down anywhere is that they are effectively invisible.”
–
The pope is not subject to canon law, which why this entire procedure (the deposition of a heretical pope) has been handled as a completely “special case” by the theologians. If you’ve read Salza & Siscoe, you know that the Church is never the efficient, but only the dispositive, cause of the fall of such a pontiff: It is Christ who severs the bond, after the Church has declared his a pertinacious heretic (and possibly only after one additional declaration that he is to be severed – that is the Dominican opinion). Canon law is not operative in declaring or imposing a sentence.
–
So, you object that not all of this is written down in black & white in a binding Church document – what a silly objection. First, we’v been pointing out all along that there is no official teaching on how a pope is deposed or whether or not he even can be. This means it is even more rash to do what you do, which is claim that individuals are able via their own judgement to judge a pope guilty of heresy and having lost his office – even though every theologian who had ever spoken on the topic has contradicted that.
–
There is no contradiction between the Church forcing the pope to judge himself (which is the most accurate way to put what occurs) and then being (via its declaration) only the dispositive, not efficient cause, of his fall.
Catholic thinker, think you a person of any status in the Church, rejects the Churches Commandments – Adultery and others – does he remain a catholic?
Clearly not. Pope or pauper – it matters not. Hireling, certainly by his errors and deviancy, lies and cowardice- scatters the flock.
Siso and others are making a meal out of these references of the Fathers. The answer is very simple. Loss of Faith, loss of place. Our Lady said as much at La Salette and later Fatima.
The Church has been infiltrated by Traitors, criminals and secret sect adherents – Devil Worshipers to the Nth Degree.
Who would be a faithful apologist for that line of Popes-?
Flee from the rooftops- the hour is nigh. She is our single hope, Infant Jesus of Prague, have pity on us.
The resistance will be accommodated one day, soon perhaps. So recognise and bow the knee to Baal?
Its to their undoing I say. What can an apostate give? One person can give what he does not possess.
What does Bishop Fellay actually want that he does not possess already – he has tradition.
He has the comprehensive list of condemnations of freemasonry – ably listed on 8 Dec 1930 speech by Mons Youens..replete with Pontifical references and quotations. I handed it to him in Auckland NZ last year.
Its available on the internet.
Time to move or shift Tradition into a higher gear, I believe. Its been wallowing in the doldrums of inaction neither north or south of the equator. The barque of Peter needs all hands to the pumps and a fresh breeze.
Our Lady Star of the Sea, pray for us – Holy Ghost press us forward to that welcome shore.
Amen
Time to consider the Novena to Our Lady of Good Success, recalling Padre Pio and Fr Luigi Villa who tackled the Beast on behalf of Our Lady and her children.
These next nine days are our opportunity to realise that; in a quotation from Mother Mary on point;
To become worthy of the success, the victory that Our Lady predicted, we need a supernatural confidence. We need to be entirely convinced of that victory – the promise of Our Lady at Fatima in 1917: “In the End My immaculate Heart will Triumph.” We need to be completely convinced of the happy restoration: the words of Our Lady at Quito in 1634: “To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions where all will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration.”
A L on the face of it has paralyzed the lips of those Church men who ought to speak out, but are silent. The four Cardinals and a handful of laity wrestle with the heretical snake, and find more confusion than solution.
She of course will keep us on our heavenly directions, if we have recourse to her, and Our Lord.
Infant Jesus of Prague – have pity on us.
Amen.